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.
I’m guessing poultergeists onthe evil hens!!!
Close, pillowinhell!
J U, why does a chicken coop have only two doors?
pillowinhell, you totally believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago by no one in particular.
Guys stop wasting JU’s time. JU, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Also, deviled eggs, duh.
How is Vulcan formed?
how is Vulcan formed
how girl get pragnent
Katz got it!
Why can’t a bicycle stand on its own?
J U, what do flies wear on their feet?
There is actually quite a fascinating story about that. The main problem about measuring the distance (from the Earth), for example the distance of a star, is that if a star is more luminous, that doesn’t mean it is closer to us, since, it could be just bigger, and brighter. So that could lead to the wrong conclusion.
In 1877 Edward Pickering, started to photograph the entiry night sky, in order to categorize the objects. He could do this because of John Drapers (who’s father made the first picture of the Moon) gift of his entire wealth to Harward, where Pickering Worked.
When the photos were complete, they had to be catalogized. But this posed a problem to Pickering, since by this time there wasn’t money left, and the human “computers” (at the time it meant some monotonous, concentration demanding job), wanted more money, than the offered 30 cents, and later it come to light that the group of men don’t really kept their wits together, and ignored the fine details (cunting and catalogizig all dots on the black transparent plate, and comparing it to other plates to recognize change in luminosity, and “stationary” objects).
Anecdotally he said the his housekeeper lady could do a better job then them. Actually he fired all the men, hired his housekeeper, to lead the work, and hired only woman. These woman had the tough job to catalogize the World’s largest astronomical collection.
Albeit it the first demand was for these women to do the “drudgery” and not make scientific discoveries (probably to keep the glory to Pickering), people hadn’t have to wait for long that this actually happen.
Annie Jump Cannon, for example categorized 5000 stars a month, with position on the sky, luminosity and color. She was very influental in making the current classes of stars: O, B, A, F, G, K and M. In 1925 she was the first woman to have honorable doctorate from the Oxford University, in 1931 she was elected into the 12 most influental woman, and obtained the Henry Draper Gold Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.
Here comes the story of Henrietta Leavitt, who had recognized such details, that changed astronomy forever, and made it possible for other astronomers to measure the distance between stars. The explanation might be simple since my scientific knowledge is limited: She discovered that some stars “change their luminosty”, over a period of standard time. She compared the image of one star, with another, what was taken in another time interval. She initially discovered 2500 variable stars. Her favourite variables were the Cepheids. She wanted to point out a connection, between the only two data about them: the variation in the stars luminosity and the apparent magnitude.
She eventually figured out, that the star in the Small Magellan clouds, are relatively close togeather, because their distance to each other is negligible, compared to their distance from Earth. So she used in her calculation as if they were equally far away. So if a Cepheid’s apparent magnitude is larger than another’s (in the Small Magellan clouds), then its absolute magnitude is also.
At this point Leawitt started to draw conclusion from the absolute magnitude, and the period time of the stars. She made a digram with the two values, the result were surprising: the Cepheids “pulsating” slower were more luminous, the diagram took a bow shaped curve.
Leawitt stated: A straight line could be easily drawn both on the sequnce of dots that represent the maximum and minimum luminosity values (on the logarithmic diagram). Wich means there is a correlation between the luminosity, and variability of said luminosity.
After knewing some object absolute magnitude, we can compare this to another object, and based on this we get a simple number, of wich is further away from us, and at what extent. Example star A is 15 times farther from us than star B.
Though this doesn’t say the exact distance. People used another method to measure the actual distance of star, but this only worked with very close stars, and thus they were unable to know how large is the galaxy, since the farthest stars were in mystery. The used parralax, it is the same way our eyes work. Move your hand infront of you, and point up one finger. Close one of your eyes, then reverse. You will see that the finger appear at a different perspective each time. Our brain uses this deviation of two pictures to measure, where is the finger, how far away it is.
The Earth revolves around the Sun, in winter it resides on the opposite “side” of the orbit, than in summer. If we make two pictures of a star, in each of these seasons, the our point of view will work like the eye in the previous example. If the star is close, we would se a measurable deviation between the two picture. Knowing how large is the distance between the two measuring point in summer and winter. With simple trigonometry we can, get the distance of the star from us.
Now Henrietta Leawitt, gave astronomers the tool, to use the data of one, close variable star, to measure all the distance of variable stars. For wich she had minimal recognition in her life.
After measuring a substantial amount of stars, we can have a 3D model of the galaxy, and know how large is it.
I know it is full of grammatical errors, I hope the message comes trough.
“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!!”
I never said I am without faults. But that does not mean that I aspire to be biased, about something. When I argue I sincerely pursue to not to be.
“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.”
I have read the totally offended (related to the elecator) on her blog after the questionable comment of Dawkins, not in her orginal video. As I said before her original video response was fine.
“JU, What did the fisherman say to the card magician?”
I don’t know anything about that.
“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.”
I didn’t say you were. I have said you argue like one, or tend to just with me, since I never withnessed, how you argue with other peple.
“J U, what do wicked hens lay?”
I am unfamiliar with this kind expression. Is it unique to the anglo-sphere?
“And do you think “inherent” means “inherited?” Because this will have a large impact on the meaning of your answers.”
I admit it depends, on how he mean inherent. If he mean by inherent, that “in itself”, then yes it could. How ever nobody could say that any religion is 100% that, but it is very unlikely. And since they are unfalsifiable, this could be never known, because we observe, and describe our world scientific theories, and one of the most important attribute is that have to be falsifiable.
