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!
Meh, he’s just obeying the troll rules: No troll is ever allowed to disagree with any other troll.
I know it upsets you not to be able to pull off a good one-liner, but throwing a tantrum about it won’t help.
(If, as it were, the one liner wasn’t a two-liner, in a manner of speaking;vile.)
Excuse me? Rank bullshit. I disagreed with NWOslave’s more questionable opinions when they were pointed out to me; and I disagree with them now. This does not invalidate the good he has said, of which there is indeed some.
Steelybutt, you might want to take down your old blog before you start claiming stuff.
Steele, what good has NWO said? I’ll wait, I know research and facts aren’t really in your wheelhouse.
How do you define “feminism”, “evil”, and “misandry” in this context?
Steele is like a pet cat who hates me. He likes to stalk away indignantly after I tease him with my Misandry Laser Pointer™.
TROLL OF THE YEAR.
FYI, you just said (might have been in another thread) that you enjoyed Paul Male’s work, and he’s pretty extremist and gets showcased here regularly.
Steele, when was the last time you were physically affectionate with someone?
Whatever happened to NWO anyway?
I think it’d be funny to take over the Hypocrite Feminist meme with things that are Consistent Feminist, such as:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3rzqb1/
@drst – so sorry to burst your bubble, it’s not fear – I just haven’t noticed you! you’ve obviously not said anything sufficiently interesting / different to distinguish you from the crowd.
@Nepenthe – I’m actually acquainted with a fair number of differently-abled people. I don’t know any of them super well, but they do seem to get quite a bit of joy out of life – judging by their particpation in various activities (especially some of the lads with Down’s syndrome) – so I base my assessment on that. It’s not an arbitrary political-position-of-convenience.
I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way. I don’t know anything about your personal situation, but I do know what it feels like to fight the urge to suicide and (at times) to wish for death: if it’s anything like that dark place, at all – you have my sympathy.
@Steele – don’t be surprised when Boobzers get selective memory failure. An prevailing meme here is that all MRAs must be the same.
I’ve had to remind one poster over and over again about MY very strong disgreements with Tom Martin on this very blog.
Whatever you actually say tends to get washed down the memory hole and replaced with a convenient Boobzer reconstrution.
clairedammit: I figured after the election, NWO would be in his bunker counting his ammo and canned goods. But he’s been pestering other feminist sites.
Joe: funny, it’s usually trolls like you and Steele who have goldfish memories and think every thread is a fresh start.
While I know it’s fun to bash MRAs as a whole, it might be beneficial to keep track of which MRA posters here follow which ideas.
Joey, you noodle, you’ve responded directly to at least two things I’ve posted without naming me. See, this is a blog. And everything you’ve posted here is still here. Anyone can scroll back and see it. You may want to review what you’ve said, because you’ve clearly been avoiding me while trying to sneak in refutations (which have all been useless, btw) without drawing attention. Whoops!
Steele – I’m begging you for the love of all that is holy, find a different word than “vile.” Just for variety. Especially since you keep pairing it with “disgusting” which is a freaking synonym for “vile.” THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF WORDS FOR UNPLEASANT THINGS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMBRACE THEM!
@Everyone arguing that “if there is no experience of suffering, then there is no person / no harm is done by killing them.” I think there are a number of fundamental flaws in your argument:
1) You CANNOT prove a negative. You can’t PROVE there is no suffering experienced by:
– an unborn child being aborted
– or a coma patient or an elderly cancer patient on heavy sedation with their drips removed so they basically die of thirst ( look up something called the “Liverpool Care Pathway”).
2) We know that humans who can speak who are effectively dismembered (as in later abortions) / or who are dying of thirst DO express suffering. Therefore it is more probable that suffering is experienced in those situations than not.
3) Even some heavily brain damaged individuals may still express suffering in response to pain stimuli.
4) Your argument boils down to two defining points for “personhood”:
First: “I know pain, therefore I am”. This is easily disproven: Some people are born with a condition where they cannot feel pain (CIP, very dangerous), they are as evidently concious and human as anyone else.
Second: “I know / experience, therefore I am”. Again, you CANNOT prove the unborn child does not experience. We DO know that the unborn experiences auditory stimuli around the 20th week at the latest.
So, basically you are working from a CHOSEN position of blissful ignorance.
You lack grounds for certainty re. unborn suffering or not, so you CHOOSE to assume the unborn does not suffer.
You lack grounds for certainty re. unborn perception / thought, so you CHOOSE to assume the unborn does not perceive / think.
You CHOOSE this position because: these beliefs are comfortable to you in your Pro-Choice stance. It suits you, because it spare you having to acknowledge what abortion (might very well) mean from the POV of the unborn. And you CHOOSE this position, because the unborn is utterly powerless and voiceless and so cannot oppose you.
I’m Pro-choice, because: maintaining body autonomy / sovereignty is better than the alternatives, but I at least acknowledge that may mean (especially late term) abortions are actually killing unborn babies.
You shout down that possibility, because you fear it may be true, and it allows you to maintain a pose of unstained righteousness that it convenient in constraining others from excercising much LESS harmful rights over the unborn (the “paper abortion / disownment”).
Actually PHI 103 says you can prove a negative, but whatever.
@whatabouthemoonz – a radical suggestion, I do hope it catches on.
@drst – oh, get the fuck over yourself already!
Seriously, I speed scan the hundreds of posts here and respond to the ISSUES raised that catch my eye / seem relevant. A few posters I remember from their avatar or style, so I @them.
I really don’t give a tiny crap about your ego. NEWSFLASH: IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!
You’re just bland and forgettable, obviously. Deal with it.
Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia, in case anyone wants to learn more: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/
Basically you can prove a universal negative if you show a particular affirmative to be logically absurd, and you can prove a particular negative if you show a universal affirmative to be logically absurd.
Such a tempest in a teacup this guy is. Joe, are you this repellent offline?
@whataboutthemoonz – oh, wait, you’re right re. negatives! my bad! I’m overtired
It’s not that the “removed-from-all-suffering-and-perception-fetus” is a negative.
It’s that it falls under the “Improbable” category, which throws the burden of proof back on those asserting it.
See Dawkins various arguments with faithers, examples including the “Blue Mouse Hidden In The House Somewhere (you just haven’t found it yet)” and the “Orbiting Teapot (you just haven’t found it yet)” as analogies for god.
Right, I really need to sleep now.
NOOOO DON’T MENTION DAWKINS WE JUST HAD THIS CONVERSATION
tl;dr does Joe eat meat like beef and lamb? Because his harm argument works better for ante natal animals than for embryos/fetuses.
Differently-abled? Aww jeez, someone get me a fucking bucket.
My position on Joe is:
From now on he has to produce all of his arguments as Microsoft Paint (or some similar free program) posters, or he’s banned. David can take that under advisement.
I may be just the tiniest bit tipsy. XD
“I may be just the tiniest bit tipsy. XD”
Bartender! Whatever it is, I want it! 😀