So: many if not most of you have probably heard about the whole #INeedMasculismBecause thing. For those who aren’t: a bunch of Men’s Rights Redditors and other MRAs, inspired by a post on 4Chan, decided to swarm Twitter with #INeedMasculismBecause tweets in response to the #INeedFeminismBecause hashtag. Feminists responded by outswarming the MRAs, flooding their new hashtag with often quite hilarious parodies of MRAspeak, as well as some just plain ridiculousness.
Today, on r/mensrights, MRAs are surveying the damage in a host of different threads, with some plaintively wondering “why is everyone so hostile towards the idea of men having issues,” and others claiming that the hashtag really “started as a caricature of Men’s Rights, in order to lure out the real life caricatures of Radical Feminism.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Jezebel has already chronicled some of the funniest parody tweets. And I was thinking of doing the same. I mean, these are pretty good:
Ok, that last one was just a dumb joke about someone ordering a watermelon-flavored drink. I “favorite” a lot of things.
Anyway, catching up on the whole thing last night, I found myself thinking that the parody comments – as funny as some of them were – couldn’t really compete with the loopiness of the real MRA tweets.
So here are some #INeedMasculismBecause tweets by some of my new favorite Twitter MRAs. (I only started going through these really late last night, so a lot of my examples come from the Indian MRAs who were posting prolifically at the time.)
Let’s start with Average Man, who opened a new Twitter account just for the occasion:
Uh, maybe they gave you “less marks” because you don’t know the difference between “less” and “lower.”
Alexander shared these somewhat perplexing thoughts:
The prolific SaveIndianFamilyNGO had all sorts of interesting opinions:
I found myself often perplexed by wnnbl, but I don’t think his troubles with English were the main problem:
I assume these last two are jokes, but honestly, who knows?
I have no idea what Virag was going on about with these tweets:
But this one at least was pretty clear:
Atit seems to have a rather strange idea of what “equality for men” means:
Warrior for Justice also doesn’t seem to like women very much:
Martin Clausen ramped up his largely dormant Twitter account to post these gems:
I don’t quite know what to make of Jackson here, but he seems to be a real MRA.
This is just a theory, but maybe women look at you strangely when you pick up your kids because of that uncontrollable boner you mentioned earlier?
MRAs show once again that they’re beyond parody — or at least indistinguishable from it.
My cats poo concentrated evil. Just sayin’.
@Shadow: The new house is swimming. In backed-up sinkwater. In case you haven’t seen my plaint on the Love Tubes thread.
@Falconer My cats poo was awful smelling and our vet said it was likely because she kept eating poisonous insects: bees, spiders and the like.
Concentrated evil definitely descrbes Fribbie’s poos. The stench permeates the house in about .000000000000001 seconds.
Thanks for the link Howard, that’s an interesting study, in particular the findings related to the ways in which people make refusals without actually using the word “no”. It reminded me of some batshit post on AVFM (I think- I’m not looking it up) about “the power of rejection”, which tried to argue that “rejection is a powerful tool used by women against men”. It seems that if a woman gives a man an unambiguous rejection like “No I won’t sleep with you, fuck off and leave me alone you creep” that’s MISANDRY because it’s harsh and cruel, but if a woman tries to let a man down gently that’s also MISANDRY because she’s subjecting them to womankind’s evil and confusingly ambiguous “signals”. In short, women can’t win, just as in any other situation MRAs care to imagine.
I also thought rejection was simply something people did when they didn’t fancy a person, among a million other reasons which have nothing to do with MISANDRY. The last time I rejected a guy was a few weeks ago, and one reason for this was the fact that I already have a boyfriend. What was I supposed to do- saying “no” to this guy was MISANDRY, but cheating on my boyfriend with him would also have been MISANDRY… again, us women can’t win.
Seriously, the MRAs need to get over the idea that a rejection is a calculated personal attack or a crime against teh menz, and to get over themselves. Likewise, Average Man needs to get over his idea that 3.5 billion people should care so much about his boner- I for one have many concerns which are more important than the happiness of his boner.
Arrrgghhh, brain bleach needed… so now I’m imagining Fribbie and picturing something which looks (and poos) like this:
http://www.tomopop.com/ul/26895-header.jpg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH is that an Infant Penguin Whore from Hell?
Here’s Fribbie using her Laser Eyes of Death. Which aren’t quite as bad as her Rotten Egg Farts, but she saves those for when she’s on my lap ::gag::
It’s Nibbler from Futurama. He poops dark matter.
