"Dan Rottenberg Is a Very Bad Man," by Alpha Unit

Dan Rottenberg is the editor of the Broad Street Review, an online magazine launched out of Philadelphia. But he won’t be for long, if Change.org and the Women’s Media Center have their way. They are calling on the publisher and Board of Directors of the Broad Street Review to fire the guy.
Dan Rottenberg committed the sin of insufficient outrage over what happened to Lara Logan, the CBS News correspondent who was viciously assaulted by a mob of male protesters while she was reporting on the revolution that took place in Egypt.
The petition that demands his firing actually says that Rottenberg has no “sympathy” for Logan or “outrage” on her behalf. That is, Dan Rottenberg isn’t thinking the right kinds of thoughts about this awful occurrence.
In an editorial published earlier this month on the website, Rottenberg has the temerity to say that women need to take sensible precautions to avoid being victimized the way Lara Logan was. In referring to other such incidents, he goes on to say:

Many of the tragedies mentioned above spring from what I see as a naive faith in the power of the modern sexual revolution. Women today are technically free to do all sorts of things that were forbidden to their grandmothers, which is all well and good. But in practice, rape and the notion of sexual conquest persist for the same reason that warfare persists: because the human animal – especially the male animal – craves drama as much as food, shelter, and clothing.
Conquering an unwilling sex partner is about as much drama as a man can find without shooting a gun – and of course, guns haven’t disappeared either.

Hold it.
Did Dan Rottenberg say that some men might actually enjoy conquering an unwilling sex partner? That bastard. Does he mean that overcoming a woman’s resistance and even overpowering her might be a turn-on for some people – the kind of turn-on that creates an erection and culminates in an orgasm? This comes awfully close to saying that rape might actually be about sex.
Rape is about power. Why doesn’t Dan Rottenberg know that?
That’s bad enough. But Rottenberg also suggests that when women display their legs, thighs, and cleavage, they are advertising their sexual availability. They’re telling guys, “Come get some.”
Unbelievable.
The fact that a woman decides to leave the house with her breasts nearly naked, pushed up, and squeezed together has nothing to do with other people – and certainly nothing to do with the fact that men just love that kind of stuff. It makes no sense.
For writing such things, Dan Rottenberg needs to go, some women insist. Has Rottenberg broken any laws? No. Has he violated any professional code of ethics, by chance? I would say not. He’s done something even worse. He told women to grow up and act like responsible adults.
“Wait a minute, Alpha Unit,” someone might say. “What he’s actually doing is talking down to women, treating women like children who don’t have the freedom and the right to live, act, and dress the way they please.”
No, believe it or not, he’s trying to do women a favor. He’s trying to clue them in on something many of them apparently never learned – that there are guys out there who are turned on by female vulnerability and defenselessness. More guys than they can imagine.
The way I see it, the article also issues a challenge to the women who say they want and deserve to be seen as men’s equals. Is that what you really want? Okay. You know what men have been saying to other men forever when bad things happen? Suck it up.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

92 thoughts on “"Dan Rottenberg Is a Very Bad Man," by Alpha Unit”

  1. Whitey said a final goodbye to common sense circa 1945. They’ve lost their minds, only their frontal lobe is functional, everything behind it is long gone.

      1. No, babe, just a impression of a people living in a rotted world. And “whitey” refers mostly to Anglo culture, which is now just a bad dream.

        1. “And “whitey” refers mostly to Anglo culture, which is now just a bad dream.”
          I know, I was just being snarky.

  2. Good post. I’ve always believed that feminism actually encourages risky behaviour among women since rape fuels the feminist agenda as anti-antisemitism fuels Zionism.

