Lesbianism by numbers, courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit. Plus kitties.
They're probably feminists too.
The smirky MRA douchebag thingsarebad didn’t win a lot of friends when he used to comment here. Ironically, it seems that he’s not doing that much better over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, where his comments tend to garner about as many downvotes as upvotes. Yes, it is possible to be too much of a douche for even the highly douche-tolerant Men’s Rights subreddit.
Anyway, all that is a sort of rambling prelude to my main point here, which is: thingsarebad has figured out that whole “lesbian” thing, and wants to share his results with the world. Also, feminism. His science is tight.
Confused a bit by that explanation? Would you like a much, much longer explanation, replete with fake statistics he’s “mentated” out of his ass? Well, prepare yourself a stiff drink and take a look at this megacomment of his from earlier in that same thread.
We’ll just wait here while you digest all that.
Done? Share your thoughts below, or check out the ShitRedditSays discussion of it all.
Or just watch this video of a rather portly cat climbing into a vase.
Hey, I promised a kitty video to someone in the comments here a couple of days ago. I may be a little slow sometimes, but I am a man of my word.
While I’m at it, here’s a bonus vid of a kitty and a Kleenex box.
Posted on November 12, 2011, in antifeminism, douchebaggery, evil women, homophobia, idiocy, kitties, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 362 Comments.
Arguably you could say cis and straight is “boring” because it is normative (and overrepresented in our media and whatnot) but I’d hardly say it’s “normal” more than any other gender/sexuality that exists in the world.
@ ozymandias42: I’m actually curious, do you agree with the idea of gender and sex being separate at all? Some of — I dunno– queer theory and/or shit I’ve read online seems very taken with the idea that sex can be defined externally while gender is about an internal identity, but obviously I’ve read people who are hugely offended at the idea that science can be applied to their bodies at all or that there is such a thing as “sex” on a physical level, and take it to a point that I’ve seen someone describe themselves as a man, with a male body, and a male vagina (the last of which I honestly balked at, because that seems to break the “words have meanings” rule pretty hard… maybe I’m just hitting my bigot wall though.)
I’m not sure what the value is in labelling gender or orientation as normal versus not-normal in general. *
* The potential exception being pedophiles if we’re going to consider that an orientation. If one is orientated towards people who in theory can consent, though, I see no value at all in normal versus not-normal categories. I also think that framing things that way tends to vastly underestimate the number of people whose orientation isn’t as simple as our culture would like to frame it as being. Many bisexual people end up being framed as either gay or straight just because people find that easier to understand, for example.
Bagelsan: Honestly, this is the sound of me not caring. :) I have very little patience for semantics arguments in general, as long as everyone understands what everyone else is talking about.
I tend to use female-assigned, though, because what my body looks like (or looked like when I was born) is not what’s important in 99% of non-medical situations. What matters is that everyone thinks I’m a chick unless I inform them otherwise (and often even then).
I love how Ozymandias is absolutely shocked that people don’t assume that she is some third gender, despite the fact that 99.9% of other people use their “gender-assignment” instead of making massive mountains out of molehills
Also: sex is biological. You are born either male or female. This is not open to debate.
@bagelsan, I know you addressed your question to ozy, and I answer with my own opinions and not hirs, but I’ll give my response to that
No. We assign sex based on gendered notions and assign gender expectations based on those. It is a form of circular definition (seriously, look at how websters defines gender http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and the two cannot therefore be extricated from each other. “Male” and “female” are especially extremely gendered terms. The phrase “female doctor” and “doctor who is a woman” are considered completely interchangeable in English. Even within feminist literature, I have not seen this trend broken, linguistically. Also, the very notion of the need to assign sex and the meanings around it is inherantly related to gender categories.
I don’t like to use other’s oppressions as analogy, so forgive me for this, but are you aware that back in the day when race categories were still on legal documents and Jim Crow was enforced, there were often panics about the race of abandoned children, and some plaintiffs (including the one in Plessey v Ferguson) actually argued that they had been legally classified as the wrong race (the plaintiff in that case was had one black great grandparent and seven white ones, and was declared properly classified as black).
