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.
“telling a troll we’ve heard enough time the same arguments” == “killing unharmed innocent black men”
This is a big leap in logic… Like grand Canyon big.
Confidential message to everyone EXCEPT J U:
I think if we ignore him he will go away. He seems to feel honor bound to reply to every message, to tell us we’re a bunch of creationists who are exactly like the guy who shot Trayvon Martin…
We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal. Geez, don’t know where I’ve heard that before.
Let’s see, Martin Treyvon and a comparison to Hitler. I call bullshit. You’re the one being hyperbolic here. You’re also the one using emotionally charged issues (and completely unrelated ones at that) to press your arguments. In order to be irrational or emotional on my part, I’d actually have to feel something more than just a case of slight bordem and annoyance. So, you keep trying to push buttons and let’s see if you can actually elicit some irrationality on my part, hmm?
I find it hilariously un-self-aware for someone to complain about other people’s emotionality while using hyperbolic rhetoric (“sexual objectification? what next, toothpicks?”) and bringing up a highly emotionally charged, culturally tender, and completely off-topic issue like the killing of Trayvon Martin.
J U, you admitted that Watson’s statements about sexual objectification sent you over the edge. Take a breath, step back, and stop being an ass.
The example about Martin was to represent, that a man who let his emotions get over him should not decide about such important things as pulling the trigger. How many people would die, if every gunowner would be trigger-happy?
Kyrie: Obvious troll, is obvious, I can say only this. If you think that what I meant is “having human feeling is wrong”. I refuse to believe that you are so ignorant to not see, why it is important to not let our emotions lead our treatment of others.
Yes emotions are important, but to bring them to an argument is manipulative. Most wars justified not because it is the only logical decision, but because it is in the best interest of those few, who plan it, and not the whole. They use emotions such as fear to convince the masses to support them (dehumanizing the “enemy” is one example). And emotions can be very powerful tool, to fire up fanaticism.
Leave emotions to the personal life, and not use them as a deciding factor in other’s lives.
Also, the chain of events that led to Trayvon Martin’s death was heavily influenced by what is increasingly clearly George Zimmerman’s racism. So kindly back the fuck off of cultural issues you know nothing about and go stuff your pompous pronouncements about making sure that no anger ever wrinkles one’s forehead while discussing something.
Uh JU, you do realize that rationality is a mix of logic and emotion right? And that a great number of psychological studies show that literally everything people do has some basis in emotion.
So unless you’re about to tell us you’re Vulcan, get off the wimminz be batshit line. And if you are Vulcan, the only logical thing to do is find some other blog to amuse yourself on.
Over the edge, and emotionally if you consider finding something laughable an emotion. It is clear to me now, that refuse to be objective, and interpret my examples from a subjective viewpoint, what leads to nowhere.
“We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal. Geez, don’t know where I’ve heard that before.”
If you ever though I was about the you agree with me, then I wasted my time here. You are not irrational, because you don’t agree with me, but because you fail to understand, or just don’t want to, what is objectivity.
For example that statement of yours entirely proves that: you reduce my views to something that ridiculous: “We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal.”, and dismiss it on this belief (without even trying to see what I am really about). Now that is what creationista do all the time.
But we just don’t understand JU’s geniuuuuus guys!
I’m reducing your arguments to oversimplifications because it amuses me to mock you. Keep dancing troll!
I’m definitely going to be taking lessons in objectivity from someone who was sent over the edge by Rebecca Watson saying sexual objectification is kind of a bad thing.
“Also, the chain of events that led to Trayvon Martin’s death was heavily influenced by what is increasingly clearly George Zimmerman’s racism. So kindly back the fuck off of cultural issues you know nothing about and go stuff your pompous pronouncements about making sure that no anger ever wrinkles one’s forehead while discussing something.”
Is racism not originated in emotional ignorance, that prevents to actully know more about those people, and ecentually realise, that the basis of that racism is irrational?
“Uh JU, you do realize that rationality is a mix of logic and emotion right?”
“if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias”
“And that a great number of psychological studies show that literally everything people do has some basis in emotion.”
If every people would believe that the Earth is flat, would they be right? Argumentum ad populum.
“So unless you’re about to tell us you’re Vulcan, get off the wimminz be batshit line. And if you are Vulcan, the only logical thing to do is find some other blog to amuse yourself on.”
That line clearly shows, how destructive emotions could be. You label me a mysognist, and you think that is sufficient to dismiss every word of mine. Even if were one (wich I am not), that doesn’t mean that could be used to dismiss my views.
Amusement? Quite the contrary, I find it a bit disappointing, that people could be this biased. And also think that bias should lead the World.
Good lord, you’re dense.
Or we could make him explode by all posting things that absolutely require a response.
Hey JU, are religious people all inherently irrational?
“I’m definitely going to be taking lessons in objectivity from someone who was sent over the edge by Rebecca Watson saying sexual objectification is kind of a bad thing.”
That is completely the opposite, what I have written. I didn’t say sexual objectification isn’t bad. I have said that the actual event (elevatorgate or something you call it), had to be quite streched to be considered a sexual objectification.
“I’m reducing your arguments to oversimplifications because it amuses me to mock you. Keep dancing troll!”
No, it only makes you look like an ignoramus. You are like that one fellow, I once met, who asked me, how could they measure the size of the Galaxy, if they never were there?
How’s the weather in Estonia?
J U, how do you measure the size of the Galaxy?
And of course JU hasn’t been influenced by the slightest thing! He was sprung fully formed and has had no contact with anything culture or experience wise that might bias him in some fashion! Why can we all just stand in awe of his supreme objectivity like we’re supposed to!!
Religious people couldn’t be inherently irrational, since religion is not something they inherit.
They could be irrational involving that said religion, but that doesn’t mean they are irrational at large.
Fair enough. However, you also characterized her as “totally offended,” which she was not by any stretch of the imagination. If her statements about it sent you “over the edge,” I suggest you check yourself, Mr. Objectivity.
JU, What did the fisherman say to the card magician?
So exactly how did you come by the assumption that I’m a creationist JU? I find it amusing since I have no particular belief in any deity.
A bit rainy, with little wind, but rather colder than used to be in this season. Though I don’t know if the weather is the same on the other side of the country. You could go to just another village 15 km away, on the other side of the mountain, and there could be almost entirely different.
J U, what do wicked hens lay?
JU, is religion inherently irrational?
And do you think “inherent” means “inherited?” Because this will have a large impact on the meaning of your answers.
JU, who can shave 25 times a day and still have a beard?