If you ever need proof that Men’s Rights Activists live in a world of their own, check out this, er, argument, found in a posting on A Voice for Men UK, the official British franchise of the American hate site we know so well :
All women are homophobic.
Whether the men being prejudiced against are gay or not is kind of beside the point – after all, ‘homo’ = man, ‘phobia’ = fear, therefore: ‘homophobia’ = Fear of Man – but, if you want to quibble over Greek & Latin etymology, perhaps we can at least agree on this: all women, to a greater or lesser extent, display the ‘symptoms’ we attribute to said condition: overt caution, fear &/or disdain of men.
Yep, that’s right. In order to find an excuse to call women “homophobic,” they’ve invented an entirely new definition for the word not based in any way on the actual etymology of the word “homophobia” (which is of course derived from “homosexual”) but on something they’ve just made up.
By this logic, the word “homosexual” would not mean “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex” but rather “man sexual.” If we take this to mean “attracted to men,” this would suggest that all straight women with sex drives would therefore be homosexual as well. Brilliant, A Voice for Men UK.
The author of the post then uses this weird logic to make excuses for actual homophobia among straight men:
Female ‘homophobia’ is so normalized in our society that treating every man you meet like ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’ is considered an ordinary, common sense fact of life – just so long as you are a woman. But if a man feels at all uncomfortable around another man sexually, he is presently branded an evil bigot for behaving the way all women do at all times.
A Voice for Men: they reject your reality, and substitute nonsensical unreality that allows them to say bad things about women.
Ally – both?
“A.I.: Artificial Insemination” was an insult to Kubrick’s legacy, though.
I thought “2001: A Sperm Odyssey” was a little boring…
Not to change the subject, but Hugo Schwyzer has announced he’s retiring from his university position AND his role as “token male feminist” on the internet in the wake of a Weiner-like sexting scandal. http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/07/male-feminist-hugo-schwyzers-early-retirement.html
Of course the manosphere is already crowing in delight over his “hypocrisy.”
A guy on a forum I frequent who I’ve writen off as a misogynist recently posted a thread aboutloving gww. Against my better judgment (because he’s derailed every conversation I’ve had about feminism and insinuated I was a racist because I discussed wivesas property) I engaged, sharing my thoughts on her. I haven’tseen a rebuttal yet but can’t wait to be told that the opinion he asked for is somehow bigoted.
As for “sjers,” isn’t it great how people can take something positive, like fighting for basic human rights, and use it as an insult if it even slightly disturbs their current world view?
Jessay, the worst thing about GWW, and one reason she’s hands down my least favorite MRA, is her plausible deniability. She doesn’t say she supports domestic violence, she says she doesn’t see what’s so wrong about someone else who supports domestic violence but also said some other things and maybe she was talking about that stuff.
So it’s super easy for her defenders to just deny that she holds any bad beliefs and that’s probably what your duder will do.
I really dislike the term Schrödinger’s rapist. I mean, the point with Schrödinger’s cat is that it’s in a state where it’s simultaneously alive and dead (and yeah, it’s meant to be absurd, that’s the point). So in order to be analogous, a Schrödinger’s rapist would be a man who really was simultaneously a rapist and a non-rapist, not some guy whom you simply don’t know about.
Reblogged this on auguries14.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
@kittehserf
The body-as-property thing is also based on kinda-outdated Cartesian stuff and used as a justification for private property, so fuck that. You are your body! Agreed that it can be a useful concept tho.
What the fuck?
Oh, well, Descartes, he was a total shitstain in his earthly days.
I don’t agree that I am my body; it’s part of who I am, not the whole. I don’t think I’d say I am my body even if I didn’t believe in the soul. It has some nasty implications for appearance and so on.
Dvarg – the point about the term with Schrodinger’s Rapist is the not knowing; as the observer doesn’t know if the cat is alive or dead until they look, a woman doesn’t know if a man’s a rapist or not until he demonstrates it. But I never liked the Schodinger’s Cat thing anyway; anything like a joke about a cat being dead or killed is hella triggering for me.
The article makes me feel sorry for GWW because it was a horrible experience for her to have so young. I know her article is victim blaming but the fact she didn’t feel able to tell her parents or someone in authority is sad. I guess she managed to feel stronger by blaming herself. It seems like she is lashing out because she needs to in order to protect herself. I do feel sad for her in general, it sounds like she has had some dreadful relationships and interactions with men.
I don’t like Schrodinger’s rapist. It is trying to explain to men why strange women might not appreciate being talked to like a friend by using fear. I don’t see why I should be friendly to a stranger unless I’m scared of them. I don’t think you need to give a reason to not want to talk to a stranger. They are imposing on you.
“Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion”
Well the search for the name of my garage band is over.
What really pisses me off about GWW’s story is not that she said she felt better after internalizing the notion that she should take responsibility for her own actions, but rather that she implicitly argued that there isn’t anything wrong with victim-blaming because it’s only about responsibility. She made the exact same mistake the person who was arguing with her did: ignore the experiences of countless rape victims.
And she completely twists the meaning of “blame,” too. She implied that it means that implies deserving something, but it actually means is asserting (in a negative, finger-pointing way) that someone is responsible for something. Yet with that definition of hers, she went on to say that it’s not the same as responsibility. She fails to realize that placing the burden on rape victims to not get raped is precisely victim-blaming and nothing more.
I’m just going to laugh now. I wonder what other words they’ve butchered.
She said that her rapists were wrong for what they did, but like most victim-blamers, she immediately undermined that statement by going all “But I shouldn’t have been so stupid!” on her readers.
La Strega — Hugo. Fucking. Schwyzer. was the subject of a bunch of the Jane Austin thread. Feel free to ignore my ramblings about visiting pecunium and revive that discussion over there.
Fullsperm Jacket, etc…what have I done…
Eh, if making food with sperm is a thing why not menses? (ohgoshwhatdidisay)
Xen, I don’t know about other culinary applications, but my husband, having translated some of their stuff a few years ago, assures me that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is into ingesting menses. Also sperm and some other bodily fluids, I think.
Whoa
What
EWWW.
Also by lab safety training is going, “pathogen alert! Pathogen alert!”
But mostly EWWWW.
wordsp1nner — you too? You want to eat your own fluids, enjoy, I guess. Somebody else’s? ALL THE TESTS first.
My precious bodily fluids! (Totally had to)
Yeah I don’t really know, don’t really want to know, but those dudes get up to some weeeiiiiiirrrrrd stuff. Also I think they spend a lot of time staring straight into the sun? It’s an odd cult that splintered off of Catholicism at some point.
I will never eat red velvet baked goods again.