Male-strom in a Teacup
No, not THAT kind of “male study.”
“Men’s Studies” has existed as an academic discipline for several decades now. Not surprisingly, most of those involved in it identify themselves as feminists – as people interested in studying gender tend to do. But not all of them: A couple of years back, a group of mostly anti-feminist academics and popular writers with an interest in gender decided to try to do a sort of end run around the discipline of “Men’s Studies” by conjuring up a whole new, altogether un-feminist discipline called “Male Studies.”
Recently, The University of South Australia announced that it would start offering postgraduate courses in Male Studies sometime in 2014; our old friend Eoghan/Sigil1 brought this earthshattering news to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, where it was greeted with … suspicion and hostility.
GotMyFrogHatOn wrote:
Great, now men have the same opportunity as women to waste their time and money on a worthless degree!
Liverotto was even blunter:
YES, because the cure to bullshit is… MORE BULLSHIT! /s
That’s right: Men’s Rights Redditors hate Women’s Studies, and Gender Studies, and apparently every academic discipline with the word “Studies” in it so much that they’ve transferred this hatred to a new academic discipline that could well have been (and sort of was) designed just for them.
But don’t worry, they still hate Women’s Studies the most:
What was I saying the other day about projection?
Posted on May 24, 2012, in antifeminism, crackpottery, evil women, internal debate, irony alert, masculinity, MRA, victimhood. Bookmark the permalink. 495 Comments.
I was a nude model until I graduated from college in May. Coming up with the poses was always the best part.
Men are so ugly that this was totally not one of the first Manboobz forum threads.
Men are so ugly that female heterosexuality doesn’t really exist. We just put up with sex for various reasons. Usually money.
Don’t worry, I’m a feminist.
Butts, Ruby dearest, not dicks.
And hands (there are whole posts in Bean_Daily devoted to closeups of his hands) (and quite a few dedicated to the nude flower scene in Lady Chatterly’s Lover, but playing “catch a glimpse of his dick” is not a turn on for me–though I understand it is for others).
And what often people don’t seem to think about–movement. I love watching him move in TROY (a movie that as I still bitterly point out was willing to strip all the young studs but kept the Sexist Man In The Whole Movie By A Gazillion Miles dressed up). But the way he moved in that–*happy sigh*.
And voices — OMG, VOICES. (Tommy Lee Jones’ voice!!!)
I feel sort of like some Pollyanna here, but Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, the world is so full of so many marvellous things and so many desires and so many beauties–do you really *enjoy* thinking that all women are the SAME???? Really????????????????????/
DOH html sscrew up. Sorry.
This, so much. Still photos never do a whole lot for me in the erotic department, but watching a sexy man move around makes for a happy Polliwog.
…I may possibly own the first X-Men movie almost entirely for purposes of watching Hugh Jackman do things in a tight, sleeveless shirt. I don’t even care WHAT things he does. I would watch two hours of that man eating a sandwich as long as his arms flexed while he did it.
@Polliwog: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Hugh Jackman! I got to see him live in BOY FROM OZ and OMG!!!!!!!!!!
And yes, Wolverine–the movement–the incredible deadly grace.
And it’s fascinating to watch actors in different roles who create such different body language for them–which Jackman did.
Gene Kelly. I LOVE watching that man dance — INCREDIBLE.
Agreed on all counts! (Well, except for getting to see Hugh Jackman live – there I merely agree that that sounds awesome, and I’m jealous.)
And that moment in Australia when he pours the bucket of water over himself… ;)
In hindsight, that was a REALLY SHORT moment. Damn, I was starved for porn.
Oh hush. You all just like looking at Hugh Jackman’s body because he’s rich!
Oh snap. That’s hilarious, I just read back and saw Varpole’s whining about DSC. It’s funny, I consider myself, so far as internet arguments go, a lazier, maybe-a-skosh-less-communist version of DSC. Whoever called that hate crush, called it right if he’s saying zie’s the dimestore version of me.
There’s a really interesting gender studies paper in the universal assumption that the male equivalent of boobs is cocks. I mean, wouldn’t it be chests?
I think it’s based on the universal scientific principle of “the sticky-outy bits.”
I find chests way hotter than genitals, for any gender. (also, naked back, and butts) And for what I’ve heard, that’s the case of a lot of straights men: I’ve rarely heard of a sexy vulva, a hot clitoris or vagina. Actually, people get probably get more compliments for their dicks than their vulvas, seeing as they’re external organs.
And I’d like to bring to the jury’s attention the existence of the French rugby team’s calendar:he stadium’s gods. Naked calendar. The positions they’re in hide all genitals, but that’s all. And it’s not marketed to a gay male audience, if you follow my lead.
And for magazines in generals, they’ve been marketed to men as a mark of manhood. So many men buy these magazines. That’s not proof of anything.
Rugby team calendar, Kyrie? Oh, my. America needs more rugby. ;)
The thighs on those men, dear god. But never mind, I’m a woman and couldn’t possibly like seeing that.
I never said men weren’t sexy, just that GENERALLY women don’t care to look at them naked like men do women. The sales of Playboy verses Playgirl prove this. Also, the fact that female strippers far outnumber male strippers. We women just don’t get turned on visually the same way men do. They can look at a naked woman and be ready for intercourse. Women aren’t usually ready by simply looking at a naked man. We normally need more than the visual to get stimulated. Face it people, men and women aren’t wired the same. Just because I’m a Feminist, it doesn’t mean I have to deny these differences.
Study Finds Male And Female Brains Respond Differently To Visual Stimuli
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm
Don’t tell me what turns me on.
And don’t tell me the moon is “usually” “normally” “generally” made of green cheese. Baseless, sexist assumptions aren’t okay just because they’re qualified with “exceptions exist.”
Fuck “brain activation.” Women can TALK. You can ASK us about our sexuality.
Super Sciency White-Coated Official methods are great for matters of biology and chemistry, but it’s quackery to try to apply them to subjective human experience.
Study finds that when Austrian rugby team strips after losing to Lithuania that many people male and female respond to visual stimulation!
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/5/striptease-of-austrian-rugby-team-498642
Ruby, all you do is speak in bullshit generalizations and post crap articles that can be debunked in two seconds. Seriously, WHY do you come here? You don’t read the debunkings and refuse to engage in discussion, you only throw out more crap.
If being tiresome were a bannable offense…
In your case, you may as well put “feminist” in scare quotes instead of captializing it. With “allies” like you, who needs enemies?
Ruby: You are linking to science news reporting, not the actual study.
FOURTEEN people.
And DIFFERENT levels of response is not the same as ALL MALES X and ALL FEMALES Y.
And again you and this sort of discourse totally wipes out gay, lesbian, and queer people who might just MIGHT react differently.
Plus, FOURTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
That’s a pretty fucking low n.
Also, even “brain activation” is (obviously, if you think about it) culturally influenced. Someone who’s been raised not to express her sexuality the same way men do is going to reflect that in her responses and hence in her brain.
This doesn’t prove it’s all about genetics and cavemen.
Ithiliana, thank you for posting that!
But … but … sales of Playboy vs. Playgirl prove it!
Because that’s totally a controlled research setting.
People reacted differently in the study, but the study did not and cannot be used to identify the factors that *caused* them to react differently.
Sorry, 28 PEOPLE. 14 men and 14 women.
Still fucking low n
Very very few sentences that begin with “a fundamental difference between men and women is…” are going to end feminist.
Feminism is all about finding the SOCIAL differences imposed on men and women, rather than assuming if a difference exists it MUST be EvoCaveScienceTruth.
My wife is much more turned on by visual stimuli than I am, had a substantially bigger porn collection when I met her, and thinks that the “private browsing” option on Safari is one of the greatest inventions since the wheel.
I was always under the impression that she was a woman, and thought that there was a fair amount of supporting evidence, but evidently I’m mistaken.
Fuck you Ruby, for insulting again all women by declaring what we want and like. You don’t get to pretend what you are is what I am. I have never cared about the money people earn, I like to look at people (real people and characters), and pictures of them and films of them. Watching porn rarely does anything for me.* This doesn’t negate the previous points.
And thanks Ithiliana.
*though many other women enjoy it, even despite it is mainly created and marketed toward straights men.
I think at this point we’ve had more than fourteen women *in this thread* have talked about being visually stimulated.
