The Catster Debates: Or, I inadvertently bring MRAs to an innocent cat website

From that other blog of mine

From that other blog of mine

So I did an interview about my Confused Cats Against Feminism blog with Catster.com, a site that devotes itself to collecting “helpful and hilarious information for the worldly but still infatuated Cat aficionado.” Alas, as a result of publishing this interview with me yesterday, they now seem to be collecting angry MRA commenters as well.

Here are some highlights of the, er, debate so far, which I’ve waded into myself, perhaps unwisely. (These are selections, with a bunch missing, though the comments that look obviously like they are responses to other comments, are.) Maeve Connor is the author of the post about me.

Read the rest of this entry

About these ads

He was a Men’s Rightser before Men’s Rights was cool. (Note: Men’s Rights has never been cool.)

I don't know, I think he could use another sign or two.

I don’t know, I think he could use another sign or two.

I found this amazing pic of “Husband Libber” Harry Britton posted to the Blue Pill subreddit; it was taken in 1972 by the father of Blue Piller smileybird.

According to Cape Girardeau History and Photos, which has another pic of him,

New York Magazine wrote that he was a fixture who had been supporting himself wearing placards, carrying signs and selling his leaflets for 25 cents each for several years. “Harry makes only $2,000 a year [roughly $12,000 today --DF]. He’s not in this for the money, though; he says his only goal is reconciliation with his wife, from whom he is, not surprisingly, separated.”

Another account said he was the “president (and probably sole member) of the National Association of Dissatisfied Husbands subsisting on sales of publications extolling ‘Husband Lib.(‘It’s not men’s lib,it’s Husband Lib. The Bachelors are not oppressed yet’).”

Here’s that pic, and a couple of others; thanks to SquashedBananas in the Blue Pill for tracking all this down. (And thanks to the reader who emailed me about all this.)

Read the rest of this entry

In which I get an email from Women Against Feminism [CORRECTION: THE EMAIL WAS FROM A COPYCAT SITE]

Type type type

Type type type

CORRECTION: THIS NOTE WAS NOT FROM THE OFFICIAL “WOMEN AGAINST FEMINISM” PAGE; IT WAS FROM A COPYCAT SITE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE IT OR AT LEAST TO LAUGH AT IT FOR THE CORRECT REASON. SORRY!

Just posted this on Confused Cats Against Feminism, but it was too good not to post here as well:

So I just got this curiously impersonal email from the admin at Women Against Feminism. (Gosh! Could it be a form letter?)

Hi David Futrelle,

I wanted to say thanks for writing the article about Women Against Feminism.

Whilst it’s clear that we don’t agree on all points, hearing both sides of the argument will get more people thinking about what they believe in and which set of points they feel aligned with more closely.

This can only be a positive step forward, not only for women, but for society as a whole.

To help get more people thinking about what they really believe, I was wondering if you could make add a link to our new website in your article?

We’re trying to create a centrally located hub where the discussion about Women and Feminism can flourish, with everyone getting a chance to share their opinions, and we believe that a website is the best place to do it.

Would you be able to help facilitate that conversation by adding a link to the site?

The URL is http://womenagainstfeminism.com

Once again, thanks for furthering the discussion about women and feminism through your article. Even though we don’t agree on all the same points, we really appreciate getting these concepts heard and empowering people to make up their own mind.

Many thanks,

[name and email redacted]

So I wrote back:

There already is a central hub for this discussion: http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

Could you redirect all of your traffic there? Thanks!

Confused Cats Against Feminism Goes Viral: Giant list of media mentions, and a possible explanation

biteyou

Confused Cats Against Feminism has gone viral, as the Internet kids say.

In less than a week, my humble Tumblr blog has picked up more than 12,000 followers on Tumblr and has generated nearly 20,000 “notes.” It’s been featured in two dozen well-known publications so far, ranging from Jezebel to Cosmopolitan to Le Monde (yes, the Le Monde), and on who knows how many lesser-known sites. It was discussed on The Reid Report on MSNBC. And my assorted inboxes are swelling with literally hundreds of submissions.

So why — other than KITTIES — has the blog struck such a chord?

Read the rest of this entry

Confused Dudes Confused by Confused Cats Against Feminism

Sweetie Pie Jonus pities the fools.

Sweetie Pie Jonus pities the fools.

Oh dear. Some very confused dudes on the A Voice for Men Forums are angry at the Huffington Post for suggesting that Confused Cats Against Feminism might just be a parody of Women Against Feminism.

