So the founder of the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fellow who now goes by the name of notnotnotfred, has done his fellow Men’s Rightsers a little favor and collected together a handy assortment of “antifeminist graphics” to assist them in their antifeministing activities on the internets. I thought I would share some of them with you all, just so you know what you’re up against.
Oh, who am I kidding? We here at Man Boobz love love love MRA graphics. There are few things in this world so hilariously awful. Take a look at these hot messes.
First, a fellow who proudly announces his plans to beat women:
It took me a little while to realize that he probably wasn’t suggesting that he was going to physically assault women, just that he considered himself superior to them, and could beat them in competition.
Then there’s this poorly thought out little poster:
Problem is, even if we accept the rather strained rape-is-like-getting-hit-by-a-car metaphor, this graphic doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. Because we DO tell cars — or at least their drivers — not to hit kids.
Before you’re allowed to drive a car, as you may recall, you have to take Driver’s Ed and pass a driving test; the importance of not hitting people with your car is rather central to both. Also, in the very picture used for the graphic, THERE’S A GUY HOLDING A SIGN TELLING CARS TO STOP SO THEY WON’T HIT THE KIDS. That’s actually HIS ENTIRE JOB.
A lot of the MRA graphics aren’t so much “graphics” as they are “bunches of words arranged in conventional paragraphs with no graphical elements at all.” Like this rant, which is highly unlikely to convince anyone of anything other than that MRAs are a bunch of angry dudes who like to yell a lot and if they can’t yell at you in person they’ll do it in .png form.
Other “graphics” in notnotnotfred’s collection are nothing more than blurry screenshots of Facebook conversations in which Mr. Fred apparently thinks the man in the conversation “won.”
No, not the “logic!” How can we ever win against “logic” like that?
It’s a sad state of affairs for the MRAs when the parodies of MRA graphics are almost always better designed than the originals. Here’s one from our own Cloudiah:
Also, thanks to Cloudiah for pointing out notnotnotfred’s little collection in the first place.
Also, in that Facebook post, I noticed that he said that if men cry at night they’re “just being emotional little girls.” So then, men aren’t allowed to show emotions. God, I hate that misandric idea they’re spreading.
The thing that strikes me about the car analogy is that, where I live, we get frequent reminders around long weekends and big changes in the weather that kids get excited, and forget to be careful about traffic, so it’s up to drivers to be extra careful when driving past schools and playgrounds and neighbourhoods with children.
The children are young and sometimes don’t have good judgment about what’s safe, so adults are expected to watch out for them to compensate.
Contrast that with the pedophilia-apologists constant whine about how pre-pubescent children are seducing those 40-year-old victims.
What is it with people who support “true equality” and physical violence?
In almost every conversation I’ve had with them – their first example is how hitting a man and hitting a woman should be considered the same thing. Seriously? Not wages or the hiring process when it comes to employment, but…assault? It’s bad enough the person in the photo has his head tilted back and with an awkward expression of contentedness – since it looks like he’s practically masturbating to the thought of smacking some ladies about.
Yes, because as a woman I make it a point to beat the ever loving crap out of every man who wrongs me, rather than just civilly disagreeing with him. Because violence is the end all for all problems *roles eyes*.
Am I being driverist if I operate on the assumption that every other driver out there could do something dangerous, and I have to be alert in case they do? Schrodinger’s hit-and-run?
There is, right now, a campaign in Pasadena to make school zones safer.
Note the giant billboard that says “We make time to brake for kids.”
These are all over the place.
“Why can’t I hit women?”
You aren’t SUPPOSED to hit ANYONE you asshole.
Exactly fox. I don’t know why these guys think that beating up anyone is okay. Life is soooo unfair.
grumpycatisagirl
oh right if you don’t be careful (or do) and something happens and you blame the (male) rapist, you’re misandrist. And if you do be careful, you’re misandrist to begin with. Worrying about being raped is misandrist. It’s misandrist to not just give men whatever they want.
Nah, you’re being what’s generally called a “defensive driver”, which is what driving instructors, cops, EMTs, everyone generally encourage.
Heh. Generally, generally, generally.
You know, this driver analogy is really pointing out how wrong-headed the anti-feminist argument is.
*starts to write out a big long explanation of that statement, loses focus, decides to have a nap instead*
I think I’ve mentioned before, but my dad was hit by a car being driven by a drunk driver while he was crossing the road.
People say the whole ‘well, why don’t we teach cars not to hit people instead of teaching people to look both ways’ and I get very mad.
Because my dad did look both ways.
But cars can move faster than people, and drunk drivers can fly through red lights, and WE DO, IN FACT, RELY ON DRIVERS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH EVERY TIME WE CROSS THE FUCKING ROAD.
And this is a terrible analogy and it hits a little too close to home. And my dad was mostly okay, he survived, and he lives with chronic pain.
And I have rage for drunk drivers and careless drivers.
I _kinda_ get it. They’re confusing multiple messages from different sources.
Toxic sexism says men are violent, women are irrational, and need to be hit if they get out of line.
“Chivalrous” sexism says men are violent, but men shouldn’t hit women because they’re inherently weaker, so men should take it on the chin.
Feminists say violence is unacceptable _period_ but focus primarily on domestic violence against women because that’s the bigger problem.
And yeah, comedians and idiots occasionally take the position that women should never be hit and men should be subjected to violence, either in jest or ignorance.
All these messages get mixed up in culture as a whole. These guys either don’t bother to distinguish between arguments, or intentionally mix them to claim hypocrisy in favour of a position of toxic sexism.
I try not to lump them all into ‘intentionally,’ but it’s really hard. I mean, it takes some downright motivated reasoning not to notice that kind of stuff.
…of course, I’ve been one of the people not noticing that kind of stuff. It’s amazing how big our blind spots can turn out to be.
The crossing the road with cars is good, but the “I need childism” is gold
“Don’t tell me not to eat the candy!”
“Tell cars not to hit me!”
It’s such a perfect encapsulation of wrong, misantrophy, hate and willful ignorance.
Oh, and the physical violence is weird.
I’ve hit plenty of women in my life. Also men. And walls. I’ve done martial arts for the better part of the last 15 years, so I don’t see how hitting anyone is such a big deal, because the natural caveat that applies is “Unless you’re literally in a physical fight, you don’t hit anyone“. It’s like going around saying “I need traffic laws because slamming my car into a tree is bad”. You don’t slam your car into a tree at all!
How is that hard to understand? And what kind of person hits plenty of their friends all the time, but feels bad about hitting the women? And why is their “Protected Status” the only thing that stops that fictional person from hitting someone, and not common decency or pacifism? And why is the assumption of bonding by mock violence never applied to women, because they’re some part of a weird outgroup, like a secondary citizens you only ever touch when you’re flirting and oh wait I got it nevermind.
And as for cars, the reason we teach basic car safety is because, after a certain limit, automobiles are playthings of physical forces, not human intentions
It’s actually an incredibly misandric memeplex of stupid, willful hate, because the underlying implication is that the males who rape are “Triggered” by females in some situation, at which point, like a car on rainslick road at night with poor visibiility and a fog bank, they just careen wildly into the nearest available tree, only the tree is a vagina in this analogy.
Nevermind such things as “Faulty breaks” or “Downhill slopes” or “People suddenly running across the highway” or “Drunk driving” or “Texting while driving”, no, men are purely mechanical creatures and once you hit the ignition erection, that’s it, sorry bucko, you’re just going to have to hit that truck. THe truck in this analogy is… well, you know.
Sigh. Come on.
We’re also far more likely to punish people for hitting kids with their car than for raping someone, and far less likely to make or accept excuses for their having done so.
Yea, really amazing is that MRA don’t have sense of humor, I mean completely. Some people have better sense of humor some less, some have weird sense of humor, but those guys don’t have any at all. Obviously girls are just joking that they proud to walk in high heals etc. And yep, I remember, I was always told that I have to be careful especially in residential areas where kids can run across the road not in a crosswalk and I should be prepared to avoid kids even if it kids fault. Maybe the “genius” creator of the poster never got his driving license yet…
Adding to what Tanya and Samantha said about feminism kickstarting other areas of activism: If you look into the history of masculism, guess where it started? WITH FEMINISTS. Feminists who decided that something had to be done with these shitty gender roles that men face. It wasn’t until later in the movement that it split into pro-feminism and anti-feminism masculinists, one of whom was Warren Farrell. (I’m sure you can guess which side he was on.)
Didn’t Farrell basically take his toys and go off to found the MRM because he wasn’t being allowed to run feminism?
If I’m not mistaken, he began to found the MRM because the feminist organization NOW didn’t like his misogyny and his silly views on gender.
Yep, it was NOW specifically I think that wasn’t letting him run the show. Which of course was terribly unfair of them.
Yup, Stupid MRA Graphic Fail is in full force there…
True Story Time: When I was 14, I did look both ways. To my left, I saw my schoolbus, lights on, slowing to a stop. To my right, I saw oncoming cars, stopping. So I reasonably supposed that it was safe to cross the road and retrieve the packed lunch I’d forgotten to take along earlier, and which my brother was holding up across the road.
What I did NOT see was the driver behind the bus, pulling out to pass at the last moment just because he figured he could. I only saw that when I was right in front of his left headlight, literally one step from safety. I got a badly broken pelvis out of looking both ways and not being able to see him coming.
I also got $15,000 when my case against him went to court two years later. His attorney tried to victim-blame me. The judge didn’t buy it, and awarded me $1500 over the $13,500 my lawyer thought was all we could ask for.
Start screaming now about how his right to pass a stopping schoolbus was infringed, MRAs. Go on. I dare you.
The guy complaining about no reproductive rights for men reminded me a lot of the life of Brian: “I want to fight for the right to have baby”
Or is that just me?
Dude lies about the heels. I’ve seen footage of some of those “In Her Shoes” type events where college dudes walk in heels for a cause, most of them are whiny babies about it.
I just realized, I don’t know how I never noticed it before, that the two MRM lines on rape are completely contradictory
1) Rape is a thing that just happens if women dress wrong, say the wrong thing, are in the wrong place, etc etc
2) It is horribly unfair to act like any random man might be a rapist despite Line 1