Make me an LGBT sandwich, hold the L. And the T.
Some clubs are TOO exclusive.
“Kloo2yoo,” the moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights Subreddit, is worried that racists in his subreddit will give Men’s Rights a bad name. So he’s put out a call to some of the more artistic readers of the subreddit to come up with a nice new logo for it, to show how broad-minded and all-inclusive Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers really are. Well, not literally all-inclusive. As Kloo put it in his call for artiistic help:
New logo needed, to emphasize racial and lgbt inclusiveness, but not feminism.
Oh, but even that turned out to be a bit too inclusive for some of the commenters there. Specifically, they objected to the “L” portion of LBGT. And some of the Ts. As white_cloud put it:
I don’t think you need to appeal to the L in LGBT. It is well-known that lesbians are the most radical of all feminists. They will never feel welcome here and we should not go out of our way to make them feel welcome. Male to female trans pretty much the same thing. They’ve already renounced their male gender, they don’t care about male rights
Scott2508 concurred:
ok i am in favour of inclusivness and im not sure if i am going to word this right so stick with me , the one thing i am curious about is how we bring ourself in line with the lesbian [angle] of it all simply due to the hostility that can arise from that community towards men
Kloo replied:
point taken. we can embrace lesbian mras, without embracing lesbian supremacists.
Apparently these are the only types of lesbians in the world.
In any case, despite these design constraints, I have come up with what I think is a very compelling logo that I think will convey just what Kloo would like to convey. What do you think, guys?
Posted on June 27, 2011, in antifeminism, homophobia, I am making a joke, MRA, reddit, transphobia. Bookmark the permalink. 358 Comments.
At what point will MRAs just start putting plywood clubhouses together and hang signs that say “NO GURLZ ALOWED!”?
Gorgeous!
Although, and stick with the logic train here, if they really wanted to be more inclusive they could just… start seeing women/everyone as people? That’s half the population included right there. Not everyone is an antagonist, though I don’t think they’ll be ok with seeing it that way.
Also, David, I tried setting up an IRC- how do you feel about that? Are you ok with it?
A friend of mine makes BLTs with a chunky guacamole instead of mayo. He calls them GLBTs, I know that this is not a particularly helpful bit of information, but I wanted to share it.
Highy reasonable, IMO. I don’t have a problem with lesbians in the sense of them being homosexual, or MTF transsexuals in the sense of them being, well, trans. But they’re women, and there’s no need for the MRAs to appeal to women, just like how fymynysts like to say over and over and over that feminism “isn’t here to appeal to men”. Well sure, then shut up about this.
I guess a cool logo is a better way to make people feel included than, say, not being racists who hate gay people. Rebranding!
Where are these feminists who are against men. And it depends on how one is using, “appeal”. If by appeal one means, “gives them a warm fuzzy” then no, they oughtn’t be looking to that as being what they are there for.
But it appeal means, “make arguments that persuade” you better believe it. If the MRA community is actively excluding people who don’t agree… they aren’t going to convince many of them to start agreeing.
That’s just stupid politics.
Consider most feminists answer with a sarcastic “waahhh, wahhh, what about teh menz?” when asked to consider men and their issues, yeah, it’s a bit hypocritical to mock these guys for excluding feminists/lesbians/whatever.
Maybe “fymynysts” say that, but feminists understand that feminism is about equality and understand how sexism hurts both sexes, not just women.
The problem with attitudes like yours and the MRAs this blog is about is that you see it as a battle for supremacy instead of equality.
If actual men’s rights advocates want people to take their concerns seriously, it has to start with not painting women as the enemy, to dump the misogyny, to appeal to women. I can tell you that I care a lot more about what someone is going through if they’re spending most of their time making me out to be a hateful caricature.
To effect change, you need allies. You don’t get those by throwing rocks at the people who are willing to help and screaming at them to go away.
Right on, Ion!
