Categories
"proxy violence" douchebaggery dozens of upvotes evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA not-quite-explicit threats reddit

Killing an ex-wife: A Men’s Right?

Evidently it is, at least according to these Men’s Rights Redditors and the people who upvoted them:

MRcontractkilling

Oh, I know, they were JOKING. Pretty hilarious joke there, fellas!

I’ve got a few more based on the same formula:

How many [insert name of group you don’t like] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

It only takes one to “accidentally” electrocute themselves doing this routine household chore, if you catch my drift, nudge nudge.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

I don’t know but it would be a shame if he didn’t make it all the way across if you know what I mean.

Knock knock

Who’s there?

It would be a shame if the person you let in the door were to murder your family, hint hint.

Yeah, those really aren’t jokes, per se, are they?

Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely little Men’s Rights subreddit exchange.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

154 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cthulhu's Intern
8 years ago

@opium4themasses: It’s probably just because you searched for that. It isn’t like that for any computer I use.

At this point it seems that MRAs are looking for any excuse to advocate violence against women. When did (NON-STRAW!) feminists ever say that violence against men was alright?

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
8 years ago

@Diogenes It is surprisingly common, but insurance companies don’t live off valuing human lives. They live off investments and manage the risk someone will pass away. They certainly don’t encourage killing.

MarciLannister
MarciLannister
8 years ago

Chie Satonaka: Hey there fellow Wisconsinite! 😀

Cthulhu's Intern
8 years ago

I thought Diogenes was banned. Was he just too busy trying to talk to the NSA about the Voynich Manuscript while they kept trying to explain while exasperated that they deal with terrorism?

LeShiggedyDiggedy
LeShiggedyDiggedy
8 years ago

Their “jokes” are what leads unstable people to commit actual murder.

Oh, and just when you think those slimebags can’t go any lower, this happens:

http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1g22ds/not_having_enough_of_accusing_women_as_false/

Accusing a 11 YEAR OLD as false accuser of rape. Solely because she told the police 3 days after the rape happened.
As long as you are a female, you are a liar.

MRAs are the worst. How is r/mensrights not shut down yet? (Not that it would make any difference anyway, they’ll must make another subreddit. They spread like cancer: you kill one cell, many others grow)

Dvärghundspossen
8 years ago

The same dude who thinks that marital rape isn’t really rape because tacit consent.

I just saw… what you might call the other side of this idea. I read “the dwarf” by Per Lagerkvist, which was written in the 1940:s, and takes place in the renaissance. There’s this princess who has secret meetings with a prince from the enemy people, and they have sex. As it’s described, it seems completely consensual. Later on, however, it’s referred to as rape. My best guess is that it would count as rape because it’s her father, not her, that owns her body, and he didn’t consent to her sleeping with the enemy.

auggziliary
auggziliary
8 years ago

Jesus Christ I’m so sick of these assholes… They’re disgusting. Completely. Fuck I should not be reading this when I’m so stressed out.

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
8 years ago

I seriously wonder how many MRAs are actually divorced fathers. I have a feeling most men in those situations are perfectly fine with their lives and not so obsessed with hating women as these sick fucks,

Kittehserf
8 years ago

I wonder how many MRAs have had any sort of LTR at all.

LeShiggedyDiggedy
LeShiggedyDiggedy
8 years ago

@Crumbelievable:
MRAs prey upon divorced fathers with real problems, brainwash them with misogynist/anti-feminist propaganda and use them as tools to spread their poisonous ideology. That’s how they “convert” them.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

@MaudeLL

Well, I guess for those guys it went down to $4,000. Because you know, rape = theft and killing a woman = getting your money back.

What? It’s just a funny joke people! Geez, feminists have no sense of humour.

I’m secretly disappointed that no troll strolled in to say that while I was sleeping*, because I really wanted to ask: what makes this joke funny? What’s the part we’re supposed to laugh at? Be that person everybody hates, hypothetical troll, and explain the joke!

*It’s still the middle of the night here, but I had one of those horrifying nightmares where you really can’t go straight back to sleep. Thank goodness for Man Boobz. Now I’m going back to sleep XD good night everyone.

historophilia
historophilia
8 years ago

Fuck off to the end of the earth Black Fedora. What exactly do you get from making sick jokes on a thread where people are clearly very upset BECAUSE YOUR SICK MRA FUCKS ARE WORKING THEMSELVES UP INTO A FRENZY AT THE THOUGHT OF KILLING A WOMAN.

scarlettpipstrelle
8 years ago

I don’t understand the MRA obsession with alimony. In my state, and most states nowadays, only temporary – usually pendante lite or short term – alimony is ever awarded. Alimony for life? Forget it! And the notion that he couldn’t change jobs? How on earth would they enforce that? How could they? This economy would end such an arrangement for him. This is another example of pure MRA fantasy. Though I hate to use the word “pure” where MRAs are concerned.

