Ladies! Here, fresh from the MensRants subreddit is A Man With Whom You Do Not Want To Be Friends. Or acquaintances. Or anything, really. To be honest, you probably don’t even want this guy to spot you at a distance from the window of a speeding train. Much T.M.I. in this quote:
Dude, I would seriously suggest you start masturbating. A lot. Preferably not in public.
And try not to bother any actual women for a while, at least until you can start conceptualizing of them as something more than objects (like candy or books) that have been set out for you to use as you please.
Also, your “mad and furious master?” “Mad and furious master?” Did you really just write that? I think you mean your boner. If you want to get fancy, your libido. What are you, Heartiste? Can none of you idiots write about sex without getting all purple prosey on us?
LOL
True story: Once in my uni library I encountered a binder titled “Musalogue”, which would literally mean “collection of muses” or something to that effect.
It was a botanical catalogue of world’s banana cultivars and wild banana species (Musa spp.).
@auggziliary
I like your analogy, but I would add that there are not a set number of each kind of job. Barriers are broken down, more qualified people are able to contribute, everyone’s contribution is recognized, and the project gains enough momentum that more people in total can participate.
Maybe I’m not really expressing that well in terms of the analogy, but;
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/focus-on/investing-in-women/bios-pdfs/power-of-purse.pdf
(Yes, Goldman Sachs, those crypto-marxists)
It’s the same reason immigrants, legal or not, improve the economy long term. It is a lot more complicated for unskilled labor though.
@Bob Dole:
Wow. Just…wow.
He wasn’t a favorite comedian of mine or anything, but I’ll admit I enjoyed his confronting Carlos Mencia on his tendency to steal other peoples’ material along with just being dishonest about his background.
Those tweets are nauseating though – especially the “if you’re a man and call yourself a feminist I hope you choke to death on vegan pizza while crying to a Lady Gaga song”. Other than only having a vegan pizza once and never listened to Lady Gaga, feeling that strongly over a guy calling himself a feminist says more about him than it does the people he’s mocking (mostly that he’s an inconsiderate, hate-infused asshole). Not to mention he has no business judging and telling people how they should feel about kids – people can like or dislike children as much as they please nor obligated to have them.
I’ve also made it a rule to completely ignore (or just block, for Facebook) the existence of people who use “white knight” seriously. Moreso when they claim someone is being a “white knight” to “just get laid.” Yes, because when I feel passionately about a certain subject and may defend someone I agree with who happens to be a woman – I just want to sleep with her. Despite never having met her and defending her because she made a good point while being mocked for it. Not every single goddamn thing a guy does, especially one who is just a decent human being, is so they can get laid.
Well, there’s another comedian to boycott now…
Yeah, Joe Rogan is horrible.
This is my favorite response to the whole Carlos Mencia stealing stuff thing:
I particularly like this bit from PZ Myers:
To me, “humanist” is a lot like “libertarian” (at least in the way it tends to be used in the U.S.) – it’s a trendy label anyone can pick up regardless of their actual beliefs. I notice more people doing it and it kind of annoys me, especially when some of the “humanists” I’ve talked to are absolute cretins whose “concerns” are largely superficial and vague. They like looking enlightened while not being enlightened at all. It’s easier than bothering to attach yourself to a specific ideology that *GASP!* might make plenty of anti-intellectuals feel insecure.
And, much like all the comedians who act like rape jokes are the foundation of observational comedy (it isn’t), you can’t hide behind the “I was joking” excuse while off-stage. Even then, it isn’t the audience’s job to like whatever the comedian says – it’s the comedian’s job to deliver the joke properly. If they don’t, then they failed and should feel badly about such. Saying it’s just because some of the audience was just “thin-skinned” is bullshit. You don’t have to be thin-skinned to be annoyed by someone exploiting racist or misogynistic stereotypes, under the guise of “keepin’ it real” for easy laughs from those who don’t know better.
@saintnick86
I like the term “humanist feminist,” and a few other labels with “humanist” attached to it (secular humanist is fine by me too), because I think when it’s done that way it’s trying to say “I am a [thing], but I also care about a whole lot of other stuff that may not be covered by [thing].” Of course, most people care about a whole lot of other stuff anyway, but some don’t, and if people want to cover that in a label that’s a fine to be. I have no problem calling myself either a humanist feminist or secular humanist.
