So I’ve been skimming through the mass of comments that the Daily Beast piece on the Men’s Rightsers now has trailing in its wake. So far I think this is my favorite exchange.
Yep, that’s DriverSuz — aka Suzanne McCarley, “Senior Editor” of A Voice for Men.
And yep, that’s Angry Harry, the fellow that many MRAs call “the father of the men’s rights movement.”
Some critics of this blog complain whenever I quote some crackpot commenter rather than one of the “big names” in the Men’s Rights movement. Sometimes, it turns out, the crackpot commenters ARE the “big names” in the Men’s Rights movement.
Oops, that comment of mine should say “Fine gender you got there…”
I’m sorry if this deviates too much from the topic, but I have to vent. This over the top, aggressive, and outrageous gender assignment in baby clothes is driving me bonkers! I thought it was bad when I had my son (everything sports, “mommy’s hero”, tools, etc), but shopping for my daughter is absolutely horrifying. Everything is doused in pink, frills, glitter, etc. I couldn’t find girl jeans that weren’t “skinny” or had writing on the butt. She’s 13 months old! And princess, princess, princess, fucking princess everywhere!!! She can’t crawl in a dress because it gets stuck under her knees. She can’t crawl easily in these tiny leggings and skinny jeans that I have to peel off of her. Granted, I do like dresses and frills, I like Girly things, but criminy, not all the time! And she’s a baby! You can’t tell me writing on the butt isn’t sexual. I usually just put her in her brother’s old baby clothes because those jeans and overalls are comfortable. But then everyone thinks she’s a boy because she’s not wearing flippin pink all the time.
Oops, double comment. Wanted to change “sone” to “son”.
Alice: I have used the b-word to refer to myself, in an ironic way, like, “I don’t think women are worthless except as baby-factories and semen toilets, but then I’m a ball-busting feminazi bitch.” And joking around with my friends, but we’re all pretty foul-mouthed AND its in context of being ironic/joking which we’ve already established amongst ourselves. I wouldn’t use it, like, out of the blue with people when that context hasn’t been established, even being ironic/joking. And when people let you know that that word is out-of-bounds, of course, because that’s just being respectful.
The OP: Yep, until my husband properly “tamed” me, I was just running around in the wild, shitting in the woods and digging truffles up with my snout – er, I mean nose – for food. And if he didn’t tell me to put on clothes everyday and use utensils like a proper human being and everything, I’d still be running wild. Yep, women are worse than animals. Those MRAs suuuure have women figured out!
And tomorrow I’ll be having tea with the Easter Bunny and the Sugarplum Fairy.
“Miss Brooke was annoyed at the interruption. This amiable baronet, really a suitable husband for Celia, exaggerated the necessity of making himself agreeable to the elder sister. Even a prospective brother-in-law may be an oppression if he will always be presupposing too good an understanding with you, and agreeing with you even when you contradict him. The thought that he had made the mistake of paying his addresses to herself could not take shape: all her mental activity was used up in persuasions of another kind. But he was positively obtrusive at this moment, and his dimpled hands were quite disagreeable. Her roused temper made her color deeply, as she returned his greeting with some haughtiness.
Sir James interpreted the heightened color in the way most gratifying to himself, and thought he never saw Miss Brooke looking so handsome.
‘I have brought a little petitioner,’ he said, ‘or rather, I have brought him to see if he will be approved before his petition is offered.’ He showed the white object under his arm, which was a tiny Maltese puppy, one of nature’s most naive toys.
‘It is painful to me to see these creatures that are bred merely as pets,’ said Dorothea, whose opinion was forming itself that very moment (as opinions will) under the heat of irritation.
‘Oh, why?’ said Sir James, as they walked forward.
‘I believe all the petting that is given them does not make them happy. They are too helpless: their lives are too frail. A weasel or a mouse that gets its own living is more interesting. I like to think that the animals about us have souls something like our own, and either carry on their own little affairs or can be companions to us, like Monk here. Those creatures are parasitic.’
‘I am so glad I know that you do not like them,’ said good Sir James. ‘I should never keep them for myself, but ladies usually are fond of these Maltese dogs. Here, John, take this dog, will you?’
The objectionable puppy, whose nose and eyes were equally black and expressive, was thus got rid of, since Miss Brooke decided that it had better not have been born.”
I would append an explanation to this citation, but I don’t believe it needs one. Besides, I’ve tried four or five times and keep coming up with something redundant and impolite, so, better not go there. Suffice it to say that I think this block of text has relevance to the subject under discussion and that the application isn’t too difficult to find. I’d like to close with the observation that it would be stupid to breed a cat for its thick pelt and then find fault with it for leaving hairballs all over the house. It would be stupid — but it’s the kind of thing people like DriverSuz and Angry Harry do.
@cassandrasays
Aliens? Wait, no, kids don’t need to take care of themselves, all stay at home moms do (stay at home dads don’t exist) is eat bonbons.
@Alice
I think so. It’s something I like to do, imo, though I haven’t been doing it as much recently due to cut-down-in-cursing all around b/c of being around little kids.
wow hopefully that sentence was understandable.
