It’s hard to parody Men’s Rights Activists, because no matter how ridiculous your parody is, there’s a good chance that some MRA out there has already said, or written, or sung, something even more ridiculous already.
Not that long ago, a bunch of Man Boobz regulars set out to parody the bizarre, and often inadvertently surrealistic, posters that have been popping up on MRA sites like A Voice for Men and Artistry Against Misandry. It was hard, but I think some of us managed to come up with posters that were even uglier and less coherent than the originals. I especially liked these two, from (respectively) Cliff Pervocracy and Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III.
But alas, we have been outmaneuvered by the all-too-serious poster-makers on A Voice for Men, who have managed to produce posters that make even less sense than our silliest parodies. Take a look at this one, which I believe is the work of an Australian MRA by the name of Roger O. Thornhill.
I mean, really. How can we compete with that?
This is an actual poster that some MRAs think will actually win people over to their cause. How, I’m not exactly sure. What exactly about a cupcake with a tiara is supposed to scream “men’s rights” to random pedestrians who might catch a glimpse of this poster wheatpasted to a hoarding while on their way to work?
For more of Roger’s fine work, see here and here.
Man Boobzers, can you do better?
Or, if you’re not up to that Herculean task, could you at least try to explain just what exactly you think Mr. Thornhill was trying to say with that poster of his?
EDITED TO ADD: I have been asked to contribute a poster myself. So here one is. You can find many more hilarious and incredibly ugly posters at ArtistryForFeminismAndKittens and, of course, in the comments below!
Alert! For all those who were wondering, Joe 1.0 would like to point out that he considers himself a rational thinker.
Please try to contain your shock and awe.
@Cloudiah – wow, hiiilarious, nothing like mocking genital mutilation of babies for laughs is there? Oh, my sides.
Would you be A-OK with the excised clitoral hoods of female babies being used to treat burns / diabetic ulcers?
Or would you suddenly realise that cutting pieces off unconsenting babies’ genitals (often without anaesthetic) for bizarre BS religious / aesthetic “preferences” of the parents was…. oooh, I dunno, let’s say: totally fucking fucked up and wrong regardless of the gender of those babies?
That I actually have to ask this question of any sane adult, let alone huge swathes of the world’s population is mind-boggling and sickening….
By the way, while we’re on the subject a big fucking cheer for Germany that has banned ALL circumcision for babies of BOTH genders! YAY!! EQUALITY!!
(Except, presumably, in urgent medical situations – such as a serious infection that was non-responsive to antibiotics.)
And (in before idiots):
– Disowned but still alive is better for a kid than being actually aborted.
– Having intact genitals is better than being mutilated.
So, as “uncaring” as you might think my proposals for men’s choices are, they are still more compassionate than what is already permitted under the status quo in many so-called “advanced” Western nations, not to mention various theocratic states.
Is Joe actually capable of talking rather than ranting? Evidence so far says no.
About the abortion versus abandonment issue – a kid that is aborted is no longer able to suffer. A fetus that is aborted very early is literally incapable of suffering, if it’s done before the development of consciousness and a central nervous system. A child that is born and then abandoned is very capable of suffering, and rather likely to experience it.
Joe, I have no idea what BS rhetoric to which you refer. I think you’re referencing paper abortions or disownment? In my last comment on this thread, I acknowledged that I misread your stance on that, and I APOLOGIZED for misrepresenting you. If you’re thinking of male contraception, all I’ve said on that is:
You could call that BS rhetoric, but it doesn’t really match up with everything else you’ve attributed to me above. Ditto my clarification on the child support $$$.
So…maybe you’re referring to someone else’s comment, and my name got attached?
Anyhoo, other participants here requested that we try to keep the this thread confined to delightful posters, so I’ll bow out now. Good luck to you, Joe. And sorry for the derail, everyone else.
Joe, when you can get pregnant, you can have the same post-conception choices. Until that day, shut up.
So much wrong, so little time…
“Pro-choice” puts the needs of the woman and fetus equal; the woman is granted her bodily autonomy while the fetus is granted the rights of any human being (which do not include, sadly, the right to live parasitically off of another human being.) Totally fair and equal. Abortion exercises the right of a female-bodied person to bodily autonomy, while “legal abortion” by the male-bodied parent exercises no such right — as with taxes, etc., other people do have a right to the money of others in a way that they cannot lay claim to their internal organs.
Duh.
*squints at Joe*
You’re still here? Seriously, we meant it when we said GTFO. You’re not funny or correct enough to stay.
Let me get this straight … Joe thinks that a woman aborting a potential child, a fetus (something with no autonomy, no consciousness, not even the ability to feel pain) is the same as a man (who faces none of the life- or health-endangering risks of pregnancy and birth) disowning an actual born child and declaring he wants nothing to do with it?
Dude, Joe, so much fail. I am not mocking circumcision — for the record, I am personally opposed to the practice. I am mocking the totally overblown hyperbole of the MRM on this subject in acting as though baby boys are being circumcised in order to make lady face creams, you nincompoop. You do realize that (a) the fibroblasts that are harvested are also used to grow new skin for burn victims, to cover diabetic ulcers, etc. and (b) fibroblasts can come from any source, it just happens that there are still lots of circumcisions, which makes this a good & reliable source for them.
They are medical waste at that point. Are you opposed to using HeLa cells lines for research too? Is it mockery of Henrietta Lacks to point out that those are used for good?
Now poster or GTFO.
Joe-Bob: @Pecunium – Please, spare me your crocodile tears over the “Needs of the children”.
You’re a feminist. So, no doubt you are pro-the-choice-of-abortion (me too! Something we agree on!).
If you’re not Pro-Choice? do come out as a Pro-Lifer here on this blog! I double dare ya!.
False Dichotomy. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean being anti-child.
