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.
D’aww, our old friend Preggo Punchout is back! How’s the Aryan horse?
Myyyyyy opulent horse has a first name, it’s A-R-Y-A-N, my gleaming horse has a second name, it’s A-R-Y-A-N!
FF protip: the word “haughty” does not mean a woman plainly and politely explaining a blatantly obvious fact which you obviousoly could not find on your own.
Good grief. Is
Preggo PunchoutFactFinderIdeologueReview seriously suggesting that YouTube comments are now the zenith of informed discussion and criticism? Next up on YouTube, elucidation and exegesis of porcine aeronautics.Yes, I’ve seen that video too. You have to remember, PP/FF/IR, it’s dating advice for some very outraged people who were asserting themselves loudly last July, with questions that went something like this: “If I can’t corner women in hotel elevators at 4 am in the morning and ask them back to my hotel room before I’ve ever said anything else to them, then how am I ever going to get laid?” It’s a tricky question. And Rebecca handles it with humour and aplomb.
If the feminist version of polite conversation is telling someone to buy a fuck doll, it explains why feminism has such a bad name.
What’s wrong with fuck dolls? I invite anyone who thinks a fuck doll would be a nice part of their sex life (or whatever) to buy a fuck doll! I have issues with people who treat their human partners as if they were fuck dolls.
There was a troll who had a horse and Aryan was its name-o! A-R-Y-A-N, A-R-Y-A-N, A-R-Y-A-N and Aryan was its name-o.
I’ve been through the desert on a horse with no name
I just know that it’s Aryan.
@Ideologuereview: Your first mistake was assuming these people deserve polite conversation.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse, of course, unless, of course, that horse, of course, is gleaming and opulent!
Regarding the “they won’t be happy till all men are looking demurely at the floor when a woman walks past” idea.
That’s what women are expected to do when a man walks past. So basically they’re complaining that women want men to “act like women”.
darksidecat,
Asshole is a gendered insult because…what? Only men have assholes?
Not sure that I actually said it was – it would help if you quoted or linked the relevant posts. However it seems that it is more commonly applied to men than to women – maybe because there’s more of the former than the latter. For instance, this site defines one as:
A man displaying an egocentric disregard for the opinions, needs, and feelings of those around him.
Interestingly, the site offers “dick”, “prick” and “jerk” as synonyms. But can’t say that I’ve ever seen any analogous feminist site with an article written by a man describing offending women in the same terms.
I think you will soon discover this is untrue …
Who knew?
Xanthe,
Steersman, do you get tired of your schtick, hiding behind a conveniently cherry-picked dictionary definition so that when you venomously call women ignorant cunts …
It can be a little tedious – the things we toilers in the vineyards of Truth must put up with. But reminds me of my sister feeding her very young son by spooning in some Pabulum, scraping off with the spoon what didn’t go in the first time and shoving it in again. Although at least I’m learning something in the process so it’s not a total waste.
However, I am most emphatically not calling “women” cunts – I called one woman that in response to being called an asshole even before there was any substantive criticism of my supposedly offending comment. I don’t particularly find profanity all that useful in moving the conversational ball downfield but I figured that people should realize that one good turn deserves another, that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – so to speak.
you can trot out this pseudo-intellectual bullshit that you were really saying they were ‘a mean or obnoxious person’?
Generally speaking, it really can’t be called bullshit when the dictionary clearly indicates that it refers to a single person, not a whole class. And specifically, being called an asshole right out the chute looked to me as being rather obnoxious behaviour – which should have been obvious from the context for any who hadn’t clutched their pearls and fainted away on seeing the word. Although maybe I was expecting too much from that crowd.
Oh, and feminism isn’t monolithic. Your quote of PZ Myers doesn’t invalidate either feminism, or his critique of elements of it.
Yes, I quite agree that it isn’t monolithic – even from the little I’ve picked up in the last while – which suggest some similarities with the Stalinists and the Trotskyists. But I wasn’t trying to say that my quote invalidated feminism, only trying to suggest, given some fairly broad spectrum of opinion in the movement, that charges of misogyny aren’t always applicable or called for – as more than a few seem to think is the case.
Pako,
How do you feel about the insult “Stop being such a girl”? TO THE DICTIONARIES! Girl means basically female, therefore women who get find this offensive to women are oversensitive. Men are never offended by things. You’re welcome.
Thanks. But good question. Although it does raise a few questions as to exactly what are the connotations and definitions of the word. If it is simply being a female of a particular age then I can’t see that as being much of an insult. If it is asserting that some attribute of that type is intrinsically reprehensible – which is, of course, highly unlikely – or is inconsistent with the role or character of the person being insulted then that would have to be evaluated on the specifics of the situation including the context.
Pako,
This is the bit where we try to sound all linguistic-y …
I figured that since the word was being thrown about with such gay abandon it might be useful to actually take a look at the definition in some real, if on-line, dictionaries. Which I guess you consider “linguistic-y”.
