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.
Steersman, uuuuuuuuuuuuggggghhhhh. No more from you on this topic.
I hereby declare this incredibly silly and tedious debate closed. Forever.
If you want to continue commenting here, pick some other (and preferably less silly) topic to debate.
You’ve got at least 8 hours to think of a new topic, as I’m putting you on temporary moderation, and going to bed.
Argument by filibuster?
Steersman uses a misogynistic slur to denigrate a woman on Pharyngula. Steersman wipes out a herd of teal deers trying to explain how that slur really isn’t misogynist at all… if you squint really hard and spend thousand of words to lie, lie, lie through your teeth.
You know what’s worse than being accused of being a misogynist, Steersman? Being a misogynist. Surprise us all and own up to it for once, you disingenuous twit.
David, this guy isn’t interested in debate – he’s just an automatic bullshitter/stonewaller. Give him a challenge in the morning which might test him somehow. Like admitting he told SallyStrange not to be an “ignorant cunt” knowing full well the context would not imply his idiosyncratic choice of dictionary definition.
Xanthe:
Well done. That almost made me shoot yogurt out of my nose.
Antz: Does anyone have a good justification for why Obamacare welcomes women, but turns its back on men, boys, and fathers?
It doesn’t.
What you continue to pretend you aren’t doing is admitting that the baseline for medical care is men. Since men are the baseline, adding women doesn’t exclude men.
Then again, you are also pretending no one responded to you. They did, you lost.
It really is that simple.
Steersman: Generally speaking I would agree with you. However, when it is accompanied – as it was in my case – with some solid facts, particularly when the opposition doesn’t have any, then the balance tips in favour of those with the hard evidence.
But you didn’t have any hard evidence. You used a single dictionary definition, pretended it was authoritative, and then spun a just so story about how that definitions use of the singular (when describing a word as being used to insult a single person) thus removed any penumbra of sexism to the word.
You ignored the possibility that the use of that word might be an attempt to paint an entire sex as being, in some way, loathesome; or inferior. The single person being isulted is being insulted by saying they are like group.
Kind of like saying someone is a, “tight-fisted Scot”. It’s not, for all it refers to one person, making a comment on that specific person. It’s saying that, like all Scots, he’s stingy.
When one makes an aspect of women’s anatomy the insult… that’s an act of misogyny. Defending such usage is misogynistic.
Remind me again the non-misogynistic reason you have for using the word?
As per the dictionary – which should be the gold standard, to characterize someone who is being particularly obnoxious. Generally female, although not always in which cases “prick” seems to be the word of choice or “asshole” which Pharyngulites seem to have a particular affection for.
Non-responsive. Why that specific word. Why not prick, or asshole or douchebag?
And the dictionary isn’t, “the gold standard”, because, despite your claim that it’s some sort of careful barometer of language, there are lots of dictionaries, and they aren’t dispositive. They are descriptive of what the language the editors were able to find about the usage of the word at some point in the relative past.
Where you are (local usage) and when you are will color what is in the dictionary. Fuck, for example, is a word with a long tradition of usage. It didn’t get into any dictionaries until the 1970s. Trying to defend it’s lack prior to that is stupid. Trying to point to one dictionary, and claim it’s, “solid evidence” is also stupid.
Trying to tell people that the way their community uses/understands a word is wrong, because you found a dictionary which agrees with the gloss you prefer, is really stupid.
Pretending that you can argue both sides of a coin (the “who gets to choose?”, and the, “I get to tell you what it means, because I found a single source which agrees with me, and so trumps both local usage, and all the other sources you might find; because I was first), is so stupid as to be contemptible.
Steersman: You’ve repeated this 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”.
You do realise that the quotation is a contradiction of your claim about C***? That Baldwin is saying n****** is a class insult? That it lumps one black with all blacks as beings of an inferior nature? That the inferiority is intrinsic to them being black?
Which is exactly the argument being made here? That the parallel is, “once can only be destroyed by believing you are what the world calls a c***?”
In short, c**** is a class insult, just like n******.
Steersman: that would have to be evaluated on the specifics of the situation including the context.
Unless, of course, it’s a word you want to use. Then context/history/social understanding of the word are irrelevant; and you will whip out your patented Dictionary of Exculpation, to show that those who were, excessively, offended by your attempt to give offense are not only oversensitive, but ignorant.
Nice trick that, does it ever work?
Shit… I’m sorry Dave. I just got to your topic closing.
I’m sorry. No more from me.
