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.
“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.”
Wait, did he go INTO the elevator, wait for it to close its door and asked then??? I though the story was about, she was just about to enter the elevator, when the guy asked her.
By the way I mean straigh for every other form of commuication, like when somebody says that the food is interesting, he/she actually mean they don’t like it. I think they should tell anyway, otherwisse they would send the wrong message to the chef.
“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.”
This made me raise my eyebrow.
“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.”
That is totally illogical, why would somebody marry someone, who’s mother tongue is different, they wouldn’t understand each other well, that wouldn’t lead to a relationship based on trust.
What do you mean by submissive? Like, it is desirable if a person has no free will?
“Wait, did he go INTO the elevator, wait for it to close its door and asked then??? I though the story was about, she was just about to enter the elevator, when the guy asked her.”
As far as I know, yes, they were alone in the elevator, at 4am, when he made the offer of “coffee” — it’s creepy, whether it was a hit on or not.
“By the way I mean straigh for every other form of commuication, like when somebody says that the food is interesting, he/she actually mean they don’t like it. I think they should tell anyway, otherwisse they would send the wrong message to the chef.”
Most people, in the US, would consider telling the chef it tastes bad to be rude, particularly if it’s just not something you like. “Interesting” is meant to mean “not to my taste” while not implying the chef should try to please you. This is probably cultural though.
“This made me raise my eyebrow.”
Yeah, that’s the MRM for you, they don’t really attempt to actually make sense.
“That is totally illogical, why would somebody marry someone, who’s mother tongue is different, they wouldn’t understand each other well, that wouldn’t lead to a relationship based on trust.”
Because they don’t want one (a relationship based on trust)
“What do you mean by submissive? Like, it is desirable if a person has no free will?”
Does not have, or want, free will — opinions define “evil western women” (to MRAs anyways) — read the glossary, the link is at the top of the page, and it’ll explain far better than I can while falling asleep (insomnia, how I hate it)
J U: Yes it is a bit pointless to speak to you people.
If this is what you think why do you bother?
Esp. as almost none of your comment addressed anything in the question. It was also none of it new. There have been dozens of people, on the three or four threads here alone, who said things much as you did.
But in reality, this kind of think you people demonstrated here only leads, to events such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Could you provide a sequitor with that?
It’s interesting to me that you have a different USian example of current events.
So what is it about our “thinking” wihch leads to things like an overeager vigilante shooting someone?
What, pray tell, is the rational connection between those two events? Also it’s interesting that you admit to an emotional response (you were, “sent over the edge”, and that made you feel the need to lecture us) but our lack of an affected detachment from tired arguments somehow disqualifies our response.
You really do think yourself a special snowflake, don’t you?
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.
Nonsense. You’ve not made your case. You’ve not made a new case. That you think it to be true doesn’t make it so. This isn’t arithmetic; there is no answer key. There are only better/worse arguments.
Your arguments have been made, we think them worse.
“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”
But your emotional reaction to Watson (be it derision, or anger) is different how?
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.
That’s not what you said. What you said was it was a stretch to for her to think it was anything more than an innocent invitation for coffee, and there was no justification for thinking it to be a sexual advance.
Those are quite different things.
Half of me wants to say “Don’t encourage him; he’s finally gone” and half of me wants to say “Encourage him; he’s the most fun I’ve had here in ages.”
He’s more fun than Varpole; he at least makes some effort to structure an actual argument; and knows when one has been be made in response.
His arguments are a bit thin, but they are actual arguments.
He’s the polar opposite of the trolls who never respond to anyone.
But I seem to have killed the party. Typical.
Pecunium — considering he never replied to me, and replied to everything, I think he just meandered back to his part of the internet. He was funny though.
J U:
What was it about this
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
that threw you over the edge?
“As far as I know, yes, they were alone in the elevator, at 4am, when he made the offer of “coffee” — it’s creepy, whether it was a hit on or not.”
My interpretation depended on the notion that he stopped her before she entered into the elevator. So my judgment depends entirely on the precise circumstances. If he used only that one sentence, it is unnecessary to enter the elevator. Since the time required to perform that action does not validate it.
However if she was already in the elevator, it might have been reasonable for him to enter, since the closing elevator door prevents any kind of discussion. Albeit the act of her to enter an elevator, could have been a clear indicator that she heads for her private quarters, and wants rest.
Reminding you, I have never disputed the inappropriateness of the event (I explained before why I think it is), my doubt was about the sexual nature of it.
“Most people, in the US, would consider telling the chef it tastes bad to be rude, particularly if it’s just not something you like. “Interesting” is meant to mean “not to my taste” while not implying the chef should try to please you. This is probably cultural though.”
Well here most people consider not telling if food is bad stupid (for example when I have found a fly in my soup), since if tell it they are obliged to bring another meal, and you are the one who pays the check, for my money I would like quality food in a restaurant, in a bistro I wouldn’t complain thought, it depends on the prestige of the place.
