Categories
antifeminism evil women GirlWritesWhat I'm totally being sarcastic imaginary backwards land men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA no girls allowed pussy pass reddit vaginas woman's suffrage women in tech

Upvote, downvote: Men's Rights Redditors on the evils of "p*ssy privilege" and women being encouraged to go into tech

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:

SweetieKat -7 points 20 days ago (23|27)  As a feminist, I think the tech community does NOT work fine without females women. Women should be encouraged to enter the tech community if they want to. I'm glad people are speaking up and trying to make opportunities available.

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:

theboners 2 points 11 days ago (5|3)  It makes sense. Women gained suffrage without having to sacrifice anything (no draft, for instance). They probably got it purely thanks to pussy privilege (husbands afraid they'd withhold sex), and therefore they don't understand the responsibilities that men do.  As a result, women tend to vote for socialists, authoritarians, and other anti-freedom candidates.  GirlWritesWhat has a video about how women's suffrage results in a net loss for libertarianism, and I agree with her.

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.

 

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

257 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ally S
6 years ago

GirlWritesWhat has a video about how women’s suffrage results in a net loss for libertarianism…

That can only be a good thing.

Angelica
6 years ago

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!!!

Quackers
Quackers
6 years ago

“You don’t vote like us so you shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all!”
-MRAs

tinyorc
6 years ago

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.

pecunium
6 years ago

Right, because it was women who voted for… whom?

cloudiah
6 years ago

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.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

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!

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

Also, yes, women’s suffrage was basically achieved through a massive Lysistrata-style sex strike. Well-documented historical fact.

In an era where a man raping h

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

…his wife was considered only his due. Clumsy fingers.

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

I was just told yesterday that I should get off the Internet, because it was invented by men for men.

Karalora
Karalora
6 years ago

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!

Redcap
Redcap
6 years ago

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”.

Carrie Kube
6 years ago

@ 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.”

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Hey, that’s Warren Farrell’s thing too.

Doesn’t the fact that almost all legislators are men prove that men are in charge and can choose when to and when not to look out for women’s interests? Theoretically, yes. […] Overall, a legislator is to the voter what a chauffeur is to the employer – both look like they’re in charge but both can be fired if they don’t go where they’re told. When legislators do not appear to be protecting women, it is almost always because women differ on what constitutes protection. (For example, women voted almost equally for Republican and Democrats during the combination of the four presidential elections prior to Clinton)

Oh! And this other cool bit:

By giving women the right to vote without the civil burden of being subjected to conscription, femininism has brought on wars, killing, concentration camps, starvation and endless cruelties

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)

If your son refuses to register for the draft when he turns 18, he can be barred from all federal jobs – from the U.S. Post Office to the FBI. He faces a fine up to 250,000 and five years in prison. Once in prison, your son’s nubile, young body combined with his reputation for not fighting makes him a perfect candidate for homosexual rape and, therefore, AIDS. In brief, he is subject to being killed. Why? He was too sensitive to kill. Do male-only draft registration and combat requirements amount, then to the legalized rape of men? Yes.

So this is a giant echo chamber and reading these books have not been good for my mental health.

The MRA is terrible.

Quackers
Quackers
6 years ago

@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.

tinyorc
6 years ago

Redcap:

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!

#

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.

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

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.

mythago
6 years ago

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.

alleee
6 years ago

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.

Cthulhu's Intern
6 years ago

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.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

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 seriousl

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”?

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

@Carrie Kube

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.”

Not a huge fan of the term “crazy” in this context ( Most extreme? Selfish? Awful?) but yeah, that is super bang-on.

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

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:

And speaking of history, check out these names:

Catherine the Great
Helen of Troy
Margaret Thatcher
Elizabeth I
Mary, Queen of Scots
Queen Victoria
Cleopatra
Elizabeth Bathory
Hillary Clinton

But women have never had any say. Yup, Yup.

Of course, even if she was real, being kidnapped and raped isn’t actually my idea of empowerment,

tinyorc
6 years ago

Also, the idea that a group should have to “sacrifice” anything in order have access to their basic human rights is patently absurd.

pecunium
6 years ago

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.

Quackers
Quackers
6 years ago

@Fibinachi

Yeah but where is he getting that feminism causes war, poverty etc just because women aren’t conscripted? He’s implying that if women were conscripted those things wouldn’t exist which has to go up there as one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Or is he implying that only women voted for the war? does he believe women were never killed throughout history? did jewish women not suffer and die in WW2?