We are taught socially to see these categories which are social ones primarily, but social ones often assigned based on some features of human diversity which are imbued with social meanings (like pigment levels, hair type, genitals, chromosomes, etc.) as somehow being biological reality and “nature”. All of these traits, in body, identity, and behavior, that we say should match up into two neat little binaries do not. The way we discuss “biology” is often extremely clouded by social notions and uses language that is very much wrapped up in those social notions. I want to recommend two pieces on the science of gender that are a bit dated and not on this exact topic, but do explain some of the ground ideas: “The Five Sexes Revisited” but Anne Fausto-Sterling and “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles” by Emily Martin.
It is rather disingenous to claim that “female” is a word that carries no more meaning than “egg cell carrier” de facto linguistically, and factually incorrect to say that there are two discreet biological categories around hormones, chromosomes, and gametes. Let me ask you this, is a cis woman who has a hysterectomy no longer female? After all, she no longer is an egg cell carrier. What about a cis woman with high testosterone from an ovarian tumor, is she no longer female? What about a cis woman who has XY chromosomes and has low T and a functioning uterus and ovaries? Sex is not a mere descriptive scientific category, it is a social one, created through the lense of social gender notions.
This does not match up with my readings in regards to queer theory, esp. ones which had trans people involved in their creation. Let us not confuse cis hetero (and minority cis lesbian and even less cis bi) “liberal feminist” theory with queer theory.
Words do have meanings, yes, but the meanings of these words are derived from and defined by social discourse. Language is in no way immune from social dynamics, in fact, quite the opposite.
There’s a picture of this creep?
Yes, he thinks posting his picture to us will bolster his arguments. He’s overwhelmingly average.
“Douchebag” is a gendered insult. I didn’t know gendered insults were the social justice arsenal.
How is it a gendered insult?
Does anyone know why he thinks his picture, however attractive or not so he may be, will bolster his arguments? Is this like how Brandon thinks that his having a submissive girlfriend means that feminists are wrong about everything?
Douchebags are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the patriarchy. I have no qualms in describing some people as unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the patriarchy.
If memory serves he was comparing a picture of himself to one of David Futrelle in an effort to somehow prove that he (TAB) was more the sort of person you could trust around children.
Huh. I remain baffled as to why the picture would be relevant information.
How is it a gendered insult?
You can’t be serious.
I dunno, the whole thing hinged on stupid stereotypes, I think.
Bitches are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy. I have no qualms in describing some people as unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy.
Oh, you’re back. And you still haven’t responded to any points, Factfinder. I’d ask why that was, but I think we know the answer.
But no, go ahead, explain your statement. I could use the entertainment. In fact, I do in fact have popcorn made for this!
Ozy, what do you mean by “unnecessary?”
Actually the popcorn was made for myself as a regular snack, but I do have it ready nonetheless!
I thought this’d be your fallback.
Putting aside the obvious point that women can not remotely be said to run society, so one can not meaningfully say that we live in a matriarchy (You ignorant buffoon, if you are going to try to mock someone by using their own words, do so correctly), bitch specifically refers to female dogs, and imputes something of both women and canines. The word is used to refer to women, or men who behave like women. Douchebag is one of the many insults employed to refer to any jackass.
Oy. *Begins head desking* What next, are you going to talk about how hairless legs on women are natural?
I mean that douches make vaginas smell all floral and shit, even though vaginas are supposed to smell like vagina. And they cause yeast infections. And they are only sold because the patriarchy makes people feel insecure about their vaginas because they don’t smell like fucking meadows.
Female dogs, on the other hand, are perfectly lovely creatures and neither unhealthy, unnecessary nor tools of the gynarchy.
FactFinder, you can’t be serious. Oh, right, you’re not.
Bitches are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy.