  3. Whatever Rottenberg’s motives are, I’m interested in women creating culture, not policing it. This group should put their resources behind promoting new voices, not telling people to shut up. Rip into him if you want to, but don’t insist he be fired.
    This stuff sounds like the feminist equivalent of the diversity circuit or the SPLC. I think TPTB gradually infiltrated the organic social movements like civil rights, feminism, and gay rights and watered them down and co-opted them. They hired the yuppie hacks you see in these organizations, who were happy to monetize activism for themselves (and only themselves) and turn them into self-perpetuating industries that challenge no one. Like the SEIU providing a nice income for its upper mucky-mucks while the rank and file gets 9 bucks an hour in LA to wipe old people’s asses.
    Real feminism would be encouraging women to learn self-defense, learn to trust their instincts and build networks outside the corporate matrix. Instead the mainstream orgs channel young women’s energy into pointless “slutwalks” that appeal to attention seekers who want to feel virtuous for “doing something” without taking any risks. If young people were really encouraged to think for themselves, a lot of corporate hacks would be out of a job.
    To women’s credit, most of them can’t relate to what these orgs do, any more than most gay people relate to an elitist group like the HRC. I think the Toronto Slutwalk only got about 1000 people. That’s nothing in a city that large.
    Like Gore Vidal said, we have a money party with two right wings. The “left” wing just trains people to accept a slightly different form of unquestioning consumerism than that of the “right” wing. Marches are just a sideshow that intentionally lead people to confuse being looked at with having power.
    No woman deserves to be raped however she is dressed. I don’t think most rapes have anything to do with clothing or the lack of it. However, encouraging women to disregard opsec is not doing them any favors. Common sense is in no way anti-feminist.
    I’ve always believed that feminism actually encourages risky behaviour among women since rape fuels the feminist agenda
    I’d say it fuels the agenda of the hacks who head modern feminist orgs. I don’t think classical feminism encouraged high-risk behavior necessarily.
    These mainstream liberal orgs seem to be staffed mostly by upper class people who are used to a certain amount of coddling, and they resent any encouragement of self-control as inherently reactionary. I don’t think this sort of bougie self-indulgence was encouraged by the early left. It seems to be the doing of those who benefit from a passive, dependent population. Contrary to the claims of right-wingers and libertarians, this is just a variation of the passivity and lack of self-determination desired by the capitalist right. One party, two right wings.

    1. Hi, LaFleur. I agree with you about what real feminism should be focused on. I also agree that rape isn’t about what people are wearing.
      What bothers me is that a lot of young women don’t seem to realize what high-risk behavior is. And if you try to suggest what it is, a lot of people get really pissed off and accuse you of “blaming the victim.” I don’t think you can discuss the subject of rape without upsetting *somebody.*

        1. I see articles about old women being raped in the Detroit papers fairly often.
          According to this 10 year old article:
          http://www.volcanopress.com/pages/news.cgi?newscatid=5&newsid=19
          1 in 7 sexual assault murder victims were 60 or older. 2.6% of rape victims over the age of 60 were killed during the rape. Only one age group of rape victims—ages 13 through 17—had a higher murder rate, at 3.3%.
          It’s a minority, but a significant one.

        2. Ah you’re from Mo-town. That would explain your beliefs. You’ve already had the experience of living in a minority-majority city.

      1. I think there are some mommy or sexual issues which transcend the drive to power.
        Shit, if we’re going to sit here and parse out motivations, isn’t the power/ego dynamic present in just about all acts of violence? I would say that murder is about power, too.

  4. La Fleur
    “Like the SEIU providing a nice income for its upper mucky-mucks while the rank and file gets 9 bucks an hour in LA to wipe old people’s asses.”
    La Fleur
    Mildred Baena earned $500/wk more than my Mother when she was Schwartzenegger’s housekeeper and my mother is a professor at a prestigious university. My sick uncle’s health aide, who barely graduated high school earns $20/hr, for sitting and watching TV with him and feeding the cat. I know someone who left his job as a professor at MIT to go into construction because he felt he would earn more. His construction partner was a computer engineer at Oracle and they do manual labor themselves and enjoy it (and burn off a lot of calories.) On the other hand, I’m upper middle class by birth and college educated and have attended job fairs only to be told that all they can offer is lowly volunteer positions. These days you must have volunteer experience or unpaid internships to establish your credentials and get a more “respectable” higher paying job. I sympathize with your plight but it is not always how perceive it. Sure, children of very rich and powerful people get the most desirable jobs, but the majority of us “yuppies” with parents who are affluent but have no influence to speak of have to get our hands dirty before we get any kind of respect. I could earn more as a prostitute than I could doing work that is considered “respectable.”