“Which I think tends to make anyone taking offense but the person to which it is directed somewhat presumptuous at best if not bizarre.”
What the hell, dude, no one does this. If you insult a woman by calling her ‘dumb’, feminists do not rally around shouting YOU HAVE INSULTED ALL WOMEN.
Exactly my point – if they don’t do that for “dumb” then why do it for “c*nt”? The only differentiating feature that I can see is that the first attribute is maybe nurture while the latter – at least the physical attribute referred to even if that is not the source of the offense – is nature.
… it is generally agreed to be much less insulting to call someone a prick than to call them a cunt. Hm, I wonder why?
Good question; I think it is largely the frequency of usage: “f*ck” used to be the cause for obscenity trials but it now as common as “have an nice day” and has about the same information content. Similarly I expect that if people didn’t make such a big deal about “c*nt” then its impact would be similarly attenuated – the basis for Lenny Bruce’s routine as referenced in the Wikipedia article on profanity.
Indeed! We insult people by comparing them to something bad, not something which we have neutral feelings about.
I suppose that is generally or frequently true, although as indicated I really don’t think that is the mechanism in play with those gendered insults. I mean, if Abbie Smith can, in effect, call Rebecca Watson that, fairly or not, then either there is nothing intrinsically insulting to the entire gender in the word or Ms. Smith needs to be sent to some feminist re-education center for some remedial consciousness-raising.
May I paraphrase thus: “I know what synecdoche is. I think it is the only element that makes ‘cunt’ an insult. I think this despite the complete absence of insults reducing someone to a part of the body that is not sex-related or scatological.
A reasonable argument on the face of it. However I expect that our identities are based more on our sexuality or sex than on whether we have big, scrawny or curvy elbows. But the former is still, presumably, only part of our self-image so that being viewed only as that component might be considered an insult. Although I think the use of terms related to our “privates” is because there is some shock value in the words, the information content of which tends to be inversely proportional to their frequency of occurrence: use the word more often and the shock value goes down.
Good book! Not really on-topic here, though.
Seems to me to be precisely on the topic of words and the reasons for why they have the power to offend and hurt. As someone said, “Language is never innocent”.
kirbywarp,
Seems like you are, yet again, wrong. You are in the habit of denying a particular definition exists …
And which one would that be? Can you point to an on-line dictionary with a definition that clearly indicates that the word is an insult to all women?
(one specifically referring to women, and in fact is disparaging because calling someone a woman is an insult).
That really doesn’t make all that much sense. You’re saying that “calling someone a woman is an insult”? Because I’m certainly not.
CassandraSays,
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?
Apart from the fact that I don’t want to “call women obnoxious” as it generally isn’t at all applicable, only to call the odd woman, here and there, that if necessary, if only to get their attention. As indicated earlier there seems to be some shock value to the word, and related ones, simply because they’re not all that common. When such uncommon words are used people immediately sit up and take notice – sort of like crying “wolf” or yelling “fire”. Although people who use such words where there is no justification for them tend to lose their credibility.
Xanthe,
How would you describe a troll that ignored eight separate requests to stop?
Persistent? Dedicated? Willing to expend intellectual and social capital to respond to those who directed questions to him after those requests?
… Why do people do that? The intent is clearly to insult someone by comparing them to the most odious of anatomical features, a vulva.”
As a number of other posters have suggested I expect that what Professor Myers meant was “… that supposedly most odious of anatomical features ….” As for an answer to his question, maybe because that’s what the dictionary says. Anything else really seems to be little more than so many just-so stories:
the ad hoc fallacy, … a term used in academic anthropology, biological sciences, social sciences, and philosophy. It describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.
pillowinhell,
Here’s how a slur is determined to be a slur…a group of people say that it’s an insult directed at them based on a definable trait belonging to them. End of story.
You pay the word extra and make it do anything you want it to? And if another group of people – of the same class and composition – say that it is an insult directed only at one individual and not the whole group? Particularly when the dictionary definition supports the position of the latter case?
But apart from that, how is the scenario you describe any different from all of the Muslims who were deeply offended by cartoons of Muhammad [piss on his name] and who went out and committed murder and mayhem to avenge themselves for that insult? Seems to me the whole schtick of atheism and skepticism is that people’s physical persons are sacrosanct but their opinions and behaviours are fair game.
Do you like the c word because you lack the imagination or wit to develop more descriptive insults?
No. I like it and related ones because the words are so uncommon, relatively speaking, which means that when they are used everyone pays attention: you don’t whisper when you’re trying to advise everyone there’s a wolf at the door or a fire in the theatre.
But I don’t think insults are a particularly useful addition to any conversation and should only be used as a last resort, not a first one.
kirbywarp,
“‘Obnoxious’ only works as an insult if there are some credible arguments to justify it.”
Not quite sure why he thought this would be a problem.