My dog is actually quite healthy, thank you. And I find her highly necessary to important causes like vastly increasing the amount of cute fuzzy awesomeness in my life.
I’m always really amused when dimwits on the internet play this little “I know you are but what am I?” game where they think you can just turn any statement around with complete disregard for what the words actually mean. Douches can be said to be unhealthy because they are bad for the health of people who use them. Why are female dogs unhealthy? Douches can be said to be unnecessary because they do not fulfill any required function? Why are female dogs unnecessary? Douches can be said to be tools of the patriarchy because they are a product whose fundamental marketing message is that having a vagina is a shameful thing that needs to be concealed by making it smell less vagina-like. How on earth can female dogs be said to be a tool of the “gynarchy”?
Words: they fucking mean things! Who knew?
“Knives are a tool of the kitchen”
“Yeah, well, airplane engines are a tool of the gynocentric Welfare system that hurts men. So there! What do you say to that, huh?”
And they are only sold because the patriarchy makes people feel insecure about their vaginas because they don’t smell like fucking meadows.
They might if there’s been enough fucking in the meadow.
Notice how fast FactFinder has moved from finding (well, making up) facts to complaining about what we say and how we treat him? It’s almost as if he, like many of our other trolls, doesn’t actually care what’s true or not, only how people on the internet treat him.
I believe this is our friend thingsarebad:
http://en.gravatar.com/jeremiahmra
Huh. Totally average, slightly nerdy, appears to be balding a little prematurely. How are pictures of him supposed to prove that he’s right about anything, exactly?
Even if he were David Bowie that doesn’t mean his opinions are even remotely approaching correct.
Jeez, has this idiot ever actually spoken to a gay person of either sex? Or someone who simply doesn’t think of themselves as straight, bisexual or gay at all?
Maybe if he had a respectful, friendly conversation with one he might learn something useful about human sexuality, but I doubt that he could manage the “respectful” or the “friendly” part.
Again we’re back to the Brandon idea of “if I don’t fit your/someone’s mental profile of a total loser that means that my ideas must be valid”. It’s weird. It’s such an adolescent way to look at things.
David, did you know that mocking people who you depict as unloved and unstable is a tool in your social justice arsenal? I love how you like to have your cake and eat it too – we’re unstable crazies who will become the next Marc Lepine any second now but we need to be mocked and derided to forward social justice. You cannot actually believe both of these things at the same time unless you are a psychotic and malicious bastard. I think that you just have a pathological attraction to the feminist movement because of experiences in your life and can only see it as something good and pure.
But enough speculation. Is your type of incongruity the reason that feminist men like yourself earn less for the same work? Or is it because every man who makes more money is evil and cruel and has to do it at the expense of someone else?
*as something good and pure, and a cause which must be forwarded by any means possible, deception included.
Fun fact: I am not David Futrelle, and my goals and methods. don’t necessarily have anything to do with his.
Your continued inability to read for comprehension is nobody’s problem but your own.
Strawmen for 500, Alex.
I think I got to this one, he keeps desperately trying to use what I said against feminism XD
That’s nice, Rutee. Did you get that out of your system?
Maybe. Ya actually gonna respond to a word anyone says, or just keep trying to lob fruit from under your bridge? ^.^
FactFinder versus Strawfeminist, round one.
Strawfeminist wins by default since it’s hard to get a really good hit in on something that only exists in your head.
Surely not you, my question was not even addressed to you and you still think you’re entitled to a sizable chunk of my time.
That’s cute, you’re acting like that was your first post here! But do you have any better tricks?
Wow, this troll is even more boring than Brandon.
OK I’ve locked in only 45 minutes of MRA blog reading today, hundreds of comments and dozens referring to, again, Islam as its coming saviour and an example of a religion “doing it right”.
An example;
Escoffier says:
November 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Interestingly, there is (scattered) anecdotal evidence of Western women in Europe, the UK and to a lesser extent in the US falling for orthodox Muslim men, wearing the veil, going to mosques, etc. and some of what they say is along the lines of “These Muslims are real men.” Islam is inherently more masculine than Christianity anyway, even if you could make modern Christianity somehow less feminized, its internal issues would still be a problem.
