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.
@Crumbelievable
Here is how I do it.
[blockquote]
Like this.
[/blockquote]
I replaced the “” symbols with the “[ ]” symbols for the sake of instruction. To get the blockquotes, replace “[ ]” with “”.
And also note how the blockquotes sandwich the text.
Like this:
[blockquote]
Like this.
[/blockquote]
Not like this:
[blockquote]Like this.[/blockquote]
If you don’t sandwich it, then whatever you write afterwards becomes part of the blockquote.
Hope that helps.
Crumbelievable – It’s almost weird after a while. They know “misogynist” is a bad thing that their enemies call them, but they also seem to think it’s a meaningless bad thing, like it’s just a synonym for “poopy doodoohead” and not a specific description of their treatment of women.
So then you end up with constructions like “how dare that c*nt say we hate women! that’s just the sort of thing a stupid spoiled paranoid woman would say!”, because they’ve forgotten that “hate women” isn’t just an insult but is actually quite descriptive.
*I mean the symbols. (The carrot symbols.) They always dissappear. lol
@Boggi:
I was already shown how to do it, but thanks. I think I might have written “blockquotes” instead of “blockquote” which would have messed it up.
Also the “dicks” thing.
1) No, it’s not equivalent. “C*nt” has the weight of umpty-zillion years of institutionalized sexism and disgust for female anatomy behind it. “Dick” is kind of a gross rude thing to call someone, but it doesn’t hearken back to “you know, that body part that’s gotten you treated like a second-class citizen since birth?”
2) So these guys think it’s bad to call someone a “dick,” right? They think genitalia-based insults are wrong, right? Shouldn’t that make them less likely to say “c*nt”? Otherwise you’ve established that it’s okay to use these insults in “revenge,” by which logic we’re allowed to call them dicks.
They’re not real big on this whole “be the change you want to see in the world” business, are they.
Crum, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one that fails at getting quotes right on these sites. Every place is different, drives me crazy as a programmer!
Anathema, you’re right, the whole idea that being a feminist is not skeptical boggles me. In fact, I started researching and reading up on Feminism about 2 years ago and found my way to skepticism via Skepchicks and eventually to atheism via skepticism. Now that’s just me, so obviously I can’t prove that’s true for everyone, but it truly bothers me that these groups like the MRA subreddit bring up skepticism and then fail to prove anything they claim. Or they cite studies that are outdated or worse, done poorly or with bias. Or even better, what they cite is simply another MRA quoting yet a third MRA as if what that person said were simply fact and not rhetoric.
It’s enough to make a person exhausted.
@Holly:
Also, to take a leaf out of yoisthisracist.com’s book…
Is there really a non-misogynistic reason for wanting to use the word “c*nt” to describe a woman? Why do they want to use that word so badly?
It doesn’t help that there are some people who do this regardless of what change they are seeking whether it’s feminism, humanism, et cetera. I have to had to continually rethink my views on race, gender, sexuality, etc. in the past few years because I really do want honest change and equality. Yet some of these MRAs seem to simply want what’s best for them and to burn anyone who won’t do as they demand. What’s worse is they burn their own allies by making requirements for what a man should or shouldn’t be and toss any man who doesn’t fit the mold they feel all men should be cast from.
@crumbelievable:
<blockquote>
Some quoted text goes here
</blockquote>
No further explanation is needed (I hope).
Its more like “Mens rights..ruining womens lives since forever”
Does talking about things disapprovingly mean you’re afraid of them? If so, today I have revealed that I am terrified of pairing pin-striped pants with solid suit jackets, and embedding determiners within noun phrases.
I’m deathly afraid of skinny jeans for men and repetitive lyrics in rap cause me to become catatonic with fear.
Nah, they’re powerless. Most of the patriarchy doesn’t have a persecution complex, remember? XD
Oh is that how it owrks? Then I fear a lot of fictional deities, I just got done explaining all the shitty ones to a friend so he can score better in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup’s tournament.
Good news! I have been banned from TGMP (again), so I will be spending lots more time here!
Lets get started then!
Apparently, I posted the detailed description of Obamacare’s discrimination against men, boys, and fathers in an old article. But since boobvillle is a one trick pony, it won’t matter! The debunk is just as pertinent here, as it was in the other one!