It’s really disgusting this idea that MRAs push for that only those who go to war should have the vote and fuck everyone else. And how convenient that only men were allowed so they are guaranteed a vote and women were barred from it, so even if they wanted to fight so they could have a vote thet couldn’t. Oh and all those women keeping the country afloat and working in factories during WW2? Nope never happened. All they did was sit back and eat bon bons.

pecunium
6 years ago

Re Helen: She may have been real. It’s quite possible that she was playing games with Paris; in a form of personal liberation/realpolitik (Trojan women had a lot more freedom/autonomy than Achaean women).

Also a personal reason (e.g. a breach of hospitality) was much more in keeping with the public justifications for war (and as a means to get allies) than was a purely political one (such as Troy’s control of the tin-trade from the Mesopotamia/Asia Minor to Greece).

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”?

Because Congress forbade it.

pecunium
6 years ago

and now I have to rush to make it to work.

Asixpack
Asixpack
6 years ago

I hope you do know that testosterone is responsible for building muscle mass and therefore men having more testosterone will defenaitly have more lean muscle packed into their upper bodies replacing fat whereas the female upper body is more fat than muscle. This means that men on average are stronger than the average woman of the same body dimensions simply because of more lean muscle packed into his upper body. How well he uses this strength is another factor altogether. Not arguining that we should ban females from service but limiting their roles to suit their abilities is always a good thing. I’m more worried about the security of the nation rather than letting some random woman fulfill her war fantasies. Im more worried about the women firefighters and soldiers who are given easier tasks during screenings and therefore the more suitable male candidates for the aforementioned roles are avoided. No gender is superior, but if im trapped in a building on fire, id like my firefighters to be able to carry me( 6 ft tall, 160 pound man with broad shoulders) if i was unable to walk. Thats not sexism, thats the ‘best man for a job’ criteria.
The Selective service has always been a sign that men have always fought wars to protect their women and their country and in today’s world, its difficult to find men who would sacrifice their lives for anything.
I believe the titanic would have played out differently in the 21st century. Benevolent sexism will never fade away because of the many women who still want to be treated like a princess and likewise misogyny and misandry(non-institionalised) will never fade away because of the existance of people who perpetuate them.

Pussy privilage IS real. It all depends on who wants to use it. Feminist women may not use it but i know a few who used it to get promotions and other favours from their boss in exchange for.. Uhh.. Sexual favours. He was a total pervert. It does exist though but not on the level that MRAs would like to believe.

Women have always fought for women’s rights only but some men have always been rabid supporters of women’s rights. I dont want to enter a pissing contest about who is more oppressed but we have to understand that both genders have problems and men have problems like the default child custody for women and men getting more jail time. Fighting #patriarchy will not solve these issues magically. We need to address this problem as independent of patriarchy and look for legal reforms to address these issues. That is where feminism fails. While MRAs bring nothing productive to the table either. Either way, men are screwed.

MRM was actually a movement intended to address the shortcomings of feminism, but like all movements, it was hijacked by gender narcissists and bigots even more than feminism itself. Paul Elam is NOT the father of MRM, I’ve told him to fu(k off multiple times and also found myself agreeing to some of the things he says too. Both movements have failed to help men and now we have men in the real world thinking to themselves,

Hey really, “what about teh menz?”

Only to be met with silence.

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
6 years ago

Jeanette Rankin, first woman to be elected to congress, suffragette and lifelong pacifist.

Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against entering WWII following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hisses could be heard from the gallery when Rankin cast the vote and several colleagues asked her to change it to make the war declaration unanimous, but she refused. “As a woman I can’t go to war,” she said, “and I refuse to send anyone else.” After the vote an angry mob followed her, and she was forced to hide in a telephone booth and call congressional police to rescue her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

naltia
6 years ago

Is he referring to the GirlWritesWhat video on Female Privilege? If so, her argument is plenty laughable.

In it, she explains that Muslim Women, according to the Quran, are allowed to work and can keep all of their earnings when they do, while Muslim Men must use their earnings to support their family. It was because of this that, in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, they passed a law forbidding women to work as a means of helping their unemployment rate. This, in turn, lead to young men in the family being forced to prostitute themselves out in order to support their mothers and sisters.