I’ll fully admit that I don’t have a good grasp on different orientations of sexuality and gender. I didn’t know what a genderqueer is until i started reading here. So, I treat, refer to and regard people the way they feel comfortable. If someone prefers gender neutral pronouns, or someone who outwardly appears to be female prefers to be referred to as male, of course, I’m going to respect their wishes. Why wouldn’t I?
I realize that I’m fortunate that my inward feelings about my gender match up with my physical body and that nobody would ever have a problem refering to me as a female, which is how I identify. I see no reason why everyone should extend the same respect to those who don’t match up to social steriotypes.
It all boils down to respect for fellow human beings, which seems to be something in quite short supply these days.
I really don’t understand how the use of people’s preferred pronouns is a debate that’s still happenning. If a person says “call me a”, why would you insist on calling them b instead? What purpose does that serve, and why is your desire to call them b more important then their preference that you address them as a instead? Even if you don’t understand trans issues at all, or you’re completely unfamiliar with them, how do the basic rules of social etiquette not prevail here? You address people in whatever way they indicate that they would like to be addressed. If you refuse to do so you’re being an asshole, regardless of your thoughts/feelings/opinions on trans issues.
“these days” nova?
I have found that if people are not religous and not extream like radfems or MRAs, they are generally accepting of peoples orentation or self identity. It’s getting better even if it is still bad right now. But I would not choose to live in any days before these days. They intolerance was way worse then.
“Interestingly, there is (scattered) anecdotal evidence of Western women in Europe, the UK and to a lesser extent in the US falling for orthodox Muslim men, wearing the veil, going to mosques, etc. and some of what they say is along the lines of “These Muslims are real men.” ”
Hah, I’d love to hear what feminists have to say about that. Would they consider them traitors for proving that there are other women, and plenty at that, who actually prefer a, ahem, “patriarchy”? And based on my own research, these are even modern secular Western women who don’t have the excuse that they were brainwashed due to being born and raised in a Xtian fundy culture.
Honestly, Aloren, with the shit I see and deal with every day, I’m starting to wonder if there’s a huge portion of the human population being raised by wolves. While people are becoming more sensitive to certain issues, it seems very much like general respect for other human beings has been replaced with a “MEMEMEMEMEME fucking ME” mentality.
Maybe it’s due to the horrendous economy, maybe it’s class warfare, maybe it’s the “speshul snoflayke” mentality run amok. But… general respect is sorely lacking and the “imma shit on others to make myself feel better” nonsense is more and more pervasive.
Which is why there’s even a discussion on using someone’s preferred pronouns or gender terms. Because the speshul snoflaykes of the world can’t be bothered to step outside of their own selfishness long enough to have two seconds of respect for someone else.
And, while there are some areas that are more accepting of sexual and gender preferences, there’s still a very large part of the world that would rather beat up and trans person, than try to understand them or even extend them basic courtesy.
BROM-
As a feminist, I don’t care what lifestyle other women want to live.
I just care that they had the right to choose.
It was pointed out some days ago on another thread that Westerners converting to Islam are in most cases swapping one form of patriarchal religion for another, specifically a highly misogynistic one which demands submission from men and women alike – but since the testimony of a Muslim man is viewed as equal as that of two women, presumably women are supposed to be twice as submissive? I don’t know how that’s supposed to work, but the repressiveness of a religion says nothing about specific followers, who may be good people in spite of what the religious culture demands. Islamic culture is far from homogenous, and this anecdote sounds like a bad attempt to generalise from small numbers, and sometimes a proportion of converts embrace a religion more zealously (for want of a better word) than many who grew up within it, so this could merely be a statement reflective of those type of converts. Feminism extends to equality for all women – even those that are in thrall to a wicked religion that would denigrate them as half the value of men.