@seraph
OT, but I am going to google honey cakes now because they sound really yummy, I don’t even know what they are but they sound yummy.
@bandit beach
Because it’s different when being used in an oppressive context? I mean, not like everyone has to/ wants to do it, but the fact that someone might come along and totally miss the point doesn’t really deter me.
@dvarghunspossen
Ditto. My homophobic step mom calls gay people ‘of homosexual orientation’ and it really skeeves me out.
@nitram
that sucks 🙁 don’t know what to do about it, other than what you’re already doing (putting her in baby boy clothes.) My 3 yr old stepsister has some cute clothes that aren’t sexualized*/ way over the top princess-y. My favorite one was just a pink shirt/skirt combo with an adorable owl on the top, but I don’t know where my stepmom gets her baby/toddler clothes :/ Um, sorry if that was rambly/ totally unhelpful.
*(older than your daughter + I don’t think her extreme gender binary obsessed mom would want to put her in boys clothes)
The word “queer” has pretty much been successfully reclaimed as well, I think – although I know there are some (mostly older, in my experience) LGBT people who are not super happy about its use. Still, it’s gone from being a complete slur to something you can study in college over the course of a few decades. I think that’s pretty neat.
As for bitch…I’m not crazy about it personally, but I’m not offended when women choose to use it to describe themselves in a “reclaiming” sort of way. I’m not offended by the existence of “Bitch” magazine, for example. I agree with Dvärghundspossen – part of the problem is that “bitch” can mean so many different things. It gets kind of complicated, where some uses are horrible and some are fine – at least according to my personal compass.
What’s fascinating is that they’re posting this stuff on a mainstream news site where they feel they were just unfairly criticized for misogyny. Presumably they feel these are compelling, not-at-all-misogynistic arguments that will resonate with the public at large.
Amusingly, Suz feels it’s the feminists who are bringing down the level of discourse:
Almost 1400 comments, mostly off-topic spats initiated by feminists who have nothing to discuss except how they feeeeel about those awful menz, and why it’s so important to raise women above men. Emotional non-rational rants, the hallmark of feminist debate.
Mr Kelly, you must be deeply embarrassed by the caliber of discourse these screeching harpies have brought to your article.
It’s particularly funny because Suz herself has been posting there nonstop since the piece went up, mostly just to hurl irrational insults at any non-MRA who shows up, and is probably responsible for at least 400 of those 1400 comments.
To clarify, there’s nothing wrong with sports or frills or pink or glitter. It’s just sooo segregated. Why can’t a little boy wear hearts? Why can’t a little girl wear baseball onesies? Girls like tools and boys like dolls. So ridiculous to not give boys baby dolls. Many boys grow up to be fathers after all! But we clothe our babies like boys should have no tenderness and girls have no interests beyond princess imitation. Ok rant over.
@nitram
I didn’t get the feeling you thought there was something wrong with frills or glitter ect. Not that clarifying hurts, I’m just rambling today…
@seraph4377
As for raising children (let alone their heroes), they seem to forget it happened at all. Apparently most women throughout history have sat around eating bon-bons (what does that translate into in, say, ancient Egypt? Honey cakes?) all day while men did The Real Work.
Lordy. Well, nice perspective. I think, though, that it’s another case of contradictory beliefs: Caring for children and cleaning the house is a) Not That Hard but also b) Too Vile and Demeaning for Men. In other words, a Man’s Man like one of these guys would never stoop to it, but it’s such a simple task that it Isn’t Really Work.
Funny that they’d paint pregnancy, birth, and nursing as an involuntary function, though. They sure pound their chests at their ability to knock a woman up, as if squirting inside her is a fantastic, praise-worthy accomplishment, but what she then has to do with the result of that squirt is simply expected of her. Why, then, can’t protecting the women and children simply be expected of these men (since they never have to have their bodies compromised by the needs of a child and are theoretically more physically able to do it)? Nope, ladies have to physically create the children with their bodies and care for them until they can care for themselves, but the protection and providing that men do for said women and children is the only significant and important piece of this puzzle.
They’re forever asking “where would you bitches be without MEN?” but they never seem to ask where they would be without women and children.
Nitram: Have you ever been on zulily.com? They have frilly stuff, but they also have organic cotton baby clothes, and a lot of that is gender neutral and/or not overly frilly; and is comfortable and easy to move in, too (don’t know why, but when it’s “organic cotton” it’s softer than “regular cotton”). And they’re cheaper than a lot of other places. (And I don’t know if you are in the US and if they ship to countries other than the US).
And the Children’s Place has a lot of nice, basic jeans – not skinny jeans – for a reasonable price. They have baby sizes; that’s where a get my daughters jeans and khaki pants.
It bugs me too, that a lot of clothing for girls is frilly and impractical.
Sorry for the double post, but:
Shout out to Shaenon for the Mr. Show reference!
Sadly, I always had a bit of a crush on Bob Odenkirk. Totally off topic, but on the other thread “hot men” were being discussed, and yeah, my attraction meter is quirky.
Translation: We protect you by choosing not to kill you.
Internalized oppression is a horrifying thing to see, and it’s always amazing and extremely disheartening to notice how strong it seems to get for certain women. I find it quite difficult to picture a member of any other oppressed group (ethnic minorities, the working class, whatever) expressing outright gratitude for their oppressor’s restraint in not COMPLETELY dehumanizing them. Not fearful ‘it could be worse’ relief, or fatalistic resignation, but actual gratitude. FemRAs are at the best of times difficult to understand, but when one of them really lets loose it’s stomach turning.
To everyone who answered: ah, okay. I have jokingly called myself a bitch on a few occasions (among company who know that I’m joking, of course), but recalling that it is technically a slur (and should not be used without irony), hence the question.
Also, whoever used shorthand (iDevices suck sometimes), I understood what you meant. I’ve been on the internet for over eight years, surely we’d know what w/o or IRL or IMHO means! 😛
@seraph4377
“As for raising children (let alone their heroes), they seem to forget it happened at all.”
Unless said children turn out to be serial killers. Then somehow the way their mother raised them is completely at fault!
Nitram, you might check out Lands’ End’s kids clothes.
As to the MRA, l wish some one would require them to actually read some history/archaeology before they started spouting off about the past.
@talacaris
They’re pretty consistently wrong, I’ll give them that at least.
Really though, the more often they take the “Any position is a good one, so long as it’s against feminism” route, the more convinced I am that the MRM is nothing more than a (not very) cleverly disguised conspiracy movement.
“We treat you better than our other domestic animals” is not exactly a ringing endorsement of men’s so-called superior nature, is it?
And the complete fawning in that quote from Suz makes my skin crawl.
These MRAs really are ignorant of history, aren’t they? In addition to the importance of women in the development of agriculture and in hunter/gatherer societies (women actually procured most of the food in at least some of them), there’s also the fact that, well, for a lot of human history, good livestock lived in the house. From Bedouins bringing their prize horses into their own tents to peasants in the Middle Ages keeping a pig or a cow in the house in order to keep it warm and safe, we haven’t always been so segregated from our livestock as we are now. So merely “letting” a woman live in the house isn’t nearly as generous as they seem to think it is…
But of course, they seem to think that anything beyond raping/beating/killing women is deserving of praise, so I guess that’s no surprise.
As a woman who is (still) recovering from Internalized Misogyny, perhaps I can shed some light on those baffled by this odd condition.
I grew up in a highly patriarchal society (Mormonism) and family. I was told I was equal to men (separate but equal, of course) but it became clear even at a young age that that wasn’t the case. My brothers were given middle names at birth, while I was told I would get a middle name when I was married. My brothers were given the priesthood when they reached 12, while I was told again that I would be equal when I married and had children. My worth was always centered around the men around me, but the men around me had worth with or without a woman in their life.
To men, women were a compliment to his life. For women, men were necessary for completion.
But I knew I wasn’t equal, it was blatantly obvious, so I strove to become “equal,” which in my mind meant becoming one of the boys. I threw myself into “boy” things and mocked “girl” things. I was determined to not be like “other girls,” because it was made crystal clear to me that “other girls” were inferior to boys, and I did NOT want to be inferior to boys.
It was a backwards way of thinking, because I could never be a boy, and so I could never be “equal” to them this way, no matter how much I might try and delude myself. Needless to say I had serious depression issues, including thoughts of suicide (though I never dared attempt it.)
Studying feminism, and finding out it isn’t the evil, misandrous organization I was taught it was, has actually helped me find my inner worth. It hasn’t made me popular with those around me, but that’s okay, as I no longer feel the desperate need to please them and make them like me. 🙂
@Angela Gibbons
Welcome, if you’re new here 😀 (Sorry, don’t recognize you, assumed new. Sorry if I’m wrong.
And thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic :3
And seems like it’s so much worse than when in the late seventies/early eighties when I was a little kid… at least that’s the impression I get from friends with children, that things have been moving backwards on that point.
A colleague talked about this in the lunch room the other day. First, one if his little sons loves red, so he tries to buy red clothes for him, but it’s difficult, because red clothes are usually made for girls, and then they’re, uh, don’t know the English for this one but designed so as to follow your body’s curves? Except, as he pointed out, tiny kids regardless of gender have no curves! They look like lego people! Square little things with arms and legs sticking out at the corners (that’s what he said, it’s not my comparison). But for some fucked-up reason girls clothes nowadays are made to give their bodies feminine curves.
Plus, speaking of lego, there’s girls’ lego and boys’ lego nowadays, rather than the gender-neutral lego-for-all that existed when we were children. So his first idea was that obviously he’s gonna buy both boys’ and girls’ lego for his sons, not indoctrinate them into boyishness. But turns out a) girls’ lego is all about fairly passive stuff like going to the beauty saloon, whereas boys’ lego is about adventures, i e girls’ lego is simply much more boring for children, and b) the respective legos are made so that you can’t combine them. You can build cities with both boys’ lego and girls’ lego (although the girl city has like beauty saloons and cupcake bakeries whereas the boy city has police stations, fire stations and stuff like that), but you can’t integrate the cities with each other.
So in the end his sons get boy lego only.
Anyway, this is messed up.