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
Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Cooter Bee sounds… angry.

Once again, I really really want to host a Gender Turing test with these guys. Chat-by-text partner, as long a discussion as you need, any topics on the table (except, like, “how would you describe your gender?”), guess the gender of your partner.

How hard can it be to tell a human from a flatworm, right? How hard can it be to tell fuckin’ Socrates from a hysterical Carrie Bradshaw?

I kinda want to make this happen.

abeegoesbuzz
abeegoesbuzz
8 years ago

WHERE do MRAs fight with intellect? Show me the link where some MRA said something intellectual, PLEASE. I’m begging. Like,

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them.

OH what I’d give for an MRA who could cite to a study that was not extracted from his ass! Or who understood what a fallacy was and didn’t base every single argument around them. Or who was more interested in the truth than in hearing himself repeat endless talking points. Jesus h. pants, MRAs: Get your shit together. You’re a mess.

Also, I think I’ve said this before, but Cooter Bee (no relation)? You give Bees a bad name.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

“indignation, outrage and gut level distaste”

This pretty much describes 99% of what passes for discourse in MRA circles. Really, if every article just read “feminists and/or women are icky and gross and for some inexplicable reason they won’t admit it and that pisses me off”.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

continues because I hit post too soon…

Really, if every article just read “feminists and/or women are icky and gross and for some inexplicable reason they won’t admit it and that pisses me off” that would basically sum up their worldview. There does not appear to be much logic involved at all, it’s all about the basic emotional responses to things they don’t like.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Ninja’d by Bee, but I too would love an MRA who could site something other than his feelings, all of which boil down to “bitches ain’t shit.”

cloudiah
8 years ago

And AVfM, they’re supposed to be the “good” MRAs, right? [/sarcasm] I am actually glad when they admit that the contempt they feel is for all women, even if they only truly hate feminists. It just brings a certain honesty to the discussion that is sometimes missing.

Oh hey, Antz is there:

I agree that we should fight to win, but I do not share your definition of “win”.
For me, “win” mean freedom for men.
If women return to their silver cage, how will men be liberated from our golden yoke?
[snip]
The world will have to learn to live without male sweat, male tears, and male blood.

Good thing I have built up a large stockpile of male sweat, male tears, and male blood. (Do NOT ask how I got them.)
Antz’ friend typhonblue replies,

(BTW, you should patent that term, ‘golden yoke’, ‘golden yoking’, ‘doning the golden yoke’, ‘it’s a yoke, disguised as privilege with gold’,etc.)

I looked that term up in Urban Dictionary, sure there would be some suitably rude definition for “golden yoking.” Nope.

Shall we hold a competition to come up with one?

cloudiah
8 years ago

p.s. “Mounting the throne of Peter” also seems ripe for a rude definition. 🙂

Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

From the first seven minutes or so of the podcast, I gather that Feminism is a government plot to enslave us all by reducing the value of labor relative to the State’s power and set men and women against each other because women naturally complement men as men’s social inferiors (b/c women like to mate with superior men, because hominid evolution), a natural order which is being upset by affirmative action and VAWA for the State’s ends. How do we know this? Well, you see, Gloria Steinem founded Ms. Magazine while she was married to Henry Kissinger and Second Wave feminism was funded by the government and haven’t you noticed incomes have declined ever since feminism? PS the same governments that fund VAWA and affirmative action also wiretap whole countries and “bomb foreign brown people.”

Ergo wake up sheeple.

That was about all I could stand, and I’ve listened to creationist podcasts for amusement. Good lord, there aren’t enough desks in the world.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Knowing AntZ, he was talking about eggs and simply misspelled “yolk.”

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Can “throne” just mean “penis”? It would make as much sense as anything else in the space you’re quoting from.

Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

I suppose it doesn’t need to be said to this crowd, but I really do love the delectable irony in the fact that people who arrogate rationality to their gender, and who insist that historically marginalized people really actually like being on the bottom end of social stratification, also call themselves a human rights movement.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It’s also rich in vitamin C.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Well, isn’t peter also slang for a penis? Should their penises have thrones? Or golden yokes? Or (props to hellkell) golden yolks? Or silver cages? So many questions…

speedlines
speedlines
8 years ago

Well, you see, Gloria Steinem founded Ms. Magazine while she was married to Henry Kissinger

Sounds like the worst fanfic ever.

abeegoesbuzz
abeegoesbuzz
8 years ago

I looked that term up in Urban Dictionary, sure there would be some suitably rude definition for “golden yoking.” Nope.

TyphonBlue posted a little allegory for children recently, about a workhorse that kept building things to help out his princess-owner because she had given him a beautiful pearl and gold bridle. Then greedy bitch got jealous (like ya do) of all the attention Mr. Horsey was getting, and she decided to take the bridle back for herself. WHOOOOPS! It was only made of old leather and rust, and anyway Mr. Horsey trampled it in his rush to escape the barn. JUST LIKE MEN ARE ESCAPING UM MARRIAGE AND STUFF.

I dunno if that has anything to do with the golden yoke. Mebbe.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Golden yoke = gold-plated cock ring with a string attached.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Didn’t Typhonblue also write one about an ungrateful princess and a golden cage or some such nonsense?

Cassandra, I was going to say golden yoke and throne of Peter sound like toys in the worst. dungeon. EVER.

cloudiah
8 years ago

I suddenly find this image making me blush. And OMG, there is (SNSFW)a golden yoke!

Off to dinner, now with some new funny stories to tell my friends! 🙂

Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

I may be misremembering what he said about Steinem and Kissinger. I am definitely not re-listening to find out, though. I see from this site that she apparently dated Kissinger:

http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm

Lauren
8 years ago

Wow.

WOW.

COOTER BEE?

Maya Lovelace
Maya Lovelace
8 years ago

Patch Adams: sycophant with a red clown nose

Patch Adams is a doctor who loves to help his fellow man. But wait, it appears he hates his fellow man, but loves his fellow woman. Gosh, it’s all confusing, all this loving hate. JTO sorts it out.

Demonizing Patch Adams? That’s a new low.

A derail, but I had to mention this.

P.S. Way to go manosphere. Comparing people to flat worms is totally what human rights movements do.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

“Endless Citations” is kind of true, for a certain value of citation. They’re really good at hauling up the few statistics that kind of sort of support their position, they just forget about, you know, EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes, it’s all well and good that women disproportionately survived on the Titanic, that men make up a higher proportion of successful suicides in the USA, and that men in the USA make up the majority of homeless single people, but that’s ignoring taht women disproportionately died in disasters at sea, in toto, that women attempt suicide far more often and merely choose less lethal methods on average, and that homeless statistics are a fucking mess for 200 different reasons, along with countless other facts. But pretending they’re good at ‘rational argument’…

http://www.endlessvideo.com/watch?v=gFmGNqji4u0&start=0m10s&end=0m12s

TyphonBlue posted a little allegory for children recently, about a workhorse

Because she doesn’t have any facts that any of this is true, she resorts to allegory. Amuse XD

Magnesium
Magnesium
8 years ago

The MRA definition of Logic:
Logic [loj-ik] (noun)
1. Whatever my opinion happens to be. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are being illogical.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

Another fatiguing pile of shit. I’m exhausted.
This post invokes just two words today.

Religious Nuts.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

My two words are:

Asshole atheists who think everything’s about their pet cause even though misogyny is actually well established a a secular phenomenon and there’s a shitload of sexist atheists out there and condescending, “lol invisible sky man” attacks on religion have spectacularly failed to produce major social progress lately thanks.

Aw darn, that was a few too many words.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Maybe I’m slow today, but I fail to see what this post has to do with religious anything.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

Several of these folks hold religious values and the concepts are littered throughout.
People that attempt to ban abortion are religious nuts. That is not an attack on religion in general or faith.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Wow, Holly, that was a lot of words to misinterpret something against a subset of privileged people as though it were against all religious people ever, and to then reduce all the efforts of a (granted, less so) marginalized groups to ‘mere’ mockery (Because you know, mockery of things is bad). You probably could have stood to trim like, 20% of that.

Jesus tapdancing christ, atheists did not invent the term ‘religious nut’, it’s been in use for decades by moderate religious people annoyed at extremists. And you assumed this was an attack against all religious people ever because…?

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

Maybe I’m slow today, but I fail to see what this post has to do with religious anything.