Your research isn’t very good, is it? You do realize that, aside from the Haj, these women are still ultimately living in their parent culture, which means they generally still have great freedom in their personal lives, and the patriarchy is more like normal USian patriarchy, yes?
@NC4OM: Get a fucking hobby you single-minded bigot. We’re going to have to play this fucking derail game again thanks to you.
I strongly suspect this is rose tinted lenses at work, to be honest. THat is, the tendency to say “No, now is worse, it was okay before”
Part of fighting kyriarchy means recognizing that, as there are many branches of feminism, there are many branches of Islam; many adherents in the western world, unsurprisingly, are more secular, less patriarchal, and not really as “Other” as is generally treated in the US and Europe. You do feminism no service in lashing out against a minority group and treating them as some sort of ogre. Yes, there are fundamentalist muslims, some in the US and Europe, and they still treat women horrendously. They are also not the sum and total of the religion, especially not in the western world.
“I strongly suspect this is rose tinted lenses at work, to be honest. THat is, the tendency to say “No, now is worse, it was okay before””
For myself, I think it’s more of a “Society may suck in a different way now, but it still sucks,” issue. It’s kind of like the story of the child who stuck zir finger in the dam and another leak sprung somewhere else. Strides are made in one arena, and there’s a huge step back in another. While I acknowledge and celebrate the victories won, I still see that there are a whole lot issues still to be dealt with.
But how does the cat get out of the vase?
“You do realize that, aside from the Haj, these women are still ultimately living in their parent culture, which means they generally still have great freedom in their personal lives, and the patriarchy is more like normal USian patriarchy, yes?”
And how long before they start to demand Shariah once they reach critical mass? They’re not even in the majority yet and they’re already radicalized (especially in certain parts of Europe), what more when they are? (See Indonesia),
As Mistress of Hounds I heartily cosign this. Dogs of any gender are wonderful companions, even for really stupid MRAs!
As for the hissy fit over Ozy’s pronouns, personally I feel like you don’t have to magically know what pronouns someone prefers, but if they say “Hey, actually I’m male/trans/genderqueer/agender and I would prefer to be called he/she/zie/ou/X/whatever” you say “Oh, OK,” then refer to them as their identified gender and call them by their preferred pronoun. Because even if you don’t get it or don’t care, there’s no call to be rude about it.
That’s not queer theory, that’s just manners. Sheesh.
Probably never, in a meaningful sense. Islam couldn’t reach majority status in any western country without discarding such a thought.
Of course some of them are radicalized; they are treated as evil regardless of what they do. That kind of villification tends to create more radicals.
What of Indonesia? The province of their’s that is Sharia, or the rest of the country? Bear in mind the country is a mishmash of a number of distinct, historically seperate cultures when trying to speak of the whole…
Proof that cats are made of liquid =D
Also, what is the point of making up a bunch of statistics? What possible kick could he get out of being completely wrong?
I think the whole “preferred pronouns” thing is a bit silly, but who cares? Why does my opinion carry any extra weight? If a thing is a bit silly to me, but it means something to someone else, my less-strongly-held position loses by default. If a thing isn’t really of great concern to me and does me no harm, and important to other people, my attitude towards it isn’t valuable outside of my own head. Beyond the whole misogyny/privilege/evil/whatever discussion, the whole idea of taking hard-line stands against things that shouldn’t even matter to you just strikes me as stupid posturing.
Or, you know, go away and stop talking to people who you can’t even pretend to show a little respect to. Either/or.
@MRAL: Also: sex is biological. You are born either male or female. This is not open to debate.
Except for the people who aren’t: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
And their actual lived human existence isn’t open to debate either. As usual, your complete and utter pig ignorance of anything beyond your immediate situation is showing.
And genital sex is not always the same as chromosomal sex:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm
Short version: you know nothing about the complex realities of the world and are hiding out in your simplistic little binary fantasy.
I know Muslim feminists, I have even met a Muslim woman who wore hijab and was a *gasp* feminist lawyer.