I actually had to explain what was wrong with that argument for “female privilege” to my MRA friend, but I think all of you can figure it out for yourself…

emilygoddess
6 years ago

MRAs’ objection to selective service is that it’s gender-specific.
Feminists’ objection to selective service is that it exists.

They refuse to hear this, no matter how many times we say it. We’re not fighting for our inclusion in the (hypothetical, future) draft because most of us believe there shouldn’t even be a draft.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Fibinachi

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.

Gotta love the idea that, if men don’t sign up for conscription, they will be imprisoned and raped multiple times by other men, and that THIS is somehow women’s fault. Because you know where there are tons and tons of women? In male prisons.

It’s like, dude, do you not even realize what doofiness you’re saying?

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
6 years ago

Er….what, exactly, did men have to sacrifice in order to earn the right to vote?

MRAs have this weird notion that women lead cushy lives and laze around getting everything handed to them on a platter with curly fries on the side, while men sweat and toil and risk their lives. And yet, if you offered them the chance to trade places – to be reincarnated as a woman in a random time and place – I bet very few of them would jump at the chance. Being treated as chattel isn’t the Club Med vacation it sounds like.

MrFancyPants
MrFancyPants
6 years ago

These hidebound MRA’s bemoaning the “male-only combat requirements” always seem to conveniently forget that said “requirements” are rules put in place BY MEN, and are being actively challenged in court by women in the armed forces who want an equal role—because having served in a combat role is basically a requirement for advancement to higher ranks.

The “male-only draft” (and I still have to hyuck at the mention of “the draft”) isn’t some trick by the wimminz to stay close to their fainting couches and avoid service, it’s just another example of patriarchy and women being unfairly excluded from career opportunities that they are seeking.

I’ve never served in the armed forces and never will. But simply by the sheer fact that I’m male, I could sign up and advance as high as my abilities could carry me, even so far as to become the top commander… and that is denied to women.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

“Women gained suffrage without having to sacrifice anything”? Ladies and gentlemen — and MRAs — I give you Alice Paul. And a British lady who sacrificed herself to the King’s racehorse. Plus thousands more who are nowhere near as famous, but whose home lives undoubtedly suffered because of it.

But then, nothing women ever do for the good of posterity is ever a sacrifice, unless it’s motherhood. And even then, it doesn’t really count. After all, carrying a child for nine arduous months and then giving birth is nothing. No, it’s the guy who got accidentally struck or scratched by a frantic mother-to-be who’s the real hero of the whole drama…

Fibinachi
6 years ago

RE: Fibinachi

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.

Gotta love the idea that, if men don’t sign up for conscription, they will be imprisoned and raped multiple times by other men, and that THIS is somehow women’s fault. Because you know where there are tons and tons of women? In male prisons.

It’s like, dude, do you not even realize what doofiness you’re saying?

I am beginning to suspect he does, in fact, not.

I don’t think Warren Farrell actually reads up on anything, he just kind of makes grand statements.

For instance, nothing supports that bit about the certainty that you will get raped in jail by a homosexual. I’m so sorry for writing that out, by the way, but it’s just there, no underlying stats on prison rape, no things about just incarceration, just a looming spectre of rape to scare people. And not even a mention about how prison rape is a fucking crime and terrible and we should try to have it avoided as much as possible. Nope!

According to my sources, for instance, in the Vietnam era, you had 27 million draft-age men, about half a million draft offenders, 9000 of which were convicted and finally about 3000 or so were actually imprisoned.

That’s 3000 out of 27 million, although someone might be more interested in the 15.9 million who for one reason or another never served in the military in any way, so really, it’s 3000 out of 15.9 million.

But Farrell makes no mention of that, it’s just… “Dodge draft, AIDS in jail”.

So that’s one thing.

But another thing is, say, Marilyn French, who wrote the Women’s Room, is quoted several times in both The Myth of Male Power and in Why Men Are The Way They are as: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are“. It’s not even the full quote (Which is “, “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” )but whatever.

Not as if the character in the book that actually says it says it (Val, near the end), but as if she, Marilyn French, personally thinks all men are rapists. You could argue that it’s an opinion French shares, but it’s kind of like saying that Shakespeare personally approves of murdering your king, or stabbing your lover or poisoning young men.

