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!
WeeBoy: as far as I can tell, the MRM doesn’t care about children in actuality, they just like the idea of them as property to be used as pawns to control women.
@Cloudiah – Yes, the man should be able to “disown” at any time up to and including birth, BUT yeah there should be some financial kick IF HE KNEW from e.g. month 3 post conception but didn’t say “no way!” until e.g. month 8. That financial kick should get bigger if the rubicon of legal / safe abortion has been crossed / is as near as damnit about to be crossed.
If DNA paternity tests post birth* show the man is the biological father, and he suddenly decides to disown / waive his fatherhood at that point, again assuming he knew early on, then there should be some financial penalty payable directly to the mother for the care of the kid (i.e. child support) for e.g. the first five or six years or so (to the point the kid has been in school for one year, by which point the mother would have a better chance to earn, assuming she chose to keep the child rather than > adoption).
All this^ assumes the guy KNEW. If he was only told the day after the birth, that liability would be reduced, possibly to zero.
Like all laws, this would need some nuance and balance.
(*Of those men who get tested on average 30% find out the kid isn’t theirs)
:@Amused – your confusing The First Joe discussing the framing of a nuanced law with a hypothetical First Joe who apparently doesn’t give a fuck about kids. Don’t make unwarranted assumptions.
And no, fuck your apples and oranges. I refer you to my conversation with Cloudiah re. financial penalties for men trying to have it “both ways”.
Joe: who pays for all this enforcement?
@Weeboy – you should maybe read my discussion with Cloudiah.
And yes, women CAN abandon their kids, women can give their kids up for adoption and they can hand them over to state care if they feel they “cannot cope” – all those things already exist in all developed Western nations. Do pay attention, chap.
Joe, do stop being a patronizing git. Thanks ever so much.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x361/nowhereangel/avfmb.jpg
I gave it my best, I have no regrets.
@hellkell – these are practical modifications proposed within the context of the weird semi-socialist / corporate-bankster UK state that exists right now. We have something called “police” and “courts” paid for by the tax-payer. Whatever my libertarian ideals, those things are not going away, because most people in the UK want them.
Politics = compromise.
*Grabs broom, starts poking it at Joe like he’s a possum that got into the kitchen* “Shoo! Get outta here!”
@weeboy – small lol. I liked the Jetsons riff.
First Joe: I notice how you don’t address the distinct possibility of the father who “aborted” the child later telling that child the lie that it wasn’t what he wanted. Apparently, you don’t care about kids being hurt and families being destroyed by that.
Um, no they can’t. If they abandon the child, after a certain age (usually up to 2 weeks old) they can face charges for child abandonment. Adoption and the like usually hinges on the father having ALREADY fucked off and left, otherwise if he wants the child, and the mother doesn’t he’ll usually get it. Here there are a very few non-family adoptions, and they are all for cute white babies. Tough luck for an eight year old who’s brown, I guess.
And your discussion with Cloudiah has no relevance. Either actions have consequences for both parties (you can’t put the child back after it’s in the world FFS) or you’re just trying to say men should have their kids whenever they want to, but they can give them back if they don’t want to, and if they want to have an adult relationship with the child and any granddchildren that’s just dandy too.
Possums that get in the kitchen (or the racoons that have been fighting on my roof the past couple nights) are smarter, don’t ‘splain, and less annoying than Joe.
Hellkell: They are certainly less condescending.
That’s it! From now on, I’ll just imagine our trolls sounding like two racoons in a territorial dispute. Which is: yipyipyipARGHyipyipyip.
Hellkell, you don’t get possums like we get possums. I’s rather have an MRA in my kitchen. They’re much less likely to be possessed by satan and much more likely to die if I shoot them with a shotgun.*
*I’m not shooting anyone, I don’t own a shotgun, and you can blow the back leg off a possum and it’ll keep coming at you.
WeeBoy: Damn, those are some possums. The ones we get here in TX are pretty shy and take off as soon as they see you.
@Amused – err, yeah I did. It would be a matter of legal record. Otherwise the whole thing wouldn’t work. Duh.
@Weeboy – What are those penalties? Do they add up to 18 years? Women can and do abandon their kids, often to hospitals. Afaik they are rarely, if ever prosecuted.
Why do you have a problem with the father (in effect) adopting his own kid when the mother doesn’t want it?
No I’m not saying that. Obviously you failed to read my agreement with Cloudiah that there would be big financial penalties (i.e. child support back-dated) if a father tried to reverse his disownment. You also seem to fixated on the “abortion” in “paper abortion”. Substitute “disownment” see if you get it then.
As you ought to know, Joe, in the UK a woman who gives up a child for adoption indicates whether or not they would welcome contact from that child or not at the time they process the agreement.
The other thing you ought to know is that the reason a man was held legally responsible for the acts of his wife is the same reason he was legally responsible for the acts of his cow. She was his property and had no individual existence under law. It was called coverture and you can look it up.
The abuse statistics are one in seven victims of D V are men, while ninety seven percent of the perps are men. Given that one in seven statistic I do not think the fourteen percent who are men need forty percent of the facilities. I am not surprised that you do.
I do not even know what to say about your bizarre idea of men financially aborting their children when they are tired of them. Even disinheriting them is a complex process.
Now I am asking myself why I bothered. D00d is an inadequate troll.
Uncle Joe: 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.
No, they don’t, but the mother’s giving the babies up for adoption aren’t forcing anyone to rear the child; without support. The people who adopt are going into it eyes open; not being abandoned by the other parent because they don’t want to support the child.
@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.
Unless that person is a man, then he can “file a paper abortion” and leave the woman to pick up the entire tab.
Equality it ain’t.
@Pecunium – you literally have no idea how percentages work do you? Moron.
Um… no, I do.
If I live in a town of 1,000 people, and we have 2 murders, then we have a much higher rate of murder than if I live in a town of 1 million and there are 200.
Fewer murders, much higher rate.
Lets say the ratio of men to women is 10 to 1 (which is actually pretty close to the numbers I can find; for the US).
Of 10000 men, 1500 default.
Of 1000 women 250 default.
The relative rates will show women as being “much” more likely to default, even though the absolute numbers are a lot smaller.
It also means outside forces can easily skew the numbers. If women are paid less, as a rule they will have a harder time making payments. If they are fired soonest in the event of economic downturn it won’t take much to see a spike in the rates of default.
Which is the other failing in your logic. You don’t take the variables into account; not even in the portions you are relating (what with your pretense that percentages are always direct. Because what I want to see is the percentage of women who are completely able to pay child support who default as compared to men who are in the same circumstance.
As you say, one needs to compare apples to apples.
Get back to me when you have data.
@bewildered – it’s your assdata that’s inadaequate:
“Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Sorry to burst your bubble Bewildered but if there’s one thing the UK is ahead of the US on it’s the recognition of men victims of DV. Even gov’t-spokescreatures talk about it now.
WeeBoy: I’d rather have the ‘possum. When I shoot one them it’s pretty easy to dispose of the body.
If you are shooting them in the back leg, you are doing it wrong. 🙂
(I kept chickens, and when the ‘possums, or worse; raccoons, would cause the geese to hiss it was time to go out and shoot them. It’s not that hard).
Of course! I forgot the part where a woman defending herself by hitting back is considered a DV perp for statistical purposes and study popularization.