NOTE: Today is Day Two of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
So the other day, the atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, had this little conversation on Twitter:
Watson, you may recall, got herself onto the Men’s Rights radar a few months back, after a brief comment she made in a podcast — suggesting that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea for a guy to hit on woman he’s never spoken to before while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4 AM – somehow turned into a Big Fucking Thing on the Internet, because how dare she say such a thing, it’s creep-shaming, she must hate men, bla bla bla.
So, anyhoo, one Men’s Rights Reddit noticed this little Twitter exchange, and posted it to the Men’s Rights subreddit. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. MRAs hating women? How dare she suggest such a thing!
Here are some of the things that assorted Men’s Rights Redditors posted in response, to remind us all that the Men’s Rights movement isn’t all about shitting on women. Let’s start with this lovely rebuttal, boasting nearly 60 net upvotes:
This comment inspired a long and winding discussion of the word “cunt,” and why it’s like totally ok to use it all the time, because in England the UK people call men “cunts” as well.
Some got a little carried away:
This little exchange came with a side order of irony:
Speaking of fantasy, here’s a strange bit of paranoia, which nonetheless drew upvotes from the very same people who are outraged that Watson was a bit creeped out by a dude she didn’t know asking her to come to his hotel room at 4 AM:
And here’s still more evidence that MRAs, despite their many egregious flaws, do at least have vivid imaginations:
Some other comments, all of which got at least a few upvotes from the MR regulars:
Let’s end with this eloquent plea for people to not give a shit if MRAs hate women:
The folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently debating whether or not to change the subreddit’s slogan, which is currently: “Mens’ Rights: Earning Scorn from Bigoted Feminists and White Knights Since 2008.”
So let me humbly suggest:
Mens’ Rights: Like it’s even relevant if mens rights is anti women in regard to if mens rights is a movement about addressing mens issues.
Or the even punchier:
Men’s Rights: i’m tired of not using the term “cunt”.
MRAs, you’re welcome.
Xanthe,
Well, Cassandra, he hasn’t moved onto the point that cunt is a marked word; it is used to denigrate women wholesale as a oppressed group.
Actually it’s not – do please point out to me an exact source and statement where it says that the use of the word as an insult to one woman denigrates all women. I’m beginning to think your reading comprehension is deficient as several on-line definitions clearly state it refers to one person, not a whole class of them. Maybe you can pay the word extra or petition the Dictionaries to change their meanings, but I would say you don’t really have a credible argument.
But that would be a feminist, anti-patriarchal interpretation, and I’m sure Steerstroll has all sorts of intellectual arguments to trot out to say that women aren’t oppressed!
Actually, as I’ve pointed out I’m quite aware of the oppressed status of women historically and currently, more so in Islamic societies but still rather badly in Western ones. But to bring that up really qualifies as one very large red herring – the question isn’t whether women have been oppressed but whether some of them, as with men, aren’t periodically particularly obnoxious.
kirbywarp,
And no, it isn’t included because of some simple statistical thing where more women are called a cunt than men, it’s because of the fact that the target was historically women, both reducing women to their genitals in an effort to suppress them (implying they are only good for babies) and associating various pejoratives with them (also a well-known and widely-employed oppressive tactic).
You make all of these bald-faced assertions and entirely extraneous and tenuous connections which are entirely irrelevant to a clear and precise meaning of the word.
But time to fold my tent for the moment – thanks for the conversation; it’s been a slice.
Oh Steersy,
on other days I would be inclined to prove my point, which would involve a more sophisticated argument to show examples of how language is routinely used in the oppression of demographic minorities and to mark identities as being in-group and out-group. And in an ideal world we could have a nuanced discussion about all of the implications and social effects of that, if… you weren’t provably a rude and obnoxious troll with a massive overestimation of his own intellect who goes around posting the same bullshit on different websites for kicks. Sorry, not playing your lil’ gaslightin’ game, sweetie.
That’s a near-perfect encapsulation of your own approach in this discussion. The use of the word in the examples quoted in the OP, and the underlying intention, could hardly be clearer and more precise. In fact, I really don’t see how it’s even open to debate, which I imagine is why you haven’t had anyone taking your side.
Either here or elsewhere.