    1. I’m not talking about all upper class people, or bothered by people making a respectable living as activists. I’m talking about organizations and activists that are more concerned with sustaining themselves than with doing anything constructive about the cause they exist to address. In other words, the Shirky Principle: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
      By calling them yuppies I’m saying they’re out of touch with the people they’re supposed to be serving.

  5. “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
    Truer words were never spoken. I take it you know all about the Pink Mafia (Breast Cancer Industry.)

      1. I was referring to “cause related marketing” and branding merchandise with that infamous pink ribbon in order to lead people to believe that they are supporting the effort when only a tiny percentage of proceeds goes to supporting Breast Cancer foundations and only a small portion of the foundation’s money goes towards research and treatment of deadly cancers and mostly support awareness campaigns.
        The CEO of Komen, the leading Breast Cancer organization recently launched new “Pink” fragrance. I’ll try to dig up the video.

  6. Just kidding, really. You’re talking about feminism as it ought to be, rationally. I’m pointing out that feminism as it _is_ is anti-commonsense.

    1. Fair enough. I didn’t look at your article last night because I was about to turn in.
      I agree that women should exercise their second amendment rights. I guess that makes me a leftneck.
      The entire organized US “left” has been reduced to a sideshow in the neoliberal capitalist circus.

  7. “Breast Cancer Industry.” That’s priceless.
    I remember years ago my son was in parochial school and they had a Komen breast cancer “awareness” thing at a local BMW dealership. I wasn’t able to put words on it then…but now I realize it was a pretentious garbage. A pink car. God.
    Cancer is cancer and should be addressed on all fronts. Unfortunately it seems that each form of cancer has become a cause in itself. That sucks. I lost my aunt to ovarian cancer and it doesn’t get any more “female” than that. Thousands of men die from breast cancer every year but none from ovarian cancer. Yet, the Komen foundation is fixated on boobs. As long as they are women’s.
    And what is this “awareness” crap. There are so many “awareness” campaigns I wanna vomit.

      1. An Unmarried Man
        It’s unfortunate that Breast Cancer has come to be associated with femininity and is portrayed as sexy. I feel the same way about Autism being associated with extreme masculinity (courtesy to Simon Baron Cohen) and the use of the color blue for awareness or cause related marketing. The characterization of mental disorders or to a lesser extent, medical diseases undermines the diversity that exists among the victims and confines them to a particular definition and those who do not fit that definition may be reluctant to seek treatment. Those who are forced into treatment at a young age will forever associate themselves with their condition and that may hinder their ability to define themselves.
        The founder had a reason for confflating breast cancer with femininity and sexuality. Her sister, who eventually died from breast cancer, initially denied treatment as she believed having a mastectomy would rob her of her femininity and sexuality.

        1. In fact, it is a question of preserving femininity at the hands of ruthless male medical interlopers.
          This is quite a revealing statement about women’s self-perceptions of their breasts. Breasts are the epitome of femininity and womanhood.

        2. Gay State Girl,
          On what planet is Breast Cancer portrayed as sexy and autism associated with extreme masculinity, or were you just being sarcastic.
          And I’m with An Unmarried Man, it’s all about the hips for me.

    1. you are correct, sir.
      This “awarness” bullshit is actually no-awerness bullshit.
      They conveninently “forget “to mention. for example, the connection between the usage of anticonception drugs and breast cancer.
      I also came across few articles writing about some studies that suggested that mammogram may actually triger breast cancer as well.
      You won’t hear THAT in the main stream media.

      1. A recently read a FANTASTIC book about cancer. If you’re squeamish or a hypochondriac, I wouldn’t suggest reading it. I don’t normally rave about stuff like a teenaged Justin Bieber fan, but really, this is a good book. It illustrated some facts about cancer I had no idea.
        Essentially, all cancer is an industry. Being the timeless killer that it is, it always has been.
        http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_23?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=emperor+of+all+maladies&sprefix=emperor+of+all+maladies

