The Power of Butt: MRA granddaddy Warren Farrell picks a new book cover, and can’t decide between tits, ass or vagina.

Men: Oppressed by butts?

Men: Oppressed by women’s butts?

Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, published twenty years ago, defined much of the agenda for what’s become the contemporary Men’s Rights movement. If you hear a Men’s Rights activist prattle on about “male disposability”or “death professions” or complain about draft registration (even though the draft itself has been dead for decades), you’ve got Farrell to thank, or blame.

So when Farrell decided to release a new ebook edition of his most famous book, it was perhaps not all that surprising that he decided to turn to the folks at A Voice for Men, probably the most influential Men’s Rights site around, for advice on a picture to use for a new cover.

But what was surprising was the pictures he asked the AVFMers to choose from, three sexually charged, and slightly NSFW, pics highlighting what Farrell evidently sees as the key female challenges to male power: their vaginas, tits and ass.

I’m not speaking metaphorically: one of the pictures shows a nude woman’s pelvic area, her vulva both highlighted and hidden by what is essentially a merkin made of moss; a second picture shows the ass of a young, topless woman in her underpants slaving over a hot stove, and the third shows a famous picture of Marilyn Monroe, also topless.

AVFM’s Paul Elam explained the, er, logic of these images:

Imagine the juxtaposition of the title, “Myth of Male Power” over one of these images. The cover alone will challenge the idea of male power in men and women alike on a gut level.

By “on a gut level” he apparently means “in men’s pants.”

You sort of have to see them to see how utterly tacky they are; here’s the one of the butt, which either Farrell or Elam helpfully captioned “Where’s the power?”

No, this is REALLY one of the pictures Farrell was considering for his cover.

This REALLY is one of the pictures Farrell was considering for his cover.

You can find the others on AVFM here; if you don’t want to give them the pageviews, you can find them here.

You couldn’t really ask for better symbols of the essential misogyny of the Men’s Rights movement today — or of its obsession with blaming women (and women’s sexuality in particular) for the restrictions on male power that so chafe the hides of MRAs. Farrell, in the past, generally avoided demonizing female sexuality quite so obviously and directly, but these days he’s apparently been spending too much time amongst the A Voice for Menners.

Farrell’s choices for potential covers also tell us a good deal about him as well; in the past he’s essentially been able to hide his crackpot pseudoscholarship behind a certain veneer or respectability — releasing his books through major publishing houses, touting his PhD — but here he seems to be falling to his natural level, amongst the self-publishers of crappy e-books with stock-photo covers.

While some AVFMers had other suggestions — perhaps a picture of the Wicked Witch? — most seemed to think that the pictures were perfect for his book. Tom Golden — along with most of the voters in the poll — preferred Marilyn and her tits:

Tom Golden says	  November 23, 2013 at 9:06 PM	  I think the point that Warren is trying to make is that simply the sight of a very attractive female puts most men into a mental position of subservience and blind willingness to be of service to her in whatever way he can. In essence he becomes a slave. How can men be in so much power when just the sight of a lightly clad young attractive woman throws them into such a state? I think any of the images accomplishes that task but I personally like #3 because when I see that image my awareness of my surrender to her power is palpable.

Others were more taken with the ass pic. Alek wrote:

alek says	  November 23, 2013 at 1:36 PM	  My choice (nr. 2) is losing heavily :( :D DDD  I like 2 since its the most powerfully influential…  The gist of the book “myth of male power” is that “oppression of women” is an interpretational myth – “poor wimminz had to stay in the kitchinz, while man goes outside and has a blast being all hero and shit” (i’m dumbing down female gender role to “kitchen” as representative of all oppression interpretational myths covered by Warren)  This photo challenges that whole notion of the kitchen as an oppressive enviroment, while immediately and visually telling the viewer just how powerful she – the woman is, merely by seeing her silhouette, casual relaxed demeanor and posture projecting utter sexual power.

And Elam, while voting for the moss-encrusted vulva himself, was apparently also quite, er, affected by dat ass.  (Those with especially sensitive stomachs may wish to skip the following quote, as it contains an unsolicited update from his boner.)

I am about as red pill as men come I think. There has not been a woman that could sexually manipulate me in decades. But one look at that woman’s ass in image #2 and I feel every instinctive reproductive trigger trying to go off in my brain. It is not a feeling of power at all for me, but a feeling of something I might have to overcome in order to just self-preserve.