It’s okay Pecunium… this troll wants to draw people in to reply at length, so that he can play his tedious semantic games. Your comments in reply were great models of clarity and honesty, compared to Sleazeman’s sneakily disingenuous elisions.
Pecunium, it’s fine. I was really only bored with his side of the argument, insofar as there was one.
Pecunium,
Nice trick that, does it ever work?
Not for me apparently, but others seem to use it to good effect. For instance “prick” doesn’t have all and sundry up in arms as being an insult to all men. And while “asshole” is, of course, not gendered – or so I’ve been informed, its use by the same logic should qualify as odious misanthropism which should have everyone totally incensed – curious that it doesn’t. And finally, the estimable Professor Myers used the phrase “witless wanker” as a very public insult which might reasonably be construed as being on the same level as “f*ggot” – but maybe that was before he saw the light on the road to Damascus ….
Although as a postscript and relative the recent post on “violent misogyny” I’ll have to concede that that stuff is pretty virulent and odious; I really had no idea that it was that bad.
P.P.S. Dave, sorry to post again, but I kept it short and to the point, and it seemed appropriate ….
Wow, Steersman is what would happen if someone rammed a dictionary and a thesaurus down B__n’s throat and he threw it back up.
Boring troll is boring.
“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.”
PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEE!!!
Like most trolls, this seems to pretty much sum up this one’s schtick, though in this case he’s added more pedantry than they usually do.
hellkell,
Boring troll is boring.
You’re really not doing the credibility of your case, if not the entire movement, any good at all by making ineffectual ad hominems or irrelevant insults – never hear the adage about “sticks and stones? – instead of dealing with argument itself.
CassandraSays,
Like most trolls, this seems to pretty much sum up this one’s schtick, though in this case he’s added more pedantry than they usually do.
I’ll speak to Party Central / Central Casting and see if they can send someone out that’s a little closer to the stereotype you have in mind.
Steersman, why are you so strident about being able to insult and demean people? If someone finds something demeaning, wouldn’t it just be common human decency not to say it?
(Usually I have to make this argument when someone wants to keep saying “retarded.” Thanks to Steersman for drastically lowering the bar.)
Steersman: This isn’t really a blog dedicated to making feminism look legitimate or credible. This is a blog dedicated to mocking asshattery – I know, the difference is so subtle, it can be hard to miss. I hardly blame you for not being able to suss it out.
Steersman, I’ll let that one comment go, but you’re treading on thin ice, in that your post-cunt-discussion comments are also extremely boring. Step it up, dude. We have standards here.
Ad hom, Steersy? More like statement of fact.
Like our host said: dance, monkey, dance, and make it funny while you do.
Steersman: Not for me apparently,
Then perhaps you ought to ponder why. You might also go back to what I said (re the nature of the corporate nature of the intent; i.e. using the odius qualities ascribed to the entire group which is summed up in the word being directed at a single person).
Because you have utterly, completely, and (so far as I can tell) willfully, chosen to actually address my arguments, in your attempt to claim some sort of misunderstood status.
The difference between c*** n****** and f****** and prick, wanker, jerkwad, douchebag, etc, is they don’t use that corporate image to impugn the person at whom the are aimed.
You’re really not doing the credibility of your case, if not the entire movement, any good at all by making ineffectual ad hominems or irrelevant insults – never hear the adage about “sticks and stones? – instead of dealing with argument itself.
Pot: Kettle. More to the point, hellkell wasn’t engaging in either. She didn’t say your arguments were no good because you were boring, and the nature of your boring is relevant (see Dave supra)
I don’t know where Steerstwit gets the idea that “witless wanker” is a gendered epithet… both men and women can wank, and masturbation is in no way a shameful activity, unlike repeatedly lying, rudely disrespecting women, and trolling obnoxiously on the Internet. Here’s a sample of PZ’s praise for masturbation, in response to a vicious misogynist already mentioned earlier, who had blogged about having a hate wank about PZ:
The insult in that phrase is the “witless” bit, not the wanker. Except when it’s accurate.
This is the guy who thinks that “asshole” is a gendered insult.
Dave,
Thanks. Although, given that some people think that stamp collecting is the most fascinating hobby in the world, I wonder precisely what you mean by boring.
And I also wonder whether that “thin ice” extends as far as me responding to those who have directed their comments at me. Really seems that the accused should get to have the last word – apart from the judge of course. But I’ll assume that it does, although I’ll try to keep my comments short and relevant to the points raised.
Are we going to dissect “boring” now? That’s bringing tedious to a whole ‘nother level.