I didn’t bother to watch the VMAs last night, but something in the air has led me to want to give out some awards of my own. So: the coveted Man Boobz “We Hunted the Mammoth” Award this month goes to some comments from MRA oddball Uncle Elmer on women in the workplace that were recently highlighted on the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog. They are, of course, magnificently stupid.
Without further ado, here are some of the choicer bits of Elmer’s rant.
Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. …
Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. … Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. …
No woman can or will provide me or any man employment, yet all western women feel entitled to help and opportunities from men, even as they drive men out of the workplace.
[W]orkplace women are your enemy. They cannot help you but can and will hurt you. Do not look at them, do not talk to them.
And now the “we hunted the mammoth” moment:
Females want to inhabit man-created business structures as if those structures existed before man appeared on the veldt. … When you have pushed the last man out of the corporation it will collapse under its own dead weight.
And while I’m handing out awards, I’d like to give the Man Boobz Whaaaa?! Award for the strangest, dumbest and least true thing said about me in the past week to Wytchfinde (presumably the same guy who used to comment here as Wytchfinde555), who posted this strange and not-altogether-grammatical comment on my latest YouTube video (which you should all go watch if you haven’t already).
David Futrelle is an opportunist that pretends to worship white women (which is true to a certain extent) helps just fuel more fire for hating men.
Whaaaa?!
“David Futrelle is an opportunist …”
I was a mangina for the first 40 years of my life. I actively participated in the oppression of my gender, because I thought it was the right thing to do.
I have no doubt that most feminists do the same. If feminists were evil people, there would be no point in communicating with them and I would not be here.
The comment is misguided and unhelpful.
Even if it were true that David worshiped white women, worshiping white women is not the same as hating men. This is an example of how messed up these men are, you cannot like women and men at the same time, it’s either/or with them. I now has teh sads.
So, Anthony is a Reformed Mangina ™? Is mangina synonymous with feminist here, or was it something else? Anyway, I’ll ask you the same question I ask people who claim they were “devout atheists” before they saw the light.
What was the argument that ultimately convinced you that feminism is wrong? Keep in mind that “feminism is wrong because it oppresses men!” is not a good argument, as first you would need to be convinced that feminism actually does oppress men.
David Futrelle is an opportunist that pretends to worship white women (which is true to a certain extent) helps just fuel more fire for hating men.
He’s saying that, because all white women hate men, and that you (David) also wish to hate men, you ingratiate yourself to white women in order to fuel your hatred. Sort of like how flamingos turn pink as they eat plankton, David turns hateful as he eats highly strained similes.
It’s simple, really.
Mangina is just their way of saying “pussy,” which as an insult is as old as dirt. Get a new shtick, guys.
Kirby: I don’t think he, quite, means he was a feminist. I think he means to say he accepted the idea that women are not equal, and that they are treated unjustly by society (as a class).
He accepted (or at least didn’t deny) the idea of privilege.
Then something (I too should like to know what) convinced him this wasn’t so, and he realised that all of it was a sham, a way to control men with the power of the pussy and so get all the preference, and special treatment which has let them rule the world, and turn it into the female controlled hell for men which it so plainly is.
Dave, no love for women of color? You disappoint me. All women deserve our worship!
“I actively participated in the oppression of my gender, because I thought it was the right thing to do.”
Let me fix that for you: “I led a normal life because it was the right thing to do”.
Where did it go wrong Zarat???
Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. …
He thinks that the only things that women do are the things that men (in his view) don’t. So, makeup. That’s all we do. Put on makeup.
I hate, hate, hate this kind of sloppy attempt at logic.
No woman has provided jobs for men.
Martha Stewart…
Mrs. Fields…
No men ever worked for them, nope.
and, of course, no Man ever had a job writing in COBOL.
“and, of course, no Man ever had a job writing in COBOL”
C++ is just a penis extension.
I’ve got two names for all the MRA liars who continue to pretend that women have never contributed anything to industry, technology and the like. There are more, but here are two to easily refute your universal rule. Catherine Littlefield Greene and Rosalind Franklin.
Eli Whitney would never have successfully invented the cotton gin had Catherine Littlefield Greene not only funded his research but also fixed his fundamental design flaw. In return, Whitney gave her zero public recognition or credit.
Watson and Crick used data that was collected by Rosalind Franklin in their work to discover the double helix formation of DNA, but because they managed to publish first and again, declined to provide her with the appropriate recognition, her fundamental contribution to this research is often overlooked.
It reminds me of the recent example in which an Orthodox Jewish newspaper erased Hilary Clinton and a female staffer from the photo of the Situation Room during the bin Laden operation. You erase women from history and then after the fact you get to pretend that they were never there, and they never contributed anything.
“Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures.”
In two short sentences, Elmer asserts that an entire group can take credit for what only a small percentage of them do, and then the exact opposite. Why do MRAs say that fringe extremists that David quotes don’t represent the whole? And why is it that when you provide a short list of women who do/have done the things they say women cannot do, those women are called outliers and exceptions? And why do those same people say that the extremist minority within feminism does represent the whole?