Feminism is here to appeal to whoever likes it, regardless of the state of their genitalia/gender identity/presentation/whatever. Some of the people it appeals to are men. Though, you’re going to go on thinking we all despise men, in spite of the many, many anecdata laid before you. I think the MRA is going to have a tough time appealing to people outside of their current narrows scope because they’re xenophobic. I mean, seriously- one of their terms is “thugboy”. I bet African-American men will really appreciate that being thrown around in a movement they might want to belong to. Or all the citing of the rates of single motherhood “in the ghetto” (not that you do that, MRAL, but a lot of other MRAs do).
And I bet that gay men will really appreciate people like those in the last post telling them that they really do want women, not men, because ew, and those ladies just won’t give it up. And I’m sure all varieties of gender non-comformists and gay men and lesbian women will really appreciate the heavy insistence on traditional gender roles and one-man-one-woman marriage ideals.
The MRM isn’t a movement designed to be inclusive.
That Lonnie, he’s such an alpha.
Unless he’s short.
But he still has super hunting privilege.
He could probably bring home some mammoth.
If mammoths weren’t extinct.
Maybe a bear.
Do people eat bear?
Intersectionality is hard.
Fuck Lonnie. (Or don’t based on your own personal preferences.)
Ion, I do see that sarcasm quite often. But you know where I see it? In blog posts and news articles about women’s issues. When men keep derailing comment threads to make it about them, then yeah, “what about Teh Menz?!?”
If items about GBLTQ rights kept getting derailed by heterosexuals bringing up issues concerning them, you’d also keep seeing “what about Teh Straightz?!?”
Ion, did you not read Ozy’s “No, really, what about the menz?” post? I agree with a lot of what she says in it. I know other feminists who do, too. It’s just that not all of us want to ego stroke every dude who comes along who wants us to drop all of our (actually, very important) issues to talk about child support, the idea of false rape accusations(bullharkey), or paper abortions, for example. In that vein, I, personally, would love to see men being ridiculed less for being Stay-at-homers, and generally good, loving, emotionally bonded fathers. I mean, look at the feminists who write for The Good Men Project.
It’s just that you don’t agree with our goals, and you don’t like that we want to advance women and men together in this process, so you discount it.
The gay thing was just speculation. It’s not blaming gay men for their actions at all, whatever they want is fine with the MRM, a highly INclusive movement. But a movement that bans harmless speculation (done in a highly respectful manner) is starting to sound totalitarian (much like feminism).
Secondly, “thug” doesn’t specifically refer to a black man, the dictionary backs me up there. I’ve literally never heard someone take offense to the word.
It’s nice to have a like-minded individual that shares my politics, Ion. Stick around.
Dang it, Futrelle! How did I end up on moderation again?!?
Paper abortions- Very reasonable proposal, ultimately impractical but I totally understand the issue. In this sense it’s much like feminists and their “rape is men’s problem” fucking stupid manifesto. It’s not, because it affects hardly any men, so it’s illogical and not helpful in solving any problem. However, I can see how it gets people THINKING about the rape issue. Even if paper abortions are not practical it gets people THINKING about men’s rights
I can say I personally would not appreciate someone speculating on my sexual preferences/the causes thereof. Especially without my input. I’d say it’s harmful, cause it’s not really paying attention to all those gay dudes who are like “But no really, I think men are pretty”, and it’s instead saying “NOPE, YOU LIKE THEM BECAUSE OF THIS REASON WE THOUGHT UP WITHOUT YOUR INPUT”.
Even still, the MRM seems to think rigid, traditional, binary gender roles are the way to go, and LGBTQ people are really probably not invested in those in any way, because those roles exclude them so completely.
I said MOST. Ozy’s an exception. As for the rest of it, you are still dismissing and discounting men’s issues. It’s like, their issues aren’t important unless you say they are, because you’re… superior beings or something? Anyway, that’s not what I’m arguing about, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of smugly pointing fingers at those who exclude others, when feminists have been doing it quite happily for decades.
I’ve always felt that the L and T should be removed from LGBT in general, though for different reasons than Kloo, that being that they simply seem incongruous with the rest. For one, trans isn’t really a sexuality, since you get straight and gay trans people. It’s related, but a seperate phenomena. Lesbianism also technically isn’t a sexuality since there’s no real sex involved, given that the act is biologically impossible between two females. The extended foreplay between two ‘gay’ females is a far cry from the real sex experienced by a man or a woman or a man and a man, and therefore calling it a legitimate sexuality is a stretch.
