Categories
a voice for men boner rage MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA

Telling us to express our feelings makes us SO MAD! Ironic MRA meme of the week, part 9702

Don't tell ME to express my feelings! RAAAAAARRGHHHH!!1!!
Don’t tell ME to express my feelings! RAAAAAARRGHHHH!!1!!

Above, the unintentionally ironic MRA meme of the week, courtesy of A Voice for Men’s Facebook page, their main distribution center for unintentionally ironic and otherwise terrible memes.  I’m not sure what specific week this is the ironic meme for, given that Emma Watson’s speech to the UN took place last September and this meme was posted on Facebook only this week, but just roll with it, people!

So what exactly makes this meme ironic? Well, for starters, Watson didn’t actually say the words in question or otherwise order men to talk to women about their feelings.

What she said was a good deal more subtle. She started by saying that one of the things that led her to embrace feminism was her realization, at age 18, that “my male friends were unable to express their feelings.” Then she went on to talk in more detail about the ways breaking down gender stereotypes helps to free, well, everyone.

We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.

Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. 

The big irony here? This is exactly what a real Men’s Rights movement should be promoting, not raging against.

Adding to the irony, whoever made this meme made clear that they aren’t just unwilling to listen to women’s feelings; they’re unwilling to listen to a woman’s logical argument. Which is why they simplified her comments and distorted their meaning.

But what wins this meme the grand prize for irony this week is meme maker’s assertion that “WE DON’T NEED OR WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT OUR FEELINGS.”

Really? Because in fact MRA dudes and MGTOWs and the rest of their ilk talk about their feelings constantly, and loudly — with anyone willing to listen and some who aren’t.

Sure, it’s true that most MRA dudes and their ideological soulmates don’t like to talk about their feelings of sadness or anxiety or insecurity or doubt. You know, the sorts of feelings it would be good for most of these guys to explore and understand and, when possible, get past.

But they love, just love, to talk about how angry they are, how angry they think other men are, and how much feminists, and the women of the world generally, are going to suffer if they refuse to listen to angry men and do what they say. Hell, the so-called “father” of Men’s Rights in the UK? A guy who calls himself Angry Harry. (And he more than lives up to the name.)

The cherry on top of this Irony Sundae: the memester’s decision to use a picture of a homeless man to represent a man oppressed by demanding women.

Men don’t become homeless because some evil woman asked them to talk about their feelings. Indeed, given how many homeless people are mentally ill, most homeless men (and women) would benefit from having the opportunity to talk to a trained professional about their feelings and from better mental health services generally. (Not to mention better services for veterans suffering from PTSD and other war-related maladies.)

In the US, many homeless people who are mentally ill were dumped onto the streets by facilities that didn’t have the money to properly care for them; some of the facilities were and are so bad that their former inhabitants actually prefer the streets.

Oh, and one of the main reasons mental health services are so shitty in the US — and why, in particular, so many men are so poorly served? The old-fashioned notion that men “DON’T NEED OR WANT TO TALK … ABOUT OUR FEELINGS.”

So I award AVFM this week’s IRONY AWARD in MEMING, for once again promoting ideas that actually make the world worse for men!

296 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
epitome of incomprehensibility

I dunno, but the Dadaists did! 🙂 (Cut up bits of sentences and throw them into a hat, that is.)

So, my teacher (it was a class on 20th Century Writing by Women (insert misandry meme here)) said that some of the things can be explained literally if you want to, like how “a single hurt color” from a different part can mean red (hurt color = blood, apparently), but it’s also a subversive way to be avant-garde because the subjects are so mundane. The three sections are called “Objects,” “Food,” and “Rooms.” The topic is domesticity, a traditionally feminine-coded thing, and Stein didn’t cram her writing with literary allusions the way James Joyce and Ezra Pound did.

So you can be completely weird about mundane subjects too, and that’s feminist! Or, at least, it can be. And if it’s about Stein and Tolkas’ relationship, there wasn’t just that much lesbian visibility in 1918.

Oh oh, and “Tender Buttons” probably means nipples.

epitome of incomprehensibility

Why am I giving a slapdash, bad-grammar literature lecture? Must be tired. Good night, y’all. 🙂

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
10 years ago

@epitome

“Tender Buttons”?

Now rereading that, I’m thinking she’s talking about how awesome boobs are but I have no clue.

I have to say, I’m not much into uber abstract art like this. Not paintings, not movies, not poems or stories. I’m sorry, but if I need a decoder ring, a detailed biography of the artist, their favorite magazine clippings and all their changes of addresses and such to figure out what they’re saying, if they are saying anything, that is just way too much work to appreciate it.

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

With a guaranteed income people would still do their jobs…so long as they were not treated like shit by the higher ups. Businesses would have to treat employees with respect in order to keep them. Skilled workers would be valued instead of chewed up and spit out. Currently each employer in the US knows they can do anything they like to their employees because losing a shitty part time job can be the difference between life and death. Homelessness is a death sentence.

I hear people complain all the time that they need more hours. They want more work. There isn’t enough to go around.

I’d love to see people playing video games all day long instead of dying from exposure. There are useless wealthy assholes who accomplish nothing at all in their lives outside of spending their great granddaddy’s money and perpetrating an evil system that makes slaves out of other human beings. If we’re going to punish sloth, let’s start with them instead of the elderly, the ill and the wounded. What we have now is brutal class warfare with a staggering body count. Taking the world’s wealth out of the hands of the irredeemably selfish few would be a great start to putting the world right.

GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina

They wanted to steal the proceeds of unfree labor, but when enslaved people became too old or disabled to work, they would suddenly be given their freedom and told to support themselves.

This is a system that has reappeared recently in suggestions to establish a “Guest Worker” program to deal with the illegal immigration “problem,” The idea is that you bring in strong young people to do hard physical jobs at low pay, bleed them dry, and then when they are old and worn out you send them back to their poverty-stricken home countries to survive any way they can (why should you care?). Maybe we New Englanders don’t need every kind of fresh fruit in winter at the expense of some fruit picker who is paid less than what it costs to survive.

One of the problems western society faces is that as little as 150 years ago, most people worked in agriculture and the contributions of every even marginally able-bodied person were essential to survival for most families. Now most physical labor has been replaced by machines powered by non-renewable, climate=change causing fossil fuels or low-paid workers in poor countries. So now we are beginning to need people.as takers (consumers) more than makers (producers). In the next few decades — assuming some solution to the energy vs pollution problems can be solved — we may see a day when paying people to consume but not work may be the only way for a modern economy to survive.
I have been rather fortunate to have lived an avant-garde life. I started out as a stay-at-home Dad, and when health problems (and other issues, such as having a criminal, record as a Vietnam-era draft resister) made it hard for me to find a job that would pay enough to make it worthwhile, I ended up doing a lot of volunteer and semi-volunteer work. I was the editor of a guidebook to hiking trails in NH for 25 years, that sold half a million copies in that time — earning less than minimum wage, but fortunately my wife had a career that paid enough to support us all. I think if you had a guaranteed income, and lot of people would do as I did — do useful jobs that don’t pay enough to live on in the capitalist economy.
The thing about capitalism is that it has proven to be very good at producing goods and services, but it inevitably distributes the proceeds of production very poorly. The answer is of course that a fairly serious redistribution must occur — even if the rich hate it. There are probably 1,002,001 ways it could be done — but the resistance of those who benefit from maldistribution of wealth needs to be overcome.

Bryce
Bryce
10 years ago

@epitome of incomprehensibility

Not any more or less selfish than individuals are. Most people have a fantasy that revolves around receiving attention (assuming it’s wanted) as opposed to giving it. It just so happens that in the early getting-to-know-each-other/ dating phase, women are used to receiving it. Subsequently some will want that to persist as the norm. (Ever heard that maddening phrase: “He waited too long”?)

Not an important issue in itself, but one reason why men maintain a confidence bluff rather than acknowledge insecurity.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
10 years ago
Bryce
Bryce
10 years ago

@Tessa

…my take on it came across as obviously one-sided. There a big downsides in being considered “passive” in the process ie. a lot of unwanted attention, and not being able to articulate your own desires as easily.

etwas
etwas
10 years ago

When the issue is homelessness, talking about mental health services is really just changing the subject. Dude pictured above will continue to sleep on the street in between psychiatric appointments, and employers will be just as reluctant to hire him after you assure them he’s taking medication.

weirwoodtreehugger
10 years ago

What Asshole Bryce is saying here, but not using the words because he knows it’s complete nonsense and he’s hoping it will fly under the radar, is that women looooooove being passive objects for men to pursue, and they loooooooove it when men don’t talk about their feelings because women don’t like to waste time being considerate toward men.

That’s what Bryce is saying.

Don’t you just love having your feelings and experiences mansplained to you? I know I do!

Like this

Most people have a fantasy that revolves around receiving attention (assuming it’s wanted) as opposed to giving it.
It just so happens that in the early getting-to-know-each-other/ dating phase, women are used to receiving it. Subsequently some will want that to persist as the norm. (Ever heard that maddening phrase: “He waited too long”?)

This does not, in the slightest resemble my experiences. I have always felt insecure and not truly wanted in every relationship I’ve ever been. I hate, hate, hate this trope that women are all super confident and socially adept and used to being covered in suitors at all times. This really only describes a small minority of women I’ve known. Those that are both conventionally attractive and have great social skills. Every time I date a guy, I always feel like the one off balance and over analyzing everything.

So why does every whiny nice guy assume this? Misogyny. That’s why. They assume that women don’t experience Very Important Pain like men do. We’re objects, whether it’s romantic or sexual. Therefore we can never feel the sting of rejection. Never experience insecurity or feel awkward. We’re either prizes, mysterious unattainable fantasies or just plain invisible because we’re not young/thin/pretty enough.

And “he waited too long?” I’ve only ever heard that kind of talk in movies and TV shows written mostly by men. The friendzone is not a thing. They’re just soft nos because clear nos can lead to verbal or even physical violence.

megpie71
10 years ago

The way I see it working, a universal basic income would work in the following manner:

Firstly, it makes any wage a marginal wage (that is, the wage becomes the difference between the basic wage and the amount you’re earning now). So, for example, we have an Australian pair, each working full-time, where one person is earning the minimum wage of $16.70 per hour (or about $34,736 per annum) and where the other person is earning $24.04 per hour (or $50,000 per annum). If we set a universal basic wage of $30,000 paid by the government, then the marginal wages needed to keep up their current standard of living become $4,736 and $20,000 per annum, respectively. (Or in other words, $2.28 per hour, and $9.61 per hour).

So employees just became a whole lot more affordable for employers.

Your typical orchardist might have to supply a bit of an extra incentive to get people willing to work long hours doing hard physical labour – maybe $5 per hour over the UBI. But it’s still less than what they’re having to pay right now.

Secondly, it creates a very solid “floor” for the economy – a base level of economic activity which can function no matter how much the parasites on top try to suck things dry. If you’re capable of living within your UBI, any money you earn after that becomes fairy money, to be spent on treats.

If I were implementing this here in Australia, I’d be setting up a system where the current income tax levels still applied – so if you’re receiving the UBI, you’re paying tax, just like everyone else. It’s just that if your only income that year is your UBI, you get your tax refunded at the end of the year, just like what used to happen with social security benefits. Means if you’re only on a UBI, you wind up getting a bit less than you thought you’d get -$224.20 in tax – but you’re effectively being required to save the money by the government. So our example couple above would wind up paying out $3141.84 and $7797 in tax each. This means, of course, that our first person pays almost their entire wage income in tax – they’re only going to be taking home $1594.16 of it (about $30 per week) – so maybe they won’t bother working next year. They might go back to study and improve their skills, so they’re able to get a better job at a higher marginal rate. Or they might decide to do volunteer work in the community, or spend time looking after children, or whatever.

Marginal employment in low-paying work just became a whole lot less desirable for employees.

One of the fundamental imbalances in many capitalist systems (namely, work which can be done indoors requiring no heavy lifting but rather a lot of parasitising on the existing system generally pays better than physical labour outdoors actually producing things) may well wind up being redressed by this.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 years ago

As someone who has experienced quite a bit of attention, Bryce, I can assure you that being on the receiving end of attention is the LAST thing I want. I am a private, introverted person and I like nothing better to be left alone unless I choose to engage with someone else. And no, by engage with someone else I do not mean “wander into their general vicinity in order to be lavished with attention”, I mean “have a respectful, friendly, and reasonably equally distributed exchange of ideas and opinions”.

People paying attention to me outside of the bounds of mutual conversation makes me uncomfortable and anxious, more than anything.

So yeah, you can fuck right off.

Dvärghundspossen
10 years ago

@Weirwoodtreehugger: Seconding everything you say.

Adding: When I was a teenager and very far from being popular with guys, I used to fantasize about being “covered in suitors”. I thought that would be cool and make me feel really confident. When I was in my early twenties I was suddenly fairly popular and did get, well, courted by various guys that I wasn’t interested in, and all I could feel was like “shit shit shit, how am I supposed to handle this situation? How do you let someone down without being a mean bitch? Am I automatically a mean bitch merely for turning him down? HEEEELP!”.

Dvärghundspossen
10 years ago

Ninjad by Catalpa. 🙂 I’m not even shy or anything, I’m generally fairly socially confident, but the idea of turning down the attentions of someone I know and who’s, well, nice, still freaked me out.
In hindsight, being subjected to constant messages from pop culture according to which nice guys deserve to get the girl they’re interested in probably had something to do with that…

Neurite
Neurite
10 years ago

weirwoodtreehugger:

“I hate, hate, hate this trope that women are all super confident and socially adept and used to being covered in suitors at all times. This really only describes a small minority of women I’ve known. Those that are both conventionally attractive and have great social skills. …So why does every whiny nice guy assume this?”

Because to these guys, women who are not conventionally attractive, outgoing, and in a very narrow age window simply do not exist. Literally anytime they say “women,” they mean “women who I want to date/have sex with.” Older women, conventionally unattractive women, severely socially awkward women… it’s like their brain conveniently forgets about them.

Otherwise statements such as “women just need to sit back and have men approach them, and then they get to decide who to reject and who to accept” make zero sense. Because of course there are plenty of women who rarely or never get approached. But to these guys, that’s not who they think of when they say “women” – “women” means “hot women.” Non-hot women aren’t really women to these guys. They’re invisible. They’re not who they want to have sex with, so how could they matter?

EJ (The Other One)
10 years ago

But to these guys, that’s not who they think of when they say “women” – “women” means “hot women.” Non-hot women aren’t really women to these guys. They’re invisible. They’re not who they want to have sex with, so how could they matter?

This. Speaking as a man who remembers his misogynist period with acute embarrassment, this all over.

weirwoodtreehugger
10 years ago

Neurite,
Exactly. Men who aren’t conventionally attractive and socially adept matter. Their pain is important. Women are the same don’t exist, or they exist but are non boner pleasing and therefore the subject of rage.

Ugh. I’m average to cute depending on how I’m dressing and my weight fluctuations. But I’m weird. Smart but not ambitious and accomplished. I can’t flirt to save my life (unless I’ve been drinking) and I’m awkward as hell. If I were a man, I’d be treated like a hero. I’d be a protagonist and a subject. But women like me rarely exist in popular culture. Very occasionally we exist as the wise cracking friend who never gets any in a rom com. Great. I really resent being told I must have it easy because I’m a woman and can never feel the pain of a socially awkward guy.

EJ (The Other One)
10 years ago

Also: fuck off, Bryce. Grownups are talking.

Neurite
Neurite
10 years ago

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at the massive blind spot for literally any not-hot-to-these-guys women, given that it comes from the same people who have yet another massive blindspot… because these are also the people who say “women have all the power when it comes to dating, because they get to choose who to accept and who to reject!”

…completely overlooking the fact that before women get to make that choice, men first get to choose whether and who to approach! As Tessa pointed out so insightfully, in the traditional model, men have control of initiation. It is only after that initial choice by men that a woman then gets to choose, and only from the guys who have first chosen to approach her (and let’s reflect for a second on how creepy and rapey it is to complain about women getting to choose whether or not to accept those advances!).

For some reason, these guys completely overlook that, in the traditional status quo, men choose first, and women choose only after that and reactively. But somehow that second choice means that “women have all the power”? Of course it’s, again, because the first act of choosing is totally invisible to these guys, because it doesn’t negatively affect them, and they only see the second act of choosing, because it has the potential of making them sad.

Look, I don’t want to discount how painful and ego-shattering rejection can be. When I first realized I was bi and started trying to flirt with girls, and got shot down for the first time, I had to sit down because I felt like I’d physically gotten the wind knocked out of me. Experiencing this repeatedly can surely eat at your psyche, and a social script that asks you to repeatedly put yourself out there and risk rejection must often feel harsh. (Which is reason #2,504 why feminism and moving past traditional gender roles are good for all genders…) But this doesn’t negate the fact that in a system that gives control over initiating the interaction to one gender, that gender has more power over that interaction.

Tessa
Tessa
10 years ago

Neurite:
I have a theory about that kind of thing. And this may seem kinda rambly, buuut OK, it kinda stems from what I was talking about before about guys having the power of initiation. It means that pretty much every time they’re rejected it’s from someone they’re attracted to, or at the very least, willing to approach, so that’s the only point of reference they really have.

This has two effects.

First effect: What you are talking about. And when they mentally flip it to imagine what it would be like if the roles were reversed, it ends up being flipped to people they would approach, approaching them (only point of reference they have). So they see a scenario where people they’d like all approaching them.

Second effect: The initiation of the action becomes somewhat neutral, and all the blame and responsibility is put on the target. It’s totally ignored that the initiator decided whether the target was attractive enough to approach, the target is seen as the one being the “gatekeeper” (how often do we see them using that term?).

Tessa
Tessa
10 years ago

I was ninja’d by the person I was responding to… Ha

Bryce
Bryce
10 years ago

@weirdwoodtreehugger

Of course women experience genuine pain and rejection. (That would be a poisonous take on another’s opinion from a place of supreme anger, by the way.) Plenty of women are ignored completely, or conversely, find approaches from men unwelcome. Rude to not acknowledge that.

Gender roles like this are rather shite. It means a greater chance of unwated attention on one hand, along with the almost certainty of being alone for men who lack confidence (and a thick skin).

“. I hate, hate, hate this trope that women are all super confident and socially adept and used to being covered in suitors at all times. This really only describes a small minority of women I’ve known. Those that are both conventionally attractive and have great social skills.”

So if personal anecdotes are acceptable, my workplace is full of introverted people. The women are almost all married or in same-sex partnerships. The shy, awkward men, almost all single.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
10 years ago

Something in my bedroom smells like rotten fruit, but there is no fruit in the house and tearing up every storage and hidden area has turned up nothing. This mystery stink is still less annoying than Bryce.

katz
katz
10 years ago

But somehow that second choice means that “women have all the power”?

I rather think it’s that thing where women having anything gets interpreted as women having everything. So women having any choice about who to date gets seen as women having “all the power” in the same way that women talking, ever, gets seen as women “dominating the conversation.”

Moocow
Moocow
10 years ago

Oh hi Bryce, almost didn’t see ya there.

http://funnyanimalz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Sea-Lion-photo-bomb.jpg

Someone who is confident and unfazed at all times is more entertaining, less of a hassle to be around. People* generally prefer that.

* = You can just tell he wanted to say “women” here, but lurks enough to realize that this would just give him away.

No, Bryce, I find someone who is ‘unfazed at all times’ to be incredibly boring, because I’m a highly emotional person, and I am attracted to people who radiate lots of feelings. This may shock you, but people are different! What a thought!

But of course, the best lie is a half-truth. Yes, confidence is indeed universally attractive, but it’s very simple as to why: You’re never going to meet someone if you’re too scared to make a move. That’s it. Confidence is only mandatory because you have to be willing to get out there and face rejection. All other traits vary from person to person.

Bryce, you carry the foul stench of a redpiller/PUA; your view is similar and so very obviously based on making sweeping generalizations about trite gender roles. Fuck off, and try a bit of subtlety in your next attempt.

1 4 5 6 7 8 12