It’s not just a double standard, and not just special pleading. They’re basically just accepting any argument that makes men look good and women look bad. You could probably give them any syllogism that ends with “therefore men are awesome” or “therefore women suck,” and they’d happily repeat it.
Confirmation bias, baby!
There are fewer great woman inventors. There are fewer women creating jobs.
That’s kinda what happens when women have been systematically denied education, publication, political influence, business connections, and in many cases the chance to have any career at all. (This is extra-true if you’re talking history, but definitely not gone today.)
Women are less likely to create jobs because they’re less likely to be in positions with the power to create jobs.
“Watson and Crick used data that was collected by Rosalind Franklin in their work to discover the double helix formation of DNA, but because they managed to publish first and again, declined to provide her with the appropriate recognition, her fundamental contribution to this research is often overlooked.”
Franklin’s work was published in the same issue of Nature as Watson and Crick. The story of Franklin is the story of what feminism should have been. I made a post on “The Spearhead” asking for fellow MRA’s to come to the defence of Franklin when she was cruelly vilified. Although I received a significant number of down-votes (25, vs 21 up-votes), I think that on balance the response was positive.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/03/proposed-reforms-will-make-it-easier-to-convict-your-son-of-rape-even-if-hes-innocent/#comment-76461
Here is my post:
———–
Laura Vosejpka just made a cruel post mocking the appearance of the most successful woman in the history of Biology, Rosalind Franklin:
“…..apparently the only women able to be recognized for their scientific success back then had to be considered unattractive…..Rosalind Franklin is another example of this….”
Don’t let her get away with this. Franklin’s work was responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA, which ignited the modern age of Biology, and made possible virtually every modern medication that extended the average human lifespan from 50 years to 70 years.
Franklin did not need feminist privilege to do her work, and she deserves better than to be disparaged by a modern day “princesses of privilege” whose accomplishments are irrelevant.
Tell MS. Vosejpka that the MRM respects women who fight, and win, without the help of “big daddy” government.”
Antz:
“Although I received a significant number of down-votes (25, vs 21 up-votes), I think that on balance the response was positive.”
See, I learned in math class way back when that if you have a bigger negative number than a positive number, the balance is negative. 😛
But pointing out a woman who was successful despite the odds and then using her to say that the odds don’t matter is… well… wrong. If women are accepted only when it is extremely unreasonable not to do so, that isn’t equality.
Oh, I see. So good for Franklin that she didn’t need feminism to do her work. It’s too bad about Watson and Creek, though, who apparently needed the privilege of patriarchy and took advantage of it.
AntZ, do you think women and men have fundamentally equal abilities?
If yes, then why are fewer women in prominent political and business positions?
If not, do you have any fascinating theories why not?
I just can’t get over “Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. … ”
SHANK you? Dude, are you in prison?
@Molly Ren:
You obviously haven’t applied for a job as a guy…
“Well, Mr. X, your application looks very good, and you seem to be a perfect *STAB STAB STAB* match for this company. We’re prepared to offer you the job! Congratulations, dipshit!”
And Antz shows his lack of knowledge about modern biolody. He could have chosen to use Rosalyn Yallow, who actually got a Nobel for her work in the discovery of human immunologic response causing Type II diabetes. Since her research partner had died he wasn’t mentioned in the Nobel.
Her story is much better if one wants to whitewash the hurdles women faced trying to actually do work that wasn’t clerical.
But that would require analysis.
“AntZ, do you think women and men have fundamentally equal abilities?”
Yes.
“If yes, then why are fewer women in prominent political and business positions?”
Because of bigotry. There are two ways of seeing the bigotry:
1) “Women are better than men at supporting/nurturing roles” (how MRAs see it)
2) “Women have a moral responsibility to support/nurture” (how equity feminists see it — if there are any equity feminists left)
The two are the same object, seen from a different point of view.
This bigoted view lies behind the MRM experience of “presumption of child custody to mothers.” Often the law is explicitly sexist. Even when the law is gender neutral, the practice is not. It takes a remarkably good father AND a remarkably poor mother for there to be any question of custody.
This bigoted view also explains the wage/power gap. Women who put career ahead of family are viewed as selfish and greedy. Men who do the same thing are seen as successful and ambitious. So, women consistently choose careers that are flexible, hours that are flexible, etc. to conform to the social expectation. Even if a woman DOES NOT do this, her employer will think that (on average) she is likely to do this. So the employer is likely to push her into a non-critical and (more importantly) non-competitive position where the limits on time commitment are unlikely to result in loss of revenue.
“And Antz shows his lack of knowledge about modern biolody. He could have chosen to use Rosalyn Yallow, who actually got a Nobel for her work in the discovery of human immunologic response causing Type II diabetes. Since her research partner had died he wasn’t mentioned in the Nobel.”
The accomplishments of the two are not comparable. Franklin’s work was responsible for two Nobel awards (1982 Chemistry and 1962 P&M), even though she died at the age of 38. Also, Franklin was the leading contributor to her science, which is not the case with Yallow.