P.S., Xanthe,
… if you weren’t provably a rude and obnoxious troll …
“Obnoxious” only works as an insult if there are some credible arguments to justify it. And “rude”? Well, it frequently indicates some unseemly adherence to and support for some dogma of one sort or another. As Dennett said of Hitchens:
Of all the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” Hitchens was clearly the least gentle, the angriest, the one most likely to insult his interlocutor. But in my experience, he only did it when rudeness was well deserved–which is actually quite often when religion is the topic. Most spokespeople for religion expect to be treated not just with respect but with a special deference that is supposedly their due because the cause they champion is so righteous.
… who goes around posting the same bullshit on different websites for kicks….
And you – and thousands of others – don’t post similar opinions on different sites? We are all supposed to be captive of one site or only say things from separate and narrowly constrained fields on different ones? A little unrealistic to think that should be the case.
P.S., Wetherby,
The use of the word in the examples quoted in the OP, and the underlying intention, could hardly be clearer and more precise.
But I wasn’t referring to those – although I probably should have indicated that I thought they were rather over-the-top to say the least. What I was referring to was the general case, the general definition and use of the word.
Yeah, a dictionnary troll! Long time (sort of) no see.
@Xanthe: I also have
U3 (I cheated a bit and replaced ‘dick’ by ‘prick’) Actuaaly that could be O1, not sure abou that.
http://manboobz.com/2012/03/06/mens-rights-redditors-to-rebecca-watson-how-dare-you-say-we-hate-women-you-cunt/comment-page-4/#comment-132041
T1, O3
http://manboobz.com/2012/03/06/mens-rights-redditors-to-rebecca-watson-how-dare-you-say-we-hate-women-you-cunt/comment-page-4/#comment-132040
I also hesitate to put C2, as he keep pointing, for no reason, that sure women have been mistreated here, but look, elsewhere is worse! But I don’t hope to much for C5, so it doesn’t really matter.
The FACT is: NONE OF YOU KNEW.
And that is the issue that will ultimately lead to enlightenment, if you have the courage to persue it.
Why? Why did none of you know? Why did the lawyer-types in your ranks not know? Why did the boob king not know?
Why have your enemies not brought this up before? Why did Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party pointlessly harp on non-existent religious issues, instead of talking about the fundamental sexism behind Obamacare?
How can it be that the most far reaching act of legislative discrimination since Jim Crow did not rufle a feather or wake a single journalist from his/her slumber?
How can it be that the only group with the courage to see or say the truth is the MRM?
Go look. Google “Obamacare discrimination” and examine the absurd result. Hundreds of articles and discussions about how denying birth control to women is sexist. You all read the text of Obamacare. You know what is really there. You know about the hundreds of woman-only privileges, programs, offices, comissions, and services that are delineated throughout the 907 page document. You know that there is no mention anywhere of men or boys.
Why? Why have none of your enemies pointed this out?
Why is American blind the bigotry of feminism? To the juggernaught of hate and discrimination that YOU represent?
This is the question that you have no answer for.
Unless you look at yourselves.
I know you are all still angry, because MRAs do surgery without anaesthesia. That is just our style. But in the end, the proceedure was needed. You all learned something. If you have the courage, you each have a chance to awaken from the brain washing of dogmatic feminist religion. You have a chance to become human again, to recapture your human birthright to THINK FOR YOURSELVES.
You can thank me after you awaken from your nightmare.
Try to stick the flounce this time. Returning to indulge your must-have-the-last-word-itis after claiming you were going isn’t a good look.
I notice that dictionary troll still hasn’t explained why, if he wants to be able to call women obnoxious, the word “obnoxious” is not sufficient. Why the need to gender it?
“I know you are all still angry, because MRAs do surgery without anaesthesia.”
Yeah, we should definitely put you guys in charge of healthcare initiatives.
AntZ: even less relevant and coherent than before; that takes some effort.
Why do you forsake your FOREIGN BRIDE by spending so much of your energy railing at MBz? Does she know she is only a stop-gap until there are VR SEXBOTS?
Antz seems to be having some sort of meltdown. He’s so exciteable lately, it’s like trying to talk to a much less intelligent version of The Penguin.
