“Kloo2yoo,” the moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights Subreddit, is worried that racists in his subreddit will give Men’s Rights a bad name. So he’s put out a call to some of the more artistic readers of the subreddit to come up with a nice new logo for it, to show how broad-minded and all-inclusive Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers really are. Well, not literally all-inclusive. As Kloo put it in his call for artiistic help:
New logo needed, to emphasize racial and lgbt inclusiveness, but not feminism.
Oh, but even that turned out to be a bit too inclusive for some of the commenters there. Specifically, they objected to the “L” portion of LBGT. And some of the Ts. As white_cloud put it:
I don’t think you need to appeal to the L in LGBT. It is well-known that lesbians are the most radical of all feminists. They will never feel welcome here and we should not go out of our way to make them feel welcome. Male to female trans pretty much the same thing. They’ve already renounced their male gender, they don’t care about male rights
Scott2508 concurred:
ok i am in favour of inclusivness and im not sure if i am going to word this right so stick with me , the one thing i am curious about is how we bring ourself in line with the lesbian [angle] of it all simply due to the hostility that can arise from that community towards men
Kloo replied:
point taken. we can embrace lesbian mras, without embracing lesbian supremacists.
Apparently these are the only types of lesbians in the world.
In any case, despite these design constraints, I have come up with what I think is a very compelling logo that I think will convey just what Kloo would like to convey. What do you think, guys?
@ Spearhafoc:
“Ami, I fail to see what Christina Hendricks has to do with anything in the thread.”
Well obviously the fact that Christina Hendricks has nothing to do with this thread needs to be remedied immediately.
@ david from the page before
I sent him a note as well and a screencap just in case.
Yet another troll who wants to debate over the meaning of words. Ok whatevs. So now “sex” is defined as “the act where a penis goes into an orifice” and everything that is not that but still involves horny people giving each other orgasms can get some other word. Any suggestions?
(I kinda thought we had a word for “putting penises in things” already and it was “intercourse” but what do I know. I ain’t no language expert.)
@Pecunium, I feel in some ways that we are talking past each other, because more than half of your last comment matches up with my last comment (or, at least, I think it does).
So, I’ll focus on where we seem to disagree, if you don’t mind.
” What a Man did to amuse himself was his business, but to allow oneself to be penetrated was to be a non-man. The various writings make this pretty plain, and they precede Paul; it was in that framework that Paul’s condemnations were made. ” It looks to me as if Paul’s statments are made within the old Hebrew framework of homosexuality as a form of social contamination re Leviticus and Deuteronomy:
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
Romans 1 1:24-32
While Paul does link male effeminacy and gayness together in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it is pretty damned clear in the rest of the text that this applies to all men who “use” men instead of women or who enjoy such use. Referring to even the passive act, which was legal but at times frowned upon (though we dispute the timing and degree, I will assume for the sake of argument here that you are right) as something deserving of death and automatically unclean is still exceptional levels of homophobia. And the legal codes which set these notions in stone in the west arise from a Christian tradition, that of the Byzantine/eastern Roman empire.
@David, I would think Ark is just a troll, except I have heard similar “arguments” on more than one occasion. In fact, the “dick is magic” school of homophobia is not so uncommon. I even had one homophobe try to convince me that I had not not really enjoyed the PiV sex I had engaged in despite my assertions, or I would stick to dick.
Jesus jumbofish, take a chill pill. What does it matter? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by going giggling to Schwyzer to gossip about how some guy that posted four or five times on his blog three months ago is now posting on another blog?
So am I banned now, or what? I guess I sort of deserved it for that post. Sorry.
Darksidecat: I think there are some places in which we are moderately parallel, and some (esp. re the context of Paul, and the resultant interpretations) we have different understandings.
Not least in that I don’t accept that Plato’s views (from the Symposium) are true.
I also think what Paul was arguing against wasn’t homosexuality, but the ways in which homosexuals were treated, but absent the supporting texts, that I can quote them, I can’t do better than to give my those conclusions in those broad strokes.
By and large Paul didn’t care what people did, betwixt themselves, it was how they treated one another in public was concerned with, and homosexuality was something with very public (and very negative) effect. Paul rails against it because the act defiles (socially) the person the man penetrates. To do that to someone else was unchristian.
Mores have changed, and when one looks at Paul’s message instead of his examples (which were, of course, social problems of the day), the takeaway is very different.
I’ve had a long, and complex, history with Paul. Fifteen years ago I think I loathed him, at least somewhat. With more careful reading (and more digging into the actual texts, and the contextual writings of the time, instead of the understandings in the intervening ages) I see a lot more nuance, and a lot less dogmatism, in his interpretations.
One of the things which started me really looking at him anew was the question, “How did Paul manage to so effectively spread his evangelism? What was the message he was preaching which so resonated with so many people?
Which led me to looking at the broader social life of the non-wealthy/privileged (and this is an age when privilege still meant “private law”) classes, who were the one’s who took an obscure Jewish cult and started a flood-tide.
MRAL, you’re not banned. I’m putting you on moderation for awhile. If you don’t post violent shit, I’ll let your comments through.
Having you on moderation is a bit of a hassle for both of us — for you more than me — but I don’t want to take you off moderation and have you post violent stuff again; I’ll keep you on until I feel fairly sure you’re not going to do that again.
DSC, I guess the thing that made me really wonder if he’s for real was his comment about guys not having great orgasms unless they too are being penetrated by the magic penis.
@Graham,
Though, to be fair, a Dumbass Pride Parade would probably be quite well attended, as there is no shortage of the target demographic.
MRAL: Jesus jumbofish, take a chill pill. What does it matter? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by going giggling to Schwyzer to gossip about how some guy that posted four or five times on his blog three months ago is now posting on another blog?
Let me tell you a story about what happened to me: you may not believe it, but it’s not uncommon. I was being harassed on the internet, at my work account/address, never at my personal account. I contacted the campus police; long story short, they got a subpoena that required the internet service provider to give the personal and contact information of the account that was harassing me. They got a warrant to seize all electronics that could access the internet from the residence. (There was vandalism in my building as well–this turned out to be a disgruntled ex-employee.) Charges were made. I agreed to let the district attorney offer him a plea bargain (with multiple people in the house, it probably would have been impossible to prove that single person did it, and computer forensics are complicated). But it’s on his record. Another colleague has also begun receiving emails that MAY be from the same guy–I advised her to turn over the information to the campus police who could check on the IP address.
You will say you’d never actually do anything to Hugo or to the other people you routinely post violent fantasies about–BUT internet stalkers do exist, and they sometimes become stalkers offline (a number of feminist have quit blogging because of his–do you know of any MRAs who have?), and IP addresses can be part of the evidence, as can those posts.
Just something to think about before hitting POST. As what happened today, even if something is deleted, odds are it’s still available on the internet through screen capture or google cache.
MRAL: p.s. I gather Hugo’s family has been threatened, as well as him–I don’t guarantee my memory, maybe people were talking about what he should do if his family was threatened as well–I do read Hugo’s blog but not religiously because his tone often irks me. I am, however, interested in what male feminists are doing, and he’s well known in that area. I just don’t engage him online! So, yes, I would expect him to take the anonymous threats, multiple, seriously, and as I found out with my stalker, there are more stringest penalties for internet harassment these days.
Pecunium and Darksidecat: Enjoying the heck out of your postings–I only do contemporary queer stuff (though if you like I can tell you about teaching BEOWULF in my texts and gender seminar)–but I do try to give quicky lectures about historical/cultural changes. The major problem my students have is understanding that just because same sex relationships were “allowed” in earlier cultures that does not mean there were no rules, conventionsl, morals, etc. They seem to think that anything that’s not THER rules means NO Rules. It’s a very hard block to get around.
Jesus Christ, I didn’t threaten the guy or his family. What do you think I’m some kind of criminal?
“though if you like I can tell you about teaching BEOWULF in my texts and gender seminar”
I wish I could go back to school again! I learn the most interesting things on this blog.
ilithiana: I was leery/reticent about opening this can of worms because Plato had an ax to grind (he was, I think, an ephibophile, who had the problem of liking freeborn teens, and this meant their fathers/brothers were a threat to him because it wasn’t really well thought of to be the subject of a male romance).
So he described his “Ideal” So far no harm done. But there becomes this idea (blown to horrid extremes by NAMBLA) that his Ideal was some sort of actual norm.
Where it gets sticky, and why I get reticent to address it, is that a lot of people have decided that Plato’s Ideal being the norm is important. That it is a good justification for saying homosexuality is ok, by making an appeal to the past/authority.
So trying to talk about the more complex aspects of it risks running into a whole lot of baggage/attached meaning, and can be seen as an attack on modern gays.
Which isn’t my aim at all. I’m an egalitarian/libertarian on the issue. I think people should be able to do what they want, with whom they want, so long as all the parties have given informed consent. I have some reservations about things which can lead to permanent damage/death (asphyxiation/breath play squicks me). I’m not into pain, and have far too much professional knowledge to want to engage in more than light BD (and that only by request).
But I’ve found I can’t talk about Paul without, usually, ending up addressing this stuff, because the ways in which he’s been misinterpreted are so woven into the fabric of our society that others will bring it up as proof that he was a nasty piece of work, and didn’t want anyone to have fun, which isn’t what I see in him at all, these days (I used to).
Ami Angelwings, I did not know that hockey players and others in hockey are standing up for PRIDE and gay people and other marginalized people. Thanks for telling me! I love that they are so much!
Also, please let me add to the list of people who love your Magyc cards. They’re wonderful, and you’re wonderful too. 😀
Ami: Several baseball teams have done “It gets better” videos.
MRAL : I don’t actually know–you might be! Internet and all that. But no, I did not say you were a criminal. I said that the reason people collect/save IP addresses with violent comments is because if something worse happens, the anonymouse internet threats can be checked out. And will be. Your IP was not the only one he was collecting = and the reason he posted them in public is so other bloggers who had the same IP addresses trolling their blogs could also save the evidence.
@Pecunium I know, but that’s kinda different… xD Other sports teams have given support to the queer comm before… but it’s seen as a corporate thing, that you have to do to be PC… it’s different when an individual athlete or executive does it, or march in Pride. And usually it gets dismissed by the general public as a PR stunt : When it comes to individual athletes and the lockerroom in NA team sports, it’s still an incredibly closeted space.. which is why Avery throwing himself behind queer rights, by himself, was so impressive to me, cuz he has to go back in that lockerroom. (mind you, it is prolly a Only Nixon Can Go To China thing, cuz Avery is known as a ladies man and a tough guy on the ice)
Which isn’t to dismiss the SF Giants and the other teams that have backed the project (honestly, I don’t back the project, but we won’t get into my queer politics atm) :]
Actually that’s the wrong choice of words xD That sounds like I hate it, or want it gone, or think it hasn’t done nething… more like I have issues w/ it, (and it as the big narrative being accepted by the mainstream) and I’m not as “this is so awesome!” about it like others are :3
Also I didn’t mean to come off as if the Giants organization and the other MLB teams didn’t do something good :] Or get into “but Brian Burke did it first!” I was just outlining why what Avery and Burke and the Blackhawks player (I feel bad I can’t remember his name) did was more important to me :3
Ami: I see that. No problems. The team ones are variable. The Cubs was ok. I liked the Giants (esp. after I forget who it was from some other team went off on some fans for being gay).
I understand that the locker room is something else,but I figure the team videos help with that.
I have some mixed opinions on the “It Gets Better Campaign” too, but I do think it’s valuable, mostly because it’s widespread. Anyone vacn do it, and lot of people have. I’ve got friends who’ve made them/been in some which were made. Some are just awesome (the one by the high school student in the gray jacket… that one was great because it was also about everyone who gets bullied), and most are just ok.
Reading through the subreddit thing.. I’m shocked at how many ppl there seem to also be white supremacists (“nationalists”) o_o At least that thread about how you can’t defeat feminism w/o focusing on white “nationalism” and the link in there that was all sympathetic and empathetic w/ “white nationalists” was O_O;;; It’s funny to me that when some (yay!) ppl there suggested anti-racist and anti-homophobia stances/support/etc other ppl said “we might as well become feminists!” -_- I dun think it’s particularly useful to be so afraid of “being like feminism” that you reject NETHING that feminists are allied w/ (anti racism, anti homophobia, anti-oppression in general, etc) and reject intersectionality in general, esp when there are many there who seem to WANT more inclusiveness, but it seems like a “you’re w/ us or you’re against us” thing w/ others and their fear of the future Muslim/African state o_O
@David:
Chances are? MRAL will not be in a position where he won’t make violent comments until he’s gone through therapy. He apparently loses his temper easily, which will happen whenever he’s off moderation (given the types of discussions we have here whenever he shows up). I don’t think he has the capacity to remain civil indefinitely, given his past postings. Just my two cents.
Just a note: I’m in therapy now, and I’ve been advised not to post here in the near future. I think he’s right. I might be back some day, but I guess I’m enacting a self-imposed ban now.