>
 |
| An Imaginary Feminist in action. |
There’s a great post up on The Pervocracy inspired by, well, some of the more lovable characters who frequent the comments section on this little blog – our resident antifeminists. As Holly notes, the feminists posting here devote much of their time (naturally enough) to arguing for feminism, while the MRA types, by contrast, tend to argue against an imaginary enemy that only bears a vague passing resemblance to actual feminism. Holly sets forth the tenets of this imaginary feminism, or IF, as she’s managed to glean them from the comments by MRA types here.
IF, she notes, is monolithic:
Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF’s chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Firefly.
Imaginary Feminists have no real grievances, are eager to take rights away from men, love shaming men, and are simultaneously sex-hating puritans and sex-obsessed sluts.
In other words, they are dastardly creatures indeed. If they really existed, I would oppose them too.
The post is hilarious and spot-on in its critiques. Well worth reading.
EDIT: Link fixed.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Tit for Tat, you got shouted down for specious arguments made in bad faith, not because you were sympathetic to MRAs. I remember having quite a civil discussion with you, before you proved it was just a waste of time by not really listening to anything I was trying to say.
>Hey Johnny – that quote you keep repeating from the Counter-Feminist… it might sound extreme, but when looking at places like this, I begin to understand why that sentiment exists. You've illustrated that quite thoroughly in your reply, which was basically "Your issues aren't important, so I'll just mock and dismiss them".Hey Ion – that quote I keep repeating from the Counter-Feminist… that's the blog that you directed me to as an example of articulate talk about real issues. And it's not some unrepresentative quote that I cherry-picked from the comments. It's the header quote! It's the very first thing you read after the blog's name. It's the blog's mission statement. And you don't even bother to deny that it "sounds" extreme, you simply make excuses for it.You want me to be serious? Fine, I'll be serious. That quote from the Counter-Feminist sums up the entire Men's Rights Movement in a nutshell. Its description of feminism as "a female-supremacist hate movement" is a textbook example of projection. Flip the genders, and it's a perfect description of the MRM. MRAs are motivated by hatred of women, so when they look at feminism, instead of seeing what's actually there, all they see is themselves reflected. Their "issues" are generally bullshit, and when by accident they discover a genuine case of anti-male bias, they invariably ascribe it to "the feminist movement" and not to a society that always has been, and mostly still is, dominated by men.And as for your own denial of MRA-hood, I ain't buyin' it. I think your denial of MRAitude is just a pose you affect so you can pretend to be an objective outside observer. As I noted, you sound exactly like every MRA who has ever come on this blog to whine (generally) about the oppressive matriarchy that is modern society, and (specifically) about what a bunch of h8erz feminists are.And as I correctly predicted, you attempt to conflate mockery with hatred. Mockery is not motivated by hatred, it is motivated by amused contempt. These are two very different emotions, as you know perfectly well. If you don't like being an object of contempt, you need to stop being contemptible.
>Oh please, like I give a shit whether you think I'm an MRA or not. You give yourself far too much importance, Johnny. And I see that I'm correct in thinking you didn't even look at any of the posts or articles there. You looked at the header, cried "OMG MISOGYNY LOL" and stopped there.But it doesn't matter, because men can't really win, can they? Their issues are automatically dismissed as "bullshit" as you so eloquently put it. If they complain, you accuse them of "whining". And on the off chance that you admit there's a real case of anti-male bias, it's of course the fault of that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.I have never seen a real rebuttal to any real argument so far. Just childish attacks and insults. Including a pretty pathetic attempt to claim that your repeated attacks are "amused contempt". Here's a newsflash – you don't create or post on a blog every day because you feel "amused contempt" for somebody. There's something much bigger at work here. If they were really just nutcases, you wouldn't care. What you're afraid of is that they may be right, and so you'll do your best to screech and sling garbage at them, to convince them and yourself that they're not a threat. You don't talk to them, you mock and dismiss them. It's the tactic of a bully who knows he's losing the fight. Maybe that header isn't so wrong after all.
>Shorter and yet perpetual Ion: "It's so hard being a white guy! I can't own slaves anymore!"
>@ Ion: Here's a question for you, and I am sincerely interested in your answer. How can a woman be a good person? What does she have to do? How does she have to dress and behave? What should her priorities and life goals be? I don't really care how extreme or out there your answer is, I just really want to know the sort of woman who will earn your approval.
>@ Lady Victoria von Syrus:5 bucks he says "made of rubber"
>@ Cat: Probably, but this is my favorite question to ask MRAs who claim they are not misogynist. If they're really not misogynists, then they'll have an easy time describing a good person who happens to be a woman. But, of course, it's impossible for a misogynist to answer, since 'good person' and 'woman' might as well be antonyms in their worldview.
>I think you would [destroy the MRA viewpoint] if you could.But this is obviously false. This blog is open and largely unmoderated. MRAs post here all the time. Discount was banned after he got completely out of control, but otherwise their presence is actually encouraged so we will have something to talk about.Naturally we're going to disagree with most of what they say and say so in unambiguous terms, but that's not remotely the same as trying to suppress their viewpoint. If we wanted their viewpoint suppressed, we wouldn't let them post on this blog.
>that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.And this is why people find it impossible to have a conversation with you. We could cite an arbitrarily long list of things that are or appear biased against women, but I'm sure that you would either deny that they were real ("I don't trust that source"), deny that they were actually bias ("men are just better at that stuff than women"), or make up some reason why men are the real ones suffering ("men have to own everything so they can buy sex"). Meanwhile, you have embraced the short list of grievances aired by the MRA movement and consider those to be real, important issues that need to be addressed.It's not that the issues the MRAs mention are universally not worth addressing–it's that you accept all the MRA issues and none of the feminist issues. Hence we identify you as an MRA.
>And I see that I'm correct in thinking you didn't even look at any of the posts or articles there. You looked at the header, cried "OMG MISOGYNY LOL" and stopped there.This is an example of why we think you wouldn't accept any answer except agreement with everything you say. Johnny Pez pointed out a large headline from the blog you selected, and you deemed that an inadequate response. You are just going to deem everything an inadequate response unless someone just says "Oh, I guess you're right, the fact that the header calls feminism a female-supremacist hate movement doesn't actually mean they hate feminists."
>(reposting the first part of my response because the data vampires got it)Ion:The thing is, we are responding to what you're saying, you're just not accepting our responses. Naturally this leads to some people assuming that you just don't read or understand anything else in the thread, and to some people assuming that the only reply you would accept would be agreement with you. For instance, you've said:This might be hard for some of the folks here, because in the feminist blogosphere, the slightest criticism of women or feminists is taken as "OMG MISOGYNY", but if you keep an open mind it might be helpful to see things from another perspective.People in this very thread have expressed disagreement with other feminists here and here. This is an example of why people think you don't read the other comments.
>Shorter and yet perpetual Ion: "It's so hard being a white guy! I can't own slaves anymore!"Oh ginmar, your nuttiness always cheers me up. I just got a couple of ideas for part 2 of my script chronicling your adventures 🙂
>cboye said"that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.And this is why people find it impossible to have a conversation with you. We could cite an arbitrarily long list of things that are or appear biased against women, but I'm sure that you would either deny that they were real ("I don't trust that source")" When some other nutty feminist simply makes shit up in a writing about "patriarchy" of course it's not a liable and honest source.I find it hilarious when feminist resort to sending me a shitty link of what some delusional feminist said about patriarchy to prove that the so called patriarchy exists in America 2011.Just because another feminist said so, it must be truth lolz
>You know, when Ion posts his detailed little fantasies about what he think I'm like, he think he's revealing something about me. He's revealing way too much about himself, in that he's revealing how he think about women. Of course, Ion's problem is that women don't think about him once they shut the browser window, or probably delete him off wherever he hangs out that isn't dominated by MRAs.
>….oh, and he think so constantly about them that he has these detailed scenarios in his head. How much thinking does this perv do? I mean, all he does here is protest that he's not an MRA, that he doesn't hate women, blah blah blah whatever.
>The fact that David is able to come up with fresh stuff every single day and MRAs have to rely on a handful of quotes—many that are made up, many that are out of context or from fictional characters, and most of which are from women who have since died tells you how much David's not cherry-picking.Why do MRAs bristle at being called misogynist, anyway? It would be easier for them at this point to embrace it.
>The fact that feminists blame nearly everything that's wrong with the world and their lives on men is totally and completely sexist. This type of sexism is rampant within the feminist movement.Then we can go on with the bogus statistics women's groups make up to demonise men and cause hatred and unjustified fear towards the male gender.A good example of this you will find herehttp://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1374and herehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000734.htmAnd then we can go on with how feminist have been telling us how wrong men are as for their sexuality. This is completely sexist and bigoted. Feminists attempt to regiment male sexuality. It males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists.
>Indeed, Amanda. The KKK aren't ashamed of being racist. MRAs should take pride in who they are.
>The fact that feminists blame nearly everything that's wrong with the world and their lives on men is totally and completely sexist. This type of sexism is rampant within the feminist movement.Men (noun): Plural of man.Man (noun): –noun 1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man. Patriarchy (noun): 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization. Women enforce the patriarchy too, Nicko. Women are sexist too. They are also responsible for sexist discrimination. Conversely, not all men actively enforce patriarchal values. This has been pointed out to you about a thousand times already. At this point, one must suspect you of being a spambot, incapable of absorbing new information. And then we can go on with how feminist have been telling us how wrong men are as for their sexuality. This is completely sexist and bigoted.This is only true if you define male sexuality as being beastly, brutal, rape-prone, and totally responsibility-free. Feminists attempt to regiment male sexuality. Feminists would like men to stop sexually harassing and raping women. If you think this means "regimenting" your sexuality then you should probably consult a therapist.It males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists. They have. For thousands of years. They are still trying to. And they are.
>Nick:The first link is a long rant with no sources and no quotes.The second link is a campaign that did indeed cite one wrong statistic. Shall I link you to some domestic-violence campaigns that didn't make statistics mistakes?And what on earth do you mean by "telling us how wrong men are in their sexuality?" Feminists want people to be able to have sex however they want, as long as it's safe and consensual. You don't mean feminists opposing rape, do you?
>It [sic] males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists.Well, yes. Because telling a woman what to do with her sexuality (like telling her she's a slut for having sex with 'too many' men, when 'too many' is never properly defined, denying her reproductive health care, accusing women who report rape of lying out of the gate, etc) *is* chauvinistic. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of chauvinism. Women want to be able to have sex (or not have sex) as they wish, without being shamed or judged for it (like it's anyone else's business anyway who she chooses to fuck or not to fuck). Yeah, it's a terrible shame that men shouldn't rape or call a woman a slut when she sleeps with that guy over there but not you. It's totally oppressive to not be able to feel entitled to objectify women.
> @ Ion: Here's a question for you, and I am sincerely interested in your answer. How can a woman be a good person? What does she have to do? How does she have to dress and behave? What should her priorities and life goals be? I don't really care how extreme or out there your answer is, I just really want to know the sort of woman who will earn your approval.Why, that's easy.Why can't a woman be more like a man?Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;Eternally noble, historically fair.Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.Why can't a woman be like that?Why does every one do what the others do?Can't a woman learn to use her head?Why do they do everything their mothers do?Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?Why can't a woman take after a man?Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours? (nicko81m: of course not).Would you be livid if I had a drink or two? (tit 4 tat: Nonsense!)Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers? (Avicenna: never!)Well, why can't a woman… be like you?One man in a million may shout a bit.Now and then, there's one with slight defects.One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,But by and large we are a marvelous sex!Why can't a woman take after a man?'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.A better companion you never will find.If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow? (David: Of course not.)If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss? (Johnny Pez: Nonsense.)Would you complain if I took out another fellow? (Joe: Never.)Why can't a woman be like us?
>You don't mean feminists opposing rape, do you?Not in so many words, but, yeah, he does.Consider the Holocaust deniers. What do they really want? Ultimately, they want to convince the world that the Holocaust didn't happen because that's a necessary precondition for starting it up again.Likewise, all the MRA bluster about false rape accusations has the ultimate goal of making the world safer for rapists.So, yeah.
>@ IonThat's a well made little song, but I wonder who you mean it to be about. I literally know no women who act like that.Well except for the last three lines. I and everyone I know would be mad at someone standing them up for supper or sad if their birthday was missed.And that taking out another fellow bit also. Though not if you mean dating outside the already established relationship. I do think most of the women I know would be offended by their boyfriend/husband cheating on them.Not my wife though, she just wants dibs on the video rights. But then again, she's awesome 😛
>If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss? (Johnny Pez: Nonsense.)I feel honored. *sob* This is the happiest day of my life!