MRAs can now shampoo away the grey in their neckbeards in just five minutes with Just For Men’s Rights Activists special neckbeard formula gel! Now with a new, angrier formula!
I found this faux trading card on Reddit’s AgainstMensRights subreddit, which is devoted to skewering the MensRights subreddit. The OP says his girlfriend got it at an art show, but alas I do not know where that show was or from whom she got it.
Click on the pic for a bigger version, in which you can see that this formula comes in Fedora Brown, and was “voted best for neckbeards by a panel of elder misogynists.”
Ironically, the beards depicted on real Just for Men boxes aren’t much more believable than the one on the parody box.
Also ironically, I am sporting a bit of a neckbeard today. No bulging veins in my forehead, though.
I think I should rewatch 500 days of summer because it’s been too long for me to accurately analyze it. I remember watching it and thinking, “WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUMMER? THAT’S JGL! WHO WOULD LEAVE JGL?!” haha, so the fact that I find the guy incredibly attractive clouded my judgement a bit. I think part of the reason I sympathized with his character was because the movie didn’t really give any particular reason for her to suddenly lose interest. But as I become more versed in feminism I realize that she doesn’t need a reason. Her lack of attraction to him is the only reason she needs.
I did find the expectations vs reality bit to be very relateable though. I feel like we’ve all been there.
OT but I just found a new perfect example of scary entitlement in the wild! Well, on the Dr Nerdlove blog.
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/01/dr-nerdlove-paying/#IDComment553237537
Gakk. What a pair of creeps.
Cassandra: Jesus, what is it with these guys? Sex won’t help them (they do seem to see it as a magical cure-all), but a year or so of therapy might.
That McGee guy just gets worse and worse the more comments you read. He’s a classic onion of misogyny.
And the VERY FIRST comment is about “involuntary celibacy” and how sex really really is a neeeeeed or so close it makes no difference for guys … fuck, did these morons even read the article?
And the letter writer: “A 23 year long dry spell is difficult to deal with.” He’s 23 years old and has been thinking about not getting sex since he was born? And he sounds like GGG’s little brother, all the stuff about suicide and misogyny and blah blah blah that people are responding to.
That McGee sounds like a douchebag with nothing to offer who’s offended that women aren’t all over him. I love Dr Nerdlove’s response to his “sucks to be a guy” comment:
“Mmmn, no I’d say it sucks to be *you*. You’ve limited yourself to a very narrow range of what you want from women, who you want it from and where you can go to find it, and you’re not terribly happy when you find it. Like I always say “Sometimes the only common denominator is *you*”. It rather applies here.”
I didn’t dig 500 Days of Summer; it really seemed like a classic Nice Guy tract. He’s so nice; how come she can’t see how nice he is and like him? After that I made Doad promise not to bring home any more whiny-emo-dude movies (he already owns Garden State and The Last Kiss). I promised in return not to bring home any more movies about killer talking dogs.
Totaly OT but for anyone who likes guys with long curls, I just saw this beautiful young man while searching a stock photo site:
http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/photo/portrait-of-a-man-high-res-stock-photography/94781279
More McGee. It’s like GGG metastasized into multiple whiny creeps, and they’re everywhere.
By the way, same guy said earlier in the conversation that if men could get as much sex as they wanted then there would be very few relationships. Consistency, what’s that?
I read that, and later he has NO idea what’s going on when he’s shown the sort of crap women get. Because he thinks we don’t, and of course he knows better ’cause he’s a dude. Or in his case, dud.
Congrats, Falconer & Co! Wow, a two for one deal! 😯
The Asshole(tm) !
Btw, as I began writing about Star Trek relationships I realized where all the hatred for the Seven/Chakotay relationship comes from. That sort of puzzled me and husband, who thought that they were an okay pairing, but loads of fans were like “That totally came out of NOWHERE!” Um, well, for most of the show they weren’t in love and then they became a couple… but that’s not unique for them, and it’s weird to propose some rule according to which characters can’t end up together if there hasn’t been build-up to that point throughout the entire series.
