Here — above and below — are a couple of amazing works of Men’s Rightsy propaganda I missed in my survey of deviantART yesterday, both from a fellow calling himself alexlartwork22. And, yes, they both seem to be meant completely seriously.
Thanks, Tulgey Logger and Cloudiah for finding these! Is anyone else reminded of Chick Tracts here? The crude drawing, the melodrama, the excessive word balloons?
My post yesterday inspired (or at least provided the excuse for) rather a lot of comments, many of them rebutting a Men’s Rightsy fellow calling himself Good. Below, a graphic from Katz memorializing one of Good’s more, er, memorable pronouncements.
Good: if you can’t be smart, can you at least try to be relevant?
Dammit.
Handy link.News articles that don’t link to the actual studies are not useful citations, Good.
Also, who the hell links to HuffPo for science? Like, seriously, that’s like linking NaturalNews as evidence for your anti-vac views.
LesserGood, seriously dude.
@Good
Most of these studies (most of these studies are undergrad surveys, even giving students credits – not exactly a random sample. It is very rare to see such studies conducted across the population since it is very expensive, and it is quite difficult (often impossible) to control. Moreover, if you believe all social science studies (as reported in popular newspapers and magazines) are correct, I assume you also accept the conclusions of all the other ones supporting feminist claims. And that you have a very incoherent view of the world.
That being said, let’s say that study absolutely represents women’s behaviour. What now? The point is that feminism is about ending these problems. That’s where the irony lays. Feminism isn’t about getting a rich dude. That’s why the ‘art’ is ridiculous.
I like how the one study claims that “what women want” is to “marry up,” and then proceeds to say that 38% of women married up in 1990 (the most recent available stats??).
That means 62% of them didn’t.
I can cite studies, too!
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/men-self-esteem.aspx
Chie
I don’t dispute the study in your link.
LesserGood, I can’t help but notice that you ran away from the little discussion you started yesterday.
LesserGood, you realize that that doesn’t make you sound smart, right, if you say “oh, I’m not going to dispute the study in your link”? That just makes you sound even dumber.
Chie
They were comparing the 38% to the 20% in 1949, which indicates that the rise of feminism has coincided with a greater tendency for women to “marry up”.
The HuffPo article also states: “The researchers argue that it is important to look at who pays for dates, because in many cases, the initial arrangement persists as the relationship progresses. Men who pay for dates early on may continue to serve as the sole providers as the relationship unfolds, although no formal research has looked into that before, said Frederick. One potential problem with embracing chivalry is that men who engage in more benevolent forms of sexism, like paying for a check, may also engage in more hostile forms, seeing women as subservient and acting negatively toward women who step outside of typical gender roles, he said”
And: “‘Men typically embrace their partner having a stable income in the workplace, but many men resist stepping [up] their efforts in terms of housework and child care,’ he explained.”
That is not a refutation of feminism.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, you uneducated dumbnut. That’s like one of the biggest fallicies out there.
LesserGood, I can’t help but notice that you ran away from the little discussion you started yesterday
Cloudymind. Are you talking about when I went to bed?
Wait, Good is concerned about how men are expected to pay on dates?
Gee, maybe you’d like to read fully my citation about women making less for the same work than men. And think about that for a while. About the structural disadvantages of being economically fleeced.
Gee, I wonder what connection there might be between these two things!
LOL”Cloudymind”
whut
LesserGood, You’re clearly up now.
Alice: Yes! All together now: ” Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation!”
And I agree with you said earlier in response to me. 🙂
1920 is the year suffrage was passed after 80 years of activism by feminist women. Feminism existed in 1920. In fact, the “Roaring 20’s” saw a big resurgence in progressive thinking. It wasn’t until the post-war era that we regressed again socially.
Learn to history before you open your idiot mouth.
Don’t expect him to make sense. He’ll dash all those expectations.
Then he’ll JAQ endlessly with leading questions, and claim he was insinuating nothing.
BOOOOOOORRRRRR-ING.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, you uneducated dumbnut. That’s like one of the biggest fallicies out there.
Of course, stating that something “coincides” is not stating that something “caused”, bird brain. It could simply mean that something is not achieving what it is purported to be trying to do.
But I’ll use you very line the next time something is blamed on the dreaded, mystical patriarchy.
I mean, you got a clear, cogent argument proving feminism is totally wrong? ROLL IT OUT, GOOD!
You got numbers and facts? Well, stop dropping citations that don’t prove your point, drop ones that actually do!
You got big ideas? Maybe explain them! Because you haven’t, not a once.
You think MRAs aren’t terrorist supporting thugs trying to bring down western civilization?
Now you’re just being silly.
Hey, has AVfM actually kept the Ball manifesto out of its activism section on the webpage? Has anybody checked on that recently?
1920 is the year suffrage was passed after 80 years of activism by feminist women. Feminism existed in 1920
Modern feminism was born in 1963 you dolt. Read a book.
I read that as “you uneducated doughnut.”
And now I want a doughnut.