Cassandra, dictionary troll knows his argument falls in pieces if you look at how words function in the real world, where context clarifies the ambiguity of a word with several meanings: some possible meanings are ruled out, others are more strongly inferred. (And the beauty of a good double entendre, for example, is a phrase having two different meanings.) That said, virtually every example where this has come up recently – Victor Ivanoff insulting Ophelia Benson, or Penn Jillette insulting Lindy West, or r/MensRights insulting Rebecca Watson with the slur of ‘cunt’ – there has been no ambiguity about which meaning is in operation. Likewise the misogynism of Steersman calling SallyStrange an ignorant cunt at Pharyngula. No doubt whatsoever as to what meaning was intended, despite all the disingenuous special pleading from cherry-picking dictionaries. Case closed.
1. That’s a terrible idea in general. Anesthesia was invented for a reason.
2. Not they don’t. They just hate women and/or feminists very much and post angry comments/blogs/web sites’ articles about it. And try to plan real life event, at which they are very bad.
3. Are you a MRA? I thought you said it was doomed to failure and the only real hope was VR? (and I repeat my question, because I got good answers but not from you: why the VR if your FOREIGN WIFE is so awesome?)
Oh yes, rude and obnoxious; how would you describe a commenter ignoring a request to stop derailing a discussion thread? PZ laid the ban-hammer down before the comments even reached 100.
How would you describe a troll that ignored eight separate requests to stop? But Steersman doesn’t respect Ophelia, so he goes on being his horrible self.
As PZ said on his dungeon page, “I have a new criterion for banning: if you feel the need to make dishonest arguments about how “cunt” only means “obnoxious person”, then goodbye. Why do so many people do that? The intent is clearly to insult someone by comparing them to the most odious of anatomical features, a vulva.”
[meta]
Poor phrasing on PZ Myers’ part, since I’m pretty sure he doesn’t view vulvae as odious at all; whereas the virulent misogyny of some MRAs of our acquaintance leaves no doubt whatsoever what they think.
“by comparing them to the most odious of anatomical features, a vulva.”
WAT? I mean… I know that people say “poor wording”, but I’m still going to say something. How could he even think that to type it out? That could not even cross my mind. I’m shocked, and PZ is an intellect.
I’m totally floored by this unless someone explains that was a joke? Doesn’t sound like the context for a joke. Is anyone else filing this under WTF?
“The intent is clearly to insult someone by comparing them to the most odious of anatomical features, a vulva.”
I’m pretty sure this is tongue-in-cheek.
boomboom: I can say with nearly 100% certainty that PZ was joking. He’s a biologist. I doubt he’d label any anatomical feature as “odious,” and absolutely not the vulva.
Steersman came here to whine about the c word not being a slur? Listen, you got your ass handed back to you on PZ’s site, what makes you think you’ll be any more fortunate here? Here’s how a slur is determined to be a slur…a group of people say that its an insult directed at them based on a definable trait belonging to them. End of story. Decent (or at least polite) people may not understand why a word is percieved as an insult or slur but will avoid using it.
Also, the word cunni (cunt) was used by Romans way back when. And it was an insult then, and it was also clearly understood that the worst possible thing to be seen as was a woman.
Do you like the c word becausde you lack the immagination or wit to develop more descriptive insults? You do have a dictionary, correct? Try looking up some words that would be more cutting and to the point if you want to tear someone down.
>>>Haha, I see your extra o’s and I raise you a few more.
Off topic, but since apparently ‘on topic’ is discussing with a thick-headed troll about why picking up a dictionary is not the end all be all of etymology…
I hate seeing that turn of phrase being used because doing the “I see your X and raise you Y more” is forbidden at actual poker tournaments. It’s called double betting and was banned because it is unsporting (you go “I see your X…” so your opponent might mistakenly think you’re just calling and have a reaction that tells you whether or not you wish to then proceed with the raise). It is now customary for the organizers to take the call at face value and to ignore the subsequent raise.
“I see your X and raise you Y” only happens in movies. Just like every key poker hand our hero plays in ends up being a confrontation between four of a kind and a straight flush, rather than something ‘boring’ but that actually happens the vast majority of the time, like top pair versus trips or a well-hidden straight.
@NightShadeQueen, it would have to be, right? If not… then …. wow. I’m totally floored by that. It’s just that no humor came through in the blurb that was posted. It seemed a serious topic, and being handled seriously, put forth as an argument.
But really we have two choices. It’s a joke, or PZ is a moron. I see no third button here.
I think what PZ means is that the reason cunt is seen as an insult is because it compares the person to a vulva which is in the minds of the people using cunt as an insult is the “most odious of anatomical features” not that he himself sees vulvas that way.
wow is it me or did I word that really badly?