Except there was that whole year-long period when I got wet just by being *near* someone… (he had the prettiest tummy I’d ever seen).
@Ruby:
Did you notice this part of the article?
So one of the purposes of the study was to figure out what the section of the brain actually does. If you don’t know for sure what that area of the brain does, how in the world can you use the study to show differences in how men and women’s brains work? What would those differences be?
Also this:
Just like other people said. The people in this study had differences in what areas lit up in their brain (and if the diffferences were in the “emotion control” area, it’s not a far leap to hypothesize that it’s as Cliff said, a socially-created difference for women to “control” their sexuality). But even then, they reported the same levesl of arousal, which contradicts your claim that women don’t get off on visual images.
@Ithiliana:
I’m actually not too concerned about the sample size. Brain analysis is tough and expensive, so these types of studies always have a small number of people. You’re right, though; that does mean you wouldn’t really be able to generalize the results.
@Kirbywarp: I don’t know the standards in this field, so am willing to accept that what little I know about sample size in other fields might not apply.
But just as people are questioning the ‘universality’ of results in psychology derived from decades of studying undergraduates in US universities, so the issue of the make up of the sample has to be considered — especially if all the participants identified as straight.
And I’m not as concerned about researchers universalizing (I need to read the study to know if they did or not), but the way people like Ruby always take very limited results, usually over or badly reported, and use them to smack people around with “see science proves me right.”
I am fascinated by and follow some of the neuroscience on reading issues–and what I get overall is that this is a very new science, and we’re just fumbling around to get a basic understanding of things, and we don’t really know fuckall yet despite some of the mainstream media coverage. But I could be wrong!
Ruby two days ago — “Having looked at those pictures of that naked man, I agree with Elaine from Seinfeld. Nudity is not a great look for men. Sorry guys.”
Ruby a few hours ago — “I never said men weren’t sexy…”
Ruby, I suggest you learn, and use, the phrase “in my opinion”.
Not to derail this down a neuroscience rabbithole, but wtf fMRI activation actually means is an open question afaik — the difference could well be something like the amygdala in men does more talking to itself while the amygdala in women does more talking to other parts of the brain (internal signals produce stronger activation signals). Could be that women’s brains are doing more checking with other brain bits than men’s (eg wtf Cliff and kirbywrap said about socialization).
Seconding kirbywrap’s “I’m actually not too concerned about the sample size.” and adding some serious annoyance at the cis gendered heterosexual assumption of the data (I know all neurosci does it, but it annoys me!)
Ruby reminds me of two women I used to share a house with (one owned the house and was divorced and was renting out rooms to make house payments). They were a few years older than I, but not much, and both were divorced. They decided that they absolutely had to get A Man. So they joined this sort of singles newspaper club thing (this was pre-internet days–1986 if memory serves). And they decided I absolutely had to do it. I got nagged for several weeks. So I joined (unfortunately the only ads that interested me were by other women, and the club wouldn’t allow same sex connections–this was in Boise, Idaho–and the few men who were interested in my ad (written very much in my bulldyke persona) were……not interesting to me (one thought “wiccan” meant I collected wicker furniture; the other wanted to lecture me on the most important feminist job which was forcing deadbeat dads to pay child support because he paid his damnit but all the women with kids he dated didn’t get child support). The whole thing reminded me a bit of the first year dorms I was in (required by university) (single sex of course) where women who were dating men or wanted to date men desperately needed everybody else to date men or want to date men, and my room mate and I got accused of being lesbians because we didn’t want to date men (actually we were sleeping with some men at the time, which meant we also got accused of having men in the hall overnight!). (Things were confusing in Idaho in the 1970s. I was confused in Idaho then too–looking back, I was mostly sleeping with the men because that’s what my room mate wanted to do and I was totally in love with her, and well……later on she realized that we’d be the perfect couple if only she wasn’t so totes straight, sigh).
Anyway, tmi, long anecdote: basically, it’s that Ruby comes across to me as behaving exactly like these women who I see as so insecure about what they actually want or desire that if anybody else wants something different, it’s an attack on them. I was very happy to get out of the situations where the GROUP tried to enforce certain social behaviors.
I doubt anybody would mind (as much) about what Ruby says if she used “I” instead of “we women” or “all women”–that’s what seems to irritate quite a few posters.