So there you have it: Two of the most influential figures in the Men’s Rights movement — indeed, arguably the two most influential figures — actually believe that men are oppressed by women’s butts.

Indeed, Elam is apparently so overwhelmed by the sight of an attractive ass that he considers it a literal threat to his life.

Adding to the creepiness factor here: Farrell is 70 years old, making him literally old enough to be grandfather of the model in her underpants. Elam is in his late 50s.

Now, the weird tackiness of the images Farrell chose for his book cover did not go entirely unnoticed at AVFM. There were critics — including, amazingly, AVFM’s own John Hembling, who was a little baffled by the idea of using a sexualized picture of a woman on the cover of Farrell’s book about men, and asked if Farrell was possibly trolling them.

One MRA blogger, Kevin Wayne, posted a link to his blog, where he excoriated all three choices as “Budweiser Ad rejects” and begged Farrell to try something else:

This is just going to backfire. Don’t we have enough issues of being branded as a bunch of no-necks wanting to take women back to the 1950′s?

Elam, while gentle in his handling of Hembling’s criticism, threw a fit over Wayne’s post, banning him from AVFM and bashing him — on AVFM and on Wayne’s own site — as a do-nothing newcomer to Men’s Rights who was too “borderline retarded” to  understand the profound deeper meaning behind  Farrell’s T&A pics.

Farrell himself seems to have been a a bit more willing to listen to the critics. Indeed, he’s asked AVFM’s readers to submit some more pictures to choose from. There will be a runoff between the winner of the first AVFM poll (Marilyn and her tits) several of the new pics.

So far there hasn’t exactly been a flood of submissions. They’ve included a painting of Diogenes, a painting of Lilith, a photo of a homeless man, and this:

Office_Bitch

Yeah, that’ll work great.

About these ads

Posted on December 10, 2013, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, boner rage, boobs, butts, creepy, drama kings, evil sexy ladies, evil women, imaginary oppression, infighting, johntheother, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, playing the victim, sexualization, unsolicited penis updates, vaginas, warren farrell and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 420 Comments.

  1. Portestants are the religion that worships…port?

    So, whose sock do we think Jammy is? And, given how dull he’s been so far, do we care?

  2. The way he’s pretending he hasn’t been trolling, but is having a conversation, has a slimily familiar feel, but so many of them do that.

  3. Portestants are the religion that worships…port?

    And Frotestants are g0ys?

  4. @Salacious:

    I think that makes a lot of sense about Atheists, they don’t want to see their beliefs as socially constructed but coming from somewhere outside of themselves (reason, science, etc.).

    I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Asshole Atheists here, but just wanted to make sure that us quiet, just-happen-to-be-atheists aren’t being tarred with the same brush. :) Or even the folk who are public and outspoken about it – most are not like this. Like how most men are not anything like the MRA.

  5. The SomeGreyBloke guy has a separate character (played by an actor) who’s a faux-MRA. If you like his manosphere video you should check those videos out too.

    General question for people here: I’m still trying to sort through the “overwhelmed by the power of butt” psychology here and I’m wondering if any of you can think of good stuff for me to read that talks about this sort of thing, anything from good blog posts and articles to academic papers and books. Or about anger at being denied sex.

  6. @David – not sure that this sort of thing was what you were looking for, but it’s certainly rage-boner-related: some jackass at the Daily Caller wrote a column about how liberals want to arrest men for checking out women or something: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/08/liberals-want-to-stop-men-from-checking-out-women/. It’s pretty breathtaking in its stupidity (apparently checking out women’s boobs is an inalienable right that evil liberals are trying to take away), but it’s written in response to a study on objectification, the abstract of which can be found at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x.

    It was also discussed on this Tuesday’s Citizen Radio, starting from about 13 mins in.

  7. David, to the best of my knowledge, those “power-of-butt compels me” types are reverting to the same impulse that make male baboons chase the female with the biggest, reddest ass. I honestly wonder if they aren’t the Missing Link…and if they are, why the hell isn’t he smarter than a fucking baboon?

  8. Women’s butts oppress men both indirectly, socially and directly, literally.

    Socially, because of their aforementioned superior tolerance of hard chairs, which makes women’s butts privileged compared to men’s butts and in matriarchal society stifles the social movement towards softer chairs.

    Literally, because women are known to sometimes sit on a man’s lap while trading their sexual power to the man’s financial, political and cultural power – and while said man is sitting on a hard chair. Hence the idiom, “between a butt and a hard chair”.

