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.”
RE: SittieKitty
Okay! I’ll do Alpert with the monster.
And godDAMN I am so not touching the rest of this thread. I’ma just draw my exorcist and the monster under the bed, yesirree.
Apology accepted, Nepenthe! 🙂
The funny thing is I don’t believe in “the supernatural” ‘cos I don’t think what most people would call that is outside nature. I just think nature’s a whole lot wider than our earthly existence. I’m certainly not a god-botherer. (Ceiling Cat does not approve of being woken from zir naps.)
I would query whether someone who believes in the supernatural (as distinct from being in an organised religion) gets much privilege, at least where I live. Pagans don’t, for instance. I sure don’t, lol, though I don’t move in circles where I’m going to get any grief for my beliefs, either. Well, except from one creepy woman who was very keen on being Big Boss of her spiritualist group – wanted it to be a capital-C Church – and made all sorts of impertinent remarks about my beliefs and about Mr K.
Is it different in the US, generally?
Hmm, that was rambling. 😛
Yeah, I define the supernatural as anything that is considered immune from scientific investigation or explanation. Apparently Wikipedia does too.
Wrt privilege, it’s things like, when grieving, being told about how the loved one is in a better place etc., which to most people doesn’t strike them as “religious” and is therefore somehow okay. Because obviously everyone believes in souls and an afterlife. Or impertinent questions like “if that’s what you think, then why don’t you kill yourself?” etc, which certainly don’t have to come from religionists. Or “you have a disabling illness? why don’t you try this supernatural remedy? It totally worked for my sister’s boss’s cousin in law”. Or the rather common belief that naturalists are somehow untrustworthy. In my experience, “spiritual but not religious” people tend to be the worst about this sort of thing, precisely because they don’t see themselves as religious and, while they recognize that it would be impolite to talk about accepting Jesus, talking about how a scientific materialist will see a loved one in the afterlife is perfectly acceptable.
Dennett calls this sort of thing “belief in belief”: the idea that it doesn’t matter what you believe, but you must believe something.
That was also rambling.
So how’s that search for texts that don’t need interpretation going, Nepenthe?
Oh! I found one katz. It’s an email was inspired by an omniscient being who helped me know the exact way to word my complaint letter to an airline that gave me terrible customer service so as both not to upset those receiving it and to get me comp tickets. That being inspired me to write that email because it loves me and wants me to be happy!
I mean, the real answer that there are no perfect texts is that there’s no such thing as a triple-O deity. The fact that I can’t find any really isn’t a point in your favor.
I blame David Attenborough. 😉
I see where you’re coming from with those examples. I take care not to say those things to someone I know doesn’t share my beliefs. Sure, I’ll think they’re wrong about souls, for example, but that’s it. I used to be agnostic-bordering-on-atheist and I can only say that it sucked mightily compared to where I am now, and I’ve felt the difference in experiencing loved ones’ deaths (kitties) before and after. But that’s just me and it’s not one size fits all, obvs.
When it comes to matters of spirit or after death, that’s where the “immune to science” stuff strikes me as irrelevant – I don’t give a shit about physical data, or measurment, or going on about brain reactions, or whatnot, and if someone comes across all superior along those lines to me and tries to tell me what I’ve experienced and how to interpret it, they’re just being a jerk, same as if someone shoves their religious views uninvited on anyone who doesn’t share them.
As long as you’re honest. I could not imagine not caring if something were true.
In other words, you have made up a rule that a religious text, unlike any other text, needs to be held to a standard that you admit is impossible, and the fact that they don’t meet your arbitrary impossible standard is proof that you’re right.
It’s times like these that I really miss the old meaning of “begging the question.”
RE: Nepenthe
I could not imagine not caring if something were true.
Enh, as multiple, I spent a good few months literally trying to prove I was person who existed, and not a delusion. It was an unanswerable question, drove me and everyone around me mad, and finally I had to just shriek, “Fuck it! I don’t CARE if it’s true!”
My life became immeasurably better from that moment.
How is it an impossible standard? It’s perfectly possible, given the existence of God-like being. Would you care to offer an explanation of why the Bible needs to be interpreted? Is it because God didn’t know what would happen if an ambiguous Bible was written? Is it because God can’t do anything about it? Or is it because God doesn’t care if we little ants slaughter each other by the millions over different interpretations of the Bible? Which of the Os do you want to drop?
And the standard is not arbitrary. It directly follows from the ascribed attributes of God. Note that I did not say anything about non-triple-O deities. The fact that Greek myths, for example, are inconsistent says nothing about their truth value because no one claims that those deities are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
Well, I’m a scientist, so I know that you can’t go around only believing things that are provably true.
What LBT said, Nepenthe.
