Many Men’s Rights Redditors see themselves as fighting a noble fight against genuinely evil, misandrist radical feminists on the internet. One of their most powerful weapons: the deadly downvote.
Reading through one old thread on Men’s Rights last night, I noticed how some Men’s Rights Redditors had deftly deployed their downvotes to fight off the evil feminist misandry lurking in this comment:
Outrageous! A statement that could have been ripped straight from Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto!
Kudos to the brave Redditors who saw this vile misandry for what it was.
Elsewhere in the same thread, I happily noticed, Men’s Rights Redditors were helpfully upvoting the reasonable and uplifting sentiments of decent fellows, like the Men’s Rights Redditor who goes by the name theboners, who offered a sensibly critical take on the always controversial question of whether or not it was a good idea for men to give in to “pussy privilege” and let ladies have the vote:
Oh you irresponsible women! Why do we let you do anything?
I mean, aside from letting GirlWritesWhat make YouTube videos; that’s ok.
–
It might be time for that blinking
gif to remind possibly literal-minded readers that I do not actually agree with theboners or think SweetieKat is a reincarnation of Valerie Solanas.
That can only be a good thing.
Pussy privilege… That crap just makes me chuckle every single time again. Honestly. I (luckily) do not personally know ONE single guy who is SO obsessed with his penis and with literally fucking around, that their entire range of important life decisions and actions are based solely on the imagined errm… “threat”… of women collectively withholding sex. And I know a LOT of men.
I don’t get how they still function giving themselves that little credit as a gender. Misandry!!!
“You don’t vote like us so you shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all!”
-MRAs
Ah, pussy privilege… the privilege of having a body part that someone else would like to use.
Also, yes, women’s suffrage was basically achieved through a massive Lysistrata-style sex strike. Well-documented historical fact.
Right, because it was women who voted for… whom?
I still think it’s amusing that they actually think the voting populace is freely choosing the leaders and legislation that they want, and that wealthy individuals and donors aren’t circumscribing our choices and influencing the results.
Libertarians: We believe in liberty! Except for women, because they won’t vote our way. But for the people who believe the exact same things we believe, yeah! Liberty and freedom all the way!
In an era where a man raping h
…his wife was considered only his due. Clumsy fingers.
I was just told yesterday that I should get off the Internet, because it was invented by men for men.
Guys, if it is in fact the case that a) women withhold sex to get their way and b) this is a DREADFUL INJUSTICE…stop letting it work! You’re the ones who are caving to these “unreasonable” demands because you just can’t bear to go without poontang. But I’ll let you in on a little secret…sexlessness (oh shut up, red squiggle, it is too a word) is not actually life-threatening. Strange but true!
tinyorc, you beat me to the Lysistrata reference! Although I really do wonder what the MRAs would think of such a play – women withholding sex (and taking over the treasury, but shhhh, sex) to end a war! FEMALE PRIVILEGE! MISANDRY! MATRIARCHY!
On topic: If only the rabble stuck to upvote/downvote as their primary weapon, and didn’t throw in harassment, doxxing, and their other vile little tricks for the purpose of their “activism”.
@ Viscaria : Or with the crazier ones: “Freedom without having to consider the consequences (especally to others) and you’re a meanie for calling me on it.”
Hey, that’s Warren Farrell’s thing too.
Oh! And this other cool bit:
Wait no, no. Not that’s from linearThinker in the archieves, Whups, my bad
What I actually meant to quite was (Please don’t read this)
So this is a giant echo chamber and reading these books have not been good for my mental health.
The MRA is terrible.
@fibinachi
So if women are conscripted there would be no wars, killing, starvation and concentration camps?
What is he basing this on?
Oh yeah, ass facts. I don’t know how people can take these people seriously.
Redcap:
#
Yeah, let’s hope the misters never find out about it. Knowing their capacity for taking things literally, they will interpret it as a factual historical record instead of a comedic satire on gender relations at the time, and use it as PROOF that feeeeeeemales have been oppressing men with their butts since ancient times.
Since I’ve seen them put Helen of Troy on a list of historically powerful women, yep, they’ve probably already done this.
The reason that women don’t have to register for Selective Service (it’s not “the draft”, we don’t have a draft in the US) is that women are barred from combat roles, and therefore wouldn’t be needed in the event of a draft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg
The obvious solution is to open combat roles to women. Funny how MRAs never propose that.
P.S.: Men who are not “subject to the burden of conscription” still get to vote.
This is just one example of the sacrifices that were made by women in order to gain suffrage:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/suffrage_brutal.htm
No sacrifice, indeed.
They never had to sacrifice anything? I kind of remember hearing that they had to work their asses off to get suffrage. But I just heard that from people with PhDs in history, what do THEY know?
Also, grumpycatisagirl, where is that list? Because now, historians are saying that Helen of Troy wasn’t even real and the Trojan War was really over the fact that the Greeks were annoyed by having to pay tariffs to Troy.
Technically, he (Warren Farrell, at least) has included end notes that reference the Military Selective Service Act. The bit about nubile young body and AIDS and the incredible offense to homosexuals of all stripes is his own assfax. The guy from reddit probably just included nothing.
Interestingly, that’s not the first time in the book the “Men who don’t go to war will be seen as weak and raped by burly prisoners” come up. It happens six or seven times.
It’s… It’s odd.
Thanks to Mythago though – I didn’t know about Rostker V. Goldberg, and I find that just amazing. Is there any information about why the armed forces decided to preclude women from active combat roles, other than a “it’s a matter of established policy”?
@Carrie Kube
Not a huge fan of the term “crazy” in this context ( Most extreme? Selfish? Awful?) but yeah, that is super bang-on.
I never thought Helen of Troy was real? I mean, I always supposed the supposed daughter of Zeus was as mythological as he was. But I saw someone put her on this pathetically short list on the Amazon review site for Myth of Male Power:
Of course, even if she was real, being kidnapped and raped isn’t actually my idea of empowerment,
Also, the idea that a group should have to “sacrifice” anything in order have access to their basic human rights is patently absurd.
Lysistrata was a pointed political commentary about the fickleness of men.
1: Lysistrata is, in practical terms, not at all interested in overthrowing the power of men: she just wants things to go back to the way they were.
2: The cultural contexts of the play make it even more absurd than it appears to us now (a man who was, “in the thrall of his wife” lost his political rights).
3: Everyone knew women were more lusty than men, which makes the idea of them withholding sex even more comical (even the first line of the play is about how horny women always are, Lysistrata: And not so much as the shadow of a lover! Since the day the Milesians betrayed us, I have not once seen so much as an eight-inch device even, to be a leathern consolation to us poor widows
It’s an anti-war play, but the joke is how effeminate the men doing the fighting are: they have let their emotions run their lives, rather than their reason. It takes a woman (who stresses she learned all she knows from her father, and other “wise men”) to bring them back to their masculine selves.
Which is how the misters treat things anyway. I’ve seen them critique it, basically they say, “That’s stoopid, women don’t have the discipline to do it, and even if they did the mangina’s will give in to them,so they can get laid, and then women get to keep all the power they have already”.
The logical inconsistency (that women already have the power, so they don’t need to pull a Lysistrata, and even if they did there isn’t anything Real Men can do, because the all the girly-men will agree to anything to get sex; so we need to “put the women in their place so they have to have sex whenever men say, etc., etc., etc.,, begin rant about how “those nasty wimmenz won’t fuck me, and that means everything in the world is fucked up…”
Because they are the soul of rational thinking, unlike Feminists.