  9. Portestant (n) – too drunk to either actively believe or disbelieve in a higher power.

  10. And Frotestants are g0ys?

    Aaaaahhhhhh!

    Tracy – I’d certainly limit that to AssholeAtheists, not least the ones who have the usual collection of bigotries – misogyny, racism, homophobia, trans*phobia and so on.

  11. Portestant: believes in the power of Gout.

  12. Gout is…well, an almighty pain in the arse, I imagine. Glad I don’t have it.

  13. David: This is sort of tangential, but this book Idols of Perversity by Bram Dijkstra does get into the whole fear/loathing/desire regarding female sexuality. It’s a study of portrayal of women in Victorian artwork, so, y’know, not specifically related to “the power of butt compels you.” It deals with a range of topics, from woman’s sexuality and attempts to deny/control it; ideas that women are “evil” or “stupid” based on the brand new scientific breakthrough of evolutionary theory; and even Eschar girls (he calls them “nymphs with broken backs” by the way the woman’s body is contorted). And it’s an old book.


    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195056523/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1386873778&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

  14. Bina – yeah, it’s one hell of a painful thing to have. I know it’s not actually caused just by alcohol (Louis had it in his earthly days and he was anything but a drinker), but the port/prot God/gout link was irresistible.

  15. My husband is taking medication for his gout, and he drinks very little alcohol. Meanwhile, I drink quite a bit, and no gout.

    Regarding the Power of Butt – well, it’s been a big influence on MY life. Not women’s butts, though. The photo from the OP (kitchen shot) did exert a strange fascination for me – not quite “heterosexual panic”. Maybe it was the boy shorts.

  16. “The power of butt” keeps making me think of Andy Griffiths’ books.

  17. Yeah, I heard that gout is probably at least partly genetic. Some people are just naturally more susceptible to it, and certain foods (and alcohol) cause it to flare. I blame Henry the Eighth for the mental association most people have between gout and overeating/drinking.

  18. I tend to think of eighteenth or nineteenth century men sitting with their feet bandaged and resting on footstools – like in one of Hogarth’s Marriage a la Mode series. The Wikli article on it’s intersting – it’s connected with diet (and was known as the rich man’s disease) as well as genetics, it’s a form of inflammatory arthritis, may be connected with sleep apnoea, and has increased in recent decades.

  19. @ kittehs
    Beagles! There are beagles in that picture! :)

  20. There are! And they’re chained, poor things – symbol of what the marriage is like.

  21. They are both chained- if it is a true symbol of marriage shouldn’t just the male beagle be chained and the feeeemale beagle be in control?

  22. RE: CassandraSays

    Fantasy/sci-fi loving guys and gender roles – that sure is a conversation. Not a very cheerful one, though.

    I know! And as someone who loves those things, it bugs me so much, because there’s a genre TAILOR-MADE to fuck with gender roles!

    RE: DefJam

    I believe Paul Elam (of avoiceformen.com)

    Guys, I’m starting to suspect he’s doing this on purpose now and is in fact a Poe. I mean, come on, is there anyone on this site who’s been here longer than a week who DOESN’T know where Paul Elam digitally hails?

    If you’ve got an ambrosial God sending down precepts, well, those difficult to challenge.

    Tell that to the Jews.

    RE: StarStorm

    I am so pleased that Manboobzers know about the g0ys. They hurt way too good not to share, in my opinion!

  23. They are both chained- if it is a true symbol of marriage shouldn’t just the male beagle be chained and the feeeemale beagle be in control?

    Proving that a conservative eighteenth-century painter was light years ahead of the MRM in his thinking! :P

  24. There really is no one like Hogarth for graphically illustrating the horrors and injustices of his world, is there? That was right around the time when coverture was formally enshrined in English law, was it not?

  25. “The Day My Bum Went Psycho” sounds like something I wish MY bum had done when a former boyfriend told me it was too big. That would have been AWESOME.

  26. So true about Hogarth. I saw Marriage A La Mode in London (or Edinburgh? Brain fart) and it was just horrific.

    I don’t know when coverture was formalised, but it seems to have been around at least since the Conquest. That creepy specimen Blackstone talked about it at the end of the 18th century.

  27. I don’t know when coverture was formalised, but it seems to have been around at least since the Conquest. That creepy specimen Blackstone talked about it at the end of the 18th century.

