A redditor called fxexular has put together an amazing compilation of fun “facts” about feminism from assorted Redditors. It’s a bit like reading the descriptions of an elephant offered by six blind men who are also drunk misogynist assholes. Among my favorites:
feminism, at best, focuses on relatively trivial female issues instead of grotesque male issues and at worst is pure man hate.
feminism. Where the most privileged people in society can whine about their “oppression of opulence.”
Feminism is about strong males using law to further marginalize weak males.
The ruling class uses feminism as a tool to keep men, young men and boy’s down
It’s like pissing in a bucket of water – piss enough, and you’ll dilute the water to mostly piss. “Feminism” is a bucket of piss these days, from all the crazy and ignorant that attached to it over the years, especially the past decade when it became a fad.
feminism destroys men’s confidence and sense of satisfaction in being male.
every feminist is a abuser or a abuser apologist or a shield for other abusers.
Feminists don’t even think of men as human.
Most women and feminists view gay men as accessories.
these feminist nut cases have only one goal: total female supremacy at the expense of men. Fuck every last one of these haggard harpies. Fuck ’em all.
I used to hold doors, I dont anymore. I just let it slam in the face of whoever is behind me b/c I have been publicly embarrassed by many a feminist for being polite.
Feminists are like witches, but this isn’t the The Land of Oz, Dorothy. There are no “good” feminists.
Brainwashed weak feminist men are a favorite of feminists. They don’t treat them very well, but they use them to great effect.
i’m mad as hell at the way men are treated by the feminist gynecocracy
The people who dismiss /mr are like abusers; they’re looking for any excuse to piss all over something they know is logical and true because they can’t handle it emotionally.
Many feminists do hate men and want to emasculate them. While I’m thankful for the few who don’t I feel that their silence allows the groups like NOW to exploit men and women alike for their own aims.
I know it sounds good to believe that feminism was always about equality but go and read up on the first wave suffragettes. They were basically domestic terrorists in many cases.
The feminism of the 60’s also lead to the vitriol hatred of men.
I suspect that the butt-ugly women who started feminism in the 60’s were confronted for the first time with an efficient mating market (after the sexual revolution), and they couldn’t stand “losing” to the pretty girls
[Feminists’] entire shtick is to repeat misinformation and when that fails bust out the unsubstantiated personal attacks
Yeah, no irony there!
I think this one is my favorite, though:
I will never socialize with feminists after I learned the darkness of their philosophy.
Most of these quotes are from the Men’s Rights subreddit. Every quote in fxexular’s list that I went to look at in context had gotten more upvotes than downvotes. So they must be true!
EDITED TO ADD: Oops! Forgot the link. I added it above. And here is is again, just in case.
Heh.
But of course.
This made me giggle.
Also, to everyone who commented on unicorns and/or sluttiness…Related.
On elections and the colonial era, US governers were mostly crown appointed, not elected. This was an area of considerable dispute. Most of the colonies also had some form of parliment and local elected governments. Some excutive offices were crown appointed, some were legislature appointed, some were elected. So there was a mixture in the pre-revolutionary US (this was also true of Britain at the time, to a lesser extent).
Also, please look up the word “terrorist”. Nonviolent direction action is not terrorism. Terrorism, by definition, is a VIOLENT targeted attack on CIVILIANS/NONCOMBATANTS or serious threat thereof, for the purpose of acheiving a political or social goal. Some legal definitions also require that the attackers be of a subnational or covert group. Refusal to obey your orders to make a sammich is not terrorism. Breaking the law is not per se terrorism either. Vandalism is not terrorism. Murder can be terrorism.
But to get to the original post, did those excerpts contain any true statements at all?
darksidecat: Not that I could see.
And even if they were, “X has been supported by terroristic tactics” is completely unrelated to whether X is a good cause. If the Free Puppies and Kittehs For Small Adorable Children with Cancer Foundation started blowing up subways, that affects neither the morality of free kittehs nor blowing up subways.
Oh they certainly didn’t elect the heads of their colonial government. But they elected the people who made a huge number of decisions in their colony, and governors relied on the colonies for funding, so the governors had to clearly compromise.
@darksidecat
the smoking thing has an incredibly tiny kernel of fact in the center in that edward bernays, one of the founding fathers of the advertising industry, staged a paid protest where women marching in the new york easter parade simultaneously lit cigarettes in violation of the taboo against women smoking. bernays had been hired by the tobacco companies because they didnt like not being able to sell to half the population, but it ended up getting the support of actual feminists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
forgot to add that women being allowed to smoke was already a thing feminists were talking about and bernays was just smart enough to monetize it
John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry totally discredited abolitionists.
Why is it that misogynists ALWAYS being up holding doors open, eventually? I swear, it always comes up, like some sign of the ‘good old days’ that men will now deny women because they swear they heard somewhere some woman complain about a door being held for her. Dude, feminism isn’t about not holding doors open for women – it’s about being nice enough to hold them open for everyone (and not being offended if someone holds it open for you – yes, I have seen a man refuse to go through a door a woman opened for him).
Except if someone, female or male, is far away and by holding it open you’re making them rush so you don’t have to wait. That’s just douchey.
Ugly 60s feminists who were jealous that “pretty girls” were getting all the action?
Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem were both hot back in the 60s and I’m sure they got plenty of action.
I just LOVE those pictures of “feminists” you showed on the reddit mensrights website! They are a little prettier than the way that I would have drawn them, but I think that the artist got the point. I think wings of vampire bats would be more to the point where feminists are concerned, but hey, you can’t have everything!