And the reference for that is NOT a link to The Women’s Room, but a link to a People’s Magazine book review of The Women’s Room. by Gail Jennes – and that’s the same in both Myth of Male Power and in Why Men Are The Way They Are. And more so, in The Myth of Male Power, where that quote about all men being rapists is used, there’s a reference to both that book review (not the actual book, a book review, that you can see in the archieves of People, right here, Link), and then later on, there’s a reference to how the social roles of men lead to rape, which is really just a reference to Why Men Are The Way They Are… which is really just an explanation for men’s social roles that is, once again, that quote (all men are rapists), mis-attributed, with only a reference to the book review, and not the actual Women’s Room book.

That’s just… amazing.

And, hilariously / disturbingly, there’s a short review of The Women’s Room on another page, which goes:

1: Dependent wife.
2: Wife “realizes” men oppress her.
3: Woman leaves husband, has nothing to do with men.
4: Woman meets Mr. Wonderful.
5. Even Mr. Wonderful is a jerk. Implication: all men are jerks

If we look closley at The Women’s Room we can see even from the outline how woman’s “realization” that she is oppressed by men leads naturally to alienation from men, which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that all future Mr. Wonderful will become Mr. Jerks. With that approach, “liberation” becomes a room of one’s own”

And that’s it. That’s… That’s it. A mis-attributed quote used no less than 6 times throughout both Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are The Way They Are, a short “Women’s lib leads to alienation” and in all cases Warren Farrell only ever supplies a link to a book review of the book he is using to prove that all feminists think all men are nothing but rapists at all times.

I’m sorry for banging on about it, but it just fucking boggles my mind why this guy is taken the least bit seriously and I can’t understand why anyone would read this and not laugh out loud for ages.

And I can’t understand how someone can write a book about the alienation of a modern housewife and then have someone else turn that into an argument for the alienation of the modern man, and how all women just see him as a rapist and poor fucking him.

And now I’ve polluted this comment-section with stuff, and I’m sorry, but I just want it out of my head.

Its not even a good quote from The Women’s Room, I much prefer, for instance, this one:

“There was no justice, there was only life. And life she had.” ”

And it’s like that with every single fucking source you look at. He gets no less than eight endnotes out of one Cosmopolitan article, which is again referenced multiples times in both books, in an attempt to prove that the sexual revolution ended because women stopped being able to get men to pay for dinners and I just can’t… ARGH.

Aaaaaagh.

reboot

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

Warren Farrell seems about due for another good thrashing here, so here’s what I found while I was googling the phrase “guys who don’t hear no” this morning:

http://www.amazon.ca/Women-Cant-Hear-What-Dont/dp/1585420611

The hilarious subtitle to this one is “Destroying Myths, Creating Love”.

Have at it if you got it; I just can’t right now.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

It does, doesn’t it? Book came out in 2002, so he must have spent a good part of the ’90s perfecting that piece of twaddle. Certainly he seems to have gone out of his way to say that Rush Limbaugh was right about feminists being Nazis, or at least, “just like” them. To which the not-so-old saying comes to mind: Yeah, because working for gender equality and improving women’s lot in life is just like gassing Jews and invading Poland.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Warren Farrell seems about due for another good thrashing here, so here’s what I found while I was googling the phrase “guys who don’t hear no” this morning:

http://www.amazon.ca/Women-Cant-Hear-What-Dont/dp/1585420611

The hilarious subtitle to this one is “Destroying Myths, Creating Love”.

Have at it if you got it; I just can’t right now.

Huh

The very word “hero” is derived from the greek word “serow,” from which we get our words for “servant”, “slave” and “protector”

Huuuuuh.

hero
late 14c., “man of superhuman strength or courage,” from L. heros “hero,” from Gk. heros “demi-god” (a variant singular of which was heroe), originally “defender, protector,” from PIE base *ser- “to watch over, protect” (cf. L. servare “to save, deliver, preserve, protect”). Sense of “chief male character

Huuuuuuuuuuh.

Servare
Translation
To save, guard

Main forms: Servo, Servare, Servavi, Servatus

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

hero (n.1) Look up hero at Dictionary.com
late 14c., “man of superhuman strength or physical courage,” from Latin heros “hero,” from Greek heros “demi-god” (a variant singular of which was heroe), perhaps originally “defender, protector,” and from PIE root *ser- (1) “to watch over, protect” (see observe). Meaning “man who exhibits great bravery” in any course of action is from 1660s. Sense of “chief male character in a play, story, etc.” first recorded 1690s. First record of hero-worship is from 1774.

I…

I don’t….