For the last parts of your comment, I can’t make a response to, since I am unfamiliar with this MRM group, and I wouldn’t like to make a generalized statement for something I don’t know.
“If this is what you think why do you bother?”
“Yes it is a bit pointless to speak to you people. When you just try to argue as creationists, ignore what I have said, say something that vaguely resembles what I have said, then dismiss that.”
You could have just view it in the proper context, and you would have had the answer. As I said before (not with these exact words), when people constantly create straw mans from my arguments, ignore the original argument, and refute the straw man they have created, and claim they have refuted original argument, when in reality not. This is especially obvious since some even admitted doing this.
However since I have said “it is a bit”, and not “completely”, that means I still find it “botherable” to argue here, despite the encountered straw mans.
Albeit my sentence could have been better if it was written like this: “It is a bit pointless to speak some of you people.” Since the previous may sounded like generalization towards those who will only here in the future.
“Esp. as almost none of your comment addressed anything in the question. It was also none of it new. There have been dozens of people, on the three or four threads here alone, who said things much as you did.”
In my first comment I have addressed the original issue. After that I just respond to other people’s comment, in them I am always sincerely trying with my best effort to answer what issues they brought up, however my ability to control which course the discussion take is limited.
Also as I said before many times what was my reason to come here.
“Could you provide a sequitor with that?
It’s interesting to me that you have a different USian example of current events.
So what is it about our “thinking” wihch leads to things like an overeager vigilante shooting someone?
What, pray tell, is the rational connection between those two events?”
Before I said: “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?”
Answer: this example may not have direct connection with the event, but also it wasn’t directed at the event but at the commenters, who expressed the same kind of dangerous mindset as Zimmerman:
Association fallacy
1.Source S makes claim C.
2.Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
3.Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
However in this case, this contained another fallacy since they just suspected that S (me) made claim (C) because I had a different opinion, that in itself doesn’t even prove that I made claim C, let alone address that the association of claim C with group G, doesn’t automatically invalidate claim C.
“Also it’s interesting that you admit to an emotional response (you were, “sent over the edge”, and that made you feel the need to lecture us) but our lack of an affected detachment from tired arguments somehow disqualifies our response.
You really do think yourself a special snowflake, don’t you?”
Again you ask something what have been already answered (also the context is important in this case too):
——
“And I have found Rebecca’s first video alright, it was her later comment, when she said that this was a sexual objectification, and totally offended her, what threw me over the edge. I mean could people drop a toothpick accidentally in your country without offending someone? That other thing about the UK, when they renamed the spotted dick, because it might offend someone, I laughed my ass off.”
“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.”
“Over the edge, and emotionally if you consider finding something laughable an emotion.”
“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.”
——
Maybe it was a poor choice of wording, but that meant to represent another reason why I posted here. And by the way even if was emotional when I first hear about this (which I was clearly not), that doesn’t mean I give emotional responses to this thread, and can’t think logically, and can’t detach from my first (supposed) emotions. So even if that was true (“emotional response”), that doesn’t invalidate any of my non-emotional responses.
That is Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
But as I said, what you interpreted as being emotional was just another spur to post here.
“Nonsense. You’ve not made your case. You’ve not made a new case. That you think it to be true doesn’t make it so. This isn’t arithmetic; there is no answer key. There are only better/worse arguments.
Your arguments have been made, we think them worse.”
Again I have to make a correction: I didn’t post here because I think something to be true, I came here post here a view from an angle, which wasn’t mentioned before (or I was unaware that it was). In itself was: why everybody interpret it in a way which couldn’t be verified? It seem that everybody makes a judgment BEFORE they even think through this event. Where is objectivity?
If you would rejected my argument with a logical conclusion that it is false, I would have accept it. And a few times I gave concessions. But keep using strategies such as: mockery, emotionalism, generalization, subjectivity and citing unreliable methods as always correct predictions (for instance like feel: One may feel threatened, but that doesn’t prove that one is ACTUALLY threatened) does not get us anywhere.
This is not about better or worse arguments, the veraciousness of arguments does not depend on how others think it is. If you say that on Earth the sky is mostly blue, because greater proportion of blue light is scattered by the atmosphere relative to red light, then I can bring 6 billion people who think your argument is false, that doesn’t make it false.
“But your emotional reaction to Watson (be it derision, or anger) is different how?”
As I said before even if I had an initial emotional reaction. That does not mean I will use that emotion to influence my arguments here. If you point out where I used an argument what was emotionally influenced to disprove any other argument here, I apologize.
“That’s not what you said. What you said was it was a stretch to for her to think it was anything more than an innocent invitation for coffee, and there was no justification for thinking it to be a sexual advance.
Those are quite different things.”
It was a reply to this comment:
“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.”
“there was no justification for thinking it to be a sexual advance.”
Okay so get me straight: sexual advance is a form of sexual objectification, or not? It entirely depends on this. In my opinion it is.
“Pecunium — considering he never replied to me, and replied to everything, I think he just meandered back to his part of the internet. He was funny though.”
