Look out, Jade Michael and the Fuck Their Shit Up Crew! Sure, your Men’s Rights theme song “Go My Own Way” was hailed by MRAs around the internet as a work of genius, and, in the words of one eminent critic angry misogynist dude,
a veritable anthem for the red pill crowd … replete with a great, purist rock sound, a touch of humor, attitude, and a ton of gut level, red pill honesty.
It’s Red Pill-riffic! But now Jade and the one other guy who makes up his, er, “crew” now have competition in the Men’s Rights anthem business!
Without futher ado, here is Slumberwall, with a little song called “The Hatred of Women.”
Did any of you make it past the one minute mark? I couldn’t.
Happily, Slumberwall has transcribed the terrible lyrics to the song, so you don’t have to listen to the whole thing in order to appreciate its true Men’s Rightsy awfulness. Here are the best bits, by which I mean the bits most likely to make you want to puncture your eardrums with knitting needles.
Men have no doubt
Just what they’re for
We die at work
We die in war
We die at sea
As the lifeboats float ashore
Women & children,
all aboard
Never mind that, as I pointed out yesterday, “women and children first” isn’t really a thing.
Anyway, back to Slumberwall:
We take the strain
We bear the load
Build the bridges
Sweep the roads
Make the houses
That make the homes
Pay for others
But live alone
And the more that it happens
The more I see
The hatred of women
For men like me
Well, if by “men like me” you mean “men who write and sing the shittiest music that has ever been made by human beings,” I have to say that I kind of understand this hatred.
Nonetheless, on YouTube the Men’s Rightsers are cheering this song as a brilliant work of social criticism.
Wanderer5200 enthuses:
I haven’t had a favorite song in a very long time. But I think this is it.
TheAetherspeak declares
Awesome Song. The voice all purveyors of patriarchy theory remain ignorant of.
Gamenode explains:
Women have never been oppressed but through their reproductive monopoly have exploited men and seen us butchered and enslaved for their own privilege. Fuck ’em all.
KellyJones00 adds,
Don’t fuck them at all. Just leave them alone. Don’t even donate sperm.
Time for a little bit of a musical palate cleanser.
Make sure to listen to all ten hours of that for the full palate-cleansing effect.
@LBT/Rogan, We appreciate you hanging out, so that we can get in our required hours of beating men with sticks to get our feminist badge.
@David, thanks, it was my first xtranormal effort (probably obvious).
It’s a well known fact that feminists judge people on their being a woman, which is why Ruby is much more appreciated here than Pecunium.
And we only dislike NWO, DKM, B___n, MRAL and the other because of their maleness.
Wow! Impressive – so since they hate women so much I guess they are now gay! Yay! New supporters of gay marriage! Now they can get their male partner to clean their toilets, mop their floors, cook their meals, do their dishes, wash their clothes, etc – AND best of all – take care of all of their sexual needs!
In an earlier post I stated feminists examine gender collectively and often ignore individuality.
“Feminists limiting individual choices for women”
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20120414/OPINION02/304140005/Feminists-limiting-individual-choices-women
He’s back…
I hadn’t realized that feminists were preventing all women from being incredibly wealthy, thus giving them the choice to not work outside the home. Blasteroid, can you expand a little upon the mechanism feminists are using to prevent me from becoming a multi-millionaire?
Please explain us why the words of Hilary Rosen should be taken as representative of feminism. Is she even a feminist? Is she our leader?
Or are we stopping multi-millionaire women to be housewives? It’s all so complicated, straw feminism…
Oh, look, it’s Blasteroid back and being as boring as he was before. Oh, look, he posted a link to an opinion piece which does not cite any evidence to support the notion that feminism eschews individual choice, but instead takes it as a given. Is this supposed to be interesting discussion or something? Rosen’s comment was clearly a jab at the Romneys’ wealth, and extrapolating to all of feminism from a statement denigrating a political figure’s wife in the freaking election year is stupid.
Anyway, I find the reaction to Rosen’s comments to be quite ironic, given Mitt Romney’s own past statements vis-a-vis mothers and work:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/04/15/motherhood-is-the-most-important-job-in-the-world-unless-you-are-poor/
For those that don’t read Feministe, there’s good discussions going on there about this
ninjaed *daps Tulgey*
>Most women are poor
>”A rich woman does not know the struggles of most women”
>ZOMG ANTI-HOUSE WIFE
Not that it matters, but the ‘house wife’ is really only possible for the upper half of the middle class and the rich, and this has historically been the case; even at their most oppressed, women have contributed phenomenal amounts of labor, and not just of the unpaid variety that society disdains.
@Rutee
I’m not sure if there’re a statistically significant amount, but I know a lot of immigrant housewives with husbands that work two or three jobs, for the sole reason that they won’t earn enough to cover childcare if they work.
Are you sure they actually do nothing to provide income (Aside from traditional cost-cutting measures like comparative shopping)? There’s been an increase in the modern era in working from home again. Similarly, women in the British industrial revolution didn’t necessarily have to leave the house to contribute income (in the form of piecework knitting), and they’re far from alone on this matter.
That’s because when taken to an extreme, “individuality” can be used as an excuse to ignore every kind of bias.
“Sure, she didn’t get promoted, but maybe her individual performance just wasn’t as good as the guy who did.”
“Okay, she didn’t get promoted either, but maybe she individually didn’t fit into the company culture.”
…Rinse and repeat until all your managers are men and all your low-level clerks are women, but it’s not bias, it’s just a bunch of individual happenstances!
@Rutee
I would say it’s like a 70-30 split in favour of taking care of the house only, vs doing crafts or catering as well. But, like I said, don’t know if there’re a statistically significant amount, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t. There’s also the fact that, of the women who are focused solely on taking care of the home, most of them have larger families and/or two or more babies/infants to take care of, or elderly people to care for.
Did you not receive the memo? Here’s a copy:
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Feminist Hive Mind
FROM: Boob King Futrelle
RE: New Feminist Leader
Please swear fealty to our new feminist leader, Hilary Rosen. She speaks for feminism. Whatever she says, repeat word-for-word with our patented glassy femi-stare.
CC: Zombie Betty Friedan, Zombie Valerie Solanis, Zombie Andrea Dworkin, the country of Sweden
@ Tulgey Logger — I didn’t post that link because I support Romney. I’ll probably vote for Obama again. I just think feminists often create a rigid doctrine of how women should achieve success. For example, collegiate STEM programs. Its no secret men make up a higher percentage of these students and as a result, there’s a conscience effort by the AAUW to increase female enrollment. I have no problem with that, unless it means forcing women into professions they really don’t want just for the sake of achieving equal outcomes. .
Blasteroid, how exactly do you think feminists would do this? Prevent women from enrolling in other programs? Drag women out of the workforce and force them into post-secondary?
@Blasteroid, Again, could you please explain the exact mechanism by which feminists are “forcing women into professions they really don’t want just for the sake of achieving equal outcomes. .” Do we pick them up off the street and enroll them in college, chaining them to desks in the various STEM departments to make sure they don’t take any humanities classes? Or is it possible, maybe, that women have free will and are smart enough to make their own decisions about what they want to learn, and what professions they want to work in, given the same opportunities and support as men?
Ninja’d by Viscaria. [shakes fists at sky] 🙂
When I meet a man who does not treat women as equals my first suspicion is that he never bonded with humans, period. Only rarely have I been mistaken, because now and then it means he’s SO into men it’s not funny. Either way, they make for appalling company.
I was personally involved in an effort to increase female enrollment in STEM!
It consisted of an event (on the weekend, voluntarily attended) for teenage girls to meet women who worked in the sciences. The women gave little presentations on their jobs but generally tried to make it interactive and playful–the woman who was an aircraft engineer held a model-airplane contest, the woman who worked for a biotech company let all the girls practice using a new type of surgical tool on a mannequin, and so forth.
I attended as a student when I was younger and volunteered doing setup and cleanup one year when I was in college. It was a lot of fun, and the all-female atmosphere helped teenage girls have fun just completely nerding out without having to worry that being nerdy would be “intimidating” or “unsexy” or whatever to boys.
(My only regret is that there wasn’t much effort to get lower-income girls involved; the event was free and bus-accessible, but the nature of a “come spend your weekend having fun with science!” event still skews toward girls with rich-kid levels of free time and accommodating families.)
Still, it definitely had nothing to do with forcing anyone into equal outcomes. It was all about getting girls enthusiastic about science, not giving them an unfair advantage or making them do anything they didn’t want to.
@ Viscaria —
The AAUW wants to implement Title IX to increase the number of women in STEM programs. This is essentially a quota program by the government to socially engineer women. Ideally, they hope women who are not going to college will start taking math and science courses but in reality women would be diverted from attaining degrees in areas such as social work and teaching.
Because those are REALLY the only two areas women can excel in, amirite?