I think I’ll just stick to writing about Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are The Way They Are, of which I have already dedicated a little too much of my time

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

I’m sorry for banging on about it, but it just fucking boggles my mind why this guy is taken the least bit seriously and I can’t understand why anyone would read this and not laugh out loud for ages.

Yeah. That. I remember some dude coming here and commenting “if you read Warren Farrell you’d definitely be MRAs.” Some people take his word not only seriously but as the most convincing and definitive thing ever.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

It is true that it hurts libertarianism for women and people of color to be able to vote. I just don’t see that as a bad thing. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/30/libertarians_are_even_whiter_and_wealthier_than_the_gop_partner/

94% of libertarians are white
68% of them are men

steampunked (@steampunked)

“As a result, women tend to vote for socialists, authoritarians,…”

“As a result, women tend to vote for socialists, authoritarians,…”

“As a result, women tend to vote for socialists, authoritarians,…”

No matter how many times I read it, my brain still goes: Wut.

It’s not that socialists can’t be authoritarian, but at least in my country, those two groups are on the opposite ends of the political scale…

BritterSweet
BritterSweet
6 years ago

@Sixpack

Promotions in exchange for sexual favors is “pussy privilege?” Really? I always thought such a thing was a form of workplace sexual harassment, which is a result of sexism.

People have been saying this a million times already, but default child custody going to the mothers is due to the cultural expectation that child care duties go primarily to the mother. When a working couple starts expecting a baby, who does everybody expect to quit the job to focus on the child? Mommy. If no one quits working, whose chances of promotion drops? Mommy. Which parent is considered the “bad parent” for not stopping work to care for the child? Mommy. Even after working full-time, who is expected to shoulder the bulk of the household duties? You guessed it. If the couple divorces, if the father tries to share custody of the kids, unless he’s abusive he’ll get it.

The whole “Feminism fails because it doesn’t address men’s problems” notion is quite selfish. Just because it doesn’t help *you* specifically doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. I care about LGBT issues and wrote letters and signed petitions to support same-sex marriage in my home state despite not being an LGBT person myself. Will it address my own problems? No. But I’m not going to whine to some non-heterosexual-cis-people about “What about the straight-and-cisgendered?”

BritterSweet
BritterSweet
6 years ago

And that’s only assuming feminism does absolutely nothing for men and boys. The form of feminism I participate in has the goal of dismantling rigid gender roles. That includes no more teaching boys to suppress their emotions, no more teaching them that violence is the go-to answer, and telling boys that it’s okay for them to choose things that are traditionally associated with femininity.

Ally S
6 years ago

In it, she explains that Muslim Women, according to the Quran, are allowed to work and can keep all of their earnings when they do, while Muslim Men must use their earnings to support their family. It was because of this that, in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, they passed a law forbidding women to work as a means of helping their unemployment rate. This, in turn, lead to young men in the family being forced to prostitute themselves out in order to support their mothers and sisters.

GWW doesn’t understand shit about the conservative strains of Islam – the kind that I’ve been exposed to for years as an ex-Muslim. Even though wives are allowed to work, they are still supposed to be controlled by their husbands. They are also often barred from having any socioeconomic agency on the grounds that they are a “temptation” to male coworkers. If a wife is allowed to work, it will be with her husband’s permission only.

Of course, not all strains of Islam are like this, but the fact that MRAs are actually saying this is female privilege while also arguing that Islam represents “true patriarchy” is terribly ironic.

cloudiah
6 years ago

Mammotheers might want to scroll up to read the comment from Asixpack who thinks women who want to serve in the armed forces are just looking to fulfill their violent war fantasies, as well as other twaddle.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Asixpack,
If you want to everyone to take you seriously you should refrain from referring to men as ‘men’ and women as ‘females’ in the same sentences. You also shouldn’t say ‘pussy privilege is real’ because it reduces women to nothing more than our genitals.

On that note, it’s time to for GoT. I have to watch Daenerys kick some slaver ass.

emilygoddess
6 years ago

The Selective service has always been a sign that men have always fought wars to protect their women

“Their women”, eh?

Women have always fought for women’s rights only

Well, men already have all the rights (and the existence of other genders has yet to be widely recognized in this culture). Kinda like how the Civil Rights movement wasn’t about white people.

Paul Elam is NOT the father of MRM, I’ve told him to fu(k off multiple times and also found myself agreeing to some of the things he says too.

Gosh, I’m just dying to hear what you think Elam is right about.

1 2 3 6