Sorry but I don’t have all the time on my hands. If you may like, consider this a list and not a complaining: I cut down dead trees and plant new ones; plow, plant, hoe, perfuse and harvest the fields (not too large fields thought); chop the wood; fire the furnace; paint the walls; fence and windows; play with the kitten; mow the lawn; pull out the weeds; cook the soup, main food and the dessert (I only rarely cook desserts though); vacuum and wash up the rooms; struggle with cleaning the clothes; wash the dishes (oh I hate it so much); cast the wax debris into a new candle (I only started to experiment with this not too long ago); attend the long sword fencing course; beat my last bike record; on the internet: read some interesting articles; try to convince some neo-Nazis, that not all Jews are greedy; try to convince some post-humanist, that being post-human is not that desirable as it seem to be; try to convince some black extremists, that not all whites are guilty; try to convince some anarchists, that some form of countries are needed for a stable economy; try to convince some Soviet apologists, that admitting the Holodomor doesn’t make you a Nazi; try to convince some Americans, that to win WW2 the joint effort of the Allies were needed, not just one country; try to convince some Christians, that being a Muslim doesn’t automatically make you a terrorist; try to convince some Muslims that saying my religion is the truth, is not so compelling evidence, since every other religion says that; try to convince some ufologists, that crop circles are not that advanced; try to convince some radical feminists, that castrating or neutralizing all men wouldn’t solve all the problems they addressed; post here (by no means constitutes this as a comparison to other sites where I post); look for my internet history and post in unfinished discussions. As these discussions grow exponentially, as high is the probability that I forgot about some. (almost forgot: try to convince some EU proponents, that the political form of the EU may have some more in itself, than just the well-being of its citizens, and that not all eurosceptics are extremists)
“J U:
What was it about this
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
that threw you over the edge?”
Not the article in a whole, but the sense an as intelligent person as her, could have just dismiss Dawkins’ comment pointing out its fallacies, an making Dawkins reconsider his point of view. However she choose the easier path and posted a overly emotional article, and despite that her writing at large has important issues which has to be taken seriously, it also contains ad Hominems, self-defeatingly giving munition to the misogynists, hurting the actual cause she is for. Using populist political tactics will inevitably lead to not being taken seriously, even when you have a valid point later on or overall.
[may contain some grammatical errors]
It was an obvious come on. End of story.
Sad that you people can’t stand it when truth is put forth: http://imageshack.com/a/img163/497/pc42.png
omigod that’s hilarious.
i mean in the unintentional way
how is calling someone “heterosexual” sexual orientation discrimination (for people not clicking the link, basically it’s a photo of a red haired woman with glasses with “BIGOTRY” over her eyes and she’s saying “Thanks, old heterosexual white man” don’t worry, there’s a note at the bottom of her dialogue bubble saying its an “actual quote”.
like… what is this even supposed to prove? it makes no sense. it’s just like a photoshopping together of mra talking points
Blah’s aptly named, I’ll give him that.
If you’re going to use MS paint, at least make the damn thing understandable. I have no idea what point the poster is even trying to make. What a mess.
JU said: “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”
I know he or she posted it a long time ago, but I’m curious if JU grasped the implication of his above statement. Which is that all analyses, ever, are irrational. Also, I’m pretty sure “subjective bias” is redundant.
BEST.
POSTER.
EVER.
Seriously, that poster is causing me an existential crisis. I thought my “rocks and trees and trees and rocks and misandry” one was pretty good, but that completely, utterly puts me to shame. Hell, I don’t think any of the posters on Artistry for Feminism and Kittens can measure up. I feel so inadequate!
i’ve got a poster that makes just as much real world sense as blah’s
http://i.imgur.com/WT9D7FG.jpg
Romantic ovation.
@scott1139
JU is a graduate of the Straw Vulcan school of phylosophy. According to it, only arguments made in a dispassionate manner can be truly rational, regardless of their content. Thus, one can readily dismiss the voices of victims of injustice, underprivileged groups and anyone with a pressing stake in a dispute, unless they display the appropriate amount of contrition when calmly discussing about whether or not they’re human with people that despise them.
The straw vulcans themselves, on the other hand, can opine about anything, because they are “normal” and “default” and obviously their experiences are never colored by any subjective bias whatsoever.
@augzilliary
I know, i’m so sad. 🙁 I assumed the chart was less cluttered when I was photoshopping it.
@Ally
BUt the truth was put forth! We must be able to understand it! There is no denying the truth!!
@katz
There there.
@fade
Lol nice poster 😀 not quite confusing enough, tho
Romantic OVULATION, maybe?
Also, these dudes really don’t seem to get that mentioning someone’s demographics are not discrimination. If a woman asks me out, and I say, “Sorry, I’m gay,” that’s not an act of discrimination. If some pompous windbag starts blathering about politics in Ghana and they aren’t Ghanaian themself, I figure a Ghanaian would be within their right to say, “Thanks, tourist.”
Why is this so hard?
Excellent job, Fade.