It’s also a non-sequitur, so…
I’ll bet I’ve changed more diapers than you have, or ever will.
Certainly pro-choice is a fundamental plank of feminism.
Which means that you and feminism PUT THE NEEDS / WANTS OF WOMEN AHEAD OF THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD**. There is no more fundamental “need” than not-being-killed, in fact ALL other needs stand secondary to that.
Ah… that’s the bullshit argument you’re making. It doesn’t follow.
A blastocyst, a zygote, nor a fertus isn’t a person.
Even if they were, the fundamental difference of their parasitic relationship to the woman changes it.
And… I’m not against killing people. Sometimes it has to be done. I spent a career in the Army (it’s how I met, and messed with, the Duke of Westminster, but I digress). If something needs killing, you kill it. If it doesn’t you take care of it.
Perfectly consistent.
Given that: you have ZERO moral ground to stand on in attempting to deny men the EQUALITY* of putting their needs / wants ahead of the needs of the child.
Nope, see above the difference in situation. The fetus has a direct effect on the woman. The law also punishes her in ways it doesn’t punish a man who abandons a child. If he leaves the hospital, packs his bags and moves to the other side of the country, the woman then has to rear the child. If they weren’t married there is pretty much nothing she can do.
The fact of the matter is men can, with fair impunity do the fucked up thing you want to make legal.
*Actually a bit less than equality, men aren’t asking for the right to abort kids in the womb, just disown them.
This is, IMO, worse. The woman who can’t/doesn’t want a child aborts the fetus. That person never happens. It’s the same as the twins my mother miscarried. Never was a person.
You want to make it possible to abandon a living child. You would, in the name of your economic ease make that person’s life harder.
That’s not the same. Saying it is, and trying to make a moral equivalence is worse than hypocrisy; it’s intentionally making another person more likely to be miserable.
So, as “uncaring” as you might think my proposals for men’s choices are, they are still more compassionate than what is already permitted under the status quo in many so-called “advanced” Western nations,
Bullshit.
A lifetime more likely to be spent in poverty. A greater chance of a number of structural disadvantages is not the same as having a foreskin removed. Clitoral excision isn’t the same either. It’s possible that sex without a foreskin is “less pleasant”. It’s also true sex without a foreskin is lots of fun.
The second half of that statement is not true of FGM, in any of it’s guises.
And Joe… I’m not going to spare you anything. When you say stupid shit, I’ll call you on it.
If you can’t handle rational discourse, then it sucks to be you. You can attempt any amount of abuse, insult, random flapdoodles of bullshit you like. It’s not going to make any difference. I can take anything you can dish out. If you feel the need to amuse the commentariat here by hanging your ass out in public, go to town.
You’d be better served engaging in the Rational Argument you keep promising. It’s ok, I’m patient. If you need to get this out of your system first, I’ll wait.
Kitteh’s: No, you got part of Joe’s stance wrong. He doesn’t want men to have to declare they are abandoning the child.
That would be cruel, and unfair.
True, true, my bad!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Boobz humor – asinine Micro$oft Paint drawings.
Pathetic and vile, not a good combination. *snortle*
Aww, baby Steele learned a new word!
You’ve never actually looked at the crap MRM posters being parodied, I take it?
It’s not a child, it’s a fetus. Or an embryo or zygote, depending on the age. But it’s not a child.
But for the sake of argument, since I know you MRA dudes love a good thought experiment, let’s say that a fetus is the equivalent of me, an independently breathing adult person.
Do I have the right to use your body to keep myself alive against your will?
Does the government have the right to force your body to be used to keep me alive against your will?
Nope. Your right to control your own body is absolute. The government cannot forcibly use your body for anything against your will, not even if a life is at stake.
That’s the core issue of the abortion fight. Government taking control of a person’s body and using it against that person’s will “because a life is at stake.” That’s the reason why the forced birther people insist abortion is murder and all. A fetus is a person has a right to live therefore the government must act to protect its right to live.
But if a fetus has the right to live and that right to life supersedes my right to control my body, it does the same thing to you. So you may end up with the police coming to your house, dragging you to a hospital and taking one of your kidneys, or some bone marrow or blood, to give to some mangina or hypergamous slut who will die without it.
I don’t think you want that, pal.
I reject the idea that the government has the power or should be given the authority to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will and/or give birth against her will. It is my body. I make decisions about what it is used for and nobody else has any right to interfere with those decisions, especially not a government entity.
This is of course a horrifying idea probably for Joey and all the MRAs, since it encompasses bodily autonomy and a fundamental principle of consent that they find terrifying, so I doubt any of them will glom onto this argument, even the so-called libertarians.
Aww, baby Steele learned a new word!
Is that so, Anti-Anti-Manboobz? Go back to your asinine libelous hatesite.
And as usual, Steelepole misses the point.
Steele, please learn what libel actually is.
Why is it always the most egregious trolls that insist that regulars remove themselves from the comment threads of websites? I see this at Pharyngula frequently also.
Hellkell, I am aware that libel is written defamation (I was recently corrected, in fact and I admit, by Boobzers – I believed the term to be slander, which I now know refers to spoken defamation), and Anti-Anti-Manboobz, aka “katz” has spread falsehoods both implicit and explicit. Certainly, he or she is not alone in this respect – which is why you are all, to a one, vile bigots.
Steele, admit it, you’re just using the word ‘vile’ to please your audience here at this point.
Come on, I won’t tell anybody you broke kayfabe.
I’m Steele-ing this word.
Also, STEELE! Why are you never on at the same time as me? I miss you 🙁
Aww, he’s so proud of his new word that he used it again!
And yes, I freely concede that my story about circular blog references opening a gateway to Hell was a complete fabrication without the least basis in truth.
(also … ‘snortle’? that’s a pokemon, right?)