So, Ruby, what about it? Can you talk about your own desires in first person? Do you notice that there are a whole lot of people here who are very different from each other, but (as far as I have noticed) that while there are disagreements on general principles and issues, sometimes, it’s rare (and usually only for a troll, I think, but I don’t trust my memory, and even then, people defend their right to their own story and their interpretation of their own experiences) for any major arguments when people are in first person? (Not sure this is clear, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about here–and one reason I so enjoy this site.)
Ruby, please read IthilIana’s last paragraph just above VERY carefully.
Wiccan meaning someone who likes wicker furniture, I LOLd.
This discussion reminds me of what I was taught at church camp when I was little girl. A youth minister told me not to wear sleeveless sundresses, because men are “visually oriented” and bare shoulders might make them “stumble”. I had to put a sweater on over my dress on a hot July day, which was miserable. When I got older, I was confused because I liked the sight of handsome men, and women are supposed to be “mentally oriented”, not “visually oriented”. Then I wondered how gays, lesbians, and bisexuals fit into the worldview of women=visual stimuli and men=admirers of visual stimuli. Knowing that my own experience didn’t fit, as well as seeing other people whose experiences didn’t fit, made me decide the youth minister was full of crap.
While we’re on the subject of what all women apparently do/don’t like, I’m asexual and aromantic. And I love looking at pictures of hot guys/girls. Have a study to explain that, Ruby?
What about men and women being wired differently is so bothersome? You guys do realize that men and women’s brains are different, right? Or is that highly offensive to you?
@Kendra: For years I wore jeans and long sleeved shirts in Idaho summers because omg fat girls and women in shorts and sleeveless–TEH HORROR.
*shudders*
Now, I flaunts it (plus TEXAS summers much hotter than Idaho).
The one time my brother and I were going to go to the youth camp for our local Presbyterian church, our parents pulled us out because that was the year the Presbyterian Church came out in support of Angela Davis (so OMG COMMUNISTS).
I was disappointed only because I had such a crush on the minister’s wife who was the choir leader. . .it was hilarious to stumble across all the stuff by and about Angela Davis for my dissertation decades later and realize holy shit that was what that was about. (It wasn’t really clear to me at the time).
Ruby: What’s offensive to me is your insistence that because all women’s brains are alike (which is a highly dubious claim–there are quite likely differences between women’s brains that haven’t yet been studied), all women are alike, and alike YOU.
Plus these differences may not be as large as you apparently think they are because you are so wedded to a simplistic binary.
I guess your idea of feminism is that “men and women are totes different but we should be equal anyway”? (I’m trying to make sense of the contradictions I see in your postings in different threads at different times.)
That’s a step up from “men and women are different, thus women INFERIOR.” Sort of.
But you may not realize that the esssentialist discourse of “difference” (without any real repeatable science in many cases–starting with the 19th century “discovery” that men’s brans weighed more than women’s–white brains weighted more than black brains 2!!, and without enough work to weed out confirmation bias) has been used to justify women’s oppression due to women’s inferiority. Small brain! Womb travels around body when educated, thus HYSTERIA!
I know that some in science believe it is difficult to study gender differences because of “politics” but–well, politics are always there, and given that ‘science’ as a discipline is stil pretty heavily male dominated in some areas and the patterns of historical discrimination are so strong, that it is difficult to talk about differences.
The thing is that as long as the focus is on differences between MEN and WOMEN, the differences among MEN and the difference among WOMEN sort of get shuffled under the rug, erasing and marginalizing a whole lot of people.
Not that I expect you to understand or respond to any of this, but heck, the floor is drying, and I cannot put out the clean cat litter boxes, and it’s fun to talk here knowing who else will be reading.
The Prestigious Journal of Scientific Psychology has a new study contradicting Ruby’s hypothesis.
Ruby. You do realize you keep making catch all statements that are generalized and don’t speak to the experience of many individuals. Also, you keep basing your assumptions off your own personal experience and a very low N study. But then, you don’t seem to have a fucking clue on how science works in the first place (Only spamming appeals to authority after grand sweeping generalizations).
