Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women FemRAs hypocrisy I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA MRA paradox patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:

Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?

As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.

I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.

This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.

Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.

But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:

Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.

Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.

For example, you can just call them sluts:

Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.

You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …

Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.

Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,

I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.

Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.

Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?

Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!

I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!

NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.

This post contained some

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

367 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

On to the next topic. You guys really need to calm down from your hysteria. LOL!

See Ruby, it’s not because of your social or political views that people think you’re a troll, regressive and idiotic though they may be. It’s when you say shit like I quoted above that we reach that conclusion. That right there? Pure trolling.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

But Dracula, we’re so mean to her there’s no point in trying to defend what she’s saying or admit that there’s things she hasn’t considered!

The worst part is knowing that if she ever fell on hard times, I’d be one of those people whod be helping her out regardless of how she thinks.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Katz: The mastubatiuon joke contributes. Everyone who takes part, from the most trivial of, “me too” responses to the most detailed, and personal revelations, takes part.

Dave is the “Owner” we are the community. We need humorous, as much as, “serious” content. Probably more. I’m not great at the lighter comments. It’s a failing, so I appreciate the chuckles comments like yours provde. A lot.

Pecunium
8 years ago

No, the worst part is that, should she fall on hard times, she will probably say that her need is different, and not change her attitude toward anyone else.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

Yes, I’m sure Ruby would be a member of the worthy, romantic poor; not the dirty, MacDonalds-eating, undeserving poor. 9_9

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Uh huh! And it would be sooo much harder for her too! Because she would be the very first person in history to have encountered any of this.

Honestly, I can almost see her face if she fell on hard times and discovered that my biulding was the only one she could afford. I’ve had plenty of middleclass folk who’ve moved here for financial reasons, and the looks on their faces when they discover they have to share a building! With so many poor people!!!

Plenty of noses have gone up, and some of those faces looked mighty chagrined as they signed the lease. And my building is pretty genteel in its poverty. More like a bit shabby as opposed to “ghetto” you see on TV.

And you know what? Everyone here would be going out of their way to help her feel more comfortable.

Pecunium
8 years ago

One of the annoying things about Ruby is the already present special pleading. Do we slag NWO for being conservative? No. We slag him for his views on women.

Did we slag Brandon for being a libertarian? No. We we slagged him for incoherence, and his views on consent.

Do we Slag Meller for for his libertarianism? No, we slag him for wanting to enslave women.

Do we slag Zhinxy because she’s a libertarian? No.

Do we criticise each other when we say things we disagree with? Yes.

But Ruby thinks it’s about what she believes, not what she says. She’s a special snowflake.

princessbonbon
8 years ago

I pay a lot in taxes and I would be fine with paying a lot more if it meant that people who needed help go it. Even if that meant a few people who did not need it got it. Because the needs of those who do need it far outweigh the needs of those who get it illegally.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

Seconded, Princess Bonbon.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

Considering the shit my taxes pay for?

I’m pretty sure we could feed all the moochers in the country for a year for the cost of like a half hour of our completely unnecessary military operations.

BlueBee
BlueBee
8 years ago

Um, in response to Ruby’s post about someone winning the lottery and then still using food stamps or welfare, I think that was pretty much expected.

A temporary increase in wealth is not the same thing as a sustained permanent increase. I assume after the lottery money ran out, she would be back on food stamps anyways. It’s not really cheating the system since winning the lottery isn’t really going to get you permanently out of poverty.

This is basically derived from Milton Friendman, though I don’t particularly like economics. I also feel like I might have explained this the wrong way, so I am going to apologize in advance in case I offend anyone.

Pecunium
8 years ago

BlueBee. Yeah, only Michigan has now made winning the lottery a ban to the reciept of welfare benefits. I don’t know that the woman in question was defrauding the state, or if she managed to mismanage the money enough to be unable to pay the bills, and be in the same basic spot she was before.

But you know, winning the lottery means all your troubles are over.

Or not. There was a article about 15 years ago in Calif. explaining that a significant number of the winners in the state lottery ended up destitute. They didn’t know what to do with the money and ended up beyond their means (esp. if they took the long term payout), and all the money was owed to people before they got it, which meant they were in need of jobs, because they couldn’t get aid; since they had “income”.

It’s just that it came in single payments. Out of which they had to pay federal taxes. A lot of them ended up selling their checks, at a steep discount, to make ends meet.

BlueBee
BlueBee
8 years ago

Pecunium- I wouldn’t doubt it. The lottery isn’t particularly helpful. I think I might go look this article up.

I’m also curious to see what happens with the American financial institutions and their bailout money, but I know too little about the American economic crisis to compare the two.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

My half-assed theory is that some of the problem with the lottery is that money management skills are less generalizable between classes than one would suppose. “How do you sensibly invest money” and “how do you buy food for a month with a hundred dollars” are not really related skills; you can be good with money in the latter sense but not necessarily in the former.

Also because a lot of people think of winning the lottery as winning BIG FUCKOFF AMOUNTS OF MONEY YOU CAN SPEND WHATEVER YOU WANT when in reality it’s, yes, a huge amount of money, but you’ll still have to budget.

Sharculese
Sharculese
8 years ago

@ cliff

I’m pretty sure we could feed all the moochers in the country for a year for the cost of like a half hour of our completely unnecessary military operations.

i think that’s exaggerated. it’s probably more like half a day.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
8 years ago

I know this reply is a bit late but I just wanted to add that my oldest child is in school and is on the reduced price lunch program. In order to get enrolled, I had to fill out a form and bring it to the school. Then, I had to do a follow up visit to a government office in town and bring my husband’s last two pay stubs to prove our income was in the range to qualify. You can’t just lie and say you have a low income. You have to prove it. I don’t have a problem with children on the free or reduced lunch program even when their parents are above the income range anyway. I would rather have a tiny amount of fraud than have children going hungry at school.

That’s the main thing I remember about Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in the 90’s. He wanted to gut the school lunch program in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. He didn’t get his way, and even some staunch fiscal conservatives considered it appalling to cut the lunch program. Of all the lousy ways to save a buck, taking food from school kids is about the lowest you can get.

katz
8 years ago

Also, it’s not like every lottery winner makes millions; they’re not going to kick people off food stamps for winning a $50 scratch card, are they? How about $1000? $10,000?

1 6 7 8