Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.
Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.
[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. … Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.
All Feminists are Doctor’s Daughters:
Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Backlash:
Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.
Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?
Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.
More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.
I’m wondering about these guys with perpetually dirty fingernails. You’d think that they’d consider washing before eating anything with their hands. The dirty-fingernail types I know also understand that what is causing dirt under the nails is also something they don’t want to eat.
The only “dismissal” I have for them involves a scrub brush and a bar of soap before they plan on eating.
Otherwise, if we’re talking about the kinds of people with dirty nail jobs, who cares? Smart people remember that dirty, dangerous jobs help keep the world going. Feminist or not, if you forget that, you’re being willfully ignorant. I owe my non-broken self to a good mechanic who caught a major brake issue before they failed. He’s a good guy and runs a great shop. My father is a weekend dirty-nail type. I’ve learned more about plumbing, electrical work, carpentry, and interesting tools from him than anyone else I know.
*GASP* I am a feminist who can get her hands dirty around the house! And I *don’t* give myself snobbish dismissal because there’s crud under my nails after unclogging the disposal. (Though I will admit to some four-letter fugues when a blocked drainage line leaked out onto me while I was trying to unclog it. 20 year-old pipe sludge is all manner of disgusting. Much scrubbing was involved.)
Simple mathematical fact: with nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is more variety and variation than anyone can ever sum up in stupid little stereotypes.
very upperclass, their version of the 50’s has every man(white) working nice jobs and living in the suburbs with his stay at home wife. Women of color who did have to work don’t seem to exist, much less people of color.
Until it’s time to talk about how the horrible affirmative action give unqualified blacks and women the jobs of men(white).
Just, ugh.
From Christina Hoff Sommers, allegedly:
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two. One to exclaim that the light-bulb has violated the socket, and the other to secretly wish that she was the socket.
Alternately, 12:
one to excoriate men for creating the need for illumination,
one to blame men for inventing such a faulty means of illumination,
one to correct her and say the lightbulb was actually invented by a woman who never got the credit,
one to suggest the whole “screwing” bit to be too “rape-like”,
one to deconstruct the lightbulb itself as being phallic,
one to blame men for not changing the bulb,
one to blame men for trying to change the bulb instead of letting a woman do it,
one to blame men for creating a society that discourages women from changing light bulbs,
one to blame men for creating a society where women change too many light bulbs,
one to advocate that lightbulb changers should have wage parity with electricians,
one to alert the media that women are now “out-lightbulbing” men,
one to just sit there taking pictures for her blog for photo-evidence that men are unnecessary.
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, it’s not the lightbulb that needs changing.
Wow, all this straw is irritating my allergies.
Christina Hoff Sommers should practice what she preaches by not talking so much and spending more time on cooking, cleaning and wiping grown men’s asses.
How many MRAs does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they’re waiting for a woman to do it for them.
Well, we all know that Hugh Jackman can sing and dance, so we should try rewriting it as a musical extravaganza! Certainly can’t make it any worse, and we could hook up a generator to Stoker’s grave and get the electricity needed to power the production from his rpm. Green and fabulous!
Hoff Summers, the rich white woman who disproved male privilege by pretending to be a poor dude, not knowing what poor people live like before her game? Yeah, that’s about your intellectual level, Hengist.
Donsie: My dad is the main reason I’m a feminist today. He told me my entire life that I could do whatever I wanted if I was willing to fight hard enough for it. He also taught me how to handle chemicals, the awesomeness of looking at stuff through microscopes, and how to solder a circuit board.
Well, she’s a well-known published author and speaker with a Ph. D. in philosphy, so thanks. Who are you again? :p
Here, I got a kick out of these. There are literally hundreds of them:
You Might Be a Liberal If…:
The Ten Commandments in schools will hurt the children, but “Heather Has Two Mommies” won’t.
African-American, Queer and Women’s Studies prepare young people for good careers, but a biology major is an outdated relic of white, misogynist domination.
College students must protest the President (before Obama was elected), but never challenge anything the (liberal) professor says.
McCarthyism was wrong, but black-listing “right-wingers” from ever teaching in college is just plain old common sense. A right-winger is anyone who doesn’t toe the line on all issues.
Meat is bad for you. So is milk. But marijuana gets you ready for your finals.
You want to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana.
You see racist code-words in all media except in hip-hop singles such as “Kill The White People”.
IQ tests are completely invalid and there are no differences between people, except when an anonymous blogger posts that all the Red States have a borderline retarded IQ and all the Blue states are made up exclusively of intellectually gifted people. Then you feel the need to send the blog post to everyone you know as conclusive proof that voting for Democrats makes you smart.