Maybe their hair should have some live vipers in it or something, to show how poisonous feminists really are, but that is a matter of taste, after all.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
What, no apologies to bats or vipers this time? You’re slipping, Meller.
blitzgal:
I tend to think of that as more spousal chiding than serious feminism, but I’m basing that on Virginia Vestoff and William Daniels.
Lauralot:
That’s nothing, ours knocks out the WAP.
hey DKM is back!
Do you agree to my challenge yet? 😀
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/31/alucin-in-wonderland/comment-page-6/#comment-57685
This one 😀
I don’t have any horns or ANYTHING. It’s almost like I’m not a real feminist. I want wings. 🙁
Ami Angelwings, I understand your challenge to be something on the order that feminists on manboobz.com posted compared in malice with something that your critics may have written.
That is no challenge! Everything that I have written is really, if you think about it, sound, reasonable, and entirely logical observation of reality as it is. Men and women are different, and the differences are those of aptitudes, talents, and abilities which are, fortunately, complementary to one another. Contrary to Nobinayamu, Bee, KathleenB, and other venom dripping haters, none of my posts degraded women in any way. My suggestion of their “elimination”, much touted by my adversaries here like pecunium, Voip, Kirbywarped, et al, as I explained a number of times in terms that even a woman should be able to understand, was simply an EXTRAPOLATION of events as they have unfolded over the past few decades, over a century or longer, if feminists continued to alienate men, and attack us in every way possible. It was a warning, not a threat, and a warning that would only take place if men had no other choice for the survival of the human species! There has been venom even when I have AGREED with all of you, for example, when I suggested that maybe women ARE equally good soldiers to men, and the armed forces of the USA, and even our possible adversaries, should be composed exclusively of women! You can’t get more equal than that! I still regard the entire notion fo a feminist armed forces as utterly ridiculous, but I think that I deserve points for trying, at least!
I also never argued for the “enslavement” of women! I explained before, probably several times, that women–and their children–could NOT be bought or sold, would be legally protected from whipping and other physical violence, and would have some right to divorce–althouth this ‘no-fault” mess which dispossesses men and alienates children on a woman’s whim has gotta go–if her relationship or marriage to her mate doesn’t work out. Women would NOT be allowed to corrupt and paralyse the larger society and economy, would NOT be allowed to run or enforce the law, the arbitaration or mediation apparatus, or sit on juries!
In short, women would have their rights protected, esoecially as it pertains to women’s sphere inside the home, but not the “right” to f**k up the larger society with their lies, their endless demands, their ill bred tantrums, , and their callous and sly sex wiles! If this is “slavery” than I don’t know what to do!
Nothing that I have said even remotely deserves the venomous hatred and contempt manifest by the hateful posts that too many of you displayed. Just look at and read the my posts here–Okay, I went a little ‘over-the-top” with the one about laughing about women dying from cancer, but I was making a point,and even some of you agreed that Sharon Osborne–and the women like her–went too far!! Almost EVERY post from a woman, Ami Angelwings, is a hate-filled screed. Look at EVERYTHING the women whom I have cited, e.g. Bee, Nobinayamu, KathleenB, hellskell, and a few more have posted. After your eyes have stopped burning, I think you would agree that they have surpassed any malignity and viciousness over mine by a factor of ten, or even a hundred. I also have been willing to apologize when I have been wrong, but I can’t–and won’t–apologize to man-hating feminists who regard me as subhuman because I possess a Y chromosome! I also DON’T consider ‘”equality” as the be-all and end all of relations between the sexes. Other factors and features, like complementarity, harmony, and love, are vastly more important, supersede equality at all times, and lend every pleasure and joy to relations between the sexes! I suppose that I could illustrate this by asking simply, would you rather be in the hands, and submissive to the will, of a man whom you trusted completely, who cherished your mind–what there was of it–your body and beauty, and your spirtual qualties, a man who loved you with everything he had, and that you KNEW that you were the center of his universe; or would you be content with “equality”–equality with a man who was nothing more than a ‘significant other’, a so-called friend with benefits or really nothing but a roomate with whom you experienced occasional “intimacy”?
The feminists–including the poor shrews on this website–make the second choice, but real women may disagree! Yes, I accept your challenge, if there are any postings from women which I have overlooked, and their posting was one of reason, consideration, and thoughfullness. However, with my posts being like this one here, and their postings being like theirs elsewhere else, no challenge exists! My posts are the more civilized and intelligent, no questions asked!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Meller: That is no challenge! Everything that I have written is really, if you think about it, sound, reasonable, and entirely logical observation of reality as it is. Men and women are different, and the differences are those of aptitudes, talents, and abilities which are, fortunately, complementary to one another. Contrary to Nobinayamu, Bee, KathleenB, and other venom dripping haters, none of my posts degraded women in any way. My suggestion of their “elimination”, much touted by my adversaries here like pecunium, Voip, Kirbywarped, et al, as I explained a number of times in terms that even a woman should be able to understand, was simply an EXTRAPOLATION
Yep… perfectly reasonable.
And something you’ve echoed with your glee at women dying of cancer.
Sound, and logical that.
I’d prefer equality, before God and within the social order. I’d rather be lonely, if I had to, than be a slave.
Fortunately for the real world, however, your choice is a false dichotomy.
I also have been willing to apologize when I have been wrong, but I can’t–and won’t–apologize to man-hating feminists who regard me as subhuman because I possess a Y chromosome!
cool story bro
actually, it’s because you’re a Nazi.
I have a question, Mr. Meller. What happens when women don’t want to be a part of your dystopian wank fantasy?
Yes, I would be far more content with equality with a man who was nothing more than a ‘significant other’, a so-called friend with benefits or really nothing but a roomate with whom I experienced occasional “intimacy” than with one who “cherished” the idea that I must be submissive to his will because I do not have much of a mind of my own.