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!
If you’re in favor of that, you better damn well be in favor of higher taxes or some sort of subsidies to working mothers, because kids don’t raise themselves, as much as you fools would like them to.
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/capnben1/Untitled3.gif
The father can block a DNA test too. As happened with my flatmate. She knew the kid was his, he said no, but wouldn’t offer a DNA test to prove it.
@Pecunium – Bullshit, in reality who pays is not about who is the custodial parent: look up the stats on how often non-custodial women actually PAY their child-support to a custodial father. Also the stats on % of non-paying women who get imprisoned for that non-payment.
I’ll give you a clue, both percentages are much, much lower than vice versa.
Also, you accept the gendercidal maniacs of RadFem hub as feminists? And you still call yourself a feminist? That’s fucked up. You are in no position at all to talk down to me, asshole.
Because of various horrible things blatantly said by people calling themselves MRAs I specifically avoid applying that label to myself.
When I’m talking to people about e.g. supporting http://www.mankind.org.uk I don’t talk about MRA whatever, I talk about the ISSUE and what can positively be done to DO SOMETHING about it.
That’s what I’m about.
Sir Bodsworth, my eyes! Well played.
Like posting on Facebook and calling it activism?
Citation needed for that, first. But in any case, I would imagine that even a paternity test that is not admissible in court would be grounds for someone to insist on one that is admissible in court, if there is a legal dispute.
And surprise! I agree with you that (post-birth) the mother should not be able to deny the testing.
I am sure Joe1 will agree that is not reasonable. Fair’s fair!
Bodsy! Creative Writing Student! Huzzah! Yonkers!
@Cloudiah – I agree with your “in principle” statement.
@hellkell – No, not necessarily, I don’t see why people-in-general should pay to raise Mr. or Ms. X’s kid in particular. If Mr. or Ms. X choose to have a child they should work to pay for raising that child. People-in-general should be free to choose to spend their hard-earned money on their own families, or themselves.
I AM in favour of tax-subsidised FREE contraception (cheap) plus mandatory contraceptive education in schools (also cheap) AND I do support the current UK position on abortion law and the provision of such legal abortions by free-at-point-of-use tax-subsidised professional healthcare providers (NHS clinics in the UK). And I support adoption.
I would also support a massive ad campaign when the law changed that made it clear that contraception / abortion / adoption / pay-for-raising-your-kid-yourself were the only choices available. So everyone would know what the score was.
Under those circumstances, I think you’d find the number of “oops” babies would suddenly drop.
Creative Writing Student – me first! Me first! Isn’t that kitten the most adorbs? <3
I would only be in favor of that if the man doing the “financial abortion” was subject to a legally enforceable obligation NEVER to contact the child or induce the child to contact him, EVER, even after the child reaches majority. Because here is the thing about REAL abortion: it’s forever. You don’t get to unabort. You don’t get to hang out with and pass on your wisdom to a child that would have been had you not aborted. A financial abortion must have the same effect: the child must be as good as non-existing to the man who had aborted him, forever and for all time, with absolutely no legal recourse to reverse the procedure. As an incentive, to put teeth in the law, I would say that any man who violates this obligation, at any time, even when the child is over 50 or whatever, become immediately obligated for all past child support. Plus interest over however many years have passed. Deal?
I would also require the father to leave behind a video-recorded statement to the child, informing the child that the biological father wanted him aborted and would have preferred the child did not exist. That would discourage the child from contacting him.
Thing is, whenever I tell this to people who advocate for “financial abortion”, they balk. They say it’s “cruel”. They say men should be entitled to disown their children, while still having those children imagine that they have fathers who love them. They say grown-ups have the right to contact and form relationships with whoever they want. Which exposes their advocacy for what it is: an attempt to disclaim all the hardships of being a parent without giving up any of the benefits.
@cloudiah – Yeah we agree on a few things, and yes, in those circumstances a court should be able to (actually, I think most jurisdictions can) order the bloke to give a DNA sample directly at an approved DNA paternity testing lab.
N.B.: He should still have the ability to file for a “paper abortion” post facto if it turns out he is the dad.
Not to mention that it’s also about exercising control over the woman involved – imposing their wishes on her body (abort/not abort) and her future, but not contributing in any way. It’s punishing women they’re really interested in.
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/capnben1/Untitled.jpg
Joe – So when a parent dies, or loses their job, or gets very ill, or any of the million and one other things that could make raising a child, either on your own or with a partner… Who’s going to pay for the orphanages the kids need to be put into?
Uncle Joe: Bullshit. You imply, with your state enforced paternity tests, that some large quantity of women are having children and telling men who aren’t the fathers that they are.
Your percentages of non-payment aren’t relevant because the relative numbers screw the ratios. When the Duke of Westminster and I were having supper together the “Average” wealth of those of us in the mess was incredibly high. Didn’t mean I was rich, didn’t mean any of the rest of us were, because the Duke of Westminster is insanely rich (and a decent fellow, but I digress).
So, given the much smaller number of women paying child support, it doesn’t take as many defaulters to make the appearance of an overwhelming number who aren’t holding up there end.
And what you are about is railing about how hard it is for men. About how the Feminarchy is screwing men over. That and telling tales about how studly you are, what with the boats, and the independent living, and all. Thriving in the horrid world the women have made, just to spite them.
As if they care.
Joe – You can’t abort a kid after it’s been born, WTF?
@Amused – I agree that someone chosing a “finacial abortion” must waive all visitation rights. And certainly penalties must apply if they break that, and those penalties should be pretty high and should go to finance the kids upbringing / compensate the mother & kid, if the kid is grown.
The problem you run into is if the grown-up (enough) child decides to track down the father themselves. Punishing someone else (the legally non-father) for the actions of another persopn (the legally not-son / not-daughter) is fundamentally unjust. So, that would have to be accounted for in court.
The video concept is just cruel headfuckery. Yeah, like that’ll help the kid to grow up well balanced! Salt in the wound much? Fuck that.
Do they force mothers who abandon their babies or give them up for adoption to record “why I didn’t want you” videos? Oh, they don’t? Well, it’s obviously sexist bullshit then.
At any time? Even after it is too late for the woman to have an abortion? Even after the child is born? Because then you’re leaving the woman to make a decision without knowing the score, which you said earlier was one of your goals. Clarify?
Larger point, I’m a socialist, you’re I believe some flavor of libertarian, so we will probably never agree on some financial issues.
I suspect Joe might argue they should have made provisions for that. Me, I would say, the BIG BAD SOCIALIST STATE should pay. 😀
Off to dinner! I hope to see that Joe1 has made a poster by the time I’ve come back.
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/capnben1/Untitled2.jpg
You know, “fuck you, Jack, I got mine” might sound all sorts of above-it-all-libertarian cool on the internet, but as an actual social policy, it kind of fucking sucks.
Even as someone with no intention of ever having children, I realize that sometimes you just gotta pay for shit.
@Kitteh – Bullshit.
@Pecunium – you literally have no idea how percentages work do you? Moron.
@Weeboy – I am in favour of tax-funded orphanages, and tax-funded assistance to an official fostering / adoption agency, too.
No, not a literal “aborton” it’s a “paper abortion” = a waiving of all parental rights AND responsibilities (including financial).
Psst, Joe. You just showed that you have no comprehension of percentages. Oopsie.
Oh, spare me the righteous outrage. If you want the kid aborted and not existing in the first place, what the fuck do you care whether or not he will grow up well-balanced? As the aborting party, it’s none of your concern. In any event, at some point, the has to know the truth, and better he learn it from the horse’s mouth. That way, there is no possibility of a far worse headfuckery: the man who “aborted” the kid later telling him it was all the mother’s idea and her fault.,
Adoptions and abandonment are legally sealed, so the mother has no way to track down those children, at least no without breaking the law. In he case of your financial abortion, the man would always have the opportunity to track down the child, knowing the identity of the mother. Apples and oranges, then.
Oh, so you want men to have to bear no consequences of their actions, knowing that if they had sex they could father a child. Why couldn’t the sluts just keep it in their pants?
Can women do this too? Just go “hey, you know, this whole parenting thing is a tough gig, I’m just going to leave the kid on the kerb somewhere, I’m sure someone will pick him up.”
You seem weirdly invested in making sure that men never have to deal with their children for someone who complains that men never get custody in divorces.
… Really, I think the most sensible option in your little world would be to have all children raised by the state. Then fathers will never have to worry about their children!