Black dominance in basketball is progress, but white dominance in swimming is an outrage.
Illegal Mexicans are real Americans. Descendants of our Founding Fathers aren’t.
Racial profiling is wrong, but all serial killers are white and all Mexicans are hard-working family men.
There is no correlation between Islamic immigration to Europe and increased anti-Semitic attacks against European Jews.
Prostitution empowers women, but having a man open the door for you is degrading.
You get out of bed, look at your naked body and at your wife’s, and then think: “gender is a social construct that has no basis in science”.
On second thought, you got married in Vermont and your wife’s name is Thomas.
Your dog is smaller than your cat.
You bought your son a doll and your daughter a toy truck just to prove that gender is a social construct.
You then gave your son a “time-out” for pretending that the doll is an enemy soldier. Such violence will not be accepted.
When your 2-year-old daughter turned the truck into a “tea party” table, your immediate thought was, “I got to her too late and she was already brainwashed by society to think she’s a little woman”.
Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women because our society is sexist.
On second thought, it’s sexist to say that men are bigger, stronger and faster.
The only time you’ve ever used the word “choice” was in reference to abortion. School choice or the choice to shop at Wal-Mart should be prevented at all costs.
If you are a man, your hair is longer than your girlfriend’s.
Women should stop listening to their husbands and start listening to you.
People are born with a sexual orientation, but gender is a social construct and nobody is really born with male or female qualities.
Men who are aroused by breasts are abnormal freaks, but homosexuality is biologically normal.
Men stand in front of toilets only to promote male supremacy and should be forced by the government to sit.
Gay students should be allowed to publicly kiss in class, but Christians shouldn’t be allowed to quietly pray during a break.
The Christmas tree should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography “only has to look the other way.”
When a Western woman travels to the Middle East, she should respect their traditions and cover up. When Moslems illegally infiltrate Europe, they have the right to expect the Westerners to adjust to them. If the Europeans don’t, Moslems have every right to riot.
Christianity is a threat. Islam is a religion of peace.
You found where the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution, but cannot find where the Constitution provides for a right to bear arms.
None of the Constitutional Rights you believe in are actually written in the U.S. Constitution.
Constitutional rights that are actually written in the Constitution are outdated and should be ignored.
Your car has 8 bumper stickers calling Republicans morons and saying that Bush is a murderer, but that “McCain/Palin” bumper stick you just saw is really offensive so you just had to scratch that car with your key.
I’m pretty sure “everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, no matter what their education or credentials” is a fallacy too. :p
Hengist, we don’t need to see every “fwd:fwd:FUNNY JOKES” email your grandma sends you, kay?
Did she get through college with all D’s and C’s? I’m not a PhD and I can easily under stand how a poor man’s life does not equate to all men having the lack of privilege of a poor man, just as all men don’t have the privilege of the rich. MRA’s don’t seem to get that works the same for rich, poor and women of color as well.
Hengist, people who aren’t morons don’t get much of a kick out of lists of “I’m an angry conservative and libruls are crazy” statements. Know your audience.
http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z402/plastic_jello_/GIFs/themoreyouknow.gif
That was supposed to be a the more you know gif. You’ll have to settle for this:
It’s not ’cause she disagrees with me, dude. It’s because she’s stupid. She has no grasp on what poverty means and does, and assumed that the problem with her little game, and with those she met, was because they were men, not because they were poor. A PhD in Phil is nice and all, but it apparently didn’t teach her shit about what she chooses to write about. It doesn’t take a lot of study to realize that poverty hits women even worse, and with higher frequency.
I mean, we’re talking about people, the systems they live in, the circumstances of huge numbers of people, etc, here. At least if she had a PhD in say, sociology, or history, her credentials would be relevant to the situation. But she doesn’t, and they’re not. There’s a lot of smart people that disagree with me who I don’t actually call stupid, because I don’t think they are. The ones who do so on political issues have names that are escaping me; Last I heard from them, most were being eaten alive by the other conservatives who are busy devouring everyone who isn’t crazy or stupid.
Really? I found it hilarious, just for entirely unintended reasons.
Dad?
It’s not so much a fallacy as it is nonsensical. Education and credentials are irrelevant to values, which is what lies behind much of political opinion. Although education may enlighten, it can just as easily provide a bigot with rhetorical tools to rationalize her biases. And let’s not forget that there is a whole bunch of people from privileged backgrounds who see education as primarily a badge of class and hate — HATE — the POST-1960’S encroachment by the great unwashed on “their” Harvards. (To be accurate, Hoff Summers got her education from middle-brow private colleges, but those places are actually much worse than Ivy Leagues at fostering out reactionary elitism.) So it’s not surprising her stance on feminism is that of a holier-than-thou authoritarian, convinced as she is that women should enjoy none of the things that she herself has partaken of — such as education, career and a rich public life.