Really I think GBQ works better as a more succinct and consistent acronym for alternate-sexuality based communities.
Dude, even if we go with your “MOST”, with only Ozy and myself, and the other commenters here? It’s more than the MRM can claim. Many posters on these forums advocate violence against women who step outside of the lines these dudes want to define for them. There are also people (David K Meller, anyone?) in this movement, at present, who think that women never mature past adolescence, intelligence wise. Who say we deserve the violation of rape. Et cetera. Is feminism the most inclusive club out there? Not necessarily, and not all the time. We’re human, we err. But the feminism I practice is pretty damn inclusive.
Are men’s issues important? Depends on the issue. In relation to the violence/discrimination/erasing/indifference carried out against other groups? In my mind, no. Hypothetically: In my opinion, the dude who thinks custody isn’t fair, can get in line behind the trans* kids who get beat up, the women who get raped and taunted by the police, The DV victims of both genders, and the dudes who perform toxic masculinity to be accepted. As the beginning of a long list of examples.
Arksibalt, I can’t even start to unpack that. What I can say is that, unless you’re a member of that community, you don’t get to define it. The members of the community reserve that right.
Arksibalt, you seem to be saying the sex requires a penis. Is that your contention?
Arksibalt:
That is completely true if you are comfortable with defining sex solely based on what happens to penises. But that disappears everyone who has intimate relationships but does not have a penis, and disappears men whose penises don’t work as well as they would like or as well as they used to.
What is the upside of defining sex that way? What is the downside of a more inclusive definition?
Sex needs a penis like a fish needs water.
Are men’s issues important? [...] In my mind, no.
The feminist shows its true colors at last. See, if you wait long enough, eventually the lies will waver for a second and you can see the rampant and vicious misandry that was always lying beneath the surface.
And you claim to be a moderate feminist! No wonder the MRM despises you guys.
We understand your point, Arksibalt. But *why* do you think that’s true?
Tabby: Derailing issues, exactly. ANd the exact same thing will happen in spaces dedicated to anti-racist and support by people of color, for people of color–white people want to come in and make it all about them.
The thing is, there have to be BOTH safe and controlled spaces AND coalition spaces–and coalition is hard and difficult and dangerous while safe and controlled spaces while necessary can sometimes be too insular. That’s why BOTH and MORE are necessary–not just ONE.
Bernice Johnson Reagon “Coalition Politics”
http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/bernice-johnson-reagon-coalition-politics-turning-the-century/
And yeah, having a fancy pants logo won’t do much if the racist language (and “thugboy” and “ghetto” are both racist) continues to be used in the postings and discussions.
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish, some fish don’t need all that much water.
MRAL, way to remove context.
MRAL: There is a huge difference between dictionary definitions (and most dictionaries support the controlling ideologies) and connotations–the associations people have with words because of how they are used in real life. You are a white man. You will not be aware of racist meanings in terms because you don’t have to be, you’ve never been the target of them (ditto sexism–like “screeching” which is mostly applied to women, and has lots of sexist usage).
Plus, appealing to a basic dictionary definition in an internet argument is a fast way to a lose–I spend a lot of time telling my students in first year comp NOT to use basic dictionary definitions even if they had to use them in high school because the complex nuances of multiple definitions are part of complicated arguments, and trying to settle things with a basic definition (one that does not go into the history of the word–like the Oxford English Dictionary–showing how meanings of words change over time and how they’re used) is a quick way to a failing grade.
MRAL, way to remove context.
I don’t think I removed context at all. You said, compared to “other groups” (presumably pretty much everyone except men and maybe whites), men’s issues are unimportant. Pretty fucking cut and dry to me.
@filetofswedishfish
“Ion, did you not read Ozy’s “No, really, what about the menz?” post? I agree with a lot of what she says in it.”