Chie Satonaka
Chie Satonaka
8 years ago

And the notion that he couldn’t change jobs? How on earth would they enforce that? How could they?

That’s why I think this guy is full of shit.

AK
AK
8 years ago

From the divorce laws melody posted;

An award of permanent alimony terminates upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the party receiving alimony.

So he’s an ardent supporter of gay marriage then, right? After all, there’s a good chance that he wouldn’t have to pay alimony for life if his ex-wife could get married, but since she’s a lesbian she can’t.

Yet somehow I doubt he’s out there campaigning for marriage equality or even necessarily supporting it…

scarlettpipstrelle:

I don’t understand the MRA obsession with alimony. In my state, and most states nowadays, only temporary – usually pendante lite or short term – alimony is ever awarded. Alimony for life? Forget it! And the notion that he couldn’t change jobs? How on earth would they enforce that? How could they? This economy would end such an arrangement for him. This is another example of pure MRA fantasy. Though I hate to use the word “pure” where MRAs are concerned.

Well, there is a teeny weeny grain of truth to it. In most places, if you have a child or spousal support judgment against you, you can be punished (I believe it is considered contempt of court, but I could be wrong on that) for *intentionally* switching to a significantly lower-paying job or becoming unemployed. But it generally has to be shown that you did it specifically to avoid paying those judgments, because there are people out there spiteful enough to punish themselves rather than support their kids/exes.

And as you said, very few states have permanent alimony anymore, and even those that do it’s pretty rarely awarded. They also seem to ignore that it is gender-neutral–whichever spouse earns less can potentially get alimony. Really, the fact that it seems to be one of their major “men’s rights” issues just shows how freaking privileged they really are.

auggziliary
auggziliary
8 years ago

Why is it that MRAs believe every story they hear about these things, but don’t believe in statistics regarding rape, or in any womans(or mans) story about sexism or rape. What world do they live in?

dsfrogs
dsfrogs
8 years ago

When black hat (the not feminist) tells us (the feminists) what kind of jokes a feminist would tell, ’cause he’s sure he would know better, is it mansplaining?

Buntzums
Buntzums
8 years ago

cloudiah posted Billie Holiday. Love this. Here’s Shirley Bassey acompanied by the Propellerheads. This song sums up how I’m beginning to feel about the MRA and manosphere in general given the rehashes and echoes of the past.

Howard Bannister
8 years ago

Serious UGH at Black Hat.

Yeah, because the people here have so much violent rhetoric, amiright?

Asshole.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Posting those sick MRA jokes in this thread is banworthy, IMO. Also for serial lying, admitted trolling, and sheer tediousness.

Kim
Kim
8 years ago

@blackhat

Apart from everything else wrong with your assertions, it can’t be a joke about abortion because it says baby, and only fetuses get aborted.

Aaliyah
8 years ago

TBF, seriously? Fuck off.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

BlackHat should earn his walking papers for those “jokes.”

cloudiah
8 years ago

I’ve emailed the big red head on the sidebar.

ignotussomnium
ignotussomnium
8 years ago

Sadly, when you try to look up real feminist jokes pretty much all you find are anti-feminist jokes. Yup, we sure are living in a totalitarian feminist matriarchy.

daintydougal
8 years ago

Another vote for banning that callous *person*. That post was completely unnecessary and upsetting.

This whinging about having to spend large sums supporting people you don’t like reminds me of rich people whining about higher rates of tax. How much does one person possibly need? If you’re paying a million in tax how much are you taking home? But they can’t ever be satisfied. Its juvenile selfishness.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

I vote yea on the motion to ban the black hat. On the grounds of tedium, admitted trolling, and intentionally attempting to cause distress. Stated comment policy:

Beyond that: If you’re especially, or persistently, offensive, disruptive, or tedious, I’ll put you on moderation, which means your comments won’t go up until I get a chance to look at them, and maybe not even then.