Women only PRIVILEGES outlined in Obamacare (a few examples):
———————————————————————————-
1) Birth control for women, but not for men
2) Sterilization for women, but not for men
3) Smoking cessation for women, but not for men
4) STD treatment for women, but not form men
5) Cancer vaciine for girls, but not for boys
6) Violence prevention for women, but not for men
7) Breast health for women, but no prostate health for men
Women only POWER outlined in Obamacare (a few examples):
——————————————————————————-
1) Every health plan must be reviewed to “take into account the health care needs of women”, but no provision for health care needs of men.
2) Financing for a huge study on “the relative mental consequenc3s for women of resolving a pregnancy in various ways .. carrying to term .. adoption .. miscarriage .. abortion”, but no money for the consequences for fathers.
3) Establishes an “Office of Women’s Health” within the Office of the Secretary.
4) Mandates that the Secretary of Health “monitor the Department of Health and Human Services’ offices, agencies, and regional activities regarding women’s health ..”
5) “Establishes a Department of Health and Human Services a Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health ..”
6) “Establish a National Women’s Health Information Center ..”
7) Mandates “efforts to promote women’s health programs and policies with the private sector ..”
8) “Establishing within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and Office of Women’s Health ..”
There are dozens more offices, programs, departments, committees, and privileges for women only in Obamacare.
How about men?
Zero. Nothing. Actually, the word “men” only appears 2 times in Obamacare, both in “women and men” statements that mean nothing.
In contrast, there are 134 occurrences of the word “women” in Obamacare, all but two of which outline special women-only programs or bureaucracies.
In short, Obamacare is the greatest act of state sponsored bigotry since Jim Crow. A massive edifice to feminist discrimination against men, boys, and fathers.
It goes without saying that this happens in the context of a healthcare system where men and boys face significantly worse outcomes than women and girls.
Sorry for knocking down your ideological edifice. Go Rush! Civil rights hero! The only American with the courage to face the feminist beast!
Bigots.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA!!! That is the greatest example of barking with your tail between your legs that I’ve ever seen! AntZ really IS an overgrown maltese!
Time for the cool residents of chickville to put on your thinking caps!
Does anyone have a good justification for why Obamacare welcomes women, but turns its back on men, boys, and fathers?
Hello? Anybody home? Echo-o-o-o-o …
>>Anathema, you’re right, the whole idea that being a feminist is not skeptical boggles me.
There are large pans of the skeptics movement who have rewritten the history of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic of the 70s-80s so that instead of a Religious Right panic with some token credulous/woo woo feminist allies thrown in, it was entirely a creation of the feminist movement and their ‘hysterical’ fear of non-existent rape.
“Sorry for knocking down your ideological edifice. Go Rush! Civil rights hero! The only American with the courage to face the feminist beast!”
Bwahahahahaha, that you think you have any credibility to call anyone else a bigot after that nonsense is delightfuly hilariousl. Between that and “well, I got banned from TGMP again,” that was really good for a laugh. Thanks, Antsy.
Zarat, VR or get the fuck out.
Since providing vascectomies, Viagra, and prostate screenings included with their insurance is just the worst, right AZ?
Antz, you need to (a) read the rebuttals to your original post, (b) cite some actual facts from credible sources in support of your assertions, and (c) stop spamming by posting the same thing multiple times. I know you think it’s edgy and all, but it’s just kind of sad.
You think that if you start the discussion over again in a different thread we’re just gonna forget that lots of people have responded to you already, Zarat? I seriously want to know, who the fuck do you think you’re fooling?
This is well beyond pathetic.
Anybody want to link to rebuttals, for greater justice? I would find it both amusing and informative and would promise myself to whomever did it.
Okay, maybe not the last part but you know.
I don’t argue with puppies AntZ because. while their yipping can be cute, it’s rarely informative.
Zarat you are a fucking liar. I refuted all your BS in the Rush Limbaugh cartoon thread. Viagra and smoking cessation is covered for men in Medicare and Viagra is covered by insurance companies. So are vasectomies.
Meanwhile, see all MRAs completely misrepresent this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/9126265/Research-finds-women-feel-happy-when-their-husband-or-partner-is-upset.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qkaqp/women_feel_happy_when_their_husband_or_partner_is/
Meanwhile I’ll quote Legolas’ comment from the reddit thread:
once again MRAs lie to make women out to be evil. The very first paragraph is “The detailed study found that wives or girlfriends were pleased when their partner showed emotion because they believed it demonstrated a healthy relationship.”
and somehow this translates to “women loooove it when men are miserable!!!”
also it a good example of how the media twists things to bait people into a tizzy.
Jackasses.