If you ever wonder what a bunch of dudes who are Going Their Own Way and totally don’t give a good gosh darn about women, nosireebob, like to talk about the most on their special Men Only No Girls Allowed We’re Totally Going Our Own Way forum, well now you don’t have to rely on the comments I so cavalierly cherry pick from their forum.
Nope, I just realized we can use SCIENCE, in the form of the tag clouds that the site puts above the various subforums, to SCIENTIFICALLY see what they talk about. If you cast your glance upwards, for example, you’ll see the tag cloud for the most active forum on the site.
Seems like these Men Going Their Own Way haven’t gone very far, huh?
I’m guessing the National Organization for Women spends less time talking about women than they do.
EDITED TO ADD: If you would prefer to hear this post read aloud by an actual Man Going His Own Way, one of them has helpfully prepared this video. It’s an uncanny impersonation, by the way. They showed me, I guess!
@Melody – That’s AWESOME <3
Oh my.
Oh my oh my oh my oh my oh my oh my HIT IT:
Featuring Fibinachi, who can’t sing, with a backup of your tormented, inner anguish at reading the above, it’s a slightly altered rendition of Rush’s the Trees:
There is unrest in the cities,
There is trouble with the men,
For the shefolk want more equality
And who will give them resources then?.
The trouble with the womyn,
(And they’re quite convinced the’re right)
They say the men are just too oppressive
And they grab up all the light (and money and political seats and benefits and social easy grace)
But the men can’t help their feelings!
If they like the way they’re made!.
And they wonder why the women
Can’t be happy in their shade!
There is trouble in the cities,
And the kittens all have fled,
As the manboobs scream oppression,
And Asher just shake his head
So the females formed a movement
And demanded equal rights.
“These men are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light (and bodily rights!).”
Now there’s sligtly less male oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the pay-grades are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
But hatchets must be made
from stone-faced working men
And since women entered the workforce
who could possibly make the tools, then?
Now if you like your precious wellfare-state
It’s obvious that you must agree
That women can do nothing at all
And men must give them resources, pay their company
Without this noble order
It’ll all come crumbling down
Because no man of woman born
Can have a female co-worker without also having a frown
So there’s unrest in the cities
There’s trouble with the men
Without relationship to women
Their lives forfeit, it’s only a matter of when!
Don’t you understand, fool manboob?
It’s the law of the very land!
Women do nothing but blow at jobs
That should rightully be in the hand
Of a much better man
So he can give all his money
To some random wench
And quench
The thirst for company
That harbours the significant soul of every man in the world
Without which he is NOTHING
and dismayed!
(I’m so lonely)
Banging power solo
Fibi trips out on drugs.
Passes out.
Tour cancelled.
Tour re-booked, but with Kittens and ferrets in suits as the main singer instead.
—
The theme of the song sucked now, the notion of it sucks now, and you, Sir, is so wrong that on the granular scale I use to measure wrongness you are tipping in at a significant Ten MegaWrongs, or, as I like to also call, your thought process is a neat and wonderful 1½ Shoggothian:
Yep.
Translation: societal expectations about who does the child-caring and household chores are IMMUTABLE.
Asher:
See, this is one of the things I asked you: it’s got to do with how men are “marginalised”. Yo seem to be arguing against it here. If men and women each get to choose how to order their lives, then neither is marginalised.
If, however, one group is constrained in that choice, then that group is marginalised.
So, I’ll repeat my queries (in case they managed to slip past your eagle eye).
@Asher
Any reply to how the state takes money away from women to give it to rich men?
Also, you know that married women on average perform 16 hours more child care and housework than men, right? If that disparity was gone, then job choices might be more equal.
Also, the wage gap still exists if you account for career choice.
@ Howard
The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.
Dear Goddess, is he going with the ‘everything was great until women started working’ ploy?
“It was called the family and men got something out of it-” But apparently women didn’t get so much out of it because so many of them decided they liked paid labor better than unpaid. And, you know, not being completely up shit creek without a paddle if hubbie dies/loses his job/becomes abusive/runs off/goes to jail, etc.
No, but it addresses the point you made about WHO IS PAYING FOR IT. Dunderhead.
Yet, you just used PROGRESSIVE taxation as an argument for its existence.
Does it hurt to have so much cognitive dissonance?
I mean, I quoted his own words right back to him–showing him what part of his analysis I disagreed with.
