Categories
antifeminism hate hypocrisy irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit reddit woman's suffrage

Men’s Rights Redditor: “(Most) women don’t love men.” (Also, it’s only respectful for dudes to hang onto nude pics of an ex-girlfriend.)

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, some of the fellas are discussing a recent post from Arthur Goldwag on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog. Goldwag looks at some of the hero-bashing comments from MRAs in the wake of the Aurora shootings, which we’ve discussed here and here.

This somehow inspires the prolix Men’s Right Redditor Demonspawn to set forth some of his opinions about (most) women and how shitty they are. The whole discussion is worth reading, as a sort of case study in MRA hypocrisy: all this woman-hatred comes in a thread in which Reddit MRAs wax indignant once again that anyone might possibly label them hateful. (Also, how dare women suggest that there’s anything untoward about a dude hanging onto nude pics of an ex, when clearly not deleting them is a sign of “respect.”)

Looks like Demonspawn won himself a convert! Congrats. you beautiful douchebag.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Molly Moon
Molly Moon
8 years ago

David Futrelle was a sled all along

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

Ahhhhhhhhh, sex objects and success objects!

No wonder the divorce rates are so high these days……

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

The plain truth is that puh-len-ty of men and women do indeed objectify members of the opposite sex. So feminists need to STFU about “sex objects” until the acknowledge “success objects”.

Amused
8 years ago

I refuse to even consider the term “success object” until you demonstrate that you actually understand what “objectification” means. So far, you’ve demonstrated the contrary. Educate yourself first, then get back to us. Hint: Start with grammar.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

The plain truth is that puh-len-ty of men and women do indeed objectify members of the opposite sex. So feminists need to STFU about “sex objects” until the acknowledge “success objects”.

“Some people objectify men as sex objects! Thus it logically follows that most women treat men as success objects.”

Between this and the Robot Sex Act of 2010, I have to say that you are an intellectual titan, MSN.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
8 years ago

David Futrelle pities the fool.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

No wonder the divorce rates are so high these days……

The divorce rate is almost the lowest since no fault divorce was legal. It’s actually been a steady drop since legalization.

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-12-10-divorce2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/family-meet-the-new-reces_b_149768.html&h=297&w=500&sz=73&tbnid=vaGcxBuyfaVGcM:&tbnh=76&tbnw=128&zoom=1&usg=__ce4J7hzD67WT24Nppw6_L7otK9U=&docid=fEIQV2q9pJajPM&sa=X&ei=9lgdUL6tJtDiyAHmuoGgBw&ved=0CGIQ9QEwAg&dur=685

So unless you want to go back to the days before legal no fault divorce, I don’t see what you’re complaining about.

Google: It’s a thing!

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

I refuse to even consider the term “success object” until you demonstrate that you actually understand what “objectification” means. So far, you’ve demonstrated the contrary. Educate yourself first, then get back to us. Hint: Start with grammar.

So I dropped the ‘y’ on ‘they in the last sentence. Sosumi!

So who is the authority on defining objectification? For a women who is poor(or at the very least working class) to marry a man to get access to his money, or in some cases her objective is get citizenship(think mail-order brides) and then divorce him most certainly is objectification. She often has no love for him and values him for what he has, rather than who he is. To treat someone as if they’re a tool to be used and discarded without any concern for their feelings is objectification. If that definition isn’t good enough for you, IDK what is.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

@MSN

Oh won’t someone please think of the poor men being victimized and objectified by mail order brides!

I still don’t think “success object” is a thing. “Someone who picked me out online and who I will sleep with for a green card” is not really a “success object.” There’s a difference between an object and a john.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

A lot of women are attracted to status, not just money. Successful men are high status and they attract women to them. I used the golddigger as an example of women can and do objectify men. You want another example? I read an article that interviewed 5 women who admitted to cheating and each gave a reason why. One of them, named Jillian Anne explained why cheated as follows:

I felt like it. The bigger question is what made my boyfriends think I wouldn’t cheat on them. I’m a very free spirited girl who has trouble keeping her hands to herself. But I try to remember that men have hearts inside their bodies!

She treats men as sex objects, just like (male)”players” do. Sex and the City is making this kind of behavior increasingly popular. Women think that sleeping around with high status men and dumping them right afterwards so they can move on to another *stud* makes them ‘liberated’.

What infuriates me is that if you are sexually attracted to someone who is famous and shows off their body via media, someone who you will probably never meet and definitely never get to know personally, then you are somehow “objectifying” them.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

A lot of women are attracted to status, not just money.

Attraction is not objectification. Saying someone is “a fine piece of ass,” is objectification, because it is discussing someone as if they were an object. When it is common for people to say “That dude is a fien piece of arbitrarily selected social status indicators which would be transferrable to be upon having sex with him,” then we’ll talk.

I never argued that men aren’t treated like sex objects by some women. What I argued was that people do not commonly objectify other peopl in terms of how much success they have.

