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.
You can thank me after you awaken from your nightmare.
You mean the one where I’m arguing with some douchebag who calls everyone a bigot? That one?
Seriuosly, though, if the Affordable Care Act, when it’s implemented, does in fact result in inferior or unequal care for men–in practice, not just in your fevered imagination–then I would support amending it. After all, no law is perfect. I won’t be dropping everything in my life to march on Washington, but I’d be open to having certain loopholes closed as needed.
Having said that, I absolutely do not trust you, Antz, to argue in good faith or interpret the statute in anything other than a completely coockoo manner.
Somehow steersman strikes me as the type of person to argue that a piece of breakfast “doesn’t have your name on it,” therefore it’s his to eat…
Not quite sure why he thought this would be a problem. What is a problem is comparing himself to Hitchens. Such a comparison only works with some credible arguments to justify it. To wit, fuck steersman. >:(
Also, I love it when trolls tell us to THINK FOR OURSELVES, when what they really want us to do is think like them. Spearhead and AVFM don’t tolerate much in the way of dissent, you know.
Are you actually trying to argue that, say, Rush Limbaugh is a misandrist because he didn’t start a campaign about how Obamacare is for women only?
I just noticed that any person who dislike the Affordable Care Act will not call it by it’s name, but Obamacare instead.
I think the “Obamacare” epithet is one of the most hilarious fails in rhetoric the Right has come up with in a long, long while. The law gets more popular every day, and despite the cherished wishes of a few to see it go down in unconstitutional flames, that is a remote possibility. Ten years from now, when Obama is the most popular ex-president in recent history and the right has nailed his name to his signature reform, they’re all going to be whining about how it was their idea all along. (Which more than half of it was, until of course Obama endorsed those ideas; since the merits of an idea depend entirely on the party of the one proposing them, they instantly became job-killing bankrupt-machines rather than the only way to save the US healthcare system. Heh.)
I learned something, AntZ. You have a FOREIGN BRIDE, and you’re still an idiot.
Also, Steersman is obnoxious and tedious.
Oh my FOREIGN BRIDE, Steersman is the most incredibly boring troll I have ever seen. Including B__don.
It’s like MRA’s have no conception of the fact that Birth Control benefits MEN TOO. Seriously, if we made men 100% responsible for birth control they woud be demanding that this health care mandate be enacted today. You know, so women could not steal their precious seed and their bank accounts with it.
Viscaria: it might be the novelty factor, but Sterrsman is nowhere close to the level of boreness B____ used to induce in me.
I actually was delighted to read Steersman’s bizarre postings. If someone were to look up “sophistry” in the dictionary, they might see “2. Steersman.” Then were they to flip back a bit, they might be shocked to see the same definition listed under “pedantry.”
It’s like someone took an 18th century view of linguistics, Mr. Collins from “Pride & Prejudice”, an incomplete understanding of logic, and an utter lack of nuance, then combined them in a bowl and poured the resulting substance out onto this comment thread.
I admire the patience of everyone who engaged dude. I was too afraid to engage lest he turn his devastating beam of tedium on me
Hahahahaha! AntZ, the only things I learned from your rant are that you have a FOREIGN BRIDE, and that you don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I did find several places in the act that specifically mentioned women in the context of describing maternity care, breastfeeding, and pap smears. The majority of the people that need these services are women, although trans men sometimes need them, too. I don’t know why cis men want pap smears and maternity care, but if you want to change the wording of the law to include them, just write your local Congressor to complain. You’re not accomplishing anything here, although you are providing some lulz.
When AntZ describes his FOREIGN BRIDE, I think of this video:
I really wish I had checked Manboobz LAST NIGHT when I was UP with MY BABY, because it would totally have made the every-45-minutes feeding a lot more fun.
I really wish Antz would videotape his rants with a soundtrack a la:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeZlih4DDNg
Because this is the voice/soundtrack I hear when reading them. 🙂
Well, why didn’t that embed? WordPress hates me.
I had a longer comment typed up, but the internet eated it!
Google search for Semantic Derogation of women, a fancy term for what you’re all trying to educate TrollSteer on–i.e. linguists have studied the ways in which terms associated with women (even if they start out positive–see Schulz) tend to become derogatory (thus, semantic derogation) because of how women as a class are constructed as inferior in the patriarchy.
And before you claim a dictionary as supereme authority, you really ought to listen to some lexicographers
Shorter version: language works in context.
Who is talking to whom in what situation matters, so all the crap SteersTroll was putting out is just that, as you all showed admirably. BUt I figure some of you might like the articles–I know he won’t bother to read because omg WOMEN!FEMINISTS!LIES!
FACTS NOT LIES!
There is NO CONTEXT for our trolls.
I also wonder whether Steer reveres usage dictionaries published by “reputable dictionary publishers” as much as he reveres the regular old dictionaries. I think a flip through a dictionary of American usage would be most instructive.
Can I also say the decision of which words go in the dictionary tends to be incredibly classist and racist. See the addition of bling AFTER hip hop got big with white middle-class and rich kids
Are they “eating scorn” or spitting it out covered in toxic saliva?
Steerstroll reminds me of a troll I encountered back in the golden days of the end of ought ten. (In those days we wore a jump drive on our key chains, because it was the style at the time.) This troll kept insisting that the slaveholders of the antebellum South(ern United States) were motivated by selflessness in their drive to own and exploit as many human beings as they could. He pointed to such things as the rudimentary general and religious education the masters gave their slaves as the masters’ attempts to uplift the slaves. He claimed to also have made an argument that selfishness leads to not keeping slaves, but I admit trying to read it made me pass out so I didn’t follow him.
Anyway, the thing that reminds me of this troll is that this troll was insisting on a definition of selflessness and selfishness which were not to be found in any dictionary, but which he insisted were the proper definitions.
I guess my point is: Hurrah for you, Steersman, you have at least grasped the need for citation and substantiation. Now if you will only grasp the concept that such substantiation needs to be more than “I want it to be this way!”
If you call someone a faggot, you use attack queerness, and thereby attack all queer people. If you call someone the n-word, you attack blackness, and thereby attack all black people. If you call someone a cunt, you attack female-ness and having a vulva-ness, and thereby attack all women and all people with vulvas. When you use a targeted slur against a group against one of its members, you attack them as a member of the group per se (or in association with members of the group) so by doing so, you attack the entire group. Or, as our friends over at the IWW would put it “an injury to one is an injury to all”.
because it’s not true, you’re the only one who thinks it’s true, and you’re a delusional whackjob who would accuse your morning cheerios of hating men if you thought it would get you page views.
hth
Well, Cheerios are round, and most women have vaginas, so obviously Cheerios are misandry – why are they so popular, huh?!! But then again, assholes are also round, and as Steerman has taught us, only men have those. So now I’m confused. How to decide what to eat for breakfast in this complicated scenario?
(I had a bagel.)