BTW, I think I know which of my citations he’s questioning, because at a second look, I’m mixing and matching–those are non-US statistics about consumptions of welfare benefits. Back to the drawing board…
*sigh*
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mfr/4919087.0010.105?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Women have always worked outside the home. Especially women who were not white and rich. The “welfare state” you are railing at has only existed for a portion of the last 100 years, so please explain how all the women working outside the home prior to that were evil, since clearly you believe everything is our fault.
Addendum: the “white and rich” comment refers to Western societies in Europe and North America. I apologize for acting implying that was universal to the entire Earth.
Kudos to Asher’s programmer; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a cleaner markov chain generator.
Asher, you should totally make some posters and plaster them everywhere. You’ll be a hero to all alphas and show all those FEMALE stealers of our hardearned manwealth.
Hey! I was trying to enjoy that drink. Now it’s all over my screen. Heheh. Good joke.
@Asher
First, LOL @ you questioning someone else’s citations.
Second,
Um, if data and citations have no bearing on your argument, you’re doing arguing wrong.
I was hasty and grabbed non-US numbers for that.
Here’s the US numbers.
SOURCE, goddamit Asher, this is how you do sources
MASSIVE INCOME SHIFT, EY?
It’s not. You asshole. I would be kind of okay with it if it was, BUT IT ISN’T.
Wait, I have to walk that back a bit. I just said ‘I would be kind of okay with that.’
Let me rephrase.
Men have been skimming off women’s economic contributions to the system in America for hundreds of years. If a strong social safety net was needed to cancel out that effect while we worked on equality then I would be all for that!!
But that’s not what’s going on here. Men and women both access these at near to the same rates, and both pay for these services at near to the same rates. It is a social safety net, and is being used by SOCIETY.
I’m just gonna leave this here…
Yeah, and my earlier comment didn’t even begin to address the problems with such a system for women who don’t want to get married/haven’t found the right SO/are lesbian/whose hubbie doesn’t make enough to support a family on his income alone.
Basically, the system Asher describes can only effectively satisfy a tiny subset of women. Unless there is an even tinier subset of men that would be dissatisfied with it, at least half the population can’t sustain his model.
Oh, right, I forgot. Only the cis-male portion of the population counts. Silly me.
Somebody wake me if Asher says anything original.
Asher: The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.
Whut? If taxes at the state level are regressive then those with the least income are paying the most. Those whom you say are getting money from the state (supposedly women, but I’ve yet to see any evidence from you on that, so I have my doubts) are paying those regressive taxes.
Which means either the “welfare state” is an elaborate scam to move money from men to “The State”, in the form of a system designed to make them think it’s women getting it (and so furthering social misogyny like yours; because you can’t see the real agenda), or women are paying more than men.
If the former (the elaborate scheme) who is ending up with the money? Men; because last I checked they weren’t being marginalised in politics.
So, either way, much to my surprise, you are wrong.
Troll’s gonna troll, but:
Asher-
Interestingly, I’m on my 5 min. break from writing a research paper on the FTP and CCC, and the post-WWII GI bill. As a welfare state scholar, you will know that New Deal welfare programs stem from veteran programs and were issued in men camps where women were excluded. The logic was that by giving money to men, the women would get help by proxy. However, the FTP got a reputation of making people into perverts (translation: gay), so it was shut down in 1935. Camp rape of men on welfare was seen as hilarious because it made them into women. In other words, male welfare were seen as what you would call a mangina, even though women didn’t have access to benefits.
The welfare state was created for the benefit of men, completely excluded women and those with ‘gender inversion’ (New Deal era) or ‘homosexual tendencies’ (post-WWII). Homosexual tendencies did not necessarily mean same-sex attractions, it was completely arbitrary. The welfare state was created to establish top down regulations on ‘traditional’ gender roles. They used exactly your arguments to exclude women from the public sphere to exclude gay men from society (gay men do not participate in society because the state excludes them. Since they do not ‘participate’ (but pay taxes), they should be penalized).
So your welfare state = benefit of women assumption is a big fail. I know it’s convenient for you, but it’s just not based on reality.
I’m glad to learn you support wage equality and men’s fair participation in private chores though.
Level 1 Snark unlocked at the use of “female” to refer to women, but “men” to refer to…men
Level 2 Snark unlocked at “Female’s” meant to be a plural
Level 3 Snark unlocked at unsubstantiated/vague assertion
GO ASHER GO! YOU CAN DO IT! YOU CAN WIN ALL THE SNARKS!
@David – FYI Tumblr has the draft posts up too. You may want to delete those posts.