You keep arguing that because people’s bodies are objectified, then their intangible social attributes are also objectified. A does not follow B.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

@MSN

As a side note, have you put any thought into wondering why the MRA sites made up the robot sex issue? How do you feel about a movement that has to invent its grievances?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@ MSN:

That example doesn’t speak “objectification” to me… It says “I need to try to remember that I might hurt a guy’s feelings when I sleep with other men.” I doubt you’d get the same “need to keep the other person’s feelings in mind more often” from male players… You’d be much more likely to hear “pussy is pussy,” which is in fact actual objectification.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

@Om Nom Nom

A lot of women are attracted to status, not just money.

That’s not objectification, as Ugh’s explained already, but what do you think men looking for “classy” women are attracted to there? Is that objectification (ANSWER BELOW) ? There’s a lot of them.

ANSWER: ˙ooʇ buıɥʇ ǝɹoɥʍ/ɐuuopɐɯ ʎǝɯɐɥs-ʇnןs ɐ ɟo ʇıq ˙ɯsıɔɐɹ pǝןɐǝɔuoɔ-ʎןɹood ɥʇıʍ sǝɯıʇǝɯos puɐ ɯsıssɐןɔ ɥʇıʍ op oʇ ʇob ǝɹoɯ s,ʇı

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

ANSWER: ˙ooʇ buıɥʇ ǝɹoɥʍ/ɐuuopɐɯ ʎǝɯɐɥs-ʇnןs ɐ ɟo ʇıq ˙ɯsıɔɐɹ pǝןɐǝɔuoɔ-ʎןɹood ɥʇıʍ sǝɯıʇǝɯos puɐ ɯsıssɐןɔ ɥʇıʍ op oʇ ʇob ǝɹoɯ s,ʇı

Witchcraft!!

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

That example doesn’t speak “objectification” to me… It says “I need to try to remember that I might hurt a guy’s feelings when I sleep with other men.” I doubt you’d get the same “need to keep the other person’s feelings in mind more often” from male players… You’d be much more likely to hear “pussy is pussy,” which is in fact actual objectification.

She is using men for her sexual gratification(just like many men use women) and discarding them when she’s through. Her attitude is that she thinks it’s ok to act on her impulses and ultimately doesn’t care how her actions affect others. Her last sentence is NOT genuine concern! It is smug sarcasm. If she actually cared about her partners feelings, she’d exert self-control. But she is very direct about the fact the she doesn’t, and so she does what she does……….inch by inch, mile by mile, MAN BY MAN.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

Some men, and some women, are perfectly happy to have brief purely-sexual relationships. That’s not a problem if everyone’s going in willingly and not expecting anything the other person isn’t wanting to give.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

In fact, a lot of the MRM stuff advocates this. Just not for women, because something something something naturally wired something something sluts.

They need to realise that if they want men to have lots of hetero one-night-stands, women will have to as well, right? (No, they don’t)

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
8 years ago

So I know a lot of women, many of whom sleep with lots of guys, and none of them care about the success of the dudes they sleep with. They don’t even care a whole lot about the success of long term boyfriends, except when boyfriend is un/underemployed and she’s paying for everything. And then they just complain about how he’s not looking for work, they don’t break up with him.

So basically I think the fact that you think SatC being some influence over women’s behavior and causing an epidemic of hypergamy is probably based on you getting all your information about women’s behavior from watching SatC.

Either that or the hos in my area code don’t watch that shit.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

Sorry, Molly, but Sex and the City is actually the most accurate documentary about how all women everywhere behave all the time ever. Only misandrist propagandists disagree.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
8 years ago

Sex and the City? Really? Really?!

I love how you take a quote from a a woman who doesn’t practice monogamy and insert your own insecurities about “status” in order to try and make a point about objectification.

You really don’t know very much about romantic/sexual relationships. In fact, it’s kind of hilarious to watch you present your bullshit as some sort of powerful truth telling and expertise.

Plex Flexico
Plex Flexico
8 years ago

Gee, and here I’ve just been wasting my time being attracted to actual men instead of made-up ideas of what a “man ought to be”. Thank goodness M. Sans Cervelles has set me straight!

(Not really, though. I don’t take dating/relationship advice from idiots.)

I’ve dated men who had more money than god and guys who are bass players in struggling bands, guys who work in garages and on farms, guys who work on our version of “wall street” and guys who don’t work at all. What they do or how much money they have has nothing to do with whether or not I want to spend time with or be intimate with them. It’s been about them. All that matters is what’s inside, the things they stand for, their ability to be open and honest and last, but not least, how they feel about me.

That’s always been, in my experience, how well-adjusted people go about finding partners.

Of course, no MRA would ever believe that, because deep down inside they know they’d never be able to date someone like me if those are the criteria required to spend time with me in an intimate way.

(…and I’d like to point out that: intimacy =/= sex. No matter how much these idiots want to believe that those two words mean the same thing.)

Runic
Runic
8 years ago

David Futrelle killed Kurt Cobain.

scrapemind
8 years ago

I downloaded David Futrelle’s hip hop mixtape, and he’s the next Bob Dylan.