Yea I read her post, it started of with the same self serving women are perfection crap and quickly went downhill. Her BIG plan is to allow men to be more like women without being shamed. Oh how lucky can men get?
Just like where you said
“In that vein, I, personally, would love to see men being ridiculed less for being Stay-at-homers, and generally good, loving, emotionally bonded fathers. I mean, look at the feminists who write for The Good Men Project.”
Right off the bat men aren’t good loving fathers, we can do soooo much better. If only men were as perfect as women. Same shit as Ozzy. And the good men project makes an excellent morning douche to start off you feminist day. Shit I was banned from that site on day one. Just more of the same old men are shit, women are perfection incarnate, try being more like them.
Save it princess. Take all your LGBTQWXYZ gang, along with the feminist hive and run to the State to decide what you’ll enact as morality laws.
Lesbianism also technically isn’t a sexuality since there’s no real sex involved, given that the act is biologically impossible between two females.
HAHAHAH!
But the main problem is you confuse sexuality or sexual identification with the act of sex — virgins have sexuality and sexual identities.
And lesbians are perfectly capable of having sex.
Okay ithiliana, fine. I just don’t think that “thug” carries any racist connotations. That word is used all the time to describe criminals, pirates, al Qaeda, whatever. It carries no objectionable baggage.
Arksibalt, I really do not understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Could you perhaps tell us how you came to postulate that a penis is required for sex? I think you may want to collect more preliminary data before even making the hypothesis that led you to your conclusion, as I can personally attest to the existence of sex that does not involve a penis.
Same with “ghetto”. Seriously, WTF? Sure, I guess it can be used in a racist way (“hey, there are black people there, what a ghetto”) but it’s a pretty widely used word that describes any cesspool from Depression-era Hoovervilles to Calcutta. Get some fucking perspective.
NWO- Gladly. But you can’t come in our blanket fort.
MRAL: Yeah, of course in relation to other groups. Those other groups are facing real risks of violence, not to mention other, less obvious, discriminations. The big problems need to get fixed first, and we can move on to people who are suffering less. And if you can looked at the people I listed as examples, there’s plenty of men included. You’re just pissy that I’m not centered around your definition of men’s issue, and not properly concerned about something that affects quality of life a lot less than you think, and a lot less than other people’s lives get damaged.
filet – “Feminism is here to appeal to whoever likes it, regardless of the state of their genitalia/gender identity/presentation/whatever.”
Excellent.
Ion/MRAL – Yes, there are feminists who want to exclude men (Twisty Faster is one example.) However, for the more moderate feminists – and that’s most of us – DO want our spaces to be inclusive. Just because some people identifying as feminist want to keep men out doesn’t mean that the rest of us need to subscribe to that, nor does it make their opinions somehow more “official” than ours. You are doing a disservice to many on the board by lumping us in with the male-exclusive radfems.
Plenty of people – men and women alike – care about men’s issues, or are at least open enough to be willing to learn about them. Honestly, I think the MRM would gain a lot of traction if it did become more inclusive, more open, and more tolerant of diversity. Help you ditch the bitter misogynist stereotype, y’know?
Also, MRAL, re: your filet quote – that’s what we call “quote mining.” Context matters, you completely changed it by omitting a key part of the sentence. That’s cheap.
Take a look at all the acts which two women can do with each other. It shouldn’t take too much examination to realise that what consitutes as ‘sex’ for lesbians would just be ‘foreplay’ for normal people. It’s restrained, inconclusive half-sex and they simply cannot progress to the next level without the presence of cock. Yes, there are strapons, but a plastic dick is as artificial as their sexuality.
Arksibalt – so, in your opinion, oral sex isn’t sex?
Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, feminists don’t want no steenking men.
http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/guest-post-julie-bindel/#more-1185
I am becoming increasingly wild with rage and frustration at the mantra introduced into common feminist parlance, which goes: “We have to include men” and “we need men on board.”
also, the fact that you consider PiV sex “the next level” – as if it were some sort of defined hierarchy (dear god, the ridiculous “base” system) is interesting.
