Oh dear. Some very confused dudes on the A Voice for Men Forums are angry at the Huffington Post for suggesting that Confused Cats Against Feminism might just be a parody of Women Against Feminism.
A guy calling himself Humansplaining w/ Jarred starts off the thread — titled “HuffPo tries – and fails – to politicize ‘Cats Against Feminism'” — with this little rant. (I’ve bolded some of the especially silly stuff.)
So, being that ‘Women Against Feminism’ is an internet phenomenon, through Tumblr as well as Twitter, the internet inevitably took this thread in the direction it takes EVERYTHING nowadays – cats.
If you read through all the ‘Cats Against Feminism’ memes, you’ll notice that they pretty much all revolve around, well…CATS. Go figure, huh? References to food, tuna, shedding, and biting predominate these posts. The references to ‘Feminism’ are basically incidental, since this is just piggy-backing on the viral success of ‘Women Against Feminism’. Those posting these memes never really express whether they are in favor of, or against Feminism. It’s clearly not meant to appeal to EITHER side of the issue. Rather, it’s simply a silly meme meant to produce a few chuckles for ANYONE that happens to run across them. Just like every other stupid cat meme on the internet, of which there must literally be TRILLIONS.
But HuffPo apparently sees things differently …
You know what? I think those CATS are smarter than the people at Huffpo that produced this article. THEY think that Feminism is a stupid and pointless human concept, and they wish you’d stop talking about it and fighting amongst each other, because they need you to FEED them!
Seriously HuffPo, learn to take a joke, and give the ideology a rest for 5 FUCKING SECONDS already.Because the cats are laughing at YOU now…
AVFM forum dudes, I hate to break it to you, but the cats aren’t laughing at the Huffington Post. They’re laughing at you.
Maybe I need to start up a new blog: Confused Cats Confused by Confused Cats Against Feminism.
@itsabeast
Indeed, I’ve always cared about men’s issues but most feminists I know care more about those issues and try to get involved than any MRM movements. It’s sad, I know it’s been said before, but it’s sad because the men’s rights movement, if executed in a way that was actually helpful, and not misogynistic/racist/homophobic/transphobic it could have been a really good complementary movement to feminism. Oh well, the MRM has made it clear they’re more interested in screaming and frothing at the mouth about women and other minorities needing to mind their place to actually do something good for men.
@niall:
The former is unsettling by doxxing, death threats, rape threats. You seem to be perfectly fine with that behaviour.
Sure, if you discount the bulk of the Republican Party, most major religious organizations, the ruling parties in Russia/China/Japan/Poland/a whole bunch of other countries, half of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, two-thirds of the Brazilian population etc. etc. etc.
In which way do you think you’re going to be different from Concerned Women for America?
Oh no. Not another troll posing as a neutral observer and who just happens to think we’re evil meanie pants bad feminists and is totally not an MRA ok?
So boring.
Be gone Niall.
::Reads comments, blushes::
Thanks, Sparky and bunnybunny. I promise that I wasn’t fishing for compliments. I was just concerned that my habitