Reading “Anthony Zarat’s” recent comments here fantasizing about a future in which men and women consort with virtual reality lovers rather than one another and “drift into separate and rarely interracting species, each of which will prosper more by the absence of the other,” I began to wonder if there was anyone out there with a more jaundiced view of heterosexual relationships than the typical MRA?
And then it occurred to me: the non-married male-female cartoonist duo behind The Lockhorns.
You’ve seen The Lockhorns, haven’t you? It’s a daily single panel cartoon that runs in about 500 newspapers – who even knew there were 500 newspapers left? – and that, according to the strip’s website “gently spoofs the state of marital bliss, poking fun at the foibles of both partners.”
That’s the nice way of putting it. More accurately, the cartoon depicts a sort of existentialist hell on earth. Locked in a loveless marriage, Leroy and Loretta Lockhorn stare at each other with heavy-lidded eyes and almost perpetual frowns; they pick endlessly at each other’s numerous flaws.
Leroy is a bald, overworked schlub who seems to resent every minute of his pathetic existence; only rarely does a smile grace his face, generally when he’s either ogling a pretty girl or contemplating drowning his sorrows in booze. Loretta is a drab, shrewish housefrau whose only real pleasure seems to be trying on new dresses. They unite only in their shared hatred of all that is new and confusing, like the underwear-baring clothing styles of the youth of today.
Happily, they have no cartoon children.
In any case, after reading through a bunch of recent Lockhorns cartoons I had a little brainstorm. While neither The Lockhorns nor MRA misogyny tastes good in itself, the combination of the two could very well be magically delicious.
So I’d like to introduce to you the latest in interactive cartooning: The MRAhorns. I’ve posted a batch of recent Lockhorns cartoons below, sans captions. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to write up some appropriately MRAish captions for them. Bonus points if you’re able to use the exact words of a prominent MRAer, or even one of this blog’s dedicated trolls. Whoever comes up with the best caption wins one internet.
Have at it!
So… does NWO get bonus points for using the exact words of one of our dedicated trolls?
… I can only think of terrible captions, so I’ll continue lurking.
David: Those are snippets from Master Zed’s articles posted on The Spearhead, where I discovered the wonderful world of the Mens Movement. Zed is apparently on hiatus and no longer posts; a loss to all of us! He is a “man of a certain age” and would seem to be one of the few who did NOT get laid much in the 60’s / 70’s or partake in all the wild crazy fun of that era. Zed was not invited to the Love-in!
Definitely, take a peek at the The Book of Zed, which you can download from The Spearhead.
Our local newspaper ran The Lockhorns; my mother, about as “unfeminist” a woman ever, had a burning hate for that strip. We would mock it together, mother and daughter.
I can’t remember where, but I’ve seen it suggested that most cartoons are funnier if you replace the caption with “Christ, what an asshole”. This works for #1, #3 and #4, but makes #2 somewhat disturbing.
Garfield Without Garfield is all very well, but the Nietzsche Family Circus is the best of all the repurposed newspaper funnies: http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/
@NWOSlave – 3 Points:
1) To the extent that you’re right about the jokes (Leroy’s roving eye and laziness), you realize that feminists did not create the Lockhorns cartoons, right?
2) If you’ve read Dave’s post or any of the responses, you’d realize that we consider the Lockhorns’ life to be a hellish existence, with no part of it as things “aughta” be.
3) Using “pussified” to mean “weakened” doesn’t make any sense, from either your perspective or mine. You think women run the world, so clearly, if a man is pussified, he’s been empowered. Me, I just recognize that a pussy is capable of accomplishing much greater feats of strength than a penis.
Seraph: He thinks feminists run the world, and have, for the last, what, 50-60 years? So, since feminists are, to him, a majority, by default we wrote the Lockhorns in our own image.
Ah. So he believes that they’re based on the “ain’t that the truth” assumptions of the wider culture, rather than the cartoonists’ own prejudices?
The funny thing is that he’s so close to being right.
Seraph – You’ve got a point–if the guy was “pussified,” wouldn’t he have a “pussy pass” and thus be in charge of everything?
“Feminists are making men into women” and “feminists are glorifying women” are two accusations that really ought to cancel out.
@Holly:
Unless of course women are inherently inferior to men, and thus are being glorified erroneously. But NWO couldn’t possibly think that, could he?
Okay Magdelyn, take the porcupine out of your butt.
Yesterday, everybody here was “humorless”… now we’re laughing at guys based on their *exact words*, and that’s bad, too?
Oy.
#3
“Life consists of men trying to fuck women indiscriminately (and impregnate them if possible) and women trying to avoid it except with alphas. I deeply want to penetrate every woman I see but rejection is total at the moment and I no longer foresee any improvement.”
#1
“Since you said that people who need sex for a functioning relationship strike you as shallow, I recommend taking it back, apologizing profusely, and thinking long and hard about why it’s so easy for you to impose your desires (or lack thereof) on other people, instead of actually respecting them.”
Amanda Marcotte 8.8.2011 at 10:09 pm — Feministe.us
#2
“Sorry if you’ve got something about you that makes you mostly undesirable. That doesn’t actually change the rules. You simply can’t demand that someone else give up their chance at happiness to indulge you because you’ve got more of an uphill battle in finding a relationship.”
Amanda Marcotte 8.8.2011 at 10:15 pm — Feministe.us
#3
“If you’re with someone who requires golden showers to get off and you can’t provide that, go your separate ways. Guilt-tripping them into staying with you is wrong and abusive.”
Amanda Marcotte 8.8.2011 at 5:29 pm — Feministe.us
#4
“A couch potato really will struggle with a party animal, for instance, and either the party animal’s desires to get out are respected by the couch potato and the couch potato lets the party animal spend a lot of time away from home, or they should break up. Empathy: one step at a time.”
Amanda Marcotte 8.8.2011 at 10:12 pm — Feministe.us
“Whoever comes up with the best caption wins one internet.”
It is going to be pretty hard to beat #2.
Notice that I found all of my captions:
1) On the same feminist web site
2) In response to the same feminist article
3) Made by the same feminist poster
4) All but one made in a period of just SIX MINUTES
Smooch 🙂
Outside of possibly #2, not sure what the problem is with what Ms Marcotte was saying.
What, specifically, do you think is wrong about those quotes of Amanda’s, AntZ? They say that people should respect each other’s needs and desires, that couples who are incompatible sexually or otherwise should break up, and that the world does not owe anyone a lover. I agree with all of them. Don’t you?
Are these quotations from Amanda M. supposed to be damning in some way? They sound sensible to me, if you take it as a given that women are people.
Another great post for #2:
“Me, I just recognize that a pussy is capable of accomplishing much greater feats of strength than a penis.”
Seraph, August 22, 2011 at 10:10 am — Man boobz
2 is put brusquely (Amanda being under no obligation to simper sweetly) but is nothing more than plain sense: if a relationship makes your partner unhappy you have no right to prolong that relationship, even if you generally find it difficult to forge relationships. I don’t see how anyone could disagree with that and maintain even the semblance of being a decent human b…
…Oh. Carry on.
@MissPrism
Not everything that Marcotte says is wrong. I agree with most of what she says about self determination, including all of the posts that I quoted.
The quotes are supposed to be funny, not wrong.
AntZ is your penis out lifting cars over its head, or is it also somehow doubling as an ovipositor?
A. Zarat’s Amanda Marcotte citations makes it so that I am still a bit perplexed at the usual anti-feminist’s strategy of picking citations from feminists that make perfect sense, saying ‘ha ha how stupid’, and thinking somehow that made it so they won an argument.
“Outside of possibly #2, not sure what the problem is with what Ms Marcotte was saying.”
Jeez guys, there is no problem at all with Marcottes words … in this particular instance. She is saying, correctly, that people have no obligation to full-fill other people’s needs.
The whole foundation of the MRM is:
1) Men should be responsible for the choices that men make.
2) Women should be responsible for the choices that women make.
If Marcotte extended her “relationship” philosophy to things like reproductive choice, child support, divorce, medical care, social security, law enforcement, education, etc. then she would BE an MRM.
The quotes are supposed to be funny, not wrong.
Huh…just, huh. I’m not even sure how these are supposed to be funny. I mean, I suppose golden showers are just inherently funny, but I’m not sure how their supposed to be funny in the context of the pictures. I guess in #2 she could be laughing at his dick, but still.
It’s one thing to try and fail to be funny. I do it all the time (c.f., my previous posts on this thread). But a joke should convey a sense of why something is supposed to be funny, as opposed to being merely tangential.
Sigh! “They’re” not “their.” I fail at basic grammar. Spearhofoc, I offer my backside for flagellation.
Is AntZ gonna start depositing his fertilized eggs into live caterpillars?