A guy calling himself Humansplaining w/ Jarred starts off the thread — titled “HuffPo tries – and fails – to politicize ‘Cats Against Feminism'” — with this little rant. (I’ve bolded some of the especially silly stuff.)

So, being that ‘Women Against Feminism’ is an internet phenomenon, through Tumblr as well as Twitter, the internet inevitably took this thread in the direction it takes EVERYTHING nowadays – cats.

If you read through all the ‘Cats Against Feminism’ memes, you’ll notice that they pretty much all revolve around, well…CATS. Go figure, huh? References to food, tuna, shedding, and biting predominate these posts. The references to ‘Feminism’ are basically incidental, since this is just piggy-backing on the viral success of ‘Women Against Feminism’. Those posting these memes never really express whether they are in favor of, or against Feminism. It’s clearly not meant to appeal to EITHER side of the issue. Rather, it’s simply a silly meme meant to produce a few chuckles for ANYONE that happens to run across them. Just like every other stupid cat meme on the internet, of which there must literally be TRILLIONS.

But HuffPo apparently sees things differently …

You know what? I think those CATS are smarter than the people at Huffpo that produced this article. THEY think that Feminism is a stupid and pointless human concept, and they wish you’d stop talking about it and fighting amongst each other, because they need you to FEED them!
Seriously HuffPo, learn to take a joke, and give the ideology a rest for 5 FUCKING SECONDS already.

Because the cats are laughing at YOU now…

AVFM forum dudes, I hate to break it to you, but the cats aren’t laughing at the Huffington Post. They’re laughing at you.

Maybe I need to start up a new blog: Confused Cats Confused by Confused Cats Against Feminism.

Richard Dawkins opens mouth, inserts foot, mumbles something about “mild pedophilia” again

A young Richard Dawkins contemplates the beauty of the universe.

A young Richard Dawkins contemplates the beauty of the universe.

Apparently Richard Dawkins was worried that people might have forgotten what an asshat he is. So, helpful fellow that he is, he decided to give us all a demonstration of why he’s one of the atheist movement’s biggest liabilities, a “humanist” who has trouble remembering to act human.

Earlier today Dawkins decided, for some reason, that he needed to remind the people of the world of a fairly basic point of logic, and so he took to Twitter and thumbed out this little thought:

 Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins  ·  5h  X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of X, go away and don't come back until you've learned how to think logically.

However petulantly phrased this is, the basic logic is sound: If I say that Hitler was worse than Stalin, I’m not endorsing either Hitler or Stalin. Unless I add “and Stalin was totally awesome and I endorse him” at the end.

The trouble is that Dawkins didn’t stop with this one tweet. He decided to illustrate his point with some examples. Some really terrible examples.

    Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 5h      Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.     Details         Reply         189 Retweet         287 Favorite  Richard DawkinsVerified account ‏@RichardDawkins  Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.Yep, that’s right. He decided to do what comedians call a “callback” to some terrible comments he made last year about what he perversely described as “mild pedophilia.” And then he added asshattery to asshattery by suggesting a similar distinction between “date rape” and “stranger rape.”

Anyone seeing these comments as insensitive twaddle designed to minimize both “mild” pedophilia and date rape has good reason to do so. As you may recall, in the earlier controversy about so-called “mild” pedophilia, Dawkins told an interviewer for the Times magazine that

I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.

He went on to tell the interviewer that when he was a child one of his school masters had “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.” But, he added, he didn’t think that this sort of “mild touching up” had done him, or any of the classmates also victimized by the teacher, any “lasting harm.”

Huh. If Dawkins says that a teacher groping him was no big deal, I guess this kind of “mild” abuse shouldn’t be a big deal for anyone else, either, huh?

I’m pretty sure there’s some sort of logical fallacy here.

Given his history of minimizing these “mild” sexual crimes, it’s not a surprise that his crass tweets today inspired a bit of a twitterstorm.

Dawkins has responded with his typical petulance, and has stubbornly defended his comments as an exercise in pure logic that his critics are too irrational to understand.

If you take a few moments to go through his timeline you’ll find many more tweets and retweets reiterating this “argument.” Dawkins is not the sort of person to admit to mistakes. Indeed, he so regularly puts his foot in his mouth it’s hard not to conclude that he must like the taste of shoe leather.

But these recurring controversies can’t be doing much for his reputation. Indeed, they seem to cause more and more people to wonder why anyone takes Dawkins seriously on any subject other than biology. Even his critics on Twitter are growing a bit weary.

