NOTE: It’s the final day of the Man Boobz Pledge Week! It’s gone quite well. Once again, serious thanks to everyone who has donated! I appreciate it a great deal.
If you haven’t yet donated, and want to, here’s the button you’re looking for:
Men’s Rights activists spend more time discussing women than most women’s studies majors. Heck, they might even qualify for honorary degrees in women’s studies, if we expand the term “study” to mean “make shit up.”
Here a couple of dudes on the Men’s Rights subreddit offer their new but not-exactly-improved version of “difference feminism.”
Seems legit.
“Perhaps there’s additional confounding factors I also haven’t thought up.”
Unintentional insight.
Foolish women, your tight-fisted matriarchy is no match for your LAZINESS!
I’m actually amazed that the natural superiority of man-brainz isn’t on there anywhere.
At least they’ve noticed the inherent contradiction between their assertion that feminists control everything and the demonstrable fact that men still occupy the majority of positions of power. Baby steps, right?
This is a funny one. It’s in the 12 year olds trying out big words category, no?
Oh hey, he was almost channeling an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess there! “It’s a man’s world, Gabrielle. Not because it should be, but because we let them have it.”
I must say, that’s not much of a spoiler.
SPOILER ALERT: The megalomaniacal villain dies a victim of his own infernal machine.
SPOILER ALERT: Batman wins.
SPOILER ALERT: Kirk, Spock and McCoy will all be alive when the credits roll.
SPOILER ALERT: Sherlock solves crimes, is a dick (may not apply to all interpretations).
SPOILER ALERT: Do you think I’m a Republic serial villain? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.It’s been a long two days.
FTFY.
At least he didn’t use the old misogynist standby: “Women do not hold significant positions of power because they are dainty feminine flowers and have no brains or abilities to speak of. This is why no woman ever is suited to any sort of work beyond simplistic drudgery in the home and that icky cootie-filled “love” thing.”
Who wants to bet that is exactly the next “arguement” he comes up with?
The sexist assumption in all the “if women ran the world” scenarios is steeped in bullshit stereotypes. The reason we have war is less due to the genitals in your pants and more to do with greed, imperialism, dominance and megalomania. All of these behaviors are HUMAN brhaviors- they are not tied to men alone. Of course, there may be more tendencies for female leaders to take different strategies to various problems in part due to gender role socialization, but actual powerful women tend to play the system exactly the same as their male counterparts, often even more ruthless and attacking towards all other women because they are perceived as weak otherwise.
I really wish the idea that “all feminists think that if women ran the world we’d be able to use rainbows as renewable resources and it would rain ice cream cones” would die already. The “if women ran the world” things may have started out as feminist, or might be radfem (I don’t spend my time on radfem hubs) but the feminism I know isn’t about replacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy. And it most certainly isn’t about pretending the sun shines out of every orifice of every woman. There have been plenty of women, both in the public sphere and in my personal life, who I’ve been no big fan of at all, and there are plenty of men I’ve been no big fan of either. People in general can be pretty detestable.
Maggie Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meier.
Nope, they never fought a war.
Which incarnation of Sherlock Holmes isn’t at least kind of a dick? I figured it was an innate characteristic.
There may be less war if women ran the world because women tend to be less aggressive. Of course that’s a moot point since women will never run the world. I just don’t see women ever hoarding power like men tend to do. Can you imagine women taking men’s voting rights away, not allowing them property rights, or forcing them to wear burkas?
All versions of Sherlock Holmes are dicks, but the extent of his dickishness is dependent on the interpretation.
For ex: Elementary Holmes is dickish until the point where someone kicks him down for being dumb. BBC Holmes will push past that point with a flippant comment about emotions. Grenada Holmes will push the line to test a theory, but doesn’t usually step too close to it unless there’s an active need.
When I saw that Ruby’s comment in the other thread was actually reasonable, I should have known that meant her comment over here would be complete bullshit.
@ Asshole Sherlock discussion-And people wonder why I am a much bigger Poirot fan.
Plus, ya gotta love Ms. Lemon.
Oh, Ruby. Got a sciency type article to back that hot mess up with? I’m sure you’ve totally considered the deeper implications of why it may be that women seem less aggressive.
@dualityheart: I wonder if she ever did perfect that filing system to end all filing systems. (yes, I did read way too much Agatha Christie.)
@dualityheart I like them both! Poirot’s a bit of a jerk too, he’s just more subtly sarcastic about it. I mean, look at the difference in treatment between Watson and Hastings. Most of the time, at least, Sherlock respects Watson’s intelligence while Poirot doesn’t seem to respect Hasting at all.
It would be pretty nice to have an ice cream cone instead of the heat and I like rainbows.
But if we ran the world on rainbows, that would mean we’re sucking all the color out of everything!
Feminists are the villains from Rainbow Brite.
I thought rainbows were like love-the more you have the more you make?