Welcome to Day Three 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 big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:
I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history. It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.
Go on.
Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today. Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is: a pirate
Uh, what?
Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.
Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.
Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:
[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.
Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:
her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.
Thanks, Chuck.
Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.
Stickman writes:
forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.
Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.
SOBL1 adds:
As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.
Did he mention he went to CORNELL?
One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:
This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).
Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.
Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.
Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:
When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed
It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.” The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.
All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?
–
I’d better put that blinking
gif here, just in case.
Here’s a criticism of one of the few actual studies on the fingerlength nonsense http://www.radstats.org.uk/no083/Hegarty83.pdf (Here’s a couple of less scientific, more social critiques as well http://www.salon.com/2000/10/16/lesbian_fingers/ http://www.newstatesman.com/200004100009)
And here’s a racist, sexist, homophobic piece about the guy who popularizes all of this evo-psych hand crap: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/manning.html Yep, you read that article right, it claims queer men are skillful at music, that black people are overmasculinized, queer people are less fertile, liking monogamy is a feminine trait, etc. Fingerlength dude also thinks he can tell people’s talents by their fingers and is the most featured star of a bizarre website with tenuous claims about the deep, deep meanings of fingerlengths http://fingerlengthdigitratio.wordpress.com/
There’s also a pretty substantial history of scientific homophobia of trying to find “obvious” physiological differences as part of pathologizing queer bodies,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_1_46/ai_n8688097/
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/deviant.htm
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/newsnotes/blears.htm
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/nwav/abstracts/nwav36_piccolo.pdf
@10G
I know Piglet and other MRAs frustrate you, they frustrate al of us, but please don’t descend to their level hate. Even my vitriol has limits.
Yeah 10G that is out of line…
Yeah, I know…..SIGH….but you just can’t reach these guys, because they want none of it–and I’m still trying to figure out how to deal with that mentality (I’m admittedly a late bloomer, and was blissfully ignorant of just HOW rampant misogyny was in this country until…..well, awhile ago), so bear with me, ok? It’s just so MADDENING! I’m convinced that NOBODY here hates men (including me, and I’m married to a great one, so hey…). Was on Spearhead for about five seconds, and that was all I could take….never again! I don’t know how you regular commenters get into a decent mindset when replying to trolls, but suggestions (besides boatloads of Vodka) would be welcome. 😉
Ok, starting to feel a bit flogged here, but that could be just me….at any rate, I tried to explain I don’t deal with this shit well, so maybe we could ease up a….teensy bit? Especially in light of the some of the vitriol the trolls themselves dish out? I’m not backing down on my stand, and I didn’t threaten anybody, so while I understand my words to be a weeee bit more extreme than that of a “typical” posts, Not once did I tell this guy to slide down a razor laden bannister, blahblahblah….yeah, I vented, and it was harsh as this guy. I honestly don’t know what response you guys consider appropriate–and maybe I don’t need to.
I don’t need to come back here, but my main points are still valid–these are evil and often dangerous men whose rancor against women is based in entitlement–and they frustrate and scare the hell out of me. It is disturbing to know that they are on this planet, and I want to know how to fight them because I am a GOOD person, and good people are worthy (notice I did NOT say entitled) of living good lives. Good day.
There seems to be a stage many of us go through processing misogynists rights activists hate speech. in the earlier stages, many of us will react strongly with fight fire with fire, or just venting emotions. Because we need to keep clean from hypocrisy it’s important we don’t get murderous tongues. That feeling of righteousness fools us some of the time. Fortunately on manboobz there are several level headed posters that immediately talk sense to new ones tactfully and bring us back down to earth a bit. We DON’T want to be like them in any way shape or form, and cannot advocate violence, or cathartic visions of justice being done (how we feel at the time). We don’t want to cut them breaks for their violent misogynistic fantasies which they justify with their victimology and persecution complexes. It gets too complicated to sort out who is justified and who is not.
Just better to take the high road.
10G, I understand the frustration, and so does everyone here (aside from the trolls), but those comments were over the line, and I deleted them.
Oh, so high testosterone levels in women cause being a pirate… that’s why all the women pirates had those beards! Wait, no, it was actually because the idea of a woman being capable on a ship was considered ridiculous at the time, so they disguised themselves as men.
…If the MRA can keep bringing up the Titanic, I can keep bringing up 18th-century piracy.
In other wackiness, MRAL showed up on Man Boobz, as “matriarchy”. I knew right away it was him because of the “shoe-mouth eating the leash” avatar, and Rutee and Sally Strange also figured it out too, and posted as much. Doing the same shtick he did on this site. I almost couldn’t believe it either. It doesn’t seem as if PZ has actually banned him yet, but maybe he got banned on a newer thread? I haven’t read through the thread yet, but the regulars seem to have chewed through his nonsense quite thoroughly.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/07/rush-limbaugh-isnt-the-only-moron-out-there-unfortunately/
Whoops, MRAL showed up on Pharyngula, I meant to say of course.
It’s exceedingly rare for PZ to ban after 2 threads, but he’s made it clear that if MRAL sticks around, he’s not going to for very long. The banhammer for inanity is very real! Now if he were amusing and novel, he’d probably have a much longer lifespan.
Your concept of a ‘right’ has the practical effect of only granting liberty to those with power. Fortunately, others in this thread point that out in more explicit terms, but seriously, you stupid fuck, you have not at any point in this thread actually advocated for something that would help anyone but massive employers, and even then it’s only protecting their ability to harm employees.
Mayor Adam West: This press conference is over. I can’t see you now, I can’t hear you now, You’re not here now. La La La la la la La La la la
I have not posted here in ages (thanks, grad school) but today is a special occasion: I discovered that the glorious NHS not only covers my hormonal birth control free of charge because I’m under 25, that coverage extends to a full range of contraceptive options. In other words, I can finally get an implant or IUD. Free of charge.
It’s amazing what happens when a government realizes that unplanned pregnancies cost far than providing its citizens with fair access to contraception.
David is too classy to mention this here, but I figure I’d give MRA trolls a heads up — MRA slacktivism may be bad for your health.
Veteran MRA and father of 5 Khankrumthebulgar has passed away [at age 55].
“He was too outspoken and combative for [“femi nazis] to forgive” leads me to believe he behaved like a real asshole online…. as all the MB regulars know, identifying as a feminist online leads to the development of a very thick skin, quick. Thankfully I had no encounters with this guy, so I’ll wish him luck getting into the big ManCave in the sky. I also wish his children and relatives well.
Rudd, I believe in negative rights. Though negative rights can imply positive access, (IE the right to bear arms, even though arms are a good that must be provided with labor, is often stated by negative rights theory believers, because in a commonly accepted, everyday use of rights, it’s understandable.). But right now, THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN HEALTH CARE. (A free market that would include mutual aid and voluntary socialization) There is only this awful system, and singling out birth control, which is very important to women’s individual freedoms, is disengenuous at best.
We can choose between a forced, feudalistic, utterly immoral state-corporate system that covers birth control, and a forced, feudalistic, utterly immoral state-corporate system that doesn’t, but somehow the force and morality only becomes a big issue when women’s health is on the line.
I don’t think anybody should have to pay for anything they don’t approve of, Rudd, but this sure seems fishy to me as a place to start squawking about it.
>>my argument is that there is no principle on which the government can mandate this
“Actually there is. All law is simply the arbitrary whim of a state, based on that state’s interests at the time.”
<3
Asserting a right to healthcare isn’t impossible in Negative Rights theory. It’s actually quite sensible, if one considers the tremendous barriers placed in the way of healthcare access by the corporate state. Which is what anybody asserting, as I do, that there’s no need for any government mandate to achieve universal coverage should be starting at.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/the-libertarian-three-step-program/
Again, think of it like the right to bear arms, even though arms are a good people must produce with labor. We don’t say a right to bear arms is enslaving the gunsmiths or gun dealers, and we don’t squawk about “no free bullets.”
In a common every day sense of the word “right,” merely the quite moral and normal notion that people should be able to obtain health care, it’s ridiculous to start squawking about negative rights theory and hair-splitting notions of what a right is or isn’t. It’s great for libertarian philosophy.discussions. It’s stupid for talking to people. Especially if you’re trying to make a martyr out of yourself as the defender of liberty and freedom against the incoherent statist hordes who want… Um, health care.
Congratulations, you may have been a total prick, but you stood your ethical ground! I’d give you the special paper crown for that, but I hang out around libertarians, I run out before the middle of the week, pretty much guaranteed.
Dang, negative rights are a real thing? It sounds like a phrase MRAs would make up.
OT but Limbaugh is undeterred:
“What is it with all of these young single white women, overeducated – doesn’t mean intelligent. For example, Tracie McMillan, the author of this book, seems to be just out of college and already she has been showered with awards, including the 2006 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. Social justice journalism. This woman who wrote the book on food inequality, food justice, got an award for social justice journalism.”
Forbes asked McMillan what she thought of Rush’s rant. She told reporter Jeff Bercovici:
“I just wasn’t expecting anybody to say flat out that my work wasn’t valid because I’m a single woman.”
So its going to take more than fleeing sponsors for limbaugh to realize he needs a rethink. Also, it shows just how sincere his notpology to Fluke really was.
Maybe the MRAs will proclaim him a great hero?
Hee. Well, freedom of speech is usually identified as a negative right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
It’s a philosophical notion, pretty important to much enlightenment and revolutionary thinking, and then in the popular sense you get it warped into some pretty nutty defenses of status quos by right libertarians and etc/
but I think it ends up implying more egalitarian and liberating notions than most positive rights liberalism offers if you follow it through. (http://mises.org/daily/804)
In an every day sense, it ends up with asshole libertarians being all, A SANDWICH FOR A STARVING PERSON! THERE ARE NO POSITIVE RIGHTS! and thinking they’re martyrs. :p
Zhinxy, I’m Canadian so this libertarian stuff seems a little strange to me. Either that or I’m just rather ignorant of canadian politics. What I will say is that Libertarian commentds and writings I’ve come across strike me as the “I’ve got mine” attitude. And my impression is that these folks are complety unaware of how that thinking would impact them should some very unfortunate circumstances happen to them specifically.
Perhaps you can correct me on this…I thought the constitutional right to bear arms stemmed more from the need to defend the nation, as opposed to what it seems to be now which is the right to bear arms to defend oneself from neighbors and your own government?
but I think it ends up implying more egalitarian and liberating notions than most positive rights liberalism offers if you follow it through.-
For quick example, in a socio economic sense, asserting a negative right to be free from government force over a claimed positive right to a share in national wealth can lead in common every day terms to a bunch of jerks whining about stealing from the rich and etc, while much nicer and sensible people are only trying to make sure everyone is fed and wealth is not hoarded by the few. But if it’s taken farther, and the wealth inequalities are found to REST on government and other negative-rights-violating force, it’s the negative right that does not end up serving the interests of the powerful after all, and in fact, the positive example DOES serve the good end with unneccessarily forceful means. Shallow negative rights is easily beaten by shallow positive rights for morality, but when taken farther, I think it implies a world much more free and equal.
More or less. Our founders thought the militia was the paragon of military organization. To be fair, if you’re going to be isolationist hermits, it works.
Pillowinhell – To the best of my understanding, the constitution framers intended both national defense and personal defense, including the right to revolt if neccessary. Cue a thousand arguments.
I also come from an anarchist perspective where it’s often defended outside of constitutional terms as stemming from a right to self defense (Which is how I would defend it, and also how I’d defend a lot of health care come to that.) And in that sense it works for my purposes, as I was talking about what libertarians and some conservatives who often balk at asserting any right to a positive good will assert anyway without thinking about it.
Libertarianism is a complex thing. In the European sense it tends to be more libertarian socialist, in the American sense it got mixed up with rugged individualism and made a cold war alliance with the Right from which it has not yet recovered. ( I personally try to cover both continental senses. :p )There certainly is a great deal of “Me libertarianism” out there in American libertarianism, but we have a growing Left as well.
I do know some prominent libertarians up your way though! Maybe they’re just hiding. XD
Zhinxy is one of the very few online libertarians I’ve encountered for whom this isn’t the case. She’s the Fred Clark of libertarianism.