On his blog, Clint Heine and his readers discuss Maia. Responding to Heine calling Maia a “parasite” and suggesting she’s mentally ill, “James” wrote:
Nothing a big black dildo won’t fix……
To which Heine responded,
James…..!!! Nice suggestion, go over there and tell her that :)
I’m not going to bother rebutting anything Heine and his cohorts wrote; they’re not human beings, they’re maggots and worms, and I don’t debate maggots and worms. And yes, I realize Heine and his maggoty friends doubtless consider such comments “jokes,” because they’re too stupid to know what an actual sense of humor looks like.
(I do wonder if James or Heine could look his mother, sister or girlfriend in the face and tell her “Today I said a woman on welfare whose politics I disagree with could be fixed by raping her with a big black dildo. Don’t you agree that’s how these women should be fixed, Mom?” Maybe if they imagined that they could begin to develop a vestigial, wormish understanding of what’s wrong with their “joke.” But maybe not.)
But it’s worth noting that Clint Heine (his real name) has been in a position of leadership in New Zealand politics (he used to head up the youth wing of the ACT party, which is the most right-wing party in NZ).
And it’s worth noting that there’s nothing unusual about James’ and Heine’s remarks. It’s not uncommon for female bloggers, especially feminist bloggers, to have to deal with such oh-so-hilarious rape threat jokes. The purpose of these “jokes” is to remind uppity women (especially poor women and women of color) of their place. (The pathetic nature of men who feel driven to put uppity women in their place is, I trust, obvious.)
James and Heine themselves are so meager and unimportant they barely exist. But they and their fellow maggots create an environment in the blogosphere that women have to deal with; that is important, and it’s unfair, and it’s bigoted, and it fucking sucks.
UPDATE: Maia comments.
That is totally horrific. I’ve had my fair share of online offensive remarks lately and actually I think it’s interesting that things which probably were once said behind closed doors are now being posted up for all to see.
Then again it could be a lot worse.
I can’t bring myself to actually converse with them, but I have a hypothesis that they won’t even understand that they’re talking about rape. Why? Because subconsciously all women really want it, of course. Therefore it doesn’t count.
To me the really scary thing about the “hey, she secretly wanted it” defense is that the people who say it might actually believe it.
Nonsense. You can’t possibly be as stupid to believe that are you?
My commenter was suggesting that she does it to herself, to which I wholeheartedly agree with, If you had any sense or read my blog you would see we make a lot of fun of masturbation (as childish as it is) but we are unashmed about that.
Plus, and you really missed the boat here, Maia used the word PARASITE twice in her description of others so unless you have double standards I suggest you either apologise to me and my readers, or correct your post to show a little bit of balance.
And I challenge you to keep that comment up because we have never, nor ever have made light of rape or sexual crimes against anybody.
The point is no one gives a fuck if you call her a parasite, or if she calls you one. It might make you scum, but it doesn’t make you a human wasteland.
And if you were referring to masturbation, cheers for you. But you are either being disingenuous or mind-bendingly stupid when you suggest that you don’t understand that threatening to “fix” a feminist with a dildo comes across as a threat of rape.
Clint Heine
Whether you were talking about rape or not, your comment was just another version of “all-the-woman-needs-is-a-good-fuck,” which is not something that can even be dignified by saying it is, simply, in poor taste. It is misogynist on its face, and it seems to me that you are the one who owes Maia an apology.
Clint, you worthless fuckmaggot.
Were you born stupid, or do you just practice every day?
Get bent, loser.
And that’s not even analyzing the racist dimension of this comment. Oh, but yeah, the real vicitm here is poor maligned Clint.
Mondolin
I never said fix in any sentance and if you read it you’d see I did suggest my commenter go and try his luck with his comment on her blog to see how far he would get. Which is a fair enough comment to make when it doesn’t involve me.
Richard
Again I suggest you find anywhere where I have talked about rape in a positive light on my blog. I wll defend my commenters rights to say as they like when they like. Sure it might sound misogynist, but the entire tone of the piece was satire. Twisting what my commenter said into some sort of graphic rape threat is pretty sad. If you’re a regular reader of her blog you would feel sorry for her as we do. Seriously!
lol, now you;re just trying to be funny Mondolin. I suggest you go after my commenter and tell him he was a racist rape aggressor!