Having said all that, though, I totally agree with you. I think you nailed it when you said this:
Too many people just say “humanist” because they think terms like “feminist” are evil and oppressive, or they just say it to call themselves something without having to focus on anything in particular. The same with “egalitarian.” A lot of well-meaning people use that term alone to try to cover any and all things at once, while saying that there is no need for any sort of gender, race, sexuality, class etc., based movements. A lot of those people actually ignore a lot of problems because focusing on a certain group at any time isn’t being “fair” to them. If everything was perfect, and there were zero kinds of discrimination ever, then those terms would work own their own. As long as there are different problems different groups have, some being more damaging then others, those words don’t mean much of anything.
Right, I consider myself a secular humanist along with being a feminist as well. I don’t think every one who takes up the label is being disingenuous but, at least with the people I’m speaking of, it does bother me when I see others describe themselves as such…only to make comments that are counter to such a label. That, and it’s happening more.
Many MRAs I come across on Facebook seem to like calling themselves “humanists” and it was obvious they were just using the label to hide the fact their actual views were repulsive to most. They’d talk of “achieving true equality” and lots of other flowery talking points that, as we all know, is just a facade for “each and every woman is an evil, thieving bitch.”
One FeMRA and former friend, for example, claimed she was a humanist in the same breath she also uses straw-feminists (all who, of course, are just people who obsessively post videos on YouTube – not exactly Betty Friedan or Naomi Klein) and saying MISANDRY EXISTS because…she found a photo with a guillotine in front of a urinal. Yeah, it isn’t likely that was just a Halloween prank or something – it must be the eeeeeevul feminists trying to cut off dicks! I bothered to question her and some other MRA who claimed to be a lawyer that dealt with “ugly, humorless” feminists “all the time.” Yeah, sorry if I don’t believe either, especially when the response I get back from him – after pointing out all the obvious examples of sexism – is just “*facepalm* I disagree, sir”.
Since neither of them could defend their claims, she deleted the thread and then makes a post saying she wasn’t trying to “make a big deal of anything” (’cause when you post something everyone can see on Facebook – you obviously are not begging for attention!) and when pointing out she deleted it right after I posted a second time, she…deleted that. I defriended and blocked her as well as the supposed lawyer who battled likely imaginary feminists in court. It was bad enough they thought that sincerely (and all based on random assholes on the internet than the actual philosophy), but the fact they were being so cowardly just pissed me off – especially expecting me or anyone else to not comment and ruin their self-pity party. That’s what happens when you post things publicly on a networking site.
Here is a very different take on the automatic lust issue, and from a surprising (according to the common stereotypes) source: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/18/men-sex-and-modesty/
“Can none of your idiots write about sex without getting all purple prosey on us?”
Inorite? 😀
@(Sic) Male
vestra4’s words:
(Emphases added.)
Protip: Read for comprehension next time.
@(Sic) Male
Reminds you of Zoe Margolis, does he? Well, I’ll admit I hadn’t heard of her before (now I really want to read her.) But does Margolis write about being unable to be friends with men? Does she constantly have “pornographically violent” fantasies about them?
According to this article I found, I must say it doesn’t sound like it. It sounds like she just writes honestly about her sex life and her desires. There’s nothing wrong with that, you know, Sic. That’s not what we’re objecting to.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2007/08/abby_lee_girl_w
I was skimming around on Margolis’ blog a bit, and no, didn’t find anything indicating that she can’t be friends with men or talk to men as if they’re normal human beings because of her libido. So it doesn’t seem to be the same thing.
I’m not saying there’s NO double standard anywhere in society regarding male and female sexuality, because I totally think it is. On the one hand, there are plenty of movies portraying teenage boys as constantly horny, while none I can think of portraying teenage girls that way, so regarding teenagers, it’s like it’s okay and normal for boys to be horny while girls ought to be all about the luuuuuurve. On the other hand, when it comes to adults, media sometimes do treat women sexually harassing men as merely funny and something the man ought to be flattered about. (Although I guess both tropes boil down to “boys/men are always horny and wanna do it with all women”.)
So yeah, double standards exist, but I’m pretty certain all regular boobzers here agree that’s bad. I haven’t seen anyone here promote Margolis blog, but if she does write stuff like the guy David quotes does, yeah, we’re gonna condemn her too.
Bolded mine. How did you get “women he finds sexually attractive out of that?
Also, I’m going to tell you a cool story.
Once, there was this guy I found sexually attractive — and we could still talk and be friends.
Surprise!
Obviously, if this was true, society as we knew it would come to an end.
Q.E.D., society as we know it is an awful, terrible place.
I’m glad I don’t live on the planet as described by MRAs… it sounds like a horrible place.
@Dvärghundspossen
Holy shit, I did not see that because I was too squicked out by the end and just skimming. X| that is even… squickier.
@dustydeste
have I ever mentioned how much I haaaaaaattttee the overprotective father of a teenage daughter thing? b/c i hate it.
i know this isn’t EXACTLy the same thing, but it’s similar and it just reminded me of it. 😉
@saintnick86
Let me share a tweet from Anna Fruen I read the other day that I think is gold:
“Shit rolls downhill, satire rolls uphill. If comedy is at the expense of people already more vulnerable than the comedian: it’s shit.”
How many times have I heard bad similies like this? The primary purpose of candy is to be eaten. A book’s primary purpose is to be read. Comparing a woman to either of these things is like saying her primary purpose is to be fucked, and it’s clear that this guy doesn’t understand why that might be offensive to a woman.
I’m just constantly amazed at the fact that there are so many men out there that seem to have trouble distinguishing women from their vaginas.
So, this morning, I’m reading The Corn Maiden & Other Nightmares, by Joyce Carol Oates. Oates is NEVER an easy read–most authors I go for, I’ll consume volume after volume of their stuff; Oates… I usually read one, then wait two-three years to pick up another one. She does a lot of writing about violence and sadism and… yeah. Just assume that any book you pick up with her name on it has a big old neon sign flashing, “Trigger Warning for Many Things”.
But she’s also very good. Her characters are twisted, broken people–but they’re believably so, which is one of the things that makes her writing both powerful and difficult.
And with that warning, I give you an excerpt from “Death-Cup”, a short story from the book about two twins, reunited after several years. Lyle is a homebody and a bit of a schlub; Alastor is a confidence man and generally shady type. They have this conversation, which literally startled me with its adroit portrayal of the MRA/PUA connection:
See what I mean? She’s successfully paired, as twins, a Nice Guy MRA (who views women as either pure snowflakes or slatterns to be seduced by men like his brother) and a PUA (who simply believes all women are susceptible to his “charms”). Naturally, Lyle loathes and despises his brother, while simultaneously wishing he could share his brother’s claimed successes with women. (Interestingly, the one implausible segment of the story was a horrifically abusive “sexual conquest” story told by Alastor; though Lyle believes it wholly, it reads far more like one of those classic “Cool story, bro” tales we see David repost from time to time.)
Seems like the guy quoted in the article needs a little bit of instruction on the meaning of similies. Candy’s primary purpose is to be eaten. A book’s primary purpose is to be read. Therefore, comparing the primary purpose of either of these items to having sex with a woman is going to infer that the primary purpose of women is to be fucked. Not at all flattering or fair, but then again, neither is presenting yourself as an overgrown manchild incapable of self-control or bodily autonomy, or as a slave to your own penis.
I suppose if someone is stupid enough to enslave themselves to their genitals, they’d be stupid enough to think that a woman is equivalent to her’s.
@Augzilliary: I agree it’s creepy. I don’t think “purity balls” exist in Sweden, at least I’ve never heard of one here… But on reading about the phenomenon, I got creepy incest vibes.
(Basically, the only people I’ve ever talked sex with who wanted to be virgins until marriage were the baptists, not all of them but most, whom I used to hang out with a lot in my teens. And they were really not sexist about it. Everyone else I’ve ever had any kind of sexual conversation with, whether leaning towards conservativity and slut-shaming or sex-positivity, assumed they’d have sex long before actually getting married.)
There are, but they’re pretty rare and recent.
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2012/06/turn-me-on-dammit-review.html
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2013/07/the-to-do-list-redband-trailer-horny-teen-girl-movie-hoorah.html
(Oddly enough, this review for “Turn Me On, Dammit” is in the news at the moment, since it was one of the articles plagiarized by Lianne “Spiderbaby” MacDougall.)
Oh, Auggziliary, that sucks.
I’m late but my least favorite feminist? That person who did those Firefly reviews.
http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html
I’m all NOT SURE IF WANT about learning how she got that nickname.
@katz: Oh god, Beloved read those reviews in a sort of rubbernecker fascination, and from what she told me about them, they sound really stupid.
Like, the reviewer assumed that Wash must be abusing Zoe because the reviewer’s white grandfather was abusive towards this WOC he had a relationship with. Therefore, all white dudes in relationships with POCs must be abusive towards the POCs.
Oy.