As long as the MRM is rebranding they should just rename it the Abuser’s Lobby and call it a day. Truth in advertising!! ( not likely to happen, though)
“Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, feminists don’t want no steenking men.”
Some feminists do, some feminists don’t. Just because one feminist doesn’t want to include men doesn’t mean we all feel the same way, or that the No Men version of feminism is somehow the canon one.
Yeah, of course in relation to other groups. Those other groups are facing real risks of violence, not to mention other, less obvious, discriminations. The big problems need to get fixed first, and we can move on to people who are suffering less.
Firstly, this is pretty much the end of feminism, because under this logic we should suspend all activism until the many poverty-stricken peoples of Africa are administered permanent aid. They have it eight billion times worse (women AND men) than the privileged arrogant fymynyst fembots sitting on their fat asses and bitching on internet blogs.
Secondly, this is the fundamental reason MRAs and feminists will not get along. Men do not have it better than women (this is why the MRM exists, Christ). Furthermore, the gendered problems are too intertwined to fairly “focus on” one gender over the other, because you just end up fucking one (read: men) over. MRAs recognize this and would like to work with men’s gender issues, because feminists sure as FUCK aren’t going to do that, as you’ve pretty much just admitted.
Thirdly, just admit that these “other groups” are basically everyone except the male gender.
As long as the MRM is rebranding they should just rename it the Abuser’s Lobby and call it a day.
You’re a misandrist, a shamer, a slanderer, a liar, and a fucking idiot.
Yeah, it gets them thinking about how men’s rights is a movement that fights for things that are ultimately bad for children, bad for communities, and only good for men who want the taxpayers to cover their asses.
Come on. You can do better than that. There are important men’s issues that should be addressed. Why do you guys always have to marginalize yourselves?
Julie Bindel is a pretty classic fymynyst. Fuck her, obviously, but I mean, she’s pretty par for the course, so whatever.
The MRM exists because domestic abusers and child rapists want to continue to victimize people without being punished.
“Feminism is here to appeal to whoever likes it, regardless of the state of their genitalia/gender identity/presentation/whatever.”
That would be communists, people who want to destroy the family, (or rewrite some raunch fantasy of a family). And people who want to transfer all social, political and economic power from men to women with the State as the ultimate authority.
Where do I sign up!!!
To put it in simple terms (involving food metaphors, since I know lesbians/femynists love stuffing their faces). Straight sex and gay male sex is like going to a restaurant and ordering garlic bread as a starter, then steak and then a dessert. A satisfying full meal. While lesbian sex is like going to a restaurant and ordering just the garlic bread. Could you live healthily on just garlic bread? I don’t fucking think you could.
Some feminists do, some feminists don’t. Just because one feminist doesn’t want to include men doesn’t mean we all feel the same way, or that the No Men version of feminism is somehow the canon one.
Why do you want to be associated with a rabid hate movement ? Why are those hateful bitches not ostracized ?
Because you must secretly agree with it, but are as as overt with it as them!
[THREATENING COMMENT REMOVED. MRAL IS NOW ON MODERATION --DF]
People have noticed Arksibalt’s phallicentric definition of sex, but what’s with the scare quotes around “gay” in “‘gay’ females”?
Even if you only define sex to include a penis, lesbians being sexually attracted to other women (despite their inability to act on that per your definition) makes it a sexuality.
At least you included man on man sex. That makes your definition one step better than high school virgins who do every combination except penis in vagina in order to save themselves for marriage because anal and oral aren’t really “sex”.
“It’s restrained, inconclusive half-sex and they simply cannot progress to the next level without the presence of cock.”
You know, normally I don’t talk about my personal life much, but in this case I feel the situation demands it.
My wife and I have a partner, a woman we’ve been with for three years now. Partner can touch the tip of her own nose with her tongue. Restrained, inconclusive and artificial? You wish.
Arksibalt – Yes, we understand your opinion. But that analogy does not explain what defining features PiV sex has that makes it at a higher “level” than other forms of sex. What if someone prefers oral sex to penetration? What about people who can’t orgasm from penetration?
luke123 – No, Luke, my point is that it is NOT a hate movement – it unfortunately has some hateful people associated with it, but they are not the majority.