Did you know? Individuals brains (of a very similar background even!) happen to be wired differently too! The brain as an organ is a much more complex system then a few CAT-5 cables, a power cord, and a DVI connector. As well, much of it gets altered throughout different development processes and it responds to environmental stimulation rather then just pure biology.
What’s offensive is that you can’t grasp that every woman isn’t you, Ruby. You’re like a little kid who hasn’t grasped that other people have minds.
Do you have some evidence for that?
I was a reviewer for the Human Brain Project at NIH. I reviewed a bunch of proposals having to do with using fMRI to investigate brain anatomy. I am not aware that there were any results suggesting that brain anatomy is fundamentally different for men and women.
In fact the big problem with studying brain anatomy is that it differs significantly between individuals. The best the HBP researchers could do at the time was try to use very complex morphological operations to “average” brain anatomy across lots of imaging data, to get an overall picture of the functional anatomy. Again, I am not personally aware of results that show a gender difference, but if you could point me to one, I’m literally actually qualified to review it.
Women in porn are hired for their looks, like they are usually conventionally attractive. I for one am not into a super muscly middle-aged guy with bleached hair who looks angry and not into sex all the time, so previously I would mainly watch gay porn because there are generally good-looking guys. I have recently discovered James Deen and fallen in love with hetero porn for that very reason…if I wanna see a young, conventionally good-looking guy, that is my limit. This guy has a MASSIVE female fanbase, which I suspect is both for this reason and because he seems really really into sex with girls, he often looks into their eyes and tells them how awesome they are and so on. Hell, most straight porn you can barely see the guy at all. I’ve also had much more luck with porn made by women (Burning Angel, alot of Kink.com)
I wouldn’t buy a magazine with naked guys tho…I’m not interested in static images *shrug*
*Goes back to watching Hugh Jackman water video on repeat* :D
@katz: That is the most beautiful journal I have ever seen. Truly it is a bastion of scientific achievement.
Here, Ruby, you may find this useful. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html
Particularly “The behavioral and neurological differences between men and women require further study. Perhaps new studies will find neuroanatomical differences that explain some of the complex differences between male and female behavior. However, from a review of the current scientific evidence, it appears that differences in many cognitive behaviors (for example, memory) are related more to individual differences between people than to whether people are female or male.”
Does anyone else get sick to tears over this argument? “X and Y are different in the following ways. What, you disagree with my baseless assertions? X and Y are different! How could this be a problem for you?”
No. No. A thousand times NO! Just because women generally have vaginas and men generally have penises does not mean that every conceivable socially-ingrained gender difference is valid! A difference somewhere doesn’t justify every possible difference! ARGH!
*calms down*
Ruby, we’re not disagreeing with you because we don’t like you, or because we don’t like what your saying, or because the concept of male and female brains being different somehow is offensive.
We’re disagreeing with you because you’re assertions are not supported (and sometimes contradicted) by the evidence.
By the way, is Ruby just trolling? It may just be me, but she gives me the vibe of an anti-feminist trying to pose as a feminist by making statements just slightly past acceptable to trick us into supporting extreme views…
Like I said, may just be me.
Kirby: I feel like I see that all the time.
Person A: Unsupported statement
Person B: Dude, that’s not true.
Person A: What’s your big problem with unsupported statement?
@katz:
It’s more like
kirbywarp: It’s not just you.
I wonder why Ruby is so offended by the idea that gender differences might be social rather than biological. It seems to really upset her.
Or maybe a clearer phrasing would be:
Person A: People are like X.
Person B: No, they aren’t.
Person A: WHAT’S SO WRONG WITH PEOPLE BEING LIKE X?
Dude, nothing would be wrong with people doing that, but they don’t.
“What about men and women being wired differently is so bothersome? You guys do realize that men and women’s brains are different, right? Or is that highly offensive to you?”
Let’s start with that that’s not true, see above (especially Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel and Flib). Second, yes, I am highly offended by people who twist science to say wtf they want, which is you in this case — brains are interesting organs, but that’s all they are, another organ of the human body, and as such, the vast, vast majority of differences have way more to do with socialization than gender. For example, a male and female violinist will have more in common than that male violinist and a male coal miner (likewise, he’ll have more in common with a female coal miner).
Most of your brain isn’t doing cognitive stuff. Seriously, all the parts devoted to things like moving your fingers to type? Exactly the same regardless of gender.
Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel, I’m sorry if my psychology undergrad level neurosci is dumbing down to painful levels (and I have an OT question, neurosci have a damned clue where synaesthesia comes from yet? simple curiousity, don’t want to derail the thread further if you don’t know)
Lol, maybe we should explain synaesthesia to Ruby though, just how different the human brain can be might amaze her.
@Argenti:
Synaesthesia: Taste the rainbow.
…
Has that joke been done? I hope it hasn’t been done.
…
Dammit, it’s been done to death. Oh well.
Kirby, it’s not just you who thinks she’s trolling.
Ruby, Ithiliana wrote that nice paragraph for you about blanket statements vs. first person, the least you could do is read it. Bonus for comprehending it.
For those of you who think I’m just faking being a Feminist, this thread in The Skeptic Society forum shows how I came to Manboobz:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17837
Miss Piggy is my avatar. I chose her because an MRA was referring to American women as, “American Pig Women.” As you can see, I’m most definitely a Feminist.
Definitely a troll.
You are really a bare minimum feminist really, but its not impressive because you share common sexist beliefs about women as any other typical misogynist does. No cookie for you.
One more comment:
You said that in the forum you linked to and thats your issue ruby. We don’t have entirely equal rights yet, the west is far more equal than many other countries but we still need feminism because women’s rights are still being questioned.
Ruby, perhaps you should do some research elsewhere before coming here. You’re bare minimum, like Jumbo said. A lot of us have already done the heavy reading.
Seconding what ithiliana said about insecure people needing to justify their behavior. At this point I’m quite willing to believe that Ruby doesn’t find men visually stimulating, in part because the only part of the male body that she was able to think of that women MIGHT find visually stimulating was the penis. For someone who’s apparently sleeping with a man to say that…well, that’s sad, and I mean that in a non-sarcastic way, as in I am sad for her. And for her husband too – it can’t be doing his self-esteem any good to be with a woman who doesn’t find anything physical about him attractive.
That is, if Ruby is even a woman, which I’m beginning to strongly doubt. She’s certainly not a feminist.
On magical laura’s point about gay porn, I actually think that the fact that so many straight women watch gay porn proves beyond a doubt that women are a. visually stimulated by men’s bodies and b. far more selective about what they want those bodies to look like than sexists are comfortable with. A preference for gay porn = a preference for the only form of porn in which men’s bodies are the focus, and the men are chosen mostly on the basis of how attractive they are.
I’m a Feminist, you people are extreme Feminists. You make Feminism look bad with your denial about the differences in women and men. I too hate cultures that require restrictive gender roles, but I’m not going to pretend the genders are wired the same. And yes, we do need Feminism as there are idiots like the MRAs who would take away our rights.
“I’m a Feminist, you people are extreme Feminists. You make Feminism look bad with your denial about the differences in women and men. I too hate cultures that require restrictive gender roles, but I’m not going to pretend the genders are wired the same. And yes, we do need Feminism as there are idiots like the MRAs who would take away our rights.”
lo-fucking-l.
Really?
You shame fake feminists with your inability to understand that “feminist” is not a proper noun.
I am sorry but stuff like that tends to be really transphobic so no I am not okay with that. Plus I recall similar studies showing gay men had brains like women or some crap. I think that this is full of shit but your own sources of brain scanning that assert men brains are different than woman brains also asserted that gay men have women brains so I guess some men are not mentally different than some women?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
Your own sources of brain scanning don’t even support you that all men have different brains than women. XD
(sorry for posting that homophobic “scientific” article but I am just trying to point how ridiculous it is)
“but I’m not going to pretend the genders are wired the same.”
So you missed where multiple people on this thread are not “pretending” such, but citing science that says such? The few differences that do exist are neither related to attraction/arousal/sex nor particularly interesting (unless you’re a neurosci geek, in which case I guess the number of synapses per mm cubed might be interesting?)
Seriously Ruby, these are questions that people with PhDs spend years on, and wtf fMRI’s actually show was still hotly debated when I finished school ~5 years ago. Neurosci, you’re doing it wrong.
“extreme feminists” would make a great band name though…
You’re a shitty feminist with ludicrous ideas. If we’re so terrible, stop hanging out with us, you irritant.