“J U, why does a chicken coop have only two doors?”
It has one door here.
“JU, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?”
So there is an assumption they can’t chuck wood in reality, but what if they could? That is unknowable like the question: if the dinosaurs weren’t go extinct, could they have develop a civilization?
“How is Vulcan formed?
how is Vulcan formed
how girl get pragnent”
1. In simple terms a vulcano is just a hill, formed when the Earth’s crust molten “rock”, comes to the surface and solidify again and again on top of each layer (intermediate vulcanic ash layer can form too).
2. I think we all know this so I pass.
“Why can’t a bicycle stand on its own?”
I could if it has two side wheel, or balanced.
“J U, what do flies wear on their feet?”
They have hair what is only visible in the microscope.
See you later, I must go to sleep now.
That. Was. Amazing.
JU for troll of the year!
And I’m giving that flounce 8/10 because he literally did answer everything directed at him before flouncing.
I. Am. Amazed. Can we figure out a way to make “wicked hens” a common expression? Would dinosaurs have developed civilization? This is so glorious.
That post was wicked hens.
Chatbots have grow sentience? @_o
You know, I’m certainly not an expert on Estonian culture, but I have been to Estonia, and one night in Tallinn, some friends and I spent the evening at a (rather excellent, albeit touristy) restaurant, and ended up staying there late and chatting quite a lot with our rather charming waiter and his friend, who both came and sat with us towards the end of the night. When we finally got up to leave, the waiter’s friend asked one of my friends if she’d like to come back to his place for some coffee. She said, “Heh, thanks, but I have a boyfriend.” His answer was something along the lines of: “Lucky him! Oh well, if you ever break up with him and come back to my country, call me, ha ha.”
This is not a particularly exciting story. It is, however, a story which would seem to make it pretty damn clear that “asking a woman you just met back to your place late at night when what you are hoping for is sexytimes” is, in fact, a thing that at least some Estonians do, and not a completely foreign concept which Estonians could not possibly be expected to understand.
Also, JU said “I am unfamiliar with this kind expression. Is it unique to the anglo-sphere?”
Does anybody in the universe use the term “anglo-sphere” besides MRAs? I disbelieve that he’s new to Elevatorgate and its related MRA tropes. But he sure was entertaining.
So, just another socially inept MRA. Surprise, surprise.
..that was excellent, I have one for J U since I doubt he’ll actually stick the flounce long term.
J U, Why is a raven like a writing desk?
“in fact, a thing that at least some Estonians do, and not a completely foreign concept which Estonians could not possibly be expected to understand.”
I have never said men here not ask out women. I have said that here, the way that guy asked out Rebecca (since I can only trust your opinions about it that it actually was a hit on, as you insisted, I can accept it), a local women would not consider that as a hit on. You have to be alot more straight than that here. And that the main reason I hav not treated this issue as all fo you. I don’t see why it is logical to use concealed intention, than speak out straight, it only gives a higher chance of misunderstanding.
“Does anybody in the universe use the term “anglo-sphere” besides MRAs?”
Is that serious question? Influental cultures have a sphere of influence, that is what I was talking about. Or did never hear about the Sinosphere or Russosphere? It mean all the countries that use English as their first language, and all the others, what are under a heavy influence of English. Since I couldn’t know where are all you from, it is easier to say anglosphere, then to list all those nations.
“So, just another socially inept MRA. Surprise, surprise.”
As I said before one counter example “A” does not mean that all of that group has that attribute “A”, but it means that not ALL of them have the attribute “B” what was countered. By way I didn’t even know that there was something as an MRA, internet activism in my point of view is quite uneffective and wasteful. Even real life activism has high failure rates, and even if they get somewhere in the end, that mostly not the goal, what the founders were about. That is why avoid any kind of activism, protests or anything related. Most in activist groups try to ease their need for a group identity (for instance that is why for football fans, the group is more important than the match).
“J U since I doubt he’ll actually stick the flounce long term.”
What is the meaning of that expression?
“J U, Why is a raven like a writing desk?”
That is a symbolic riddle, what is not there to be solved (said by it’s creator Carol C. Lewis), but to represent the sometimes confusing world of adults to children.
“stick the flounce” is like sticking the landing in acrobatics, you’re back, therefore you didn’t stick the flounce (flouncing being similar to a kid going “I’m taking my ball and going home!”)
“how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?” is a common American joke, because it’s rather difficult to say properly, and you took that one seriously, so I was hoping you’d try answering the riddle.
So at 4am in an elevator he should’ve just asked her for to return to his room for sex? That would be seen as crude to the point of threatening. Elevators being tiny spaces with effectively locked doors, what’s to stop him from taking the sex he wants if she says no? It’d be seen as threatening enough to kill any chance he had. Generally feminists would agree, using your words is better than playing a game of cultural signals, but really, just don’t hit on people in elevators at 4am, it’s creepy.
Also, manboobz generally hears anglosphere from MRAs, and they don’t mean English speaking countries, they mean “no foreign brides here, look elsewhere for submissive wives” — basically they use the word anglosphere to denote countries with women they think are terrible. So yes, it was a serious question.
J U — re: Angelosphere, from the glossary:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Around here there’s about a 99% chance that anyone saying Anglosphere means that, not the use you were using.