The fact that she has a PhD is neither here nor there. Lots of people have PhD’s. In fact, if you take all the women who have PhD’s, and from better schools than Brandeis, I bet you’ll find most of them disagree with Hoff Sommers about feminism, and feminists with PhD’s (even excluding women’s studies) outnumber those like her. But then you wouldn’t accept their credentials as proof that they are right, correct? Of course you wouldn’t. Because you are a huge hypocrite.
These statistics are often unfairly derived. We do not assert that Herbert Hoover killed thousands of people when discussing his presidency, even though his mismanagement of the depression could be viewed in the same way as Mao’s shitty agricultural policies, or that Rosevelt killed thousands because he was president during a time of economic hardships. While Mao did legitimately murder and oppress some people, these numbers are dramatically inflated to the point where Mao is held to blame for every death that happened under his regime (aging is caused by communism too XD), and poor political decisions that in fact harmed his allies and supporters are treated as willful genocide in many discussions. People play similar games with the Soviet Union. Conflating all mismanagement or social hardships with genocide, oppression, and murder is not the best of arguments. Esp. because some of these people took charge of incredibly terrible politcal climates (Mao and Lenin did not rise to power in stable, wealthy, developed, etc. nations to begin with).
Moving onto other topics at discussion, I have read excerpts from Hoff-Summers. She is as classist as hell. She has absolutely no idea how women in these communities live and work, and she idealized violence witnessed as the manly brutishness of the poor (seriously, she uses terms like “brute” and “savage” to discuss poor men). She is just reiterating tired old right wing lines trying to reconcile their notions of “masculine” work with the fact that they hate the poor, hence her attempt to construct us as animalistic and contruct oppression of poor communities and harsh working conditions as poor people’s “natural place”.
Darksidecat:
A bit off-topic, but I have to disagree with you on some stuff you said, at least when it comes to the Soviet Union. There is a point at which an authoritarian state cares so little about human life that the distinction between an industrialized, clearly intentional policy genocide and a kind of ostensible oopsie-daisy that kills millions of people becomes meaningless, at least in my opinion. During the collectivization, the “kulaks” and “podkulachniks” — that is to say, all peasants who owned any property whatsoever — were thrown out of their homes and deported to concentration camps. Technically the 800,000 or so among them died of starvation and exposure — technically — but I’m not sure I’m prepared to let Stalin off the hook just because he didn’t have them gassed Holocaust-style. As a consequence of agriculture being stripped of its most experienced and productive workers, and a severe reduction in the labor force overall, crops failed, and the ensuing famine killed millions. Is this mere “mismanagement”? The government in Moscow was repeatedly advised that deadly famine would be the outcome of its policies, but in an authoritarian regime, lives do not matter. And for practical purposes, it is often the same thing as if that authoritarian regime purposely executed the victims instead of leaving them to starve.
OK, Hengist, let’s see your list of people who disagree with you but who you think are right.
In reality, unless your psychology is very complicated, the statement “I think I’m right” is a truism. Ergo, “I think other people who agree with me are right” is also true pretty much by definition, as is the inverse statement “I think people who disagree with me are wrong.”
Now one ought to be open to the possibility of error and one ought to consider other people’s opinions and arguments, but you’re the last person in the universe who ought to be lecturing people about that.
@Amused, I am complaining about the double standard in statistics calculations (the US has also committed campaigns of genocide and torture during that time period, but we rarely make similar statements about US gov’t officials). How many US poor people died during the first half of the century due to US fiscal policies? I bet the number is no lower, especially amoung people of color. Starving to death was not too uncommon in many poor areas of the US until the 60s. If your definition of genocide is so broad, you had best the majority of US governments under those “authoritarians who don’t care about human life” category, including the current one. Not that I would necessarily object to that being a universal standard, but the singling out of one subset of governments for special standards is a double standard and an unfair measurement.
But then you wouldn’t accept their credentials as proof that they are right, correct? Of course you wouldn’t. Because you are a huge hypocrite.
Actually, yes I would. I’m not the hypocrite here, but go ahead and keep calling a published author with a Ph. D. “stupid” because you disagree with her. Maybe you can point me to some of your own publications or talks you’ve given on the subject. Or does it burn you up that she’s actually well-known and respected and you’re just a foul-mouthed nobody on a relatively obscure blog?