I’d highlight the parts black hat is having issues with, but he seems to be having issues with everything on the list.

roger
roger
8 years ago

In this letter I’m going to discuss masochism. I’m going to delve into great detail about David Futrelle’s snooty tractates. I’m going to talk at length about how David has been breaking down traditional values. In short, this is not a letter for children or the overly sensitive. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that this has been documented repeatedly. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that David claims that the Scriptures are responsible for his exploitative, namby-pamby thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only disrespectful, but it fails to consider that if David is victorious in his quest to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

Whenever David is presented with the statement that I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that David says he’ll twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity if anyone dare threaten the existence of his faction. What’s scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, David might consider it threatening if one were to claim that he finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, David is entirely gung-ho about yahooism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues.

If anything will free us from the shackles of David’s headlong adages, it’s knowledge of the world as it really is. It’s knowledge that he seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren’t hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that David’s prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. It doesn’t do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of David’s demands in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must fight David with everything we’ve got.

David keeps saying that he is a model citizen. For some reason, David’s agents provocateurs actually believe this nonsense. If it were true, as he claims, that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”, then I wouldn’t be saying that David frequently accuses his nemeses of hurting others physically or emotionally. This is yet another example of the growing lack of civility in our civil discourse that ranges from the malapert to the unconscionable and even delusional. In a more proper debate, one would instead politely point out that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see David deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. It makes me want to express our concerns about his acrasial indiscretions, which is why I’m so eager to tell you that David is decidedly proud of himself for conconcting such a “brilliant” scheme for cheating on taxes. In my opinion, however, that’s the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. Much better would be to maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor.

David insists that people don’t mind having their communities turned into war zones. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. His allocutions emphasize the formation of small units of impudent apostles that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women, and that’s one reason why I’m writing this letter. Did he cancel his plans to quote me out of context because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. If David’s goons had even an ounce of integrity they would reveal the nature and activity of David’s bootlickers and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. One last thing: Bloodthirsty exclusionism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media.

Crip Dyke
Crip Dyke
8 years ago

In fairness, I’ve heard one person in my life tell a version of the “slice him thin enough” joke. She’s a feminist and my best friend. I know she is a resolute opponent of violence in all forms [should I have to say it for the MRAs – yes, violence against men as well: she’s protested wars for decades and 2 of her heroes are men who protested being drafted in the Vietnam War era]. I laughed when she told it, but mostly (maybe entirely?) because I simply could not believe that this joke was coming out of her mouth. And she knew that and played on her rep as an anti-violence activist to create the shock that made me laugh.

So, okay, a feminist has told that joke. But it’s not “feminist” humor. It doesn’t express feminist values. It expresses gender-war values which is precisely the value set feminism opposes. That’s why the one time I heard this joke I was shocked to hear it from a feminist.

Curiously, that also explains something about MRA point of view which is probably obvious to most folks here. It’s a quintessentially US view of war. It adopts the gender-war value set: in primary part that there are two *opposed* genders. Then it asserts that feminism is a side in a war, assuming that with that metaphor the have provided proof of some violent hatred. Finally, it seeks to exempt themselves from the implications that if they are a side in the war, and if they can automatically attribute bad qualities to the other side **merely because the other side is participating in a war** then they have to find a way to exempt themselves from the implications of their own logic. How do they do this?

“I never wanted a war. I just want you to make me a sandwich & go down on me while I eat. It’s the feminists who decided they hated the natural sandwich-and-blowjob-providing, evolutionarily-fated role sufficient to launch a war. Therefore I’m a **reluctant** participant in the war, like the US vs. Japan in WW2 or the US vs Iraq or the US vs Iran or the US vs Grenada – because clearly Grenada’s massive assault on the US absolutely forced the US to invade.”

This “we’re in a war and you are warriors so you are despicable; and I will fight you to my last breath but I am not a warrior and therefore not despicable, it’s all about you and your ignorant, violent, despicableness” meme is classic Ronnie Raygun vs Grenada.

=========
Separately, Argenti asked me a while back about pronouns. By the time i read it, that thread seemed dead. So I’ll say here that I’m happy with she/her in contexts where people don’t get trans* issues & language, but that I also like the political implications of going by ze/hir when possible. Feel free to use either set.

Aaliyah
8 years ago

roger, if you’re going to spew your bullshit, the least you can do is to stop being so pretentious and wordy.

Maybe that’s too much to ask of an MRA, though…

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

As a palate cleanser, and a reaffirmation of my love of my Canadian peoples

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Brossard+team+dons+turbans+solidarity/8505897/story.html

BabyLawyer
BabyLawyer
8 years ago

I know I’m late to the party here but…

Fedora, you’re disingenuous, pathetic, and no one is interested. Bye.

