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
Maybe I’m slow today, but I fail to see what this post has to do with religious anything.
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.
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…?
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!”
Ok I skimmed a bit but why are people now talking about religion now? Did I miss something?
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?
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.
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.
How is complaining about religious extremists “whining about all religious people”? (I still have no idea why religion is being mentioned here)
Polliwog: Oh. I had no idea about the throne of Peter thing, that sailed right over me.
Jumbo, I guess it’s the throne mention, which tripped indifferentsky’s innernet atheist bitch switch.
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
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!
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.
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.
It must whine about atheists day because no one even was talking about any of that at all.
I know especially since the bible is referenced so damn much. One casual mentions doesn’t really give off fundamentalist vibes.
Yeah, that’s one where it helps to be an ex-Catholic. 🙂
(“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.
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*
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.
“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”.
Okay, Boggi, uh, thanks for backing me up and all, but it’s sort of weird when you do it.
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.
Oh, that’s who Maya is? Boggi?
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.