BUT I guess the real problem is this:
Seven and the Doctor were really good friends. The Doctor helped the socially incompetent Seven learning how to behave around people, including how to go on a date. In the process of dating lessons the Doctor realized he was in love with Seven, while Seven realized she thought dating was stupid, and announced to the Doctor that “it’s much better to just be friends, like you and me” or something to that effect (we did feel sorry for the Doctor at that point).
Later in the show, when Seven changes her mind about that whole dating thing, she hooks up with a completely DIFFERENT guy. They become happy together, and the Doctor remains single. End of story!
And I guess, in many people’s eyes,,, that’s just not how it’s SUPPOSED to go!
Dvärghundspossen! Just the person I needed!
Philosophy help please? I just got this from a consequencalist:
“Also, absolute numbers are still very often more important than risk. For example: if Group A comprises 1,000 people, and there is a 10% annual murder rate for that group, after a year 100 people will have died. If Group B comprises 100,000 people, and there is a 1% annual murder rate for that group, after a year 1,000 people will have died. That makes the problem of murder 10 times worse for Group B than for Group A.”
Right along with how I can’t be emotionally involved, gotta be objective. But I don’t want to explain why on that point, lest it basis you. I have far more respect for your philosophy knowledge than his, so help me out here please?
Um, sorry for that derail. I was just reading that email, thinking “I hope Dvärghundspossen is around” and here you are!
I don’t know much about philosophy, but I know that argument is pretty crap. All it says is this person doesn’t understand probability.
The absolute number to be concerned with is the 1% chance that any individual will be murdered. And while the amount of murder in the bigger group might be 10 times as many people, they’ve also got 100 times as many resources to throw at the problem (assuming for the thought experiment that the groups are the same other than size).
For another minor derail: just watched Midsomer Murders. At the end, Jones asks Barnaby if he’s coming to a party. Barnaby says, “No, Sarah and I thought we’d have a quiet one, just us and a scented candle.”
OH NOES MISANDRY HAS COME TO MIDSOMER
Thank you Kim! FTR, the groups in this trout experiment are 1) not equal otherwise, the smaller group is disadvantaged in other ways and 2) it isn’t merely a thought experiment for me, or many of us here, hence the silence on the actual topic.
3) he readily admitted he needs to take a statistics course, hopefully that means he’ll STFU and trust my math
Also, I’m a drunk Argenti, I goes to bed now!
Trout experiment! I wonder if trout can survive colder temps better than loaches! (They can)
I meant thought experiment >.<
Also, autocorrect wants to make >.klt into >kilt XD
That CmE dude in the Nerdlove thread is a prize pig too.
When consequentialists say “worse”, they mean something like “brought more moral badness into the universe”. And well, if everything else is equal, then 1000 murders bring more moral badness to the universe than 100 murders, so in that respect, the murders of group B are worse than the murders of group A.
Because of the above, it’s rational from a consequentialist standpoint to eradicate murder in group B rather than in group A if you were somehow in a position to choose between these two options.
It ‘s still weird though to say that the murders of group B are worse FOR GROUP B than the murders of group A are for group A. It’s clearly the case that an individual member of group A runs a greater risk of being murdered, or having a friend or family member murdered, than a member of group B does. So even if you accept that the murders of group B are worse overall/all-things-considered/for the world than the murders of group A, it’s hard to see how the murders of group B could possibly be worse FOR GROUP B than the murders of group A are for group A.
@kittehs: If way more men than women are murdered in Midsomer, I’d say it was already there!!
Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a great piece on what it is actually like to live with a high murderer rate and how it changes you. (I will see if I can find it) So, I would argue that in terms of absolute badness, it is still a judgement call. The high murderer rate in Group A brings badness into the lives of all 1000 people and all the people the 900 living people interact with. That seems to be like it might even be a larger number than the 1000 dead and the effect of their loved ones and acquaintances. At the very least, we aren’t dealing with 10x as bad anymore.
I don’t think this is the one I was thinking of (I remember a stand-alone post, but can’t find it), but he talks a bit about it here:
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/the-social-trends-driving-american-gangs-and-gun-violence/273170/