<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Male Idiot Blames Hofstra Boys</title>
	<atom:link href="http://counterfeminism.info/2010/02/male-idiot-blames-hofstra-boys/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://counterfeminism.info/2010/02/male-idiot-blames-hofstra-boys/</link>
	<description>&#34;Men&#039;s Issues From The Viewpoint of a Progressive Swine.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:35:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: amfortas</title>
		<link>http://counterfeminism.info/2010/02/male-idiot-blames-hofstra-boys/comment-page-1/#comment-1349</link>
		<dc:creator>amfortas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://counterfeminism.info/?p=4030#comment-1349</guid>
		<description>The fellow has no Integrity. He is on a TV show. Guess what proportion of his audience is male. 20%? 30? Nah. Let&#039;s not go too far.

So he is in it for the vagina money; the screaming women; the ADVERTISERS.

He has sold out his integrity as a man and as a human. Mammon is pleased.

But why is his message so accepted? Is he &#039;wrong&#039; in saying that the boys behaved badly? Is he wrong to &#039;blame the victim&#039;? The two things are not the same unfortunately. The &#039;victims&#039; open themselves to approbation just as a drunken female flasing her knickers does. The behaviour of the boys was appalling, but that does not make them guilty of a crime. 

But it does behove men to condemn that behaviour. You reap what you sow. They were damned fools. What sort of male in his right mind would have a &#039;gang bang&#039; with one girl that he and his immoral mates just met? Lunatics. That&#039;s who.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fellow has no Integrity. He is on a TV show. Guess what proportion of his audience is male. 20%? 30? Nah. Let&#8217;s not go too far.</p>
<p>So he is in it for the vagina money; the screaming women; the ADVERTISERS.</p>
<p>He has sold out his integrity as a man and as a human. Mammon is pleased.</p>
<p>But why is his message so accepted? Is he &#8216;wrong&#8217; in saying that the boys behaved badly? Is he wrong to &#8216;blame the victim&#8217;? The two things are not the same unfortunately. The &#8216;victims&#8217; open themselves to approbation just as a drunken female flasing her knickers does. The behaviour of the boys was appalling, but that does not make them guilty of a crime. </p>
<p>But it does behove men to condemn that behaviour. You reap what you sow. They were damned fools. What sort of male in his right mind would have a &#8216;gang bang&#8217; with one girl that he and his immoral mates just met? Lunatics. That&#8217;s who.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