The definition of obnoxious is “Very annoying or objectionable”. The question becomes what is the reason someone is being described as that. If it’s because of some irritating mannerisms then that is one thing. But if it’s because they’re presenting an argument that you don’t want to hear because you know or suspect it’s true then that’s something else again.
What is a problem is comparing himself to Hitchens.
I figured someone would be so obtuse as to use that as a point of departure. As I clearly indicated I was referring to the fact that some are thought rude only because some other people think they are entitled to a special deference because the cause they champion is so righteous. (“How dare you come in here and talk to me like some junkyard dog? I’m the President of the United States.”) No one gets a free ride; everyone has to justify their opinions.
No. When Abbie Smith calls Rebecca Watson a “c*nt” she’s still using misogynistic language. A woman can still use misogynistic language.
Ann Coulter is a woman. Ann Coulter has also said that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Does that mean that denying women the right to vote can’t possibly be sexist?
Or does it mean that some women buy into sexist ideas?
Given the way that Abbie Smith’s been treating Rebecca Watson and Jen McCreight, I’d say that it’s pretty obvious that she’s buying into some rather misogynistic ideas.
ithiliana,
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.
Thanks for the links although I’ve only had the time to read 2 of the some 59,300 articles linked and to watch the TED talk. Interesting reading and one of the articles – Rebaking the Pie – certainly seems to make a persuasive case. While there is no doubt quite a bit of justification for the general arguments, I’m thinking that at least a significant portion is likely to be so many “just-so stories” that “appeal to irrefutable hypotheses” – one of what the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci called the “telltale signs of pseudoscience” in his book on the topic (Nonsense on Stilts). But still a worthwhile avenue to explore.
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,
Longer version for FullOfPithAnna: sure, context matters but it helps if you have some evidence to justify your conjectures and not just some wishful thinking.
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!
I think you’re confusing me with some stereotype. As mentioned, given the wide spectrum of opinion in the feminist movement, characterizing those who criticize feminism in general as misogynists is likely to be counterproductive.
And by this logic it wouldn’t be homophobic for me to call a gay person a “f*ggot” because I’m just calling that particular gay person a “f*ggot”, not all gay people. Likewise, it would totally not be racist for me to call a black person a “n*gger” because I’m just calling one black person that, not all black people.
This is ridiculous. No singular word can ever be a slur by this line of reasoning. (Heck, even plurals might not count as slurs by this line of reasoning. After all, if I refer to a couple of gays as “f*ggots” I’m just insulting those two people, not all gays.)
Tell me, do you accept that slurs even exist? What on Earth would you consider a slur?
Well, no one here is killing anyone, threatening to kill anyone, destroying property, threatening to destroy property, or otherwise hurting anyone who uses the word “c*nt”. We’re simply pointing out that it’s misogynistic to call a woman a “c*nt”.
Good Lord, you are stupid.
Anathema,
No. When Abbie Smith calls Rebecca Watson a “c*nt” she’s still using misogynistic language. A woman can still use misogynistic language.
Yes, I’ll quite agree: it is certainly true that a woman can use misogynistic language. Although it does raise a few questions, notably the extent to which any individual can hate the class, particularly a physiological one, in which he or she is a member. While it is certainly possible to do so, it seems rather pathological and should be deprecated in the absence of any fairly solid evidence – you have some of that?
And in which case I think Ms. Smith deserves the benefit of the doubt which leads to the conclusion I presented, that at least some women don’t see that word as an insult to the whole class. Not sure about Anne Coulter though as I haven’t read enough on the topic.
Anathema,
Tell me, do you accept that slurs even exist? What on Earth would you consider a slur?
I think that far too many people get their knickers in a twist over what other people think about them or their modes of behaviour or physical attributes. As I quoted before, James Baldwin said:
“You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a n*gger”.
Whatever other people think about oneself is one thing which one is at liberty to ignore; denying civil liberties on the basis of those opinions is an entirely different kettle of fish. But specifically, I see that the dictionary says that both “f*ggot” and “n*gger” are considered “disparaging terms”, but it seems they are totally empty of content – there’s nothing there in the definition that suggests that they apply to anything other than the whole class – the exact opposite to at least some dictionary definitions for “c*nt” – or provides any reason why those classes should be disparaged.
But I’ll have to give it some more thought as it seems the whole idea behind “disparaging terms” is bogus at best and ridiculous if not pathological at worst. I mean, the use of any one of those can easily be rebutted by another that is symmetric – honky to n*gger – as there are, presumably, disparaging terms for every class and then the conversation is no further ahead.
Well, no one here is killing anyone, threatening to kill anyone …
True enough; I should have stopped my analogy after the being offended part. My point was that while feelings are certainly important they have to take a back seat when matters of fact are being discussed.
We’re simply pointing out that it’s misogynistic to call a woman a “c*nt”.
Yes, and I’m simply pointing out that that is only your opinion – it’s not a law of nature, and one that not everyone shares – including some women. And an opinion that is contradicted by at least some dictionary definitions.
Good Lord, you are stupid.
Now, now; don’t be such a prick.