Things I learned on Reddit today.
1) From a_weed_wizard in the Men’s Rights subreddit, I learned that feminists cannot be atheists:
GirlWritesWhat agrees:
I’m not sure where those downvotes came from, since everything GirlWritesWhat says is by definition true.
2) From AskHistorians, I learned that feminists trying to correctly translate ancient Greek are evil man-hating monsters. Check out the downvotes on EggyMc!
Obviously, she’s retranslating with malice aforethought!
In this case, it’s easy to tell where at least some of the downvotes are coming from: A link on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
MRAs: protecting ancient Greek history from MISANDRY since 2012!
@Pam
Oh, no diggity! I give my lil buddy a firm talking to every morning, to no avail. I’m considering obedience camp
(I had missed NWO’s response to me.)
Yes, because MRAs need them to be. After all, if all men are bad, then objecting to badness is MISANDRY. MRAs want to be hated for being men (a passive attribute they aren’t responsible for and can thus defend), so they won’t be hated for being bad (an active, personal attribute they can’t avoid taking responsibility for).
MRAs need people to hate good men, so that MRAs can look indistinguishable from good men.
Hence the narratives – pushed by MRAs and repudiated by feminists – that all men place sex above ethics, and have no self-control, and thus can’t be held responsible for their actions (“boys will be boys” after all), and are fragile, helpless victims of the MISANDRIC words that feminists use to call out MRA bullshit for what it is. If all men are this way, then you won’t look so bad.
And the narratives – pushed by MRAs and repudiated by feminists – that good men must have ulterior motives too, and could not have chosen their path freely; they must be defective somehow. If no man can legitimately have the strength to be good, then it must be okay for you to lack that strength.
So, yes, MRAs are enablers of the status quo in which women aren’t allowed to refuse a false compliment, where even legitimate compliments have to be called into question, so that good men can’t get away with being better than you.
@NWO
“Who cares why prude. A woody is a man giving women a compliment. Woodys are beautiful. Women lust after mens woodys. Enough with the body shaming sweetheart.”
So objecting to a grown man showing his penis to little girls is prudery and body shaming?
What. The. Fuck.
“Can’t we stop shaming men for getting a woody? It’s normal for men to get a woody. It’s antural. Don’t shame me for it.”
Nobody is shaming you for getting an erection you fuckwit. We’re shaming you for wanting to show your erection to little girls, and then equating that with women wearing bikinis in public.
And I wonder, how do all of the men in those indiginous tribes manage to spend all of their time NOT raping the women, considering they are walking around topless most of the time?
You know, in some cultures, the breast is not even considered sexual. It is strictly a means for a woman to feed her child.
If NWO thinks “sexualized” or “sexual” means “having sex” that actually would explain a lot of his confusion about female-on-male rape.
NWO thinks that female sexuality means having a female body, and male sexuality means having sex with a female body. And both are scary and icky and will destroy civilization if they’re not kept in check.
I kind of love the word that NWO just invented. Antural – something that ants do? Ants often get erections and show them to little girls. It’s only antural.
I’m for people making their choices. I used to think feminism was about equality. I used to think this. Then I read this by a feminist mother raising a son. “My son is beautiful, smart, and extremely capable. Obviously, this terrifies me.” Please, feminists out there explain this. Obviously your terrified you son is beautiful, smart and capable? Obviously this mother wouldn’t be terrified if this was her daughter. This was a direct quote from the site: http://feministing.com/ Feminists are women who hate themselves because they are attracted to strong, capable, heterosexual men when they have been brainwashed to think that this is bad. This has created a horrible male female climate in America. I am unashamed to say that I will never give a feminist an ounce of respect EVER. HOW CAN YOU BE TERRIFIED THAT YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL SON! Obviously, feminism is about the hatred of men if feminists can’t even love and cherish their own children. Its her baby CHILD!
I kind of love the word that NWO just invented. Antural – something that ants do? Ants often get erections and show them to little girls. It’s only antural.
Does that mean they show their erections to immature queen ants? What would be the point of that?
Hey, it’s not the fault of the male ants that 97% of female ants are whores, OK?
(Combines trolls to form Troll Voltron)
Andy, what the fuck are you carrying on about? Narrow down your link some. Nobody’s going to go through the entire blog looking for the bit you supposedly quote.
Context. It fucking matters.
Andy, stop quoting out of context. The author goes on:
What the author “fears” and “dreads,” you disingenuous quote-miner, is people like you.
http://community.feministing.com/2008/08/21/how_to_raise_a_feminist_son/
…except for VoIP, who has mad researching skillz.
Nice try, though. Asshole.
I googled the sentence he game me with quotes around it, making it a set phrase, and followed the links. A lot were from MRAs quoting only that sentence and nothing else. Who knew they’d lie to people like that?
Looks like Andy has perfectly demonstrated the act of “quote mining.”
It’s almost like they have no real issues to build their arguments on and are forced to just make shit up.
Gosh Andy, that was one of the single most dishonest displays I’ve ever encountered. Did you think it would actually work?
I want to know if you gals feel its an appropriate feeling to be “terrified” your son has positive attributes and is smart and capable.
@Andy:
I want to know if you have a hole in your head.
She was terrified for her son, you fucking dolt. Because she didn’t want the weight of the world to crush his spirit. This is somehow a bad thing?
That quote, no matter what you believe about context, was written. In any context, is it an appropriate feeling to be terrified of your own child for possessing positive qualities that will benefit him in his future as a human.
Andy, I know it’s hard, but try reading the whole post first, not just the quotes you read on MRA sites.
I’m pretty sure Andy just heard about this from some of the other people in the mrm and didn’t bother to look up the context.
Speaking of quote mining, this is a perfect example of someone actually quote mining–taking a quote from a piece about a mother’s fears of people gender-policing her son into evidence of feminist misandry. And yes, it is appropriate to be terrified that your society is going to twist your child–in this case, she talks about pressure to bottle up his emotion and about fears he’ll be bullied for liking pink.