[Originally posted @ The Obsidian Files.]
As one might suspect, I get quite a bit of letters and emails from people, asking why I even bother taking to task Denise Romano’s ideas and actions; in this post, I’ll answer those questions, as well as laying out Ms. Romano’s worldview, how it fundamentally conflicts with that of Ms. Susan Walsh, & what it means for Women overall.
OK, so let’s get right to it: way do I bother w/the likes of Ms. Romano? Well, aside from the fact that I can, one major reason is because I take charges of Rape very, very seriously-why? Because, as a Black Man, I understand in a very real way, what can happen when such a charge is cheapened and indeed, raped itself-indeed, the historical record of the United States clearly shows, that hundreds if not thousands, of innocent Black Men were lynched, burned, shot, murdered and otherwise mutilated, merely on the trumped up charges of a Woman, *a White Woman* I might add. “Rape” means something very, very important to me. It’s not merely an arid academic discussion, or some emotive, perverted, misguided crusade. It, for me, is the cold, hard realization that Women can twist and pervert the meaning of ANY word or act they choose, in order to justify ANY behavior on their part-and have Men pay for it. Notice how Ms. Romano is quick to use Slavery in her response to me, but completely sidesteps the One Hundred Years of Lynchings-largely predicated on false charges of Rape. MY ANCESTORS WERE HANGED, SHOT, LYNCHED, BURNED AND KILLED, BEHIND THAT SHIT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, MS. ROMANO? Pardon my emotive outburst, but I really had to say that.
People like Ms. Romano, who use all kinds of convoluted definitions for the word “Rape” not only abuse the term itself and cheapens it for Women who were truly raped, but it pisses on the graves of Black Men like Emmit Till, who met a grisly and truly barbaric end under such BS circumstances. I object to her ridiculous “definitions” and declarations of what is and is not Rape, and I will use this and any other platform or medium to oppose her every step of the way. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is also doing right by my ancestors, who didn’t have a voice to say “Hell No!”.
But that’s only one reason.
Another reason why I take the time out of my otherwise regularly scheduled blogging duties to take on Ms. Romano and her ilk, is because I do not appreciate her efforts to shutdown our First Amendment Rights. Earlier this week I wrote in defence of Roissy, and I did so not because of personal interest one way or the other, but because I saw that if he goes down, all of us aren’t far behind. The First Amendment protects all of us, because it defends the speech WE DON’T LIKE, not the speech we do like. Similarly, the idea of Tenure in the Academy operates much in the same way, to protect academics whose ideas may not be popular or likeable. For example, I found the late Boston College professor Mary Daly’s teachings to be abhorrent and reprehensible, but you never saw me trying to have her ousted for her views; what needed to happen, was to have her ideas and views to be shown for the weak and shoddy reasoning that they were, by other academics who had the balls to oppose her. THAT is the Academic Way to deal with ideas that we find abhorrent, NOT the way Ms. Romano and Lady Raine have attempted to deal with the Roissys of the world. As I’ve noted in a previous post, the very fact that he remains online, proves that they have failed in their self-appointed mission. And I surely do hope they will continue to do so.
The third reason why I oppose Ms. Romano’s ideas, is because I see them as an affront to Women themselves. In a previous post dedicated to Ms. Romano, and taking up the Roissy issue in particular, I made careful note of the fact that it is through deep Socratic questioning that we can determine if an idea is indeed valid. Well, this principle has borne itself out to be true in Ms. Romano’s case-for, as a result of my interactions with her, she has revealed a dominant line of thought throughout her arguments. In a word, and simply put:
Women cannot be viewed as Free, Independent, Responsible, Human Beings.
Bear with me now.
As we all know, Ms. Romano wants Game, if not removed from the scene altogether, to be deeply modified, so as to “warn” Women out there so they can make better, “informed” decisions. Sounds good at first glance-but doesn’t that suggest a kind of Nanny State reasoning-that people aren’t saavy enough to figure things out for themselves? Especially in a time where more Women than Men earn college degrees? Earn their own money? Have careers? And huge help in the many forms of the State? To be honest, if I were a Woman on the outside looking in at the debate between myself and Ms. Romano, I would be deeply offended-because what she’s saying basically is that I don’t have the basic wherewithall to know who I’m with or what I’m getting myself into.
But it gets better. Recently on Lady Raine’s blog, Ms. Romano was asked, not just by me, but a number of Male participants there, about her views of the violent actions of Ms. Elin Woods against her cheating husband Tiger. Ms. Romano’s response was, if ever, a vindication of Mystery’s “plausible deniability” maxim about Women: she said that Ein Woods was justified in physically attacking Tiger, on the grounds that he “raped” her by having unprotected sex with multiple Women, putting her and one of their kids at risk for contracting STDs. She completely sidestepped the matter of legality-which is quite clear on this point, by the way-and instead rationalized (or as we Gamesmen would say, “backward rationalized”) Elin’s actions, even when it was crystal clear that not only was she in violation of the law, but if news reports are true, that she’s now also a fugitive from the law-much like Roman Polanski is. When she and Lady Raine were asked, if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Elin doing all the tomcatting around on Tiger, and he commenced to kicking Elin’s behind up one side of the street and down the other, Ms. Romano and Lady Raine suddenly demurred. Talk about adding insult to injury-not only do they want to justify Elin’s violent acts, but they also want to maintain a clear and present double standard as well. Rich.
But as if a Theatre of the Absurd couldn’t get wierder, Ms. Romano outdoes her own self, by saying that, because she has ever-perky nipples, and because she can’t help it, no one should judge her for this; that it is society’s responsibility to “grow and evolve” to learn that having engorged nipples doesn’t mean anything at all. Nope, nothing to see here, keep it movin’.
Riiiight.
My response to Ms. Romano was that not only did I write a post about this very same subject-that of how and why people can, do and will make value judgments about you based on how you present yourself in the world, and that it was right and NORMAL to do-but that I included the fact that, as a Black Man, I too have to give considerable thought to how I present myself to the world when I step outside my front door. Failure to do so could prove catastrophic for me-and the harsh realities of life don’t care if I think it’s fair or not. I have two choices-either pull my pants up, get a shave, look and act like I got some sense-or-bear the full brunt of the consequences if I choose to do otherwise. That’s. It.
But not for Ms. Romano-she insists that its EVERYONE ELSE-ESPECIALLY MEN who must change, who must “grow”, who must “evolve”-not her. Everyone else must be a grown up. She, on the other hand, has the right to remain a child.
In each instance-her crusade against Roissy, MRAs and Game/PUAs; her defence of the violent actions of Elin Woods; and her “Nipple Defence”-Ms. Romano lays out that Women have no agency, personal responsibility, or even basic reasoning faculties and commonsense, to act in an advanced and free society-one who’s fulcrum is based on these ideals. She claims that we are the ones wo are behind the times, but in truth, by her own hand and reasoning, it is SHE who still regards Women on the whole as incapable of independent thought, actions, rights or duties, as Citizens of the Free World.
Which finally brings me to Ms. Susan Walsh, of the website and blog, Hooking Up Smart.com. Over the past few months that my blog, The Obsidian Files has been in existence, I’ve had the chance to interact extensively with Ms. Walsh, online and off, and have found her to be an exemplary Human Being, to say nothing of a truly Classy Lady. She is not because she agrees with me-indeed, there are some things on which we deeply disagree-but because she refuses to cowtow to the line of Infantile Reasoning that is Ms. Romano’s stock and trade.
Instead of seeking to shut Roissy and Tucker Max down, Ms. Walsh instead uses her spare time and blogging talents to educate young Women about their ilk and how to reign in their innate urges to mate with such Men; instead of seeking to get more and more laws passed to “protect Women” Ms. Walsh instead uses her site to teach young Women to respect themselves, and to use their head; and instead of approaching everything and everyone as if it were one big group therapy session, Ms. Walsh uses her more than a quarter of a century’s experience as a married mother of two grown kids of her own, to counsel young Women in the ways and wherefores of Sex and Relationships, as have many “Big Mamas” before her in a not too distant past. These are but a few of the big differences between Ms. Walsh and Ms. Romano, and I think she would agree with my analysis of the latter’s essential worldview here.
Lastly, let me say this. I have three sisters of my own, and NONE of them have been duped, brainwashed or led astray by some fuzzy hat wearing Player, LOL. They’ve had their ups and downs sure, but for the most part, they all done well for themselves. Part of the reason for that was because they had an older brother who gave em all a no holds barred talking to about the Real Deal out there on the bricks, and I’m happy to say that it sank in. I think, if they were able to read any part of what Ms. Romano wrote, and compared it to what Ms. Walsh writes, that they would regard the former as on some other ish, and the other not that far off from our dearly departed Mama. In any event, I want Ms. Romano to know, that not only am I deeply offended by her assertions as laidout above in her worldview, but I’m even more offended by the notion that, per her line of reasoning, my three sisters cannot discern Life for themselves. I take tremendous umbrage at that notion. I object!
I’m done on this point, but do not get it twisted, I ain’t no ways tired when it comes to opposing Ms. Romano. I will fight her deranged view of things with all the vim and vigor at my command. Count on it.
Now adjourn your Captain Bligh arses…
