TyphonBlue Monday: “All ‘Ending Violence Against Women’ initiatives assume that the appropriate targets for violence are men.”

@Dee

which would explain why they do nothing themselves haha

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.

But think about the REAL VICTIM!!! the man!! who will be embarrassed if his wife does something bad. Or worse, if I beat her, I MIGHT GET BEATEN!!! WAHH…I’m so oppressed…owning another human being is sooo hard!

@Quackers:

Silly ducky. Women can’t be the victims, they aren’t even people!

but but Kirby! We talk, we sometimes walk, we can sometimes donate blood and other bits to men!

Would that not indicate we are people?

oh yeah just to clarify, that comment about historically chastising your wife was a commenter on the video, GWW didn’t actually say that herself, though the video took that tone…the fact that she mentions coverture but still makes the men sound like victims -_-

@kirby

sorry…my lady/duck brain made me forget!

And a statistically significant proportion (hi DKM, hi guy from yesterday’s post) that think VAW initiatives remove men’s ability to keep women in their place.

I’m pretty certain that statistically significant proportion is 100%.

For instance, beating a woman on her buttocks with a cane or a whip in order to correct her conduct is a very different matter than hitting or kicking her out of anger.

How about…nobody beats, hits, or kicks anyone at all? Is this seriously difficult?

All I see from the MRM is the fear of people losing their power. When you get down to it all of their absurd arguments boil down to this. And this insane troll logic is adopted by plenty of other bigots.

Oh Princess Bonbon, you are so adorable when you try to think. 🙂

It’s a big scary world out there, and only us men can face it. Evolutionary-wise, it makes perfect sense that women wouldn’t want to be considered people; it keeps them safe and warm and happy so they can be protected from sabre-tooth tigers and have babies without worry.

Gosh, I’d love to be in your position, but nature made me a man. Therefore I have to deal with all the hard stuff like being educated and having a fufilling career and self-autonomy. The least you could do is be grateful for all the sacrifice I make for you by having sex with me and subjecting yourself to my every desire.

Aww, I hate to see you pout like that… Here. I’ve got a nice big cookie for you, why don’t you run off and play? Leave the scary stuff to us grownu-…. men. And trust me, it may look like we’re having a ton of fun, but really we’re suffering. For you.

@Maya:

While writing the above nonsense, I figured out why evo-psych arguments are so cherished. Evo-psych attempts to describe why things are the way they are now. And, of course, if there is a reason why things are the way they are, then that means that things should be the way they are, right?

How about…nobody beats, hits, or kicks anyone at all? Is this seriously difficult?

Apparently for MRAs it is. The lengths these people go through to rationalize violence is disturbing.

The least you could do is be grateful for all the sacrifice I make for you by having sex with me and subjecting yourself to my every desire.

So what if your desire is to have all the cookies?! Does that mean no cookies for me?

Ow, my lady hamster broke a foot with that logic.

Don’t worry, Princess Bonbon, men are proud and virtuous and true, and would never ever take all the cookies for themselves even though they could. Now, if women were tasked with handing out cookies, of course they would take all of them! Women are short-sighted, and therefore would eat all of the yummy treats not even thinking of the tummy-ache afterwards!

Since either men or women have to be the ones that control all of the cookies, obviously it is men who should. Women still have to make them, though…

@kirby

Figures. It’s just a cheap attempt to justify social norms and prejudice. Evo-psyche isn’t science, it’s moralizing.

You man haters are just mad because typhoonblue was right and she exposed that you love violence against men and all your misandric comments here prove it and blah blah blah, etc.

Sorry.
Where’s our trolls at?

Also, Kavette, I’d rather we not speculate on anyone’s “daddy issues,” and instead focus on their “believing terrible things issues.”

I agree. Leave making wild and egregious guesses and ad hominoms for MRAs. It’s important to maintain a moral high ground and never stoop to their level.

So what if your desire is to have all the cookies?!

There you go again, assuming men would steel all the cookies, you misandrist! Shame on you for buying into the MSM’s propaganda!

Now gimme all your cookies.