More importantly, you missed my point. I’m saying physical data and all the rest of the “scientifically measurable” stuff isn’t relevant. It’s not going to be able to measure this, it doesn’t touch it. Saying that makes something untrue is a pretty damn big jump unless you insist that what we know physically now is all there is to know, and that such measurements are the only things that matter.
I believe what I experience is true. I have no way of presenting evidence that would satisfy someone for who this material world is all there is. That doesn’t mean I don’t care whether it’s true or not; I do, very much, because my life with Louis matters a fuckton more than most other things in my life. But I’m not about to decide “Oh well, it can’t be true” simply because it doesn’t chime in with the physical sciences, let alone basing its importance on those.
The standard is arbitrary because you fuckin’ made it up. There was no reason it was necessary on any level except as a stick for you to use to beat religious people with. And you’ve had to build an enormous stack of assumptions in order for this to make even the least bit of sense (such as that God pretty much sat down and wrote the Bible himself, and that violence wouldn’t happen if it weren’t religiously inspired, and for that matter that anyone here even believes in an omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity).
I can’t believe I have to say this, but the Bible is ambiguous because it is written with words. Made up by people. Who are not omniscient. To communicate with each other. As part of a language. Which is not completely free of ambiguity. Because it is spoken by people. People are not perfect at either sending or receiving communication. Therefore ambiguity will always exist.
(And why on earth is this the route you’re going with the omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent argument, anyway? There are so many better tacks.)
RE: Kittehserf
I’ve had to argue with singlets before who demand I prove my existence. Oddly, they never seem to like it much when I tell them THEY need to prove their existence to ME. Apparently since I’m the outlier, I’m the one obligated to answer a question they can’t.
Consciousness is one of those classic ineffable things. Like whether your senses are reliable; that’s another. But these things are meant to be contemplated on the couch with a joint in one hand and a bowl of chips in the other while going “Whoa, duuuuuude.” They are not meant for being aggressively assholish to people about; I’m sorry that people act that way to you :/
And you have every right to throw the question right back at them!
@katz
Made up means arbitrary. Right. So all arguments ever made by humans are arbitrary because they were made up.
Could you point out which part of my argument requires that God literally wrote the Bible? Could you point out the part that claims that violence wouldn’t happen if it weren’t religiously inspired? Do you not believe in a triple-o deity? (If you don’t why didn’t you come out with that, like, yesterday. Because then my argument is, admittedly, false.)
As to your second paragraph, no shit sherlock. That’s obvious. That’s what you’d expect if there isn’t a god.
I’m going this route because you wanted to talk about textual interpretation as it pertains to the Bible. Since I’m not trolling, I thought I’d post on that topic, rather than use better arguments.
@LBT and kittehserf
No way am I touching that.
Oooh, I am liking this strategy.
“You think I/we need to prove Louis’s existence to you? He’s been around a hell of a lot longer than you have; how about you proving yourself to him?”
This is why I think this conversation (that’s been had many times before) is pointless. There’s no possibility of people coming to an agreement, because the underlying way of looking at certain things is too different, and I’m not sure why “OK, so we don’t agree, and your perspective seems as odd to me as mine does to you – pass the bong” isn’t an option.
I can understand where the urge to suggest that if someone thought things through more they’d agree with you comes from, but I also think that it’s a good idea to be aware of how that can come across (and, again, how pointless trying to talk people out of their perspective ultimately is).
RE: katz
I think the next time someone tries to pull that on me, I’m going to do the same thing I did when orion asked what I was, and start claiming how I’m a reincarnation of the Golem of Prague, raised from my atticy grave to fight assholery in the world.
*facepalm* So much reading comprehension fail. Go back and look at that paragraph again.
By the way, is Cassandra allowed back from her thread exile yet? Because I’m curious as to your justification for ordering her to leave a thread in which you were complaining about people silencing atheists.
The Golem Possum of Prague. (Artwork! That needs artwork!)
Golems live in attics? Aren’t they a bit heavy to be upstairs?
Okay, WHAT is wordpress doing now? Stop eating my comments!
I guess if a golem was possum sized it’d be okay.
I found a pic that looks all too much like a possum golem, or perhaps a golem possum.
Scary.
PS – The above comment is not to be taken as an indication that I think golems are really real and there are many of them in Prague right now. Just so we don’t end up having to argue about that too.
That is my general modus operandi and the reason I pepper my speech with a lot of “IMO” and often reference my own biases. For reals, if I stray from this and start acting like “You MUST believe the thing I believe because it’s true otherwise I wouldn’t believe it!”, I hope people will tell me to knock it off.
Once you’re in this mindset, you can actually have interesting conversations, because you can learn about other people’s beliefs and hear different ideas without the whole thing being polluted with a constant need to PROVE OTHER PEOPLE WRONG!
I blame the lack of digital marijuana. Someone must develop HTTHCTP (hypertext THC transfer protocol).