It contains a passing reference to the “throne of Peter,” as far as I can tell because either Cooter Bee considers himself the Pope of the MRM, or because MRAs actually think their penises should be given little thrones. Apparently somehow this translates to “time to whine about all religious people!”

jumbofish
8 years ago

Ok I skimmed a bit but why are people now talking about religion now? Did I miss something?

Jean-Renee
Jean-Renee
8 years ago

So because the facts don’t support their position(s), they have now been given permission from on high to ignore the facts (and fallacies and citations and peer-reviewed studies and…) and just base their arguments on their precious little special snowflake fee-fees? Weren’t they doing that anyway?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I am all for MRAs wearing little penis thrones! As long as they’re big enough to be visible through pants, so that they make the wearers easy to identify.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

If you don’t notice the penis throne, perhaps because the pants are very baggy, and you make the tragic mistake of getting naked with someone who turns out to be an MRA, the penis throne can then function kind of like the bit on old-timey maps where people would write HERE BE DRAGONS.

jumbofish
8 years ago

Apparently somehow this translates to “time to whine about all religious people!”

How is complaining about religious extremists “whining about all religious people”? (I still have no idea why religion is being mentioned here)

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Polliwog: Oh. I had no idea about the throne of Peter thing, that sailed right over me.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Jumbo, I guess it’s the throne mention, which tripped indifferentsky’s innernet atheist bitch switch.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

No they’re totally not like a hate group at all. What with comparing women to flatworms (GWW and TyphonBlue must be so honored) and a dude like this actually admitting he is a misogynist and thinking its a good thing (8 upvotes, 0 downvotes)

but still! totally objective, unbiased reasonable folks over there on AVfM

comment is from the article after this one

Jean Valjean
Misogyny is the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

We needn’t express all three of these in order to be called misogynist.

In fact, most of us, as a consequence of being MRA’s and speaking about the issues, must express a distrust of women in general and feminists in particular.

Since feminists are universally reviled by MRA’s it’s clear that most of us dislike feminists be they male or female.

And I will not shrink from my own anger over the callousness and indifference that feminists and many women show towards male suffering. My blood still boils at the sexual mutilation committed by Katherine Kieu Becker and the overwhelming approval by women and the media of this heinous act. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to express hatred for people who laugh and cheer at the torture and mutilation of a human being? It is not my humanity which is in question. It is theirs.

My personal belief is that any man who seeks to be free from female control and exploitation must adopt misogyny. And to adopt misogyny a male must embrace 2 of the 3 criteria for misogyny. Those 2 should be a distrust and dislike of women.

Because women are genetically programmed to discriminate against men then the only way to create a gender equal society is for men to create an equal playing field by adopting a similar stance on women.

Just as men are forced to prove our worth; forced to attain status just so we can have basic respect and human dignity, so to should women prove they are not misandrists, that they have not engaged in exploitation of men, that they have not betrayed men, made false accusations of men, committed violence against men directly or by proxy.

Misogyny is the right of a free man. To dislike and distrust someone who has done nothing to earn your trust or affection is exactly what women do to men. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to protect ourselves from bigoted women who will dupe us into marriage with promises of love and then leave when it profits them most; taking our children, our property, and raping us emotionally and financially?

I will not shrink from accusations of misogyny. I will own those words so that they have no power anymore. By owning those words we remove the weapons that feminists use against us.

Men give women power over us by believing what they say and responding to their claims of victimhood. Words like misogynist, woman hater, rapist, and the like are the targeting laser that women use to designate those males that they wish violence be inflicted upon. So long as those words have power no men will be safe from violence by proxy and politicians will kow tow to feminists knowing that one word from them will destroy their careers.

Misogyny is to all men as “uppity” is to a black man. They expect us to know our place. So long as we fear these words then that place will always be subordinate to female privilege.

I’ve heard men say they would support the MRM if there weren’t misogynists. They fear the disapproval of women. And yet, by speaking against feminists and female privilege we are being misogynist ie. distrust and dislike.

The only way to overcome that is to embrace it, explain it, and own it. How can we all be free if we are not allowed to distrust or dislike women or to hate those women who commit horrible acts against us directly or by proxy?

Misogyny is the right of any man who would be free.

I am a misogynist.

8 0

I guess he has no problems with women openly hating men then because we want freedom from being raped and having the government constantly trying to control what we do with our bodies? among other things. If he’s against that it’s almost like it would make him a hypocritical, contradicting fuckwit!