I didn’t plan it this way, I feel like the above is pretty much exactly how just about every MRA argument derails.

“What a misandrist you are for assuming all men are rapists! What you think you actually have a say in who you get to fuck? What sort of feminazi bullshit is that?”

“What a misandrist you are for assuming all men would abuse their partners! What, beating a woman for “corrective purposes” isn’t ok? Men’s rights! Men’s rights!”

Damn, now my head hurts.

There was an argument made well over a hundred years ago that creating classes of people that men could express their violent nature upon with impunity makes the world a safer place for men among men. Clearly the MRAs agree with this position.

Of course we have to make them Kirby! You have so much more important things to do like drink beer and watch football or something.

cat shelter workers want dogs to die.

I thought we wanted homeless men to die. Because, you know, we spend more on kitty litter than homeless shelters.

Is SRS taking another break from mocking MRAs? Haven’t seen anything about the subreddit in a while.

Where’s our trolls at?

Yeah! I’m not allowed to derail the thread until after the third flounce, the fifth somewhat-on-topic My Little Pony video, or 24 hours, whichever comes first!

There you go again, assuming men would steel all the cookies, you misandrist! Shame on you for buying into the MSM’s propaganda!

Now gimme all your cookies.

Even the Corporation CEO in the 12 cookies joke did not take ALL the cookies.

There was an argument made well over a hundred years ago that creating classes of people that men could express their violent nature upon with impunity makes the world a safer place for men among men. Clearly the MRAs agree with this position.

There’s this smug quote I see floating around the web, mostly on BBSes, that says roughly the civilized man can be ever so much ruder than the barbarian because the civilized man on the whole has less fear of getting his head stove in for making a “yo mama” joke.

That one irritates me because it says people are violent; modern day people are ruder than those in the past; and that people in the past were more polite.

It makes all these assumptions about the way the world is, was and will be and it just irritates me. It also irritates me that the people I seem to see sporting it as a sig line are Internet tough guys who are going to be the first victims of the motorcycle gangs if the world goes Road Warrior.

Kind of like that quote from Orwell about hard men standing watch in the night. It assumes that there will always be a need for the hard men and suggests that if we don’t have a need for the hard men a need will be found.

Well…perhaps her friends aren’t so eager to come here. She hangs out on FC, and a lot of the folks there have crossed swords with feminists before. I don’t think they are eager to do so again.

I’ve seen TyphonBlue around for years. Couldn’t think her way out of a wet paper bag, that one.

The coverature argument really does sum up a lot of MRA ideas. OK, so, coverature was bad because women weren’t legally responsible for their actions. Now that women are no longer considered the property of their husbands, they are held legally responsible for their own actions. That’s great, right? Yay, equality! But no. What should happen, in the MRA utopia, is that women are the property of their husbands, and they are also fully legally responsible for their own actions. And his too, if those actions include hitting their wives.

“Fuck your civil rights you lying whores” does kind of sum the whole thing up. Someone give Tom a cookie for creating a perfect slogan – maybe it will help with his lack of ass padding issue.

I am terrible, the first thing I thought when I saw that is “what is wrong with oral sex? And why is it bad that David can engage in it?”

ooo “cunt licker”? because men don’t do that???? O_o

1) It’s called “Feminist cunt licker David Futrelle is at it again making fun of our friend typhonblue” but in the first few comments a MRA means to kick typhonblue out of the tree-house, for the crime of having cooties. And those who disagree are manginas.

2) Why is cunt licking bad? I mean, they’re (almost) all proud heterosexuals, how do you shame a guy by implying he enjoys oral sex with a woman? I guess it’s better than homophobic attacks, but that doesn’t even make sense!

ninja’d by princessbonbon, jumbofish and David…

Real Men receive oral sex, they never perform it themselves!!1! And probably Real Men don’t engage in any activity that might pleasure a woman. Now I understand why all their interaction with women are so crappy.

Is SRS taking another break from mocking MRAs? Haven’t seen anything about the subreddit in a while.

SRS doesn’t link to obvious troll and hate group subs, so after the MRM was formally declared a hate group linking to them became verboten.

There’s still /againstmensrights for mocking them, which has a ridiculous amount trolls lurking to downvote every post (shockingly, MRAs are obsessed with Internet points and have nothing better to do with their time), but at least the comments are moderated well.

Ps, LOLing at “c*nt licker” used as an insult, but I guess it’s common knowledge MRAs aren’t big fans of vaginas. 🙁

SRS doesn’t link to obvious troll and hate group subs, so after the MRM was formally declared a hate group linking to them became verboten

I was wondering if that was why.

I’m totally sure that a guy with the username “Painbringer” is another one of those MRAs who will swear that the MRM is a peaceful social movement that abhors violence of any kind.

But of course, David is a c**t licker to theses pieces of shit. He’s for women’s rights. Which would make those fucktards cock suckers, right? MRA logic …anyone?

I’m totally sure that a guy with the username “Painbringer” is another one of those MRAs who will swear that the MRM is a peaceful social movement that abhors violence of any kind.

And it is misandrist to think otherwise. *rolls eyes so hard they fall out of face* ow.

Hey, MRAs, cunt licker isn’t a bad thing. Funny how most of these guys would make blowjobs compulsory for every woman they meet, but turnabout is not fair play with them.

I just don’t get female MRAs like Typhonblue and GWW. Why hang out somewhere you’re barely tolerated? Plus the minute they say something the menfolk decide is over the line, out of the clubhouse they go.

Hell, a lot of blogs where a woman says anyrhing….even things MRAs believe or find flattering gets shot down.

@David

it’s on page 7 currently on GWW’s “the invisible man riding the donkey backwards” video

the commenter’s name is markmywords53

But here’s an even better one from the second page!

Another excellent video. Don’t forget that in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries there were in English law some six hundred or more capital crimes. I’d certainly beat my wife were I liable for her capital crimes. Incidentally I’m paying the price for my wife’s financial liberation, and that of her forerunner, and may be paying it for the rest of my life. Had I authority over her finances, as my father had over my mother’s, we would be substantially better off now.
WilliamGruff 4 hours ago

I know this is a derail but this caption summarizes the entire attitude of the MRM.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the guy on Yahoo was an MRA.

But of course, David is a c**t licker to theses pieces of shit. He’s for women’s rights. Which would make those fucktards cock suckers, right? MRA logic …anyone?

I’m not quote sure thats a really appropriate thing to say. I could care less if they are “cocksuckers”. Implying that they are gay because they hate women/vaginas is not what being gay is even about. We should focus on the nasty shit they say and not speculate on their sexuality.

I just don’t get female MRAs like Typhonblue and GWW. Why hang out somewhere you’re barely tolerated? Plus the minute they say something the menfolk decide is over the line, out of the clubhouse they go.

I don’t get it either. I have seen some of them mention on AVfM that they know that when MRA’s say something about women being awful, that they are specifically excluded as being one of the few good women. For example, in Lessons from nature: Brain in a Vat from AVfM, AntZ asked if it was wrong to paint all women as being dumb. Typhonblue responded

I don’t feel targeted by this article at all. In fact it’s sort of flattering to be positively compared to party girl that doesn’t make me out to be the loser.

My charm is my creativity and my intelligence, both of which I work upon daily. It’s nice to be reminded there men out there who are more interested in those qualities (or want to be) then physical presentation (which I’m not very good at–I often forget to put my shirt on right side out among other things).

See, typhonblue isn’t one of those awful “party girls”. She knows that when the other MRA’s vent about women, they don’t mean her or any other female MRA.

Now if a woman tries to say anything at the Spearhead, she will be downvoted and called names no matter what. They chased off Izzey, and called her supporters at AVfM “white knights”.

It’s also worth noting that its bullshit that women weren’t charged or tried for crimes in the past. Feme covert doesn’t automatically mean wives get away with crimes and the husband is automatically responsible, thus justification for beatings.

The legal principle of the feme covert, by which women could not be held responsible for crimes committed in the presence of their husbands (since they were presumed to be following their husbands’ commands) was not often applied, but it may have led juries to exonerate some married women, particularly when their husbands were convicted for the same crime.

also if a wife has something happen to her, the husband is actually the victim. Because he’s the legal person under the law. Emphasis mine.

Only about a seventh of the victims or prosecutors of crime at the Old Bailey were women. The most important reason for this is the fact that theft was the most common offence prosecuted, and most marital property was deemed to be in the possession of the husband. Thus, even if a woman’s clothes were stolen, if she was married her husband would have been labelled as the victim of the crime. It is also possible, however, that women on their own were reluctant to prosecute cases in the male-dominated environment of the Old Bailey courtroom. Women account for a higher proportion of the victims who used less formal legal procedures such as summary jurisdiction and informal arbitration to prosecute crimes.

But it was the men who were oppressed by all this!!!

Anyway, this has lots of info on crime and gender in the ye old days. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Gender.jsp#gendercrime

Lolll, cuntlickers. Rapier wit these MRAs have.

@jumbofish

I don’t think Xardoz is speculating on their sexuality. If I read their comment right, they’re saying that if David is a cuntlicker for advocating for women’s rights, by their own logic, they’re cocksuckers for advocating for men’s “rights”. I don’t know if that makes it less problematic or not, just felt that you’re misreading them.

@Kendra

GWW in her response to Stardusk video basically said she’s wired like a man and that’s why she understands MRA isses or something.

It’s the whole special snowflake thing, they’re not like those stupid women with their femmy issues who hate men and shit. They’re one of the guys!

I bet Typhon and GWW also say they don’t have many female friends because “women are too catty.” Giant eyeroll to that mess.

GWW herself doesn’t even do much to dissuade people from thinking the MRM is full of misogynistic rape apologists. From her article on GMP:

[G]iven how initially hostile the MRM can be to anyone with a vagina, and how insensitive they can seem on issues that have affected me very deeply from the opposite side of the gender divide, why do I do it?

I believe feminism’s elevation of rape-victim status to a bizarre combination of almost religious idolatry and kid-glove handling harms women in very insidious ways. But at the same time, the way some in the MRM talk about rape…well, it upsets me.

Notice that if any of us said “The MRM can be hostile to anyone with a vagina”, we’d be labeled misandric feminazis.

Notice that if any of us said “The MRM can be hostile to anyone with a vagina”, we’d be labeled misandric feminazis.

Just another point to add to the very long list of MRM hypocrisies.

So it’s safe to assume she believes their anger is justified. And other MRAs have said the same. They’re angry at their bad experiences with women so they take it out on all women. Well by that logic we can justify Andrea Dworkin’s or even Valerie Solanas’ anger and misandry. Andrea was raped and drugged, and Valerie claimed her father raped her. But in MRA land that doesn’t count. Their still misandrists…but MRAs? well their misogyny is justified because women are meeeean to them.

They’re still misandrists because they’re false accusers, duh.

hellkell wrote: “I just don’t get female MRAs like Typhonblue and GWW. Why hang out somewhere you’re barely tolerated?”

Kendra, the bionic mommy wrote: “I don’t get it either. I have seen some of them mention on AVfM that they know that when MRA’s say something about women being awful, that they are specifically excluded as being one of the few good women.”

When I was in high school, I felt that way. Girls were expected to take Home Ec and I wanted to take Mechanical Drawing (really drafting), but that was only open to the boys. So, I was kind of a rebel for being a girl who refused to take Home Ec and Shorthand. The principal wouldn’t let me take Mechanical Drawing or Shop and my parents weren’t willing to fight for my right to take them. I considered myself better than most girls because I was interested in science and math. And I did get some approval from boys, earning their respect for getting good grades in the “harder” subjects like physics and calculus.

In a way, I felt like an honorary boy, and that felt good.

Now I think of how silly I was and it seems odd, because both of my sisters were smart, capable girls and my female friends were a lot like me. But for some reason, I felt like a special snowflake, not like those other silly girls, and I really liked that.

Fortunately in college, I met many young women who had similar experiences and ambitions and I realized I didn’t want to be an honorary man, I wanted to be able to be myself and identify as a woman. Feminism was the answer to that.