Everyone: a couple of comments from Tabby got caught in moderation; they’re up now.
Tabby, not sure why they got caught; if you were posting from a different IP address that could be it.
MRAL- There are feminists who go to Africa to help those people. There are feminists there, too, who are completely capable of being activists on their own, without Western interference, though we obviously have the advantage in capital. Assuming Westerners need to swoop in and solve their every problem is sort of like another form of colonialism. That’s why the best efforts are cooperation between local, on the ground people, AND the UN and Western governments. As to getting “off my fat ass”? I plan to do some sort of political aid work in a Third World country, once I finally get my degree, and no longer work for minimum wage. Until then, I have neither the skill set or capital to do much more than watch, helplessly and sadly. Except maybe to write and speak out.
And yeah, the other groups are women, but they’re also gay groups (which includes men), people of color(including men), among others. Men are included, but like I said, you’re just pissy I’m not centered wholly on *your* definitions, and what *you* define as problems. Also, if you’re an MRA, you’re really not helping the inclusiveness with the language you use about women. Saying fat asses, and “fuck her” is really going make lots of women think twice, and you’re not the only MRA who talks that way.
[COMMENT DELETED BY DF]
Gee, MRAL. You’re not exactly refuting Julie Bindel’s point there. If you disagree with her, then don’t write a violent, expletive-filled comment that makes her point for her.
Actually, can the second one be deleted too? I just don’t want to talk about her.
When the kids at work have meltdowns, I offer them juice, a handful of raisins, and some ‘Nilla wafers. Somehow I don’t think that will work as well here as it does on 4 year olds.
Also, I see you’re making progress on the inclusivity and language there, MRAL.
It’s just that not all of us want to ego stroke every dude who comes along who wants us to drop all of our (actually, very important) issues to talk about child support, the idea of false rape accusations(bullharkey), or paper abortions, for example.
Men who’ve had their children taken away by biased family courts, or had their lives, careers and reputation destroyed by a false rape accusation might disagree with you. I’m not sure what a ‘paper abortion’ is, but it sounds pretty unpleasant as well. This is what I mean by dismissing men’s issues and essentially saying “we’ll tell you what’s important”. Unfortunately, the same type of thinking permeates sites like The Good Men Project, which is essentially run by feminists with a feminist agenda. Though I’m not as extreme as NWO, I do detect quite a bit of “men are bad, they should be more like women” type of thinking even on those supposedly male-friendly sites. I’ll leave it at this, because we’re going off-topic already.
David, I’m at work, but I’ve posted from work before. The IP address may have changed here though. If I create a WP account should that keep that from happening again regardless of where I’m posting from?
@theLaplaceDemon….Of course it’s a hate movement. Thats how it started out and the hatred grows everyday. UNless of course your going to tell me that since women have more rights in all social, political and economic spheres of society women are oppressed. What is the less time if any for the same crime a tad tough on you? Poor baby.
Women were never oppressed. Say and free yourself from the bonds of eternal victimhood.
“Yes, we understand your opinion. But that analogy does not explain what defining features PiV sex has that makes it at a higher “level” than other forms of sex. What if someone prefers oral sex to penetration? What about people who can’t orgasm from penetration?”
Laplace, I’m betting Arksibalt is one of those dumbshits who thinks it’s not a REAL orgasm if the Almighty Cock isn’t involved.
Well, Luke, why do you want to be associated with a rabid hate movement? Show me some moderate MRAs, please.
I know it’s hard for you to understand, but feminists are not a monolithic bloc, no matter how much you seem to think we are.
O_o
…BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA hahahahahahahahaa HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
if you are decent you will stop colluding in the actions of those feminists you consider the palatable ones, and will heed the words of those of us who still have your number.
Translation: Unless you suck my politically and metaphorical dick you are a horrible person.
Nice try Julie, but since you yourself have proven to be a horrible, fucking repulsive, fucking disgusting person, that blackmail holds no weight. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. FUCK you.