@The Kittehs’
Nibbler is basically a member of a highly intelligent alien species, a species an awful lot like earth kitties – very, very adorable with lots of cuddling and purring and kneading – and who shit rocket fuel. I think you would like Nibbler a lot. 🙂
Dark Matter, to be specific
OMG we always used to say Mr Hadji had rocket fuel on board when he was tearing around the house prior to doing a poo. He only ate raw red meat so his poos were BLACK.
😀 😀 😀
#INeedMasculismBecause It is a natural part of what I was born to be, not a mental illness. And it is something that I can draw streangth from. It was a prime example of how just saying that your proud to be a masculin creature can get you jumped by man-hating douchbags on twitter. Sorry to burst your Hello kitty bubble, Dickwad David, but the tweet did exactly what it was ment to do. Flawless victory……..Fatality. 🙂
LOL @ jonatma
What victory? What is is that, “masculism” gets you that just being a human being doesn’t?
I am a “masculine creature” I’m something of a stereotype of the genre. I’ve done pizza delivery, security work (armed and unarmed), a career in the Army; with a combat tour, a machinist. I’ve done judo, boxing, fencing, archery, competitive shooting and aikido. I ride horses, camp, climb rocks.
I’m also straight.
And a feminist.
#INeedMasculismBecause 140 characters is too long to capture an MRA “thought”.
LOL at jonnyboy who thinks anyone’s calling masculinity a mental illness. Oh, wait, he said he needs to be a masculin, whatever that is. Maybe he’s thinking of mescaline. It might explain some of his posts.
https://twitter.com/Mens_Equality is keeping this hash tag alive by ordering people to lead him to examples of whatever he thinks doesn’t happen (movies that take prison rape seriously, programs that advocate for those raped in prison, examples of MRAs advocating violence and rape) and then moving the goal post every time someone points one out. This dude is on a whole ‘nother level.
I suspect one can find just as many bad quotes from liberals, from conservatives, from libertarians and from feminists.
Even Freethought Blogs has its fair share of idiotic posts, and I respect many of the members there. Heck, even people on the JREF forum sometimes say something stupid from time to time.
It doesn’t change legitimate MRA arguments like how women get child custody by default and how some countries police forces assume men are guilty on arrival if women report domestic abuse (arrests without proof).
It doesn’t change those arguments because those arguments are nonsense.
So, WaroftheNerd, if you reported an assault under way, would you expect the police to not bother turning up, or not arresting the assailant, because you didn’t have “proof”? That’s not how arrest works, and what you’re saying is that women should be visibly, seriously injured, or dead, before police act.
Go fuck yourself with a Lego.
Women are still the primary caregivers in most marriages. Why the hell wouldn’t the courts give custody to them (although as it’s been pointed out many times, men who bother to apply for it have a 50-50 chance of getting it). MRAs aren’t interested in custody, they’re interested in ownership and punishment – ownership of children they’ve frequently paid no attention to, or actively abused, and punishment of the woman-property who’s dared to leave them. The same guys don’t want to pay anything toward their child’s upkeep, so don’t trot out the “oh noes poor fathers” line here.
Go fuck yourself with an even bigger Lego.
[QUOTE] “That’s not how arrest works, and what you’re saying is that women should be visibly, seriously injured, or dead, before police act.” [/QUOTE]
With the notable exception of the United Kingdom, most other countries require witnesses or a minimum burden of proof in order to make an arrest. The police cannot just arrest someone because another person has claimed they were assaulted without witnesses, threatening behaviour at the scene or what is considered to be reasonable suspicion (the burden of which is pretty much the opinion of the officer in practice in the UK).
This link describes the problems I have with domestic violence arrests from a feminist perspective: http://justicewomen.com/tips_dv_victims.html
Notice how this argument is presented by both MRAs and feminists; bad policing causes the same problem for both women and men. Arrests should occur with proof, if a man/woman is attacked in the home, the police should ensure her safety by taking her to a safe place – mens and womens shelters exist for this very reason.
How is it any less valid if someone with the label of “MRA” makes it than if a feminist makes it? Violent, manipulative people are awful, regardless of sex.
[QUOTE] “Go fuck yourself with a Lego.”[/QUOTE]
I prefer duplo. It’s much bigger and the ridges are deeper 😉
[QUOTE] “Women are still the primary caregivers in most marriages.” [/QUOTE]
How is it determined the woman is the primary caregiver in most marriages? How is this not simply assumed by the system due to historical [patriarchal?] gender-roles? (also, got any stats on recorded primary caregivers in marriages? it would be good for arguments with sexists).
In reality, there should be no default at all, deciding custody of children should be factored into the divorce system as standard, so those men who you rightly describe as not wanting to pay for their child’s upkeep can simply not apply for custody (and then lose their right to the “oh noes poor fathers” sympathy).
