Over on A Voice for Men, the paramount meeting place for the brave warriors of the Leading Human Rights Movement of the 21st Century, a commenter calling himself Laddition has some uncharacteristically kind words to say about feminists (in this thread). Well, “kind” may not be the right word for it. But Laddition tells us that as awful as the awful feminists are, they’re not quite as bad as are … the rest of the world’s women. Sorry, the “rest of the fem-herd.” He explains:
Naturally, the readers of A Voice for Men greeted these pearls of wisdom with upvotes.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic, can someone explain GirlWritesWhat and TyphonBlue and the rest of AVFM’s little FemMRA, er, herd to me again? What exactly draws women to hang out with, and make 45 minute-long videos on the behalf of, dudes who not only hate women but who offer new proof of this hatred on a daily basis?
Wow, this one has really imprinted on the idea that all feminists are lesbians, hasn’t he?
He probably has a few other stereotypes up his sleeves too: ugly, battleaxe, hairy, castration-happy, sluts, prudes, irrationally angry…
I never got the ‘feminists are lesbians’ thing. I mean, even if it was true that feminists wanted to oppress men, then it could mean that that women were pissed and vengeful about the centuries of male oppression of women. Or do these people believe that men in patriachal societies are all gay? 😛
There actually can be a homoerotic aspect to extreme patriarch (no connection to normal gay people, of course). If a culture really, really devalues women, then being desirable to women, being respected by women, sexual conquest (ugh) of women, etc no longer has any value and men start getting substituted into those roles. Slacktivist fans know what I mean.
*patriarchy
@Katz
Is this the whole “it’s manly if you top, and weak if you’re bottoming” thing that Greco-Roman cultures had?
I’m just going to juxtapose different statements by Judgybitch right here and imply absolutely nothing about JB being inconsistent.
>Is this the whole “it’s manly if you top, and weak if you’re bottoming” thing that Greco-Roman cultures had?
Manly friendship between men wasn’t all that… friendly according to that late antique text I’ve read. It was certainly not about two men meeting as equals, which I guess is in line with the rest of the culture.
BAHAHAHAHA. *Gigglesnort*
@ kakanian
Cleavers kind of scare me, actually. Always feel like I’m about to lose a finger. I’ll happily acknowledge that they’re excellent multi-purpose cooking tools, but the fear of injury when one starts whacking things with them remains. I’ve settled for a nakiri instead, which serves the veggie-slicing purposes nicely without making me feel like a trip to the ER is imminent.
Meanwhile, Scrapemind is still trying to be clever and failing miserably.
@Carleyblue – Hi! I hope I’m not replying too late. Yes, my father did consider himself an MRA, although he didn’t use that term very often. He was not a computer person, so he was not on the sites we talk about here, although there’s a good chance that he knew many of the people who are on them. He died a few years ago, and I had left the family a couple of years before that, so this was a while ago. And I’m happy to answer most any questions. 🙂
@Scrapemind – thanks for introducing me to “sapiosexual” which I promptly looked up. Cool word. And I’m pretty sure it’s not “made-up bullshit” (nor are the others). Evolutionarily (is THAT a made-up word? I’m sure you get the meaning), the most distinctive change in humans is the exponentially large increase in brain size, leading me to think that not only is sapiosexual not made-up, it’s actually one of the most common types of person.
The main objection to “sapiosexual” I’ve heard is that it comes off a bit “I like people for their BRAINS and PERSONALITY, not just look for hot people like you other dirty promiscuous people!”
That second half is added by others. I mean, I’m sure some people call themselves “sapiosexuals” just to be all hoity-toity n’ shit, like “ooh… look how deep I am…”, but I don’t think it’s the rule.
There’s definitely at least a small element of projection to that, yeah. Still doesn’t seem a particularly useful sexual category, but if people like it and identify with it people like it and identify with it.
I mean… it makes it a lot easier than to answer the question “what kind of [insert gender here] are you attracted to” with a long spiel about how while looks are important to a point, intelligence is sexy.
Or maybe I’m just a fan of labels. Seriously… if I were to list out all the labels I identify with, it’d be one hell of a long, disorganized blog post…
I need to work on that (not the blog post; being more independent and “free from labels” or whatever label they give it these days :D)…
Seconding lowquacks here. That particular label seems to imply that those other people, over there, just don’t care about anything other than looks, the unthinking brutes. It’s inherently judgy.
Well, either inherently judgy or so broadly applicable as to be almost meaningless.
Like, I guess there are people who would be OK with their sexual partner being literally mindless, but it’s not exactly a common thing.
I mean, “sapient” isn’t exactly setting the bar high in terms of intelligence.
And furry.
So I actually really don’t like the term sapiosexual.
Here’s why.
See, I just don’t think it’s judgy at all. I’m not sure how it has any inherent comment on anyone else without someone intentionally putting it there.
I’ll grant the broadly applicable thing… I could see how it could apply to most people.
Actually inurashii, sapiophile does work better. I hadn’t thought about all that stuff about civil rights when first stumbling on the term. That post is a good one.
Thanks. I stewed on it for a while before finally writing the damn response to the image, which was crazy popular by the time it floated my way.
You really don’t see how a term that states that you’re only attracted to intelligent people implies that the people you’re not attracted to are kind of stupid (which they may or may not be – how do you know?), and that people who are attracted to them must be OK with stupidity?
Also, given that the way intelligence is perceived is often influenced by class, physical appearance, and a whole host of other things, it starts to get really dodgy really fast. I’ve seen far too many people automatically judge conventionally hot people, especially women, as unintelligent without even talking to them not to suspect that this term is going to be applied in less than kind ways. Could get even nastier when applied to people perceived to be working class.