No, it’s not a fair comment to make. It’s supportive of a racist rape threat.
Clint, what part of “I don’t debate maggots and worms” did you not understand?
Banned.
Now excuse me while I go wash the blog off.
Having read Clint’s blog, I have to say that if Maia used the term “parasite” to describe him, it was a grave and uncalled for insult. To parasites everywhere. I call on Maia to apologize to honest malaria and schistosomiasis everywhere for the comparison. The good news, I suppose, is that if the rest of the ACT party is as competent as he seems to be it won’t be bothering New Zealanders for much longer.
Clint:
Read what I wrote: I said it didn’t matter whether you were talking about rape; it is, I think, frankly irrelevant (except as a matter of degree) whether you or your commenter specifically referenced rape. The comment is misogynist, and if it was intended–along with your response–as satire, then it is misogynist satire, and you and your commenter(s) are responsible and accountable for that misogyny.
I would think that, since we are all adults here (right? I mean, that is your point in acknowledging that what goes on on your blog around masturbation is, well, childish), that it should be unnecessary to point out that just because you think you are making a joke does not mean that the person who is the butt of the joke is under any obligation to think it is funny. More to the point, I should think it would be unnecessary to point out that when the joke has gone too far–measured not by the joker’s perception, but by the perception of the person who is the object of the joke–then the joker (that would be you and your commenter(s)) ought to do the mature thing, acknowledge that you have gone too far and offer apologies—as a simple matter of human decency.
If you can’t see that, well….I’m not sure there’s much else to say.
Christ, this makes me wish I lived in New Zealand, so I could vote against these assholes.
Sure it might sound misogynist, but the entire tone of the piece was satire.
Your comments (and your pathetic post in response to Amp and Mia) lacked any hint of irony or wit. Derision, yes, but derision itself does not make satire.
Good lord, boy. You really are as dumb as a brick.
okay, the only way i can see for those comments — indeed, the entire set of comments on that thread — to not be read as a rape threat with corresponding endorsement, would be to assume that mr. heine and his regular commenters are all really, truly bad at communicating in basic written English.
which, i suppose, might be the case. but if so, a career in politics would seem to be severely contraindicated.
(in fact, based on the entirety of that comment thread, i believe i could plausibly argue far worse than mere communications difficulties. none of the worse parts seem to make the people involved any more suited to civil service, though.)
I just love men who harass women on their own spaces. I had to disable comments on my blog because I just got sick and tired of even reading for moderation comments that were abusive, harassing, threatening, slanderous, posting of personal information, racist, sexist, sexual and yes, ripe with the advocating of sexual violence towards me and other uppity bitches(which I was called more times than I can count) who dare to have an opinion and even more revolutionary, dare to stake out a space in the White male-dominated blogsphere. They do this because this is how society teaches men to keep women in line and from expressing themselves.
Women get it worse than men. Women of color get it worse than White women. How many women of color for example have suspended blogging in the past year? It doesn’t get the attention than when a White woman quits blogging but it happens. With female bloggers, it seems to be the norm not the exception to some degree. That’s really a sad commentary.
I also love it when these men get into their persecution complex(a variation of “what about the men”) and claim you’re violating their free speech rights by even running moderation on your own site as they spew something else which is nasty and threatening. They are parasites in a sense because they are squatting on your site and draining it with their toxic venom, taking from it without giving anything positive in return. And eventually if enough of them get venomous enough, the site essentially dies or is seriously wounded. These men do it because society teachs men that what belongs to women belongs to men because after all women belong to men.
But each time one of them ranted about how his free speech rights were violated by me and earlier, their alleged employers, I just wrote back, well if you want the ACLU to help you, you’ll have to provide them with your name. Of course, they didn’t want to do that because they never did say who they were. Not that it would be a negative thing for them, because the one guy who was caught won an award last year from the city government for safety officer of the month. He was one of four who frequented my site who received that award that year.
So gang rape is now satire? Oh will the excuses ever end? I doubt it. I guess that’s some sign of progress that men like Clint have to even give excuses as tepid as they can be.
Wow Amp, is everyone you dislike not a human being?
Way to dehumanize the Other. Maybe we can use these animals for medical experiments.
“Wow Amp, is everyone you dislike not a human being?
Way to dehumanize the Other. Maybe we can use these animals for medical experiments.”
Yawn.