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Maybe I overreacted to indifferentsky, but I’m just completely exhausted by Internet Atheists trying to play the “if we didn’t have all this religion all the social justice problems would be fixed!” game. It’s co-opting for their pet cause, it’s erasing most religions that aren’t conservative Christianity, and it’s not actually true or helpful.

I’d say “sorry for the derail,” but this is Manboobz.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Yeah, one reference to the Throne of Peter in the midst of a bunch of sexist bullshit doesn’t really trip my “oh, the problem here is clearly that these people are fundamentalists of some kind” switch.

jumbofish
8 years ago

Maybe I overreacted to indifferentsky, but I’m just completely exhausted by Internet Atheists trying to play the “if we didn’t have all this religion all the social justice problems would be fixed!” game. It’s co-opting for their pet cause, it’s erasing most religions that aren’t conservative Christianity, and it’s not actually true or helpful.

I’d say “sorry for the derail,” but this is Manboobz.

It must whine about atheists day because no one even was talking about any of that at all.

jumbofish
8 years ago

Yeah, one reference to the Throne of Peter in the midst of a bunch of sexist bullshit doesn’t really trip my “oh, the problem here is clearly that these people are fundamentalists of some kind” switch.

I know especially since the bible is referenced so damn much. One casual mentions doesn’t really give off fundamentalist vibes.

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

Polliwog: Oh. I had no idea about the throne of Peter thing, that sailed right over me.

Yeah, that’s one where it helps to be an ex-Catholic. 🙂

(“Mounting the throne of Peter” totally does sound dirty, though.)

abeegoesbuzz
abeegoesbuzz
8 years ago

(“Mounting the throne of Peter” totally does sound dirty, though.)

Inorite? Next Cooter Bee’ll be talking about his rod and his staff. I don’t even.

Maya Lovelace
Maya Lovelace
8 years ago

Maybe I overreacted to indifferentsky, but I’m just completely exhausted by Internet Atheists trying to play the “if we didn’t have all this religion all the social justice problems would be fixed!” game. It’s co-opting for their pet cause, it’s erasing most religions that aren’t conservative Christianity, and it’s not actually true or helpful.

I’d say “sorry for the derail,” but this is Manboobz.

I must agree with Holly. Atheists can be just as bigoted as everyone else. I remember very clearly the whole thunderf00t and Dawahfilms debacle. On the first video that started it all, one guy searched for certain words in the comments section. First, he searched for words like “free speech” and “responsibility”, which only produced a dozen references. Then, he searched for words like “sandnigger” and “raghead” (because Dawahfilms is muslim), and the results were in the hundreds.

And of course there are many sexist turds among the “atheist community”.

Religious moron: “Women are inferior because of JEEZUS!”

Atheist moron: “Women are inferior because SCIENCE!”

*sighs*

kladle
kladle
8 years ago

Once again, I really really want to host a Gender Turing test with these guys. Chat-by-text partner, as long a discussion as you need, any topics on the table (except, like, “how would you describe your gender?”), guess the gender of your partner.

Dunno if you know this but Turing’s original paper on the Turing test discussed a game where you were supposed to guess which of two people was a man and which was a woman by asking them questions, and then made the analogy to a game where one of the people was a computing machine.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

“Inorite? Next Cooter Bee’ll be talking about his rod and his staff. I don’t even.”

I had such a hard time as a teenager not laughing at the line “his rod and his staff are my comfort”.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Okay, Boggi, uh, thanks for backing me up and all, but it’s sort of weird when you do it.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Maybe I overreacted to indifferentsky, but I’m just completely exhausted by Internet Atheists trying to play the “if we didn’t have all this religion all the social justice problems would be fixed!” game. It’s co-opting for their pet cause, it’s erasing most religions that aren’t conservative Christianity, and it’s not actually true or helpful.

I too, am weary of white straight dudes being the majority, but you don’t hear me sound off against all feminists whenever Transphobes are particularly stupid.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Oh, that’s who Maya is? Boggi?

jumbofish
8 years ago

I must agree with Holly. Atheists can be just as bigoted as everyone else.

Yeah, no one said they were not which makes holly’s weird rant sort of random. I’ve seen some really disgusting sexist douchey behavior amongst atheists and many atheist feminists don’t deny this so I am not sure what the issue is even.

1 2 3 8