@aaliyah – with respect to the whole “theft of property justifying rape of a prostitute thing,” interesting how these assholes seem to skip over an action for breach of contract, which is the much more obvious solution if you really think of prostitution as a sale of a commodity. Any excuse to justify violence against women. (Not like this is news at this point)

And (nods in agreement) with the discussion re: alimony. Pretty rare to see these days, and usually only in very long standing, traditional marriages. Any of these crybabies who is whining about an unfair alimony award is very likely 1) privileged and 2) omitting material evidence.

What? Whiny MRAs betraying their privilege yet remaining completely oblivious to it? Never.

The always relevant Margaret Atwood quote: Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.

BabyLawyer
BabyLawyer
8 years ago

Roger:

An MRA talking at tedious, hyperbolic length? Shocking

tl;dr

AK
AK
8 years ago

I dunno, I kinda like roger. It’s funny because it has virtually no connection to reality. I mean, David doesn’t think anyone minds their neighborhoods being turned into war zones? David believes that education and open-mindedness are a liability? Really?

Plus I have to give roger some points for his vocabulary. It’s a lot more entertaining than the usual $3 words MRAs use to sound intelligent.

However, he loses points for being so out of touch as to be pretty much nonsensical. There’s really no way to argue with him, and arguing with trolls is half the fun.

Overall, I guess I’d have to give him a troll score of 5/10. Needs some serious improvement, but not ban-worthy yet.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Okay, I’m gonna start the ball rolling–Black Fedora’s “jokes” were vile and disgusting and offensive, and I think he’s overstayed his welcome. Anyone else thinking it’s time for him to receive an introduction to the banhammer (or at least perma-mod status)?

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Ah, I accidentally missed the most recent page of replies, so the ball was already well and truly rolling–may it turn Black Fedora into a beret.

Roger, OTOH, isn’t vile, so much as DULL. I can’t get through his posts without my eyes and soul glazing over in ennui.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@AK

I couldn’t read the screed, but I got enough of a kick out of “In this letter”. I feel deeply sorry for his correspondents.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

And because today seems to be multipost day (sorry about that):

http://mansplained.tumblr.com/

It’s very much laugh-so-you-don’t-cry, but I did laugh. Some of the posts might be triggering, though–particularly those that deal with doctors mansplaining to patients.

Hyena Girl
8 years ago

As textdump MRAs go I’ll give roger a 7.5. His content gives him a 5.5 at best but I’d grant him one bonus point for his excellent vocabulary and another bonus point for actually using paragraph breaks rather than the traditional “wall-o-text”.

Briznecko
Briznecko
8 years ago

BlackHead isn’t even worth mocking anymore, that kind of a “joke” is just sick, sad, and pathetic. I agree with everyone else; banhammer time.

Briznecko
Briznecko
8 years ago

In this letter I’m going to discuss masochism. I’m going to delve into great detail about David Futrelle’s snooty tractates. I’m going to talk at length about how David has been breaking down traditional values.

LOL, as if he assumes we’ll actually read it. I have failing college students who write better than this.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Roger: TL;DR.

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

Have to agree with everyone else. Black Fedora’s “jokes” are beyond the pale. Please let him not be here anymore.

Howard Bannister
8 years ago

I’m going to talk at length about how David has been breaking down traditional values.

Oh, thank GOD-I-DON’T-BELIEVE-IN, that shit is seriously nasty! Good work, David!

Xen
Xen
8 years ago

It’s simple, BF wasn’t given enough attention as a child. He was probably one of those douches in high school.

As for roger…You must have clicked the wrong link, this isn’t reddit darling.

Howard Bannister
8 years ago

I skimmed to the middle.

David keeps saying that he is a model citizen. For some reason, David’s agents provocateurs actually believe this nonsense.

…if we were agents provocateur, why would we need to believe it? In fact, we’d be pretty shitty at the job if we believed that was the end-game, right?

And where did he claim it?

Dammit, citations, man, citations!!

cloudiah
8 years ago

If you Google some of the more unique phrases in Roger’s screed, it appears that he has stolen a bunch of sentences from all over the Internetz, and used Find/Replace to toss David’s name into the word salad. I suggest starting with “This eisegetical fantasy is not only” as a search. “Prefabricated henhouse” seems to have been stolen from Orwell.

Howard Bannister
8 years ago

What really grates on my nerves, however, is that David’s prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse

….remember when we talked about projection? Oh, roger, darling…

Howard Bannister
8 years ago

“Prefabricated henhouse” seems to have been stolen from Orwell.

Aw, man, I should have known it was stolen. It actually meant something.

Of course, that roger’s rant was actually phrases stuck together like… well. Like the elegant metaphor. THAT. That’s special.

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

Sounds like Roger might be a spambot.