[QUOTE] “MRAs aren’t interested in custody, they’re interested in ownership and punishment – ownership of children they’ve frequently paid no attention to, or actively abused, and punishment of the woman-property who’s dared to leave them.” [/QUOTE]
To avoid abuse of the currently flawed [patriarchal?] system, child benefits and child maintenance should also directly be paid as credit towards resources for the child, thus eliminating any argument of either women or men making use of government/ex-partner’s resources. As much as I hate conservative politics, it would likely solve this problem.
[QUOTE] “Go fuck yourself with an even bigger Lego.” [/QUOTE]
Duplo! Best advice ever 🙂
War of the Nerd, there are many feminists concerned with both of those issues.
It is true that women are typically the primary caregivers, and, as a feminist woman, that is something I take issue with. It’s all to do with the patriarchy, and with the mother-myth, and, yes, a society where either partner is likely to be the primary caregiver, where the decision of who keeps custody is based on something other than gender, would be a great step towards sexual equality.
I disagree with the idea that someone should not be arrested for domestic violence due to lack of witnesses. Most domestic abusers are very good at ensuring that their victim is cut off from friends and family.
That said, there is a common trend of seeing women as harmless, and lacking in power. Take My Super Ex-Girlfriend, for example. It’s a comedy because it’s female-on-male domestic abuse, and that’s disgusting. Although more women than men are likely to be victims of domestic violence, pretending that women are incapable of it is patronising towards women and dangerous to wards male victims.
Did someone request statistics? Give me a bit, this requires a proper keyboard and some research!
Go for it, Argenti. I’m heartily tired of Martyn’s little bubble world of ignoring how heavily tilted our society is toward men.
First, my apologies for the amount of this data that’s US data, it’s the sources i know how to use. Comparable data is listed where I could find it without giving myself a headache.
Onto the math!
In the US 40~50% of marriages end in divorce, of these, 95% are uncontested (the involved parties can reach an agreement without going to court). In Australia it’s about a third of marriages. (citation)
In England and Wales 42% of marriages end in divorce. (citation)
In the US, in 1988 (newer data is eluding me), approximately half of divorces involved children (PDF citation)
As for women being the primary caregivers, it isn’t supposed to be a direct factor in child custody. The standard, in the US, is supposed to be what’s in the best interests of the child(ren).
In practice, yes, the primary caregiver is more likely to get custody, but see, for example, point 3 — the effect of change is a factor.
Also, only 33% of fathers even want sole custody (citation)
Trying to get a good citation for the widely cited “50% of father who petition for custody get it” is giving me a headache. So we’ll go with the best I can find, with the caveat this isn’t exactly a scientific source — http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/
Ignoring the caregiver issue, since it’s only one of many factors in determining custody and not really all that relevant math wise —
Of marriages ending in divorce where children are involved, in the US, only 33% of fathers even want sole custody. If 50% of them get it, that’s 16.5% (of divorces involving children) ending with the father having sole custody.
Meanwhile, parents agree to Joint Legal/Wife Physical custody ~70% of the time, and get awarded it in court at about equal rates.
So then, assuming a man marries (heterosexual marriage, in the US), there’s a 50% chance it will end in marriage, and around a 25% chance there will be children involved (50% of 50%). Of those cases, 95% get decided outside of court, leaving just over 1% of married American men ending up involved in a child custody court case. Of those, only 33% want sole custody, which means about 0.33% of American men even petition courts for sole custody. And half of them get it — which is how the father’s rights movement ends up screaming about how only 0.165% of fathers are awarded custody by the courts.
Well yeah, but let’s just ignore that only a third even want sole custody, and that ninety-fucking-five percent of cases are settled out of court. That’s viable statistical analysis! /sarcasm
FTR, only about half of American marry in the first place. Oh and among men who put a condom on? The rate of failure is 15%.
Too many links, I got mod-queued!
Couldn’t find a good summary on caregiver rates by gender — too many factors in the definition. But yes, by and large women do things like make lunch, attend sport events, take the sick day when the kid(s) stays home, etc.
Not even going to look for a citation saying that men are still seen as going above and beyond when they change diapers, or even just take their kid(s) to the park. Anyone living in that much of a bubble needs to go outside, not read math.
It’s ok, Argenti Aertheri, ‘cos MarchHare has already demonstrated a complete inability to understand statistics. He’s going to struggle with any numbers you show him.
And
1. No, that’s not why shelters exist.
2. Yep, that’s fair, remove the victim from their home and leave the attacker in possession of it. /sarcasm