    Well, I just looked it up, and it seems you’re correct…Wikipedia sayeth:

    The system of feme sole and feme covert developed in England in the High and Late Middle Ages as part of the common law system, which had its origins in the legal reforms of Henry II and other medieval English kings. According to Arianne Chernock, “coverture, … [a 1777] author … concluded, was the product of foreign Norman invasion in the eleventh century—not, as Blackstone would have it, a time-tested ‘English’ legal practice. This was a reading of British history, then, that put a decidedly feminist twist on the idea of the ‘Norman yoke.’” Also according to Chernock, “the Saxons, … [Calidore] boasted, had encouraged women to ‘retain separate property’— … a clear blow to coverture.”

    Well, all hail my Saxon ancestors, then. Their women were also mighty warriors, and no meek “shieldmaidens”.

    A queen of England, whether she was a queen consort or a queen regnant, was generally exempted from the legal requirements of coverture, as understood by Blackstone.

    Now that’s interesting. It maketh me to wonder afresh why Elizabeth I was a “virgin” queen, then. If she was legally exempt, then there must have been another reason why she chose never to marry. Maybe her understanding of the law was not Blackstonian?

  28. Oh! On the other hand,

    Early feminist historian Mary Beard held the view that much of the severity of the doctrine of coverture was actually due to Blackstone and other late systematizers, rather than due to a genuine old common-law tradition.

    …which would be in line with my earlier hunch.

    Now I haz a puzzlement.

  29. I think there were tons of reasons for Elizabeth not to marry. If she chose an Englishman, it’d get all the not-chosen nobility’s backs up over one family being raised up (look at how unpopular the Howard/Boleyn and Seymour clans had been in her father’s time). If she chose a foreigner, she’d have the same potential problems Mary had when she married Phillip of Spain, even if the religious element hadn’t come into it. Who knows if she really wanted to tie herself to a man who’d have all sorts of cultural, if not legal, rights over her, or expectations, at least? Plus, it was one hell of a diplomatic weapon, at least while she was young enough to potentially have children.

    That’s without even going into the personal reasons, which nobody on this side can know about, of course. (Fuck I hope that tosser Freud never wrote about her; can you imagine?)

  30. Well, to my knowledge, Freud was not an anglophile (or a necrophile), so probably that was of no interest to him. He dealt in living people, for good or ill…mostly ill, since he didn’t want to believe that child sexual abuse was as common as we now know it is.

    And yes, that other part makes sense to me. As does the fact that she had quite an eye for handsome young courtiers, acquired at will. I imagine getting married would have obliged her to give that up, at least pro forma.

  31. Freud was not an anglophile (or a necrophile), so probably that was of no interest to him.

    “Not a necrophile” is about the only good thing I can think of about old Sigmund, and how negative is that? :P

    (Do you read Dead Philosophers in Heaven? He makes regular appearances there.)

    Yes, it’s not like Elizabeth was deprived of male eye candy in general. Rob Dudley, Kit Hatton, etc, etc …

  32. Enh, I am unable to hate Sigmund Freud due to an interesting story I read about him trying to teach his son to fight back against oppression by beating the shit out of some anti-Semites giving them hassle. He had a lot of fucked up ideas and shit… but I can’t hate someone who wanted to protect his child.

  33. Do you read Dead Philosophers in Heaven? He makes regular appearances there.

    Alas, no. Where do I look?

    Enh, I am unable to hate Sigmund Freud due to an interesting story I read about him trying to teach his son to fight back against oppression by beating the shit out of some anti-Semites giving them hassle. He had a lot of fucked up ideas and shit… but I can’t hate someone who wanted to protect his child.

    I wouldn’t say I hate him. I hate his theories, which are terrible and have had the worst influence on psychiatry and psychology for decades. Very woman-blamey shit in there, especially all that Oedipal crap. Unfortunately, the tone of the times was such that it passed unremarked for the longest time. If not for feminism, I think it still would be taught as something close to gospel.

  34. Oh, I can hate Freud, all right, and hate his empathy-bypass followers.

    Bina – Dead Philosophers in Heaven!

  35. That’s bang on!

    The only thing I’ve ever felt the least twinge of penis envy about is that guys can pee standing up. And maybe write their names in the snow that way. But as for the rest, even wanking…nope.

  36. There are some hilarious comics in that strip. Poor old Nietszche cops it all the time – this is my favourite.

    With penis envy, well, apart from the privileges that go with being a man (something ol’ Sigmund seems to have conveniently overlooked), the only reason I’d have wanted one – in the sense of wanting to be male – was when I thought it would improve my chances with Louis. Turned out not to matter, of course. :)

  37. “I know! And as someone who loves those things, it bugs me so much, because there’s a genre TAILOR-MADE to fuck with gender roles!”

    Talk about it. Speculative fiction and fantasy have it in their blood, in their very name. It’s so weird that so much of both genres seems to lack basic imagination.

  38. Apparently it’s more imaginable to have elves and dragons and whatnot in fantasy than it is to either have a decent female protagonist (that doesn’t conform to gender roles), or to have some other race that isn’t white take major roles in the story. *rolls eyes*

  39. Alice: Well, obviously. A woman being a warrior wouldn’t be realistic! (I have had that conversation SO many times.)

  40. katz – OH GODS YES. I’ve had this conversation with fuckheads who think that “write what you know” means that every single damned protagonist is a straight white dude, and that we should all stop complaining about how writers need to expand their horizons and consider other perspectives ’cause REASONS.

    Elves and dragons: more realistic than a black woman protagonist! *roll eyeballs*

  41. Ally – ::fistbump:: for the Bruces’ Philosophers Song!

  42. The “write what you know” issue could also be resolved by there being more people publishing sf/fantasy novels who aren’t straight white men.

    (Cue horrified screeching.)

  43. @CassandraSays: The sad thing is that even when someone who isn’t a straight white man writes a very successful fantasy series about people who aren’t straight, white males, the Hollywood adaptations are all about (surprise, surprise) straight white males. Case in point: the oh-so-white godawful adaptation of one of the best fantasy series out there, Earthsea.

    Ursula K. Le Guin’s words on the subject: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Earthsea.html

  44. Apparently it’s more imaginable to have elves and dragons and whatnot in fantasy than it is to either have a decent female protagonist (that doesn’t conform to gender roles), or to have some other race that isn’t white take major roles in the story. *rolls eyes*

    PREACH

  45. RE: Alice

    I’ve had this conversation with fuckheads who think that “write what you know” means that every single damned protagonist is a straight white dude, and that we should all stop complaining about how writers need to expand their horizons and consider other perspectives ’cause REASONS.

    Oh, horseshit. Especially in fantasy. How many of us have ridden a dragon, for Chrissake?

    And this is why I write about other folks in my damn story. Jewish/Carthaginian gay golem men and androgynous psychoelectric brown teenagers and folks in goddamn wheelchairs. Shockingly, people buy it! *eyeroll*

  46. I have a setting where everyone’s second-born child enters the military and I’ve had people adamantly insist that this could never, ever happen, because half of them would be women and some of those women would die, and if a group that’s maybe a quarter of the women in the country suffers casualties then they won’t be able to make enough babies.

  47. “androgynous psychoelectric brown teenagers”

    Go M.D.!! But you forgot that she’s an alien or something (do other dimensions count as alien?)

  48. …what? Modern day causality rates or WWI or earlier? I’ll do the math on replacement rate for you if you want.

  49. Casuality*

    You know what autocorrect? Stop being auto incorrect.

  50. RE: Argenti

    Only so many adjectives I could fit in the sentence! (And it’s a little… complicated. The crew just uses the word ‘alien’ for sake of convenience, and because it makes for better jokes.)

    RE: katz

    I fail to be surprised by any pain in the ass reader claiming something is unrealistic… when they read shit about robots and dragons. I still eagerly await the day when someone tries to pull “but queer/trans people didn’t exist in ancient Judea!” Because then I will smile, and pull out the Talmud, and go, “Well, ACTUALLY…”

  51. LBT — fair enough, on both points!

  52. Basically, in the IS-verse, even the TERM alien is a little fuzzy. All the lifeforms in Infinity Smashed come from parallel dimensions Earths, each of which has diverged, sometimes so radically there are absolutely no lifeforms in common between them, except maybe on a microbial level. So M.D. is from a different Earth, Raige is actually from a different Earth from Thomas (minor chrono-displacement), and depending on which story, Biff is sometimes from a different Earth than all of the aboves. So M.D. is as much an alien to Raige as Thomas is, technically. It just mostly gets glossed over because it’s such a headache to keep track of what functionally appears to be teleportation, time travel, and space travel. (Well, for them. People who were born into that school of thought get it fine.)

  53. …what? Modern day causality rates or WWI or earlier? I’ll do the math on replacement rate for you if you want.

    Earlier. And if it helps, in this culture, the preferred number of children is four.

  54. I’m sorry you have to deal with asshat readers, katz. I feel inordinately lucky; I haven’t had any of that shit yet, but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time. Mine just kindly catch technical errors for me!

  55. LBT — hey I can follow, but my brain has been trained on Doctor Who. And working out things like there being at least three versions of Jack walking around at various periods (maybe four at one point) it’s Timey Whimey!

    Katz, k, give me a bit to research earlier causality rates. Considering I’ll have to account for famine and disease too I assume, this should get fun!

  56. LBT – I know right? I do some cooperative text-based roleplays for fun online, and the vast majority of characters are Asian, female, and complete with both strenghs and flaws. Many if not most of them are also GSMs (as this is part of my personal experience), and some of them have mental disabilities or have faced serious trauma and whatnot. It’s not that hard, fuckwits.

  57. Uh, we have a problem. Looks like war casualties had an upper range of 30%~ (with some serious outliers of course), and women averaged 4 pregnancies for 2.3~ surviving children (except that was clearly sufficient to carry on society, despite mom having a 10%~ chance of dying from childbirth).

    Average of four kids, only the second going to war, gives an eighth of women going to war (one of four kids, times the 50/50 gender split). Factor in 30% of them dying there and you’re losing 4%~ of all women to war (this fits logic as war death rates as a total of population seem to average around 2%, and those are mostly volunteer armies and thus less than 25% of the population)

    Seeing how we survived losing 10% of women to childbirth, I’m gonna guess losing less than half that to war wouldn’t kill the species. I could make this far more complex, but we survived the Black Death, we could survive losing 4% of women to war.

  58. Ignore my comment about a problem, it was from a previous edit with bad math — failed to account for the 3 kids per couple who’d survive to adulthood. I’m assuming you meant preferred number of surviving kids, not pregnancies. (Actually, you’d still probably be okay since that was apparently the medieval pregnancies rate and Black Death)

  59. I think the most meaningful statistical question would be whether drafting ~1/8 of the women and 1/8 of the men would have a bigger impact on the population than drafting (to maintain the same size army) ~1/4 of the men. After all, when male soldiers die, they have an effect on the population, too (especially if the culture is generally monogamous).

    But overall, there are just so many factors–whether there’s actually a war on or not, what casualties are like among the civilian population, etc–that I tend to think the gender breakdown of the military would cause a negligible difference. Certainly not big enough to make it impossible for such a culture to exist.

  60. Agreed. Particularly if you’re ensured more surviving women than casualties — the 50% of first borns that are female children will surely outnumber the female war casualties. Actually, four kids may be well above replacement rate, let me check something.

  61. Thought so. Highest replacement rates worldwide, currently? About 3.5 kids. And that’s with 1.5%~ of the country dying annually (For comparison, that’s about twice the US rate) Topped out at around 8% during the height of the Black Death (that widely cited “nearly a third of the population” is over 3~4 years, not annually [that would wipe us out!])

    So yes, assuming you don’t have a plague killing a third of the population in 3 years AND a war (which, uh, good luck with that)…you’re good.

  62. Also, replacement rate depends on the age at which people tend to die — if said kids have to reproduce at least once before war, and have 3~ siblings that won’t be going to war…I’m thinking you’re actually risking overpopulation, not under population.

  63. Ugh, Earthsea. I didn’t even watch it because the casting issue irritated me so much.

    If they ever do that to one of Octavia Butler’s books I will be seriously tempted to send them a parcel full of dog poop.

  64. *sigh* Avatar: the Last Airbender. *shakes head, hides face in hands* *sighs again*

    I feel so glad that part of my childhood growing up was the cartoon Jackie Chan Adventures. I didn’t realize until an adult that of the entire main and secondary hero cast, only ONE of them is white, and he tends to act more as a way to get the narrative moving rather than an active character himself. Ditto Xiaolin Showdown, only the white hero is equal with the rest of his team (but was I think the least popular in fandom).

    See, it’s TOTALLY possible to have a fairly successful thing with fewer white folks in it! Jeez.

  65. I self-identify as being pro-feminist and it’s due to AVfM that I do, because if my choices are whatever the hell they are or pro-feminist, it’s a simple choice to make.

  66. @LBT: I liked both of these shows, too. And Static Shock was frickin’ awesome as well, not to mention Batman Beyond(if I had a favorite character who wasn’t the title character, it’d be Maxine hands down. She was *awesome*.). =)

  67. As a man, I’m rather insulted by these MRA guys’ idea that just seeing a woman’s bare breasts or buttocks makes me some kind of a mindlessly horny zombie. They are almost as misandrist as they are misogynist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,850 other followers

%d bloggers like this: