Those of you who aren’t regular readers of the comments here may not appreciate the true genius of David K. Meller, an excitable and exclamation-point-loving MRA I’ve mentioned once or twice in my posts, but who shows up in the comments here with some regularity – ending each comment with his trademark “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!”
Mr. Meller is a great lover (not physically) of men:
Men, by and large, are a wonderful sex! We are more intelligent than women, more creative, at least in the areas outside the home. We are, also, as a rule, physically stronger as well …
He claims to love women, too – though not feminists, whom he seems to consider something other than human:
Women ARE people, and often wonderful people at that! Feminists, on the other hand, AREN’T! …
Women are people, and properly raised, educated, and loved,, are beautiful, charming, and lovely!
Despite his alleged love of women – at least the non-feminist ones – he often says utterly horrible things about them. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. But let me draw your attention to one rather telling comment of his I found recently on The Spearhead.
In the midst of a discussion of Sharon Osbourne’s now notorious comments about a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, Meller offered the following musings on the subject of women and cancer. I am having trouble finding much love of women in them:
It is .. possible that the breast cancers (not to mention ovarian and vaginal cancers) have a psychosomatic aspect to their development. … The feelings of vicious sadism, brutality, and callous indifference to another’s pain in such harpies must inexorably work on the molecular, genetic, and cellular level to generate consequences! I hope that you girls find these consequences as hilarious as I do when you annoy me with your next women’s health campaign against cancer!
Maybe women don’t strictly speaking, DESERVE cancer, but it will be hard for me to stop laughing at them …
Isn’t the thought of cancer-ridden women going under the knife amusing? Isn’t thought of women losing part, or all, of a sexual organ that is precious to them FUNNY? The pain women experience when recovering from surgery (and radiation or chemo, which is almost as bad) is still less than the agony which that poor man underwent when he underwent castration at the hands of a deranged, sadistic, and vicious she-weasel (my apologies to weasels)!
[F]or every man who is abused and tortured by his woman, it almost warms my heart that the same hatred and spite characteristic of the female human(?) sets THEM up for a similar fate down the road, as that bitterness, vicious sadism, and bloodthirstiness so characteristic of those who would LAUGH AT the suffering caused by a “woman” committing such a vicious crime predisposes them toward cancer, and (I hope) a similar fate!
Karma is always there, girls, and it is a bitch!! HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
That “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!” always gets me.
This being The Spearhead, Meller’s comments garnered more than a few upvotes. Not as many as he usually gets, admittedly, but some.
At some point I will do a Best of David K. Meller post, highlighting some of his “best” comments here. He is one for the ages.
That was actually a pretty good response Kirby, too bad feminists don’t make that excuse for rape jokes and domestic abuse jokes and shit, but only for The Talk.
Well, when you regularly compare rape to rejection, it’s hard to find the humor.
Kirby, you are right that distance from a tragedy makes it less real to people. I know I’ve seen disasters on the TV news, said, “Oh that’s awful” and then went back to my normal life without giving it much more thought. When the Joplin tornado actually happened to me and hit my own house, then it was hit home, literally and figuratively. In fact, I felt like the whole event was surreal, because it’s the type of the thing that’s supposed to happen on TV to total strangers, not something that could actually happen to me and my own family.
Since I actually saw the rubble and victims, I couldn’t just say, “That’s awful” and then shrug it off. I know Josef Stalin was a monster. However there was a kernel of truth to his quote “One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.” I don’t want any MRA to now think I agree with anything he did. He was a vicious murderer. It’s just that one thing he said so callously actually was somewhat true in how people respond to tragedy. If we can relate personally to it, then we feel emotions about it. If it’s too distant and happens to strangers, we don’t think too much on it. Again I repeat that Josef Stalin was evil in case anyone wants to take me out of context.
And Zarat has an apologia for the man who says that if women don’t begin to toe the line he thinks they should it will be necessary (and perhaps even regrettable) that they be eliminated, except for the few who are kept as sex slaves for the really spiffo-high ranking man in his sexbot equipped Utopia.
It was all because the woman in the show was so vile. Unlike Meller, who is just reacting to the horrors inflicted on men by those nasty women.
In short, you just defended Meller’s words.
The train track dilemma is a classic first year philosophy problem, and it’s usually put in more concrete terms. The five/one problem is rail-workers. The single guy who can save people by being tossed in front of the train is just some random passerby.
“That was actually a pretty good response Kirby, too bad feminists don’t make that excuse for rape jokes and domestic abuse jokes and shit, but only for The Talk.”
So, feminists are the ones making rape/domestic abuse jokes?
Huh. Guess that means I must be hallucinating some of the programing on Spike channel…though, if that IS just a hallucination of mine, then it’s not real, so that’s cool. 😀
No, feminists attack Spike and Family Guy for making domestic abuse jokes, when Kirby’s logic applies to that phenomenon as well. Yet they don’t seem to care at all about The Talk’s moral transgressionz.
“So, Anthony Zarat, you cannot defend Meller’s words…but then you spend 9 paragraphs defending and excusing him?”
Correct. He said the wrong thing, in a moment of anger. I have said many wrong things, in moments of anger. Things I wish I could take back.
Context matters:
1) I disagree with Mellers words in no uncertain terms.
2) I do NOT condemn him as a person.
3) I state that any person can say things that they later regret, when confronted with an emotional wrong.
Here is an example:
On the female site feministe, in response to an article entitled “Why men rape”
by Jill on 11.29.2010, here are some comments:
“… Personally I think the answer would be nuclear holocaust …”
“… I’m begining to wonder if we should just give up on this generation of men and keep them under perpetual house arrest …”
“… line up every man on the planet, sharpen a machete, and castrate them all …”
“… they’d all disappear from the face of the earth …”
” … killing all men with nuclear weapons …”
None of this is man-hate. These people read an emotional article about violence in South Africa, and responded with momentary anger at all men because of what one man had done.
People who post an emotional response to an inflammatory article are doing just that, responding. My God, if every stupid thing I ever said when angry were placed in one file, I would melt into a puddle of shame.
The mark of misandry (or misogyny) is the presence of hate speech IN AN ARTICLE. Not the response to the article.
People say all kinds of things when they are angry.
Don’t you?
“No, feminists attack Spike and Family Guy for making domestic abuse jokes, when Kirby’s logic applies to that phenomenon as well. Yet they don’t seem to care at all about The Talk’s moral transgressionz.”
It’s been stated multiple times, and with links, that feminists did not like what occurred on The Talk. Men, women and feminists were offended by it.
MRAL: there is a difference between black humor in reaction to a real event, and scripted routines.
Want to see some black humor… go to a City Room, or an ER, or hang out with soldiers (for really black humor hang out with combat vets who were in theater together. You can’t imagine the jests friends of mine and I made when the Blackwater Mercs got killed/burned in Baghdad).
So yeah, the jokes being made about the guy who was mutilated, less than ideal. But they aren’t the same as, “what do you say to a woman with two black-eyes”, and the less so when someone actively decided to put it into a prepared routine.
Context matters.
“That was actually a pretty good response Kirby, too bad feminists don’t make that excuse for rape jokes and domestic abuse jokes and shit, but only for The Talk.”
Rape is reasonably commonplace, affecting one in 6 women in the USA. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf)
Domestic violence affects a lot of people; a quarter of all women, for example (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/domviolria/domviolria.htm).
What makes you think women castrating men is remotely common?
Context is, in my opinion, a feminist tool to deny the prejudices against men as “not as important”.
“Here is an example:
On the female site feministe, in response to an article entitled “Why men rape”
by Jill on 11.29.2010, here are some comments:
“… Personally I think the answer would be nuclear holocaust …”
“… I’m begining to wonder if we should just give up on this generation of men and keep them under perpetual house arrest …”
“… line up every man on the planet, sharpen a machete, and castrate them all …”
“… they’d all disappear from the face of the earth …”
” … killing all men with nuclear weapons …””
No link? And this is supposed to excuse YOU saying nasty shit just because you have anger problems?
Sorry, but that is false. Even if those comments exist (Which I’m not sure they are, given that they’re quotemined and without actual links), that still doesn’t justify you lashing out at people WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU’RE ANGRY AT.
To MRAL, all rejection is castration.
BTW, pipsqueak, there was a LOT of discussion about The Talk. No one here was in favor of the way they acted.
Rutee yet again brings in the feminist “context” to deny the pain of men. Somehow I don’t think that guy, or any of his loved ones, care that domestic abuse and rape are “more common” than castration.
You know what funny? Prison Rape!
Wait… no it not.
Try again MRAL.
Zarat: Meller, in toto, isn’t reacting to a specific provocation.
He hates that women have any autonomy. Anything which supports the idea of women being less than servile dependents on a man outrages him.
Anything which makes a non-servile women suffer is something he thinks she deserves.
I would go so far as to say that any woman who isn’t adamant, and vocal, about wanting to see all women placed in a state of subjugation to men isn’t really a “real woman” to him, and so is fair game to all manner of insult, and not to be empathised with should something ill befall her.
And you are defending him, which is pretty rich, given the blood you say is on the hands of any feminist who doesn’t condemn what other feminists for advocating things you find objectionable.
“Context is, in my opinion, a feminist tool to deny the prejudices against men as “not as important”.”
…Are you serious?
Firstly, when Context is discussed, it is used to put things into perspective, to ensure that one isn’t just raging at something that is likely nothing but a soundbyte or a quote mine.
Secondly, if you think Context is a “feminist tool”…then what if you discussed moments of your own pain, with detail and (that dirty word) context? Are you saying that because you don’t believe other people when they state the facts and their own experiences, that we are also free to dismiss what you say simply because you take the time to flesh it out with perspective?
Pecunium is right about context. Black humor, in the right situation, is a coping mechanism. If you’re dealing with too much emotions in a horrible situation, you can help yourself by making light of it and distancing yourself emotionally from where you are. It is a very tricky thing to know which jokes simply push the envelope and which ones go too far. If you can’t tell, I’d recommend you err on the side of caution and bite your tongue.
Okay, I’ll amend my statement. Context is fine. But feminists just use it as a buzzword to immediately dismiss female privilege as “not really privilege” or “benevolent sexism” and to dismiss men’s pain as “not as important” (to use one of many examples, male objectification- tell me you haven’t heard some variation on “it’s not as big of a deal because it’s an individual problem, not a systemic/societal one, unlike female objectification”).
“Rutee yet again brings in the feminist “context” to deny the pain of men. Somehow I don’t think that guy, or any of his loved ones, care that domestic abuse and rape are “more common” than castration.”
If jokes about domestic abuse and rape help excuse and promote domestic violence and rape, while jokes about castration do not help excuse and promote castration, then jokes about castration are a demonstrably smaller problem. I did not deny that it causes him less pain, and I’m really not going to say it’s fine to make castration jokes; specifically harmful or not, it just doesn’t seem okay, since it’s sexual violence. But you can not claim that it’s just as bad for feminists to ignore castration jokes if castration jokes are not actually as harmful.
Personally, when I read something that angers me or get into a heated discussion with another person, I tend to say less, listen more, and think before I speak so as to prevent myself from saying something hurtful to someone I love (or care about, or don’t even know ala the interwebs), that I cannot take back. Obviously, this isn’t how everyone responds. Despite this, yes I have said things in the past which I felt horrible for later on and which were inspired in the heat of the moment.
However, I don’t defend the horrible things that I have said, nor would I want anyone else to. They were horrible and wrong, and no amount of justification makes them right.
Also, as I said, I feel bad for the horrible things that have come out of my mouth in the heat of the moment and usually try to repair the damage that I have done. I regret it. Having read many of the comments that Mr. Keller posts on this site, I would venture to guess (and it is just that, a guess) that he doesn’t regret saying these things. If he does, he is more than welcome to admit that his anger might have been misdirected or overstated…but I don’t see him doing that. Do you?
Sigh, that’s what I get for not being my own copy editor. “I did not deny that it causes him pain”. Was writing that, then was going to say “I did not say it causes him less pain”, and somehow got that much worse result.
“Okay, I’ll amend my statement. Context is fine. But feminists just use it as a buzzword to immediately dismiss female privilege as “not really privilege” or “benevolent sexism” and to dismiss men’s pain as “not as important” (to use one of many examples, male objectification- tell me you haven’t heard some variation on “it’s not as big of a deal because it’s an individual problem, not a systemic/societal one, unlike female objectification”).”
Have any proof of this? And no, Rutee was not using “context” to deny pain of men in this thread.
“Okay, I’ll amend my statement. Context is fine. But feminists just use it as a buzzword to immediately dismiss female privilege as “not really privilege” or “benevolent sexism” and to dismiss men’s pain as “not as important” (to use one of many examples, male objectification- tell me you haven’t heard some variation on “it’s not as big of a deal because it’s an individual problem, not a systemic/societal one, unlike female objectification”).
”
It’s not female privilege that men are much less likely to be the victims of gender based violence and oppression.
Men are not the sex class. Looking at a man as a sexy person is legitimately not the same as looking as a woman as a sexy person. The common media narratives will ensure you remember that men are individuals who have their own goals, so even if that man is there for sexual objectification, he is the exception. You can’t not-know this. The same is demonstrably not true for women. You keep trying to equivocate and say two legitimately unequal problems have to be said as equal. It’s beginning to piss me off.