I sometimes say that the only “activism” that the Men’s Rights Movement is any good at is harassing individual women. But perhaps I’m being a bit too stingy here: following on the heels of the Father’s Rights activists who dress up like superheroes and climb up buildings and bridges to show that, well, I’m not sure what they’re trying to show, Men’s Rightsers seem to be developing a knack for poorly conceived media stunts that make them look like idiots.
The latest incredibly poorly conceived Men’s Rights media stunt come from Men’s Rights Edmonton, the A Voice for Men sister brother group famous for, among other things, chasing women down the street in the middle of the night and claiming that the women they chased were the bullies.
Anyway, the loudest and most obnoxious dude in the group, Nick Reading (a.k.a. “Eric Duckman”) has decided to run for Edmonton City Council on — get this! — the Patriarchy Party ticket! Oh no he didn’t!
Oh, yes he did. I suppose that the Patriarchy Party’s supposed platform — including a pledge “to end antiquated laws regarding women’s sexual consent” and provisions to instruct teachers “to snatch things like toy trucks out of the hands of little girls and replace them with dolls or tea sets” — probably inspired a chuckle or two amongst the folks at A Voice for Men, but the trollery here is really too inane to offend.
Whetever, dudes. You can find their badly designed pamphlet, with traced-photo “artwork” presumably by the noted FeMRA artist TyphonBlue, here.
Question – does Elam have a job, or is AVFM his only means of support? If the people who donate to the blog are actually paying his rent I wonder if they know that.
You first, bud. This has been covered.
helkrap
Um, Good…aw, fuck it. You’re just too stupid
Couldn’t come up with an intelligent response ignoramus?
Aw, Good. You’re so cute when you try to be cutting.
I’m going to keep telling you how dumb you are until you a.) grow a brain or b.) fuck off. I’m hoping for b but either will work.
I’m surprised and impressed that Good has finally recognized hellkell’s divine nature. The next step is traditionally to make some kind of offering (I believe she might accept either booze or mascara).
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/norse-mythology.php?deity=HEL
Cassandra: I think leeching off his band of fools is the only income Elam has.
Her brother is a giant wolf, you know. You probably shouldn’t piss him off.
http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/hel/
Cassandra: high time he acknowledged it, and on my b-day to boot. I’ll take booze and makeup as tribute, but the tears of trolls will also do.
I feel like we need a troll test. You must be at least this funny/intelligent/entertaining in some way in order to post a comment.
Did Mr. “I Can’t Bother to Scroll Through Cats to Read Comments Directed at Me” just get all “read the comments”? The irony, it burns.
Happy birthday!!
Thank you!
Actually, plenty of feminists (often marxist, socialist, and intersectionalist feminists) are quick to argue that the social stratification of power occurs along multiple axis. In fact, one of the “powerful” executive feminists, Sheryl Sandberg, has been significantly criticized for her privileged ignorance and backwards thinking on gender issues.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/feminisms-tipping-point-who-wins-from-leaning-in
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/03/like-feminism/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/03/31/175862363/should-all-women-heed-authors-advice-to-lean-in
So yeah…
Happy birthday, hellkell.
UnGood, you are a coward who runs away every time he’s bested in argument. You even chose the most boring ‘nym possible. Go away forever.
Good.
Dear Good.
Dear poor sad put upon Good
You need a new schtick Good
Or at least to step up your game a bit
Because as it is you’re just tedious
Howard has UnGood’s number.
Plutocracy implies that the issue is wealth. It’s not. The issue is class. The issue is private ownership of the means of production, which results in one class being forced to sell its labor force to another to survive. Ludicrously misdistributed wealth is not a cause of social inequity, it’s a result of it.
The issue is not plutocracy. It’s capitalism. And patriarchy exists on top of (in addition to) capitalism.
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
@ cloudiah
It’s kind of like calling yourself “Bland”, except that would be too honest.
Feminist Bees
Thanks for the civil response. I just simply don’t see the general social stratification of power being mainstream feminisms target. Feminism is at its root, woman vs man and attacks on any institution must include attacks on masculinity. That is why “patriarchy” is in common use by feminists because it has a masculine connotation that “plutocracy” doesn’t. Why do gender roles fall under “patriarchy” when women promote them as much as men?
Good: if that’s what you think feminism really is, well. You are beyond help.
@UnGood, Respond to Howard. Link is in my comment above. Why do you keep running away from discussions as soon as you’re losing?
Someone needs to teach him how to sentence before he can even attempt how to coherent.
Thanks for the response BlackBloc
The issue is not plutocracy. It’s capitalism. And patriarchy exists on top of (in addition to) capitalism.
Ok, then why not attack capitalism? I almost never hear or read feminists lambasting capitalism. That attack patriarchy because of the need for a masculine target. Let me ask this. If all of those male CEOs were replaced with women, would feminists attack the “matriarchy”? I doubt it. I actually believe that most would celebrate it and claim that women are owed a matriarchal society.
It’s funny that feminists try hard to prove the existence of a matriarchal pre-history when in theory, the matriarchy should be just as bad as a patriarchy. Why argue so hard to prove something bad? It’s because feminists generally don’t view matriarchy as bad.