So the other day someone asked the Men’s Rights subreddit “Why do people think you guys hate women?”
There were a lot of ridiculous answers to that question, but one of the most ridiculous (and one of the most highly upvoted) responses came from our old friend John Hembling, the blabby Canadian videoblogger and A Voice for Men “Editor in Chief” also known for some dopey reason as John The Other. He explained:
![johntheother [-37] 29 points 3 days ago (36|7) They dont actually think we hate women. The accusation is a derailing tactic, designed to push the topic towards a defensive posture, and requiring proof from us (MRAs) that "hatred of women" is a false claim. When used, it takes the discussion away from real issues such as suicide rates, homelessness, infant genital mutilation and so on. It's very very effective, because it plays on the fact that almost all men, including MRAs are basically decent. And the social stigma of a public perception of hatred of women is painful. To overcome this tactic, it is necessary to discard a self image relying on consensus approval. Tough to do because we are social animals. But to disarm the attack of "you hate women" it's necessary to develop a strong self identity which takes no account of consensus conferral of approval. Be the "bad man", and let only your own internal compas of right and wrong guide you.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/jtohatewomen2.png?resize=580%2C246&ssl=1)
Really, John? Because I have something like 1200 posts on this blog here that would seem to suggest that, no, a lot of MRAs (and PUAs and MGOTWers) really, honestly, sincerely, and sometimes even proudly, hate women. (Ok, a certain percentage of my posts are actually about kitties, but still, I invite you to spend a month or so going through the archives, John; you may learn a thing or two.)
But, actually, there’s no need to take my word on the subject. Because if you really want to know why so many people think MRAs hate women, I invite you to take a look at and a listen to this video by a prominent MRA. Seems pretty obvious that this guy hates women, wouldn’t you agree?
Oh, by the way, this guy is you. [TRIGGER WARNING for people who are not John Hembling and who might be disturbed by a smirking asshole literally laughing about rape. Seriously. This is bad even by his standards.]
Oh, another by the way: Hembling complained about feminists “doxing” him long after he made the video that was excerpted here in which he gave out his name. That’s right, he put his name out in his own video, then complained that feminists were violating his privacy and basically terrorizing him by ever mentioning his name. Until he started going by his real name again.
Before I go, here’s another particularly inane contribution to the Reddit discussion:
Huh. MRAs certainly have a most unusual way of “walking on eggshells.” Indeed, to this outside observer it looks a lot less like “walking on eggshells” and more like “angry toddler having an endless stompy tantrum.”
Yes, that would have been better.
Freemage, one doesn’t have to be an atheist to call out religious texts one finds appalling. Surely you aren’t saying no Christian criticises stuff in the Bible, for example?
Robert – were you reading here when we had our great John the Otter artwork going? If not, cloudiah has collected it all here.. Enjoy! 😀
Kitteh – thanks, I did miss those.
Also, regarding Job. If you’re familiar with Sinfest, it’s entertaining to read the first few chapters of Job while picturing YHWH and Satan as they appear in the comic strip.
“Yes, yes, you made the hippopotamus, very impressive. Meanwhile, back at the point – what’s with the boils? Oh, and all my children are dead.”
RE: SittieKitty
The only guideline is that they be in regards to the writeathon prompts. It can be for any prompt, not necessarily one you sponsored. (Also, ‘Ordinary Ever After’ already is having a bonus sketch done of it, so it’s out of the running.)
Here are the prompts (the posts labeled ‘homeathon’), in case you have a favorite.
LBT, how about one of Reverend Alpert conversing with the monster!
Kittehserf:
“No Christian”? No, I’m not suggesting that at all. There are some. But… (You knew that word was coming, right?)
Someone might say something along the lines of “that’s horrible” about the notion that God orders the Israelites to bash infants’ heads open on the rocks as part of a program of ethnic cleansing. But it’s very, very rare that they take that criticism to the next level and ask, “Well, then, what about the rest of the book?” (To risk being overly pithy, they criticize without critiquing–they don’t take the time to analyze that gut reaction and see if maybe the most sacred text in their faith contains a lot of really awful crap, and then wonder what that might say about their religion in general.)
It becomes a game of “It’s only parable unless it’s true and it’s so obvious which is which I shouldn’t have to point it out and besides it all happens to conform with what I think is true anyway.” So if you’re a conservative Christian, you decide that the Leviticus prohibition on gay male sex is still valid, but the rules on shellfish are out. If you’re a liberal, you opt out on both of those, but keep the bits about loving your neighbor and the rich having a harder time getting to Heaven. The liberal Christian’s views are more akin to my own in terms of how to treat other people and build a better world, but that doesn’t mean I think they are any less incorrect about the source of that decision-making.
But neither group is particularly big on acknowledging that they are cherry-picking. Instead, they hold that they are the ones interpreting the Bible “correctly”–and rarely stating out loud that the fact that these writings NEED interpretation is somehow problematic. There are exceptions to this, just as there are to most generalizations.
Yeah, if only I were an atheist so I could stop being incorrect.
Freemage, I think you’re generalising some brands of US Christians to all Christians. Except for the way they unduly influence law, I don’t give a toss for the interpretations of conservative Christians, if by that one means fundamentalists, because they seem to know jack shit about the development of the Bible, the translations, the changes of meaning, or even the politics involved (Council of Nicea, f’rinst).
But they’re not the Christians here, and I think you’re doing regulars who are Christian a disservice in letting one variety of one country’s Protestant denominations represent more than themselves.
Also, one can’t not pick and choose with the Bible, since it contradicts itself. So why get hung up on the people who’re picking the decent bits? Why not stick to poking the arsehole brigade (who would probably be just as big arseholes if they were atheists, btw – they’d find a different set of justifications to defend their privilege)? This is precisely the sort of thing that pisses me off with the capital-A-for-Arsehole variety of atheist (please note I do NOT include you in that!); they’d put someone like Bishop John Shelby Spong in the same category as Pat Robertson et al, simply because he’s Christian.
Oh, and I don’t like Christianity much myself, any more than any organised religion. I just get sick and tired of the generalisations, partly because they’re much the same as the “anything except hard atheist = mental illness/delusional/laughably stupid/nothing counts in life except TEH SCIENCE/coward/giving comfort to the enemy” attitude.
You’re all seeing why I generally consider this sort of conversation fruitless. Freemage is not only sure that zir beliefs are right, but also sure that the correctness of zir beliefs is so obvious that the only reason anyone could fail to agree with them is because “they don’t take the time to analyze.” No, Christians are all “cherry-picking” and “incorrect about the source of that decision-making”, because if they approached their text completely unbiased, like zie does, they’d see the obvious truth that the Bible “contains a lot of really awful crap” and would immediately proceed to the obvious conclusion and become an atheist.
And that turd gets dropped right in the middle of a nice conversation about the nature of God and suffering.
Also, is there a secret stash of writings somewhere that don’t need interpretation? Because in general, “the fact that these writings NEED interpretation” is not so much “problematic” as “inherent to the nature of communication.”
Heheh that reminds me of the times I posted diaries or poems on a writing site and got the most bizarre “how I interpret this allegory” reviews on occasion. Had to let the reviewers know that nope, sorry, it’s not an allegory of anything, it’s a straightforward description of an event.
Hit post too soon, again.
To which I say, having ghastly fiction/interpretation/stuff generally written about one, doesn’t make one nonexistent. Just because Dumas wrote a rancid book that lies about real people doesn’t mean those people didn’t exist. They were simply nothing like what he wrote. In his case it was done with malice, but I think the point holds. :s
Theodicy is a difficult thing, sure, we could all be sweet and reasonable (even “Amazing”) atheists. Or we could just ignore it (the whole thing would be easier of Job had been left out, and just ignored that there is a lot of pain in the world, and say, “enh”).
But people have been wrestling with it, and short of just saying, “all that other stuff I believe, not worth it because there is pain in the world”, it’s always going to be Joblike, because if there is a God, we won’t ever be able to answer it. The idea of God creates a Gödel problem: it can’t be defined inside the rule set we (as not God[s]) can understand.
And, with no intent to be passive aggressive (just a painful couple of memories of the last times religion came up in a contentious way, and I got involved) I’m bowing out of this here and now.
Me, and this thread:
(from the episode where Bart gets a job at a burlesque house.)
Falconer — you too?
Other religion related things! I have the religions compiled for the first 1,583 surveys! We’re at 1,616 so I think I’m doing pretty good over here! Of course, my hands hurt enough I had to break out the mighty mouse (which is mighty indeed!)
Pecunium, Falconer, Argenti – I get like that with the long-running religious threads, but sometimes it’s like the scab you have to scratch. The whole “people with religion should just realise!!!eleventy! thing is not aimed at me, I know, but it pisses me off hugely – is it okay to use the term splash damage for a comparison? (There was a hideous pile-on at Pharyngula once over that and I don’t know how it’s seen here.)
Ugh, not this conversation again. I feel like “atheistsplaining” should be a term in common use, and I am an atheist.
(Not that I’m any fonder of faithsplaining, but I encounter it less in leftist spaces.)
@Freemage
Doesn’t that depend on what the source is? Some people may be good because they think God is watching them or calls them to, but I suspect that most liberal Christians, like most conservative ones, are simply positing a God that happens to agree with them.
Problematic in what way? I mean, we have nine people whose job it is to interpret the US constitution. In fact, pretty much every judge on Earth is tasked with interpreting the laws under their jurisdiction. Very rare is the written text that is universally clear in every situation, to every person.
The US constitution condones slavery and only counts black people as 3/5 of a person. Guess I’d better give up my citizenship. (If you’re going to come back with the fact that the Constitution has been amended, please remember that the Bible has, too.)
I am so stealing these.
But no one pretends that the US constitution is the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. The fact that the Bible is flawed is a huge problem if you posit anything but a watchmaker deity.
The Abrahamic god, if it existed, would know that the flawed book ostensibly describing it has caused untold death and suffering. Thus, either it a) couldn’t do anything about it or b) couldn’t be arsed to do anything about it. Or it didn’t know. Whichever way you go you get a contradiction.
@CassandraSays
Yeah, atheists have such social privilege. Besides our dominance in nearly every domain of human society, It’s not like every time we say anything non-positive about religion or faith we’re told to shut up and stop bothering the nice faithful people.
OMG I’m oppressing myself again, I should really stop that.
Yeah, jeez, it’s like you can’t even pop into a discussion of the book of Job and wank about how everyone who believes in God is deluded without someone getting annoyed at you.
Yeah katz, freemage’s response was totally off-topic and a pointless wank about how everyone who believes in a god is deluded. I mean just look at this:
What does that have to do with the just world fallacy and the Book of Job? Totally wanky. What a nasty, nasty atheist freemage is. What were they thinking!?
You should have specified “believers only” when you started the topic if you didn’t want any discussion of the Book of Job/just world fallacy from an atheist standpoint.
@CassandraSays
Yeah, we here all know that members of a demographic never buy into the social structures that disenfranchise them.