        1. I heard pretty intersting talk by dr Simoncini , Italian oncologist that basically says that cancer is a fungus and can be treated pretty cheaply and easily. Here is some min. info.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQuODiMlUsc
          My friend (40 yrs) was diagnosed with malignat breast cancer last year in August. At the beginning of the year she had 3 mamogramms within 3 days. 3 of them. I think it is criminal. She went the first time,next day they called her that something, something, and she has to come again asap to repeat it. She went the next day, and they did it tTWICEe that day.
          7 months laters she had a rapid onset of a inflammatory breast cancer, her lymph nodes were attacked. She went through chemotherapy, masectomy ( both breasts), radiation. Now she is taking tamoxifen ( for 5 Years), went through early menopause, will have few more reconstructive breast surgeries. She is depresssed, frustrated, but tries to keep her spirits up.
          On eof many articles.;Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. “Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases

        2. There are many mortality studies showing that early detection does not increase life span. Essentially, you’re going to die when…you die. However, many cancer treatments do increase survival odds.
          The 2 guys in your video are either nuts or trailblazing geniuses. Only time will tell.

        3. Sono
          I heard about that and how the pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to adopt these treatments because they are afraid they won’t make as big a profit.

  8. This american pro feminist move in America is one, big joke. It is actually anti-women in its core.
    How they can demand firing the guy for saying the simple truth.??
    I hate those loud, obnoxius, whiny, propagandist idiots paid by rich, global , organisations to fulfill their slimy agenda.

    1. There is a tendency as culture becomes feminized (more women in positions of “power”) that it expounds feminine values en masse.
      In other words, the nuanced illogical manner of female thinking thus is imprinted on society at large.
      As opposed to the male directness which dominate previous ages. I truly think we are in the middle of a sea change of values. I don’t like it, but it is what it is…

      1. I would not agree with, “the nuanced illogical manner of female thinking” theory at large. Although I can see some points to it.
        I know plenty of guys, who could be masters in “nuanced illogical manner of a complete lack of thinking”. It goes for both sexes. Thinking especially, independent, logical thinking became soo passe , very unfashionable.
        It does not go with a dress, I mean with the rest.

  9. But surely this is bad for health insurance companies. Why don’t they take it up with Pharma?
    My mom was treated for early stage breast cancer in 2008. She goes in for regular check ups and they always do an extra mastectomy to “make sure” things are clear.
    Pharma along with High profile Psychologists want to confine people to identities and lead them to believe they have more problems than they actually do so they can make more off of them.

    1. I’m surprised how many people here in America puts so much trust in the medical profesion. They do not questions their opinions most of the time. My doctor was trying to put me on antidepressant, when I was going through divorce. I refused. He insisted , gave me some free samples, told me to call him any time with questions,blah , blah.I told him I’m slightly depressed beacause I’m going through a divorce, dealing with bloody lawyers etc.
      Give me a break . I have a full right to feel depressed. Butt off me. Needless to say, I signed for a local gym, loved it , got in shape, got rid of my “divorce/lawyers induced depression” and felt better in no time. I hate even the thought of being dependant on some pills. I even a problem with taking vitamins.:(

      1. Psychologists and psychiatrists often work in groups of organized office-park rackets. The psychologist, wearing down and exaggerating the patient’s vulnerabilities, will steer him/her to the psychiatrist 3 doors down who salivates at his prescription book.

        1. Psychologists will delude parents to believe that their young children need intensive therapies (which actually increase their vulnerabilities at an older age.) I would like to think that Early Childhood intervention specialists are well meaning but misguided, but the skeptic in me says no. Sheltering children only makes them less responsible and many of these children will grow up to be drug addicts and neglect their duties at home and school. Of course psychologists will attribute this to their “condition” and convinve their parents to spend more on bullshit therapies that give them even less of a sense of responsibility.

      2. It’s even more scary that people entrust the care of their children to these doctors. I don’t really have a problem with the psychiatric profession in theory (psychology is a different story.) If they could find legitimate neurological or biological evidence to prove these illnesses exist, I’d have no problem with them. But no one is ever given a neurological screening or a blood test before being prescribed with psychiatric medications.

        1. My brother’s child was a very , very, very active kid. Some teachers suggested that maybe he has ADD, and should be put on the pill. My brother got really pissed off at the very thought of it, ( he is a doctor himself).he refused even consider this idea.
          Now his son is a teenager , and to make him move his behind from the computer is a real challenge.
          He could sit there the whole day. He is also a very good student for the record.