Seems like it. I’m beginning to wonder why any atheists — at least those who are not also asshats — continue to think of Dawkins as an ally of any kind.

Click my kitty to see the smash hit new blog!

Click my kitty to see the smash hit new blog!

 

The Power of Paint and Powder: Brave Men’s Rights Redditor takes on women and their evil deceptive makeup.

Evil woman preparing for battle.

Evil woman preparing for battle.

 

Ladies, watch out! Men’s Rights Redditor warspite88 is on to you! Your painted faces don’t fool him! Your concealer cannot conceal the truth! He knows your lips aren’t really that red! He knows your eyelids aren’t really that blue!

Yes, that’s right: it’s time for another angry MRA rant explaining to us why women wearing makeup oppresses men, somehow.

In a post with the delightfully over-the-top title “Men’s rights are directly tied to the power of paint and powder. Ill explain,” warspite88 sets forth his theory:

It is my belief that women have become so beautiful through the use of makeup that most women and men are influenced dramatically and view women more as goddess and men as dogs. The power of makeup has helped to fuel a war against men’s basic human rights.

Uh, what?

Read the rest of this entry

Vox Day defeats me in debate with brilliant “you’re a loser who can’t get laid and also women shouldn’t vote” argument

Delusional Gamma Style

Delusional Gamma Style

So apparently I just had a debate with Vox Day?

A couple of days ago, you see, a Twitterer calling himself RedPillPhil suggested I was a bit of a coward for taking on an “easy target” like A Voice for Men rather than taking on the leading intellectual lights of the so-called “Dark Enlightenment” like … Heartiste, and Vox Day … who I actually write about all the time.

My laughter must have carried all the way to, well, wherever Vox Day lives, because Mr. Day soon appeared on Twitter and challenged me to a debate — on women’s right to vote. The very notion of two dudes earnestly debating female suffrage – in 2014, no less – struck me as beyond absurd, so I sent back what I thought was an appropriately dismissive Tweet:

Read the rest of this entry

The Mystery of David Futrelle: Fidelbogen is on the case

The Gestapo-like David Futrelle takes on the principals of Indiscriminate Discriminatory Hatred Elementary School.  Art by  Mavaddat Javid

The Gestapo-like David Futrelle takes on the principals of Indiscriminate Discriminatory Hatred Elementary School. Art by
Mavaddat Javid

If you’ll forgive the self-indulgence here, I thought this little Twitter exchange between some of the Men’s Rights Movement’s top men was too good not to share:

To paraphrase Marge Gunderson, fictional Chief of Police in Brainerd, Minnesota, I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Attila.

EDITED TO ADD: Amazing illustration by Mavaddat Javid, aka @mavaddat on Twitter.

Confused Cats Against Feminism march towards world domination!

My cats in their earlier days, unaware of the internet fame that awaited them. (Greasy fur courtesy of eardrops that were supposed to have remained in the ears.)

My cats in their earlier days, unaware of the internet fame that awaited them. (Greasy fur courtesy of eardrops that were supposed to have remained in the ears.)

I just posted this over on Confused Cats Against Feminism, but I want to share the good news  here as well:

Wow!

My kitties and I are humbled by the response this little blog is getting!

Scratch that bit about the kitties; they’re never humbled by anything.

But I am. Confused Cats Against Feminism has picked up more than 2000 followers in the two days since I announced the blog to the world, and my various inboxes are overflowing with dozens of pics of adorable cats who are very confused about feminism indeed.

So far Confused Cats has been featured on Buzzfeed — thanks, Rachel Zarrell! — The Frisky, and SFWeekly, and the cats and I are preparing for a major interview with an important publication in the cat world. Well, the cats are sleeping, mostly, but it is good to be well-rested.

This amazing response clearly shows that it is not only humans who can be really, really confused about feminism.

And if your cats (or any of your animal friends) are confused antifeminists, SEND MOAR PICS PLEASE! You can submit them here, or by emailing me at futrelle [at] manboobz.com.

Granted, I’m still sorting through all the pics I’ve gotten so far, but like cats I can always use more good things delivered to me. If your pic isn’t up yet, it may well be in the queue.

Oh, and if you like this blog, you might also like my other blog, We Hunted the Mammoth, a slightly less cat-centric look at confused antifeminists, Men’s Rights Activists, and misogyny in general on the internets.

Thanks!

David, Sweetie Pie, and Pantz

PS: If you see this blog mentioned in the media or on website you frequent, could you drop me a note with a link? Thanks!

Amazing! And keep those pics coming!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,052 other followers

%d bloggers like this: