 |
| Grace Jones will kick your bumper sticker’s ass. |
The good fellows on MGTOWforums.com want to change all that. Recently a batch of them began brainstorming about possible slogans for MGTOW bumper stickers. Womanhater started the discussion off with a doozy, managing to be both belligerent AND baffling to anyone who hasn’t already taken a sip of the MGTOW Kool-Aid:
Chivalry is Treason!
A promising start. Not all the suggestions that followed quite lived up to this standard. Quite a few were earnest and plodding, not very slogan-y:
When Was the Last Time You Treated a Man Fairly?Single moms should stay single.Some men live happy fulfilling lives, the rest get married.Women and happiness don’t go together.
Still, some of the more earnest attempts managed to be attention-grabbing nonetheless:
I don’t believe any accusation of rape
Many others simply rehashed basic MGTOW themes:
We Are Men, Not WalletsMarriage is for moronsAlimony is Slavery
But a number of the suggestions contained the spark of creative loopiness that keeps me coming back to the MGTOW forums again and again. Take, for example, the surprisingly large number that managed to work vaginas into the equation, generally in a highly off-putting manner:
Give women the finger and not in a good wayExcuse me, is that fish I smell?Two holes don’t make a right
This last one, while not without its charms, is a little puzzling. If you do the math correctly, women have seven holes, and men have six (or seven, if you include one very small hole). Up to three of these lady-holes (and up to two for men) may come into play in the course of routine sexual activity. (More advanced fetishists may use more holes, as this somewhat NSFW video illustrates; don’t worry, it’s not a link to a video of someone putting something in a man’s seventh hole, because, OW!) I’m not entirely sure which two holes our sloganeer is fingering as the villains here.
Quite a few of the suggestions seemed almost designed to baffle everyone outside the confines of MGTOWforums.com (and even some within it):
Don’t blame me for 1920Hammurabi was correct about womenListen to Cato the Elder
For those playing along at home, 1920 was of course the year in which matinee idol Douglas Fairbanks married actress Mary Pickford, known as “America’s Sweetheart,” even though she was Canadian; it was also the year in which construction began on the Holland Tunnel between New York and New Jersey, thus setting the stage for the horror later known as the “bridge and tunnel crowd.” But I’m guessing the event our sloganeer is really concerned about is the passage of the 19th Amendment, giving American women the vote, though, unless our sloganeer is quite elderly indeed, I’m not quite sure why anyone would be blaming (or crediting) him for the Amendment’s passage.
As for the other two, well, the Code of Hammurabi, the first king of the Babylonian Empire in the 18th century BC, “mark[ed] the beginning of the institutionalization of the patriarchal family as an aspect of state power,” as historian Gerda Lerner notes. Hammy (as I like to call him) also invented the idea of “an eye for an eye.” And Cato the Elder? He said some nasty shit about women.You can look it up yourself. I’m lazy.
Other slogans weren’t so much obscure as just plain odd:
If the FDA screened pussy, you’d need a prescription to get it.I’d rather have guns than gals.A cow in the bed…but a freak in the courtroom!
And then there was this little riddle:
Q)Why don’t women respect men?
A)Becoz a Mousetrap laughs at the Mouse
Uh, what?
Of all the proposed slogans, only one actually showed any real wit, this punny little contribution from Apeiron:
Better dead than wed.
Indeed, this one was so good I suspected it had to have been used somewhere before. And indeed it has been. A quick Google search showed that the UK anarchist group Class War used the phrase back in the 1980s on a poster protesting the marriage of Prince Andrew and Sarah “Fergie” Ferguson. Of course, that temporarily happy couple ended up separating after only six years, and divorced a few years after that.
Maybe slogans can change the world.
Scary thought.
Despite that risk, I would like to encourage the MGTOWers to make up some stickers of their own. Maybe some t-shirts, coffee mugs, and baseball caps as well. Heck, put these slogans on everything you own. Seriously, anything that makes it easier to identify you, preferably at a distance, is more than welcome.
>Oh really, and the adult woman has no accountability in exposing her child to the same abusive situation over and over. Reminds me of the person who drives drunk and then claims they have a disease and its not their fault. Oh yeah, she's a victim, right? We're not talking child accountability, but you know that. Im glad my daughter knows that difference, seems you didnt learn that lesson.
>A day in the life of tit for tat…Man does something bad.tit for tat frantically searches for the nearest woman to the situation to blame.Is it really that hard of a fucking concept that people who do acts of violence are responsible and accountable for their acts of violence? People who negligently sit by are blameworty as well, but let us not forget men are grown ass fucking humans capable of being responsible for their actions with or without any woman around for you to point the finger at.
>Maybe this is not what is under discussion right now, but re. abusers/responsibility: I work with victims, and I also have done some work with inmates. Not to take this conversation too far astray, but when I read Tit for Tat's comment, I was thinking about the fact that almost all of the inmates I've met are themselves victims of abuse. Violence and a lack of empathy (usually) don't come from nowhere.However, a lot of the time, when this idea pops up on MRM sites, it translates into the idea that all mothers are awful people who abuse and neglect their children, and all people who commit violence do so because of problems stemming from an abusive mother. It's true that not every mother is an ideal mother, but many of those inmates I'm talking about were abused by male relatives. But I kind of hate to even note that, because it comes off as finger-pointing. Frankly, my concern is not that one sex is more prone to violence, but that violence is a cycle.In short, I think you're both right, generally. Adults are responsible for their own actions, good and bad, but violence generally starts somewhere.
>Without a doubt(I believe) men are more physically violent. One thing I think we have to ask ourselves is, how did they get that way, and who is accountable for this. Until we look at the responsibility of both genders in this we will continue ignore the fact that it takes 2 to dance the dance.I love how you used briget's personal experience with abuse as a self-serving springboard to apologize for abusive men, you disgusting maggot.I've seen this whole "hmm well we have to look at the responsibility of both parties" bullshit used to attempt to soften the crimes of male abusers many, many times, so I'm not buying your shtick.
>It's not like I think women are perfect. Briget's experience is eerily similar to an ex-girlfriend's of mine, who was raped and abused by multiple of her mother's husbands. I think her mother was an awful, awful person. I feel nothing but loathing and contempt for her mother for being too self-centered to even admit that this was happening to her own daughter.But that doesn't make her responsible EVEN PARTLY for any given act of rape. She's responsible for choosing terrible husbands, certainly. She's responsible for looking the other way. But those men were rapists and abusers. They'll rape and abuse whether or not that particular woman marries them. No woman pushed them to do what they did.
>So women who abuse men are to be held responsible for that abuse. And women who raise men in such a way that they become abusive are also to be held responsible for that abuse. And women who are partnered with an abuser are responsible for abuse that targets other people, too. Tell me again when and where the men have to take responsibility for their abusive behavior? I mean, if I'm an abusive asshole to my boyfriend, can I blame my father? If a man can blame his mother for turning him into an abuser, surely it works the other way round?
>TripYou sure do like throw insults at me and others. I get this sense you have a lot of unresolved anger(you sure youre not an MRA). My wife says that is usually a sign someone is very sad. I hope you feel better soon.
>BeeI appreciate your last comment.
>I mean, if I'm an abusive asshole to my boyfriend, can I blame my father? If a man can blame his mother for turning him into an abuser, surely it works the other way round?(Lady vic)If your father continually put you in harms way he should definately be held accountable. Afterall you were a child, wasnt it his responsibility to protect you?
>However, a lot of the time, when this idea pops up on MRM sites, it translates into the idea that all mothers are awful people who abuse and neglect their children, and all people who commit violence do so because of problems stemming from an abusive mother. It's true that not every mother is an ideal mother, but many of those inmates I'm talking about were abused by male relatives.I have also read on some MRM sites (and not to say that ALL MRAs or FRAs have said this) the blatant lie that if abuse occurs at the hands of a male relative, that relative would NEVER be the biological father. So yet again, the "finger-pointing" is directed back at the mother, specifically those mothers who are the custodial parents not partnered with the biological father.In one of the occupations I have had during my lifetime, I have dealt with fathers who had abused (sexual and/or otherwise) their biological children, and the admittance came from their own lips, not from the mother "falsely" accusing them.
>Trip said : I think her mother was an awful, awful person. I feel nothing but loathing and contempt for her mother for being too self-centered to even admit that this was happening to her own daughter.But that doesn't make her responsible EVEN PARTLY for any given act of rape. She's responsible for choosing terrible husbands, certainly. She's responsible for looking the other way. But those men were rapists and abusers. They'll rape and abuse whether or not that particular woman marries them. No woman pushed them to do what they did.If she has no responsibility then why is she an awful person? I find this to be a contradiction.
>Tit for Tat: I have, on some of the MRA sites. You see, I am not entrenched in either side. I actually think both sides have some words of wisdom and some nut cases. The video was tongue in cheek, my wife and I were both laughing when we heard it. Sorry for the cheap attempt at humour. 😉It's alright, but I hope you realize your wife doesn't necessarily speak for me. I started working before I was a teenager and carried huge responsibilities at home from an early age. I've always worked my ass off and never had a man support me. That's true also of my mother, my grandmothers and my great-grandmothers (the latter were peasants who worked back-breaking labor from sun up to sun down, with no weekends or vacations). So a "hint" directed at me in the form of a song about a woman who does nothing all day and works a man to death for her luxuries does not refer to any reality that I'm familiar with — but it sure evokes a familiar, ugly stereotype that reminds me that misogyny is alive and well, as I previously described. One of its most blatant manifestations, found all over MRA sites and certainly in the comments of this site, is that women's labor is thankless, unvalued and unrecognized. Well, sure, you might say you value and recognize your wife's labor — but that does not stop you from presuming that a woman who is a stranger is a useless waste of space. And that is just as unfair and bigoted as if every man was presumed to be a rapist and an abuser.If it makes you feel better, I laughed at the woman kicking the man in the balls on the Big Bang Theory on Thursday. It doesn't, because it's irrelevant. There is no getting around the fact that violence is often set up to be funny in movies and sitcoms, and people can't help laughing at it. But it has nothing to do with your presumption that I discussed above.Even my daughter thought it was really funny, though when I pointed out that not many would be laughing if it was a woman being kicked by a man in the crotch, her laugh was a little more subdued.Well, yeah, this one gets dragged out a lot by MRA's, so let's addressed it. The difference between the portrayal of a man getting kicked in the crotch versus a woman being kicked in the crotch is IRONY. In our culture, not only are men perceived as the aggressor sex, but male genitalia itself symbolizes power, success, domination and aggression. Did you know that the Medici family had an image of balls on their crest? And yes, those balls symbolized the Medicis' cannonball-sized balls. Quite simply, balls=power and penis=aggression, so when that part of the male anatomy is revealed to be, in fact, extremely vulnerable, this is ironic and that's why it's funny. By contrast, female genitalia is associated with submission, subjugation, helplessness, degradation and lack of agency. An image of a woman being hit in the crotch or raped isn't funny because it lacks irony — it's a representation that's consistent with how women are perceived. Balls are supposed to be invincible, so when a single swift kick proves they aren't, and are shown to be in some ways a liability, people laugh. Vaginas are supposed to be there for degradation and service, so when they are degraded and exploited, people don't laugh because this is just how things are.I wish MRA's would remember that when they describe someone as "having balls" or tell someone to "stop being such a girl".
>It's alright, but I hope you realize your wife doesn't necessarily speak for me.(Amused)Nor do you speak for her, or my mother, who was widowed at 31 with 3 children and obtained a Masters in Social Work over the next 8 yrs. I was about to attempt to discuss the rest of your post but then I realized I am the fool here. Good luck in your future.
>Amused, a lot of you Feminists who always scream "bigotry! Hate! are the biggest haters of all!! "Feminist" politicians are warmongers, just like the right-wing, They take away our civil liberties also! You are NOT against bigotry, by putting on the Feminist label! You are for bigotry under a different ideology
>Darksidecat said:"A day in the life of tit for tat…Man does something bad.tit for tat frantically searches for the nearest woman to the situation to blame." As opposed to our western justice system in which when a woman does something bad, the judges look for the nearest MAN to blame! In Canada, when a mom drowned her kids, the judge in this case, blamed the dad for driving her to do it, without even any evidence! In our misandric culture, I can't think of a judge who would blame a mom for oppressing her husband into killing his kids! You got the double standard backwards.you said: "Is it really that hard of a fucking concept that people who do acts of violence are responsible and accountable for their acts of violence?" Unless they are women. Then judges in western society will be more likely to forgive them, and give them understanding.
>Suggestions for the MRA bumperstickers:Have You Hugged A Mammoth Hunter Today?Bitch, Buy Your Own DinnerMy Other Means Of Compensating Is A GunGimme My Rib BackReal Men Die AloneIf You Are Offended By ThisYou Should Be In The Kitchen
>I've read this post again and again and I just can't figure out your hole count. Assuming men and woman both have nostrils (2), ears (2), mouths (1), butts (1), and urtheras (1) and only woman have vaginas then men have 7 and woman have 8.Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!
No, hang on, women have eight holes. Ear ear eye eye mouth urethra vagina anus. Men combine functions of urethra and vagina, sort of, for a total of seven.
(Insert your own joke here about MGTOWers combining the functions of mouth and anus.)