I am completely comfortable performing medical experiments on people who find routine threats of rape funny.
I can guarantee that they’ve done more to deserve it than your average bunny rabbit, rhesus monkey, or white rat.
—Myca
Where did Clint ever say he supported gang rape? Give us a sentance where he said it and I will join you in abusing him.
“I can guarantee that they’ve done more to deserve it than your average bunny rabbit, rhesus monkey, or white rat.”
I own a pet white rat. Let me tell you: he’s a bastard.
Saddo,
The claim isn’t that Clint supported gang rape; the claim is that he supported what appears to be a threat of rape against Maia.
He did? Where did rape come into that suggestion that Maia needed a dildo?
If anything he was stupid enough to suggest she needed sex or sexual release for voicing a political opinion that he didn’t like.
I’m sorry to play devils advocate but I just don’t see the rape reference.
I think any suggestion by a second party that a woman “needs” a big, black dildo has, as it’s base, her non-compliance with the suggestion. It’s not her idea, ergo not her consent. If she’s “merely” fucking herself, against her will, to satisfy a weak male ego, then it’s baldy apparent that the man/men in question desire to publically (and plainly) voice their rape fantasies.
Saddo,
I’m glad that you don’t see the threat that’s implicit in the statement. That’s good (in that it implies you haven’t had reason to be afraid of this particular threat). But it’s also a function of privilege.
There are certain kinds of threats that it’s easier to see if they’re aimed at your group. For instance, a woman — particularly one that has had unfortunate experiences — may be better than most men at spotting men who are potentially threatening, harrassing, or abusing.
In this case, it’s extremely common for men to threaten to rape feminists. Did you follow the Kathy Sierra case recently? In it, a female tech blogger was forced to quit using her blog because she was threatened with speicfic, graphic violence that edged into credible threats. During that time, many other female bloggers shared the hate mail they receive, in which people threatened to rape and kill them.
It’s also very common for people to joke that feminists, or lesbians, as a group need to be forcibly raped to “cure” them of their opinions. For instance, when one of the feminists who writes at Feministe protested some people stealing photos of her in a bikini to use as part of an internet beauty contest (which could have affected her job prospect), men responded saying they wanted to “hate fuck” her and sharing details about her personal schedule in ways that suggested they were going to stalk her.
Now, let’s say that these two men really did just mean that Maia needs more orgasms. Well, that’s still an assholish and mysoginistic thing to say, as Richard points out.
However, even if it was unintended, their phrasing fits into a large and pervasive pattern of men threatening rape against women, and feminists in particular. To try to illustrate what the situation is like in a general but not identical way, think of it as being like a group of white men going up to a strange black man in the USA at night in an isolated area, and holding up a noose. Maybe they didn’t mean to suggest that they were going to lynch the black man. But he would be reasonable to assume that they did, and to be scared. If they are from the USA, the fact that they didn’t immediately realize this would be threatening would be because they were privileged enough not to have to be afraid of thins like lynching. Once they realiezd it, though, it would be incumbent on them to apologize, because they would have done something really, really wrong.
“To me the really scary thing about the “hey, she secretly wanted it” defense is that the people who say it might actually believe it.”
Sorry about that last comment–hit ‘Enter’ without meaning to.
What I meant to do was quote Paul and then write that what he said reminded me so much of the first time I tried debating with an MRA who tried to say that at least half of rape claims are false. I tried to do this by telling him MY story, of being raped at age 17 by my then-boyfriend and, following that, deluding myself into believing it didn’t really happen and that everything was still okay…for over four months before I finally got the courage to leave him. I tried to do this to illustrate that it isn’t right to say these women are lying just because they’ve had sex with the guy before, or they don’t leave him afterwards, or they never report the crime.
But of course he couldn’t accept this. Here’s the link to my blog entry about the things he said in response:
http://journals.aol.com/redwall33/TheMindofGenevieve/entries/2006/11/15/…i-recall-the-sunshine-as-you-were-melting…/1221
Telling any rape victim that it ‘wasn’t really rape’ and that they ‘secretly wanted it’ is evil. Plain and simple. That’s all I have to say.
I agree especially if there are men who view this behavior as “satire” or their First Amendment rights or poking fun or whatever.
Nothing a baseball bat wouldn’t fix.
After all, sports are a viable way to work out aggression and they teach teamwork and fair play, too. Right?
Pingback: Toy Soldiers Oh, Come On… «
I don’t condone James’ comment, because it’s gratuitously crude and illogical besides (though I disagree that “Maia should be raped” is the most natural interpretation), but I find Maia’s remark—the one that prompted Heine’s response—to be far more objectionable.
She made a vicious generalization about an entire class of people, most of whom are perfectly decent. What’s more, this is a generalization which has, in the past, been used to justify horriffic crimes against this class of people, including mass murder. Furthermore, she’s using this generalization to advance an ideology whose implementations have very often involved mass murder.
Strike “bosses” and replace it with any group for which the left has any sympathy whatsoever, and you’d rightly be all over her for that, and probably for considerably less.
An excellent observation, Brandon Berg, with only ten minor drawbacks:
1) Bosses are not an immutable group.
2) Bosses are not a group that represents a stable section of society.
3) Bosses are the group in power.
4) Bosses has a particular meaning within marxism which does not necessarily comply with vernacular.
5) The framework of marxism discusses the parasitism of bosses not as individuals, nor as a personal class, but within a supportable economic model.
6) The framework of marxism discusses the parasitism of bosses from an economic perspective, without making claims about a non-economic perspective.
7) Within that economic perspective, which is class-based, the privilege of bosses is clear and not argued. Marxism proposes to eliminate that privilege, with the goal of equality.
8) Describing an economic theory, even passionately, is not the same as a rape threat against an individual..
9) Describing an economic theory, even passionately, is not the same as a rape threat against an individual.
10) Describing an economic theory, even passionately, is not the same as a rape threat against an individual.
I realize that technically those last three is only one flaw, but it was such a big one I thought it was worth mentioning thrice.
Brandon: Mandolin has already given a pretty exhaustive analysis of why your comment didn’t hold water, but I still have to express my amazement that anyone could come up with a “won’t someone PLEASE think of the bosses!!” attempt to smear Maia as a bigot.
And as to whether the comment that triggered all this was a rape threat, I’ve just said this over on Maia’s own blog: James and Clint and all other misogynist men know EXACTLY what was intended by James’s remark. And all women who aren’t sticking their heads in the sand know, too. I’m sick to death of people coming out of the woodwork, claiming that only if the threat explicity uses the word “rape” it is in fact a rape threat. The whole intent of James’s comment and Clint’s endorsement of it was to intimidate Maia, and also any other uppity bitch who might hear about it. They purposely don’t use the word “rape” so if/when confronted, they can play innocent. Diatryma’s baseball bat comment above illustrates this tactic quite nicely.
Thanks for all the comments. I was shocked when I read it, but I shouldn’t be.
I will back up what Mandolin said, in that I was speaking of Employers as a class, and not every two-bit supervisor. Although I don’t think that’s limited to Marxists, and I’m not a Marxist. It’s probably more common around the union movement than elsewhere.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » All things considered I’d rather be expelled from the Labour Party*
Rob–concern troll much?
Brandon–won’t someone think of the bosses? Teh genocide against teh bosses must be stopped NOW1!!!1!
Free the bosses!
Somebody ought to come up with a list of the top 10 ways to keep female bloggers in their places and how those who do so using threats are really the victims.
They purposely don’t use the word “rape” so if/when confronted, they can play innocent.
Yeah, crys t, it’s the whole “plausible deniability” thing we’ve discussed in the past. Now they’ll just go on about how Maia is hysterical and overreacting.
And someone on Heine’s blog did take the next step. Here is what netica had to say:
The truth usually does out, one way or the other.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Satire that implies women who disagree with a man just “need” sex, consensual or not, to help them come around to the correct point of view is soooo funny.
I’m just bustin’ a gut with my giant laughter. What impeccable wit. What biting irony. They sure defeated her arguments about capitalism.
Them wimmens should just stick to bean sexual receptacles. They r to dumb to debait.
Has the “it was only satire” defense ever worked? It’s like this following conversation is repeated over and over whenever someone says something like that.
A: Somebody should rape you.
B: What the fuck? That’s not okay. That’s the exact opposite of okay.
A: But people say “rape” all the time.
B: That’s completely irrelevant! It’s in different contexts!
A: But that person over there said it last week, and you didn’t get all uppity.
B: That was satire, you imbecile!
A: “Satire”, you say? So it’s okay to say that if it’s satire?
B: It doesn’t work like–
A: I was being satirical. So you can’t touch me. Safety zone times infinity, I win.
Grendelkhan, you = awesome. I LOL’d.
Um, there’s something in this blog post that I don’t understand.
Do women on welfare deserve special protection from insults and abuse, above and beyond the protection that all women and all people (regardless of income or employment status) deserve?
It was a salient part of the exchange, since they are deriding her for her poverty among other things.
“… this is a generalization which has, in the past, been used to justify horriffic crimes against this class of people, including mass murder.”
So any generalization that has a sordid history must have absolutely no basis in truth? Okay.
“Furthermore, she’s using this generalization to advance an ideology whose implementations have very often involved mass murder.”
I don’t know much about Maia’s ideologies, but if, as I suspect, what she’s advocating is a more egalitarian social democracy – which is exactly the same thing as Stalinist Russia – then every developed country in the world is socialist. (Even the US is at least a welfare state, which I’m sure to neolibs differs to the gulags only in a matter of degree.) This standard also makes the majority of developing nations are far less socialist. Which leaves “socialism” as pretty much the gold standard, doesn’t it?
“Do women on welfare deserve special protection from insults and abuse, above and beyond the protection that all women and all people (regardless of income or employment status) deserve?”
If a woman came up to you smartly dressed and in business attire, and another woman came up to you afterward wearing a potato sack and a torn bedsheet, can you honestly say there’d be no difference in the delicacy with which you’d address either?
To go more mundane, what if you have two kids and one is crying? Can you honestly say you have no human impulse to respond to him in a different manner, at least during that instance, than with the one who is not?
No of course you can’t, because the feigned conservative confusion that disadvantaged people should be treated differently is not honest.
She’s a self declared communist. Most communist countries end up killing a pretty large number of their own subjects to maintain the position of the individuals in charger. Mao and Stalin have the largest body counts, by a LONG way, but they’re not alone.
This is no way justifies the insult.
Ah I see. My mistake. My bullshit alarm’s on hair trigger alert at the “welfare state=socialism=Stalinism” meme; I should reconfigure the darn thing.
Joe I’d be really interested in where I self declared as a communist.
Sorry if i was mistaken. I honestly thought you advocated communism. My comment above is withdrawn.
but now i’m a little confused. oh well. It doesn’t matter at all to the subject at hand.
The problem isnt needing teh almighty cock. The problem is that most of us require teh almighty cock to be attached to a brain.
If sex was some cure all, I might consider taking one for the team and screwing Bush. We can implement a Fuck A Bigot plan and give them all a mercy fuck. World Peace will surely ensue.
LOL! pheeno, you’re cracking me up.
If sex was some cure all, I might consider taking one for the team and screwing Bush.
You’re a braver person than I if you could do that without screaming or throwing up. I’m both glad and sorry that it doesn’t work that way. Glad because you don’t have to make the sacrifice, sorry because the world would be so much better if you could cure Bush’s bushit with a little screw.
I had a friend in college who suggested that we all line up in the gym everyday for our required fuck and then go about our business. Doesn’t sound like a bad idea, particularly if it inspires world peace.
BTW, I’ve had a deep and meaningful relationship with my vibrator for years and I’m still a feminist, so I’m not sure how that qualifies as a cure…
:)
I don’t condone James’ comment, because it’s gratuitously crude and illogical besides (though I disagree that “Maia should be raped” is the most natural interpretation), but
Ah, the inevitable “but”. Meaning, Brandon doesn’t give a rat’s ass about James’s comment, and doesn’t particularly care to notice the implied threat in it; he’d just prefer to use it as a jumping-off point for his own issues.
I’m sure if an angry gay man told Brandon that he thought Brandon just needed a bit in his mouth and a cock up his ass to make him change his stupid political views, Brandon would chuckle heartily at the gentle satire.
Pingback: Dibs being Trevor Mallard’s sockpuppet! « Ideologically Impure
Heine’s blog appears to have been removed and he’s now protecting his twitter accounts, something is amiss, apart from offending South Africans, he’s not very popular with the British or Dutch and looking at these comments not all New Zealanders either, has he realised how depraved some of his vile comments were or has someone taken him to task? Perhaps he doesn’t want everyone to see what kind of a person he is.