I have also met a shit ton of Christians who try to strip away women’s rights, an entire church full of people who forced their daughters/FAAB kids to wear skirts at all times, seen massive Christian homophobia, etc.
Pretending that Christianity is better than Islam is silly, and pretending that the political issues in the middle east are totally divorced from imperialistic and colonialist history is bullshit. Who armed and trained the taliban so that they could take over a country in the 90s? Guess what, not the Muslims, the freaking heavily Christian dominated US, because US officials saw the taliban as a helpful tool in their obsessive hate of the Soviets.
I have also met a shit ton of Christians who try to strip away women’s rights, an entire church full of people who forced their daughters/FAAB kids to wear skirts at all times, seen massive Christian homophobia, etc.
My pet theory is that this is the real driver behind all that far-right Islamophobia: jealousy. The shit-ton of Christians you mention are pissed that their vision of a patriarchal, homophobic, sex-negative world isn’t allowed in the countries where Christianity is predominant, whereas there are Muslim-dominated areas where women are in fact forced to cover themselves ‘modestly’, are the property of their fathers and husbands, have no real say in their lives, etc. etc.
I know a Muslim radical feminist. Just try to claim around her that Islam is inherently patriarchal. Just try. She will fuck your shit up.
And Rambo III now looks very different. “Rambo as Al-Qaeda enabler” probably wasn’t part of the game plan, but that’s how history has ensured that it’s ended up.
(Full disclosure: I haven’t actually seen it)
Oh, and my pronoun is “zie”, for the curious.
You are one lucky person, wetherby, my younger brother loved that movie as a kid, I have seen it dozens of times and it totally sucks.
Thank you for linking to the actual comment thread rather than taking things entirely out of context as the SRS poster did. Enjoy!
I feel I should draw your attention to this supplementary comment made by thingsarebad in response to one of his critics.
“Jeez, has this idiot ever actually spoken to a gay person of either sex? Or someone who simply doesn’t think of themselves as straight, bisexual or gay at all?”
Um, yes, I know plenty of gay people, and homosexuality and bisexuality runs in my family, so I know plenty about the nature and nurture argument, when it comes to males. I was an active participant in the leadership team in the LGBT group at work. Admittedly I don’t know a large sampling of lesbians and so I am utilizing external information more for my categorization of gay women. If anyone would like to contribute to the discussion, please do, as I am trying to get closer to the truth. Do realize, however, that anti-male feminists are not exactly a reliable source of commentary on this subject, and so the information I have from other sources will weigh more heavily on my calculations than your input. Admittedly, it would be best if I had more personal experience with lesbians, but given that many MRAs, whose positions are rational on other topics and I therefore consider reliable, have shared their experiences, I feel I’ve made a good first estimate.
Oh, and you mentioned people who don’t think of themselves as straight or bi or gay at all. Well, I’m not really interested in what they *think* of themselves, I’m interested in how they actively behave. And I am limiting my focus to those who think of themselves as homosexual and, indeed, bisexual. As I said in the original, it lacks nuance.
Now you will note that after further consideration I realized Group B homosexuals are actually folks who have a sort of malleable sexuality: they have a range of homosexual, bisexual, or straight sexual behaviors that are most appropriate for their psyche. Their behaviors is heavily influenced by external factors. For example, a boy in Group B who has no father figure and is raised by a single mom is more likely to turn out effeminate and gay than a boy in Group B who is raised by a mother and a traditional father, who is more likely to turn out masculine and straight.
I’d have thought that MRAs would be the least reliable source of information about lesbians, bar none, for reasons too obvious to need explaining to 99% of Manboobz readers. What on earth makes you think otherwise?
And do you really not see the utter absurdity of attempting to theorize about a subject which, by your own admission, you know very very little?
But Wetherby, talking to a bunch of heterosexual men with negative attitudes about women is a GREAT way to learn about lesbians! Certainly better than actually, like, talking to lesbians themselves!