        2. When I was in Kindergarten, I did not speak the entire year. The teacher talked to my parents a couple of times, but no one sank into busy-body mode and thought to seek professional help. I’m convinced if it had been 2010 I’d be diagnosed as Aspie or any other trendy syndrome on the market now. 1969 was a bigger era with bigger problems.
          Most mental health is driven by patient’s self-determined demands. Veracity is not important. Supposed “doctors” feel impelled to fill in a periodic digest which details all their patient’s professed maladies. In fact, the DSM-V comes out in 2013!!!

        3. Much of the problems people experience in adolescence and adulthood are due to being sheltered as a child not their condition itself.

        4. I meant parents who baby their children and make excuses for everything are not preparing their children for the harsh realities o the world.
          Socialization is important but it must occur on the children’s terms only, not teachers, guidance counselors, or child psychologists. For some reason the baby boomers needed to mother us millenials to death. School is more about social engineering than about academics. I am not opposed to rigorous academics (or arts, athletics, vocational training) But school should exist for the sole purpose of providing an academic education (or any other discipline I mentioned.) I am against activities designed to be fun, or to facilitate social interaction, enhance creativity, teach diversity and tolerance or whatever. Children need to organize their own leisure time and social activities. Also while I am not advocating child labor, high school students need more exposure to the professional and working worlds than they currently receive.

        5. GSG–just noting your comment that no one gets a blood test or other screening before receiving psychiatric meds. It’s ridiculous.
          Patient feeling out of sorts? Let’s throw these pills at the problem and see if they stick!!

  10. “There is a “concave” structure to female logic that creates and simultaneously justifies its own arguments.
    I’ve not seen this in straight men.”
    Do you mean “argument” as a quarell, disagreement, fight? I am a foreigner so I just want an explanation? I do agree here. Women are masters in creating quarells, and then justifing it. ( ” I was just in the bad mood”, “I had PMS”)
    Or do you mean an argument as a reason, set of statements aiming at logical
    demonstrating truth or falsehood point of a discussion. I know plenty of “straight” guys who, surprise , surprise, show such a lack of coherent thinking skills that is beyond the repair.
    But ..that is just my femine opinion affected by “concave” structure in my brain that created and …….

      1. East ( I mean east of Europe not far east) is no less wild, dear La Fleur.
        I got a good schooling there.
        Plus, I’ve been living in the Wild West long enough to get to know its BS.:)

    1. Hmmm, I didn’t know you were a foreign speaker.
      Let’s say that the resolution precedes initiation of the argument.
      The argument on its surface as a triggering tension-creating experience is what matter.
      The substance of the argument does not matter.

  11. So ,are you trying to say that women aggue just for the sake of arguing , “to trigger tension creating experience”??
    I would say you are wrong. Women argue because the matter of the argument does matter for them.
    I do not like stereotyping. I met plenty of smart women and stupid guys, and vice versa, stupid women and smart guys.
    Often as couples, surprisingly. That actually amazes me. And often they get along very well, what is even more surprising.

    1. Sono, generalizations are for sport. Yes, women argue for the sake of arguing. But it’s not quite so simple. Women are adept at recognizing and anticipating layers of interaction. There is an element of shock closing-mindedness in every woman’s argument. Culturally and popularly, women are thought of as the open-minded gender but I would argue otherwise.

      1. I’ve known men who use what you describe as female arguing styles. Also passive-aggressive behaviors and the maddening expectation that I ought to be able to read their minds, which also seem to be considered stereotypically female communication tactics. That sort of murky miscommunication is not the exclusive province of women.

        1. I don’t mean to be glib, but the men I know argue that way are gay.
          Most other men are either clueless, masculine or apathetic. I can’t think of straight men who would do this. But then, I never deal with men in the context you do.

        2. None of these men were gay. Haven’t had any of that sort of trouble communicating with gay men I’ve known. Though none of them have been family members or roommates–communication with the people we live with tends to be much more complicated!

        3. Very true.
          We are ultimately shaped by the experiences we elicit.
          You probably haven’t the slightest clue about how women react to men from a man’s point of view.
          POV is everything!!!

        4. Well, as I implied before, I’m not a mindreader!
          I probably don’t have any more of a clue about the typical female point of view re: men than vice-versa.

  12. I would say that women, more often, try to use different sorts of means to achieve their goal. Words, tears, teasing, flirting, screaming, threats etc , they use it more often than man do. Man often call it ‘hysteria”. Women call it following/revealing their emotions . Man view it often as annoying, women view it as something necessary, uncontrolable and unavoidable, part of being a women.
    But the very fact that men, on average, are better in containing their
    emotions, has nothing to do with them being more logical.

    1. True. Good points.
      As a man I tend to value directness which implicitly leads me to distrust your argument 🙂
      I hate it when women literally ask me to validate their doubts.
      Men don’t realize that women are not complaining as much as seeking recognition, regardless of right or wrong, logic or not, on the part of their male mate. If you don’t offer this blind validation, you’re in for a world of hurt.

  13. Women are a very complicated creature. They don’t like “directness. Directness is boring. When a woman asks you “to validate her doubts”, she really mean “I know what I’m goona do, but I just want you to listen to my
    2 or 3 hours of whinning, try to agree with me most of the time, console me, do not give me too much of any advice, and then you may go” .
    Until the next time.
    We just love simplicity:)

      1. I’ve often heard that women tend to be indirect, especially when communicating with men. I’ve had to overcome this tendency myself.

        1. I confess, I could be frustratingly indirect with men as a young woman. I never chalked it up to femininity, though–I considered it a different sort of weakness, like e.g. stage fright or stuttering.

  14. Well. It is less costly than Oscar del la Renta clothing:).
    Women are just different….creatures, full of unpredictible emotions and behavior. That what makes them so ,I guess, appealing:).
    I do know ,I’m saying nonsense right now,and just prove your above mentioned points.

  15. I promise to give $10,000 to the first person who can give me a logical reason why it was Lara Logan’s fault she was raped.

    1. The people who attacked Lara Logan are responsible for attacking her. She’s responsible for putting herself at risk.
      When men engage in risky behavior, and those risks materialize, people usually aren’t that sympathetic. They say, “You knew what you were signing up for.” If a woman wants to engage in risky behavior, fine. Why is she entitled to sympathy if the risks catch up with her?

  16. If you walk among Gypsies ,with your wallet sticking out of your pocket, don’t be surprised that it is gone in not time. That ‘s what Gypsy do. They “borrow” somebody’s money and wallets. That’s their nature and occupation. You better be aware of it ,otherwise you may lose your wallet, or even your life if you hold on to your wallet too much. It is good to be aware of your surroundings and the people in it.
    You may be naive and have a good luck ,or you may be naive and do not have a good luck.
    If you put your lovely toes in Amazonian river ,you may still have them after a whort while, or they may become a delicious supper for a hungry
    family of pirhanias.

  17. Although just to clear a few things from what I’ve read she was NOT actually raped. “According to a “friend” who spoke to The Australian:
    “South African-born Logan, her crew and a security detail appear to have been surrounded near a tent city that had sprung up in the square. Logan became separated from her crew and security. One source said soldiers went in to rescue them, but Logan fell as they tried to escape. Sources in the US said the attack went on for up to 30 minutes. Her clothes were torn off and the crowd hit her and beat her with [flag] poles. Shouts of ‘Israeli’ enraged the crowd even more.” She was definately assulted, and she probably could be easily raped if she was not saved ,but she was not actually raped per se.
    Why people spread and repeat the lies????
    I know, it sounds more horrific that “she was raped”. She was NOT.
    If you are a women, and if you go to a country that is in the state of unrest, lawlessness ,and thugs and hoodlums are running freely on the street you better watch out for God’s sake.

    1. Yes, she was not actually raped, if you listen to her own account of what happened. But that’s not stopping a lot of people from declaring that she was “gang-raped.”

  18. “Gang raped” sounds really awful. It generates more symphathy and outrage then “sexually assulted “,which could mean just about anything. It is interesting that majority of people do not bother to check the facts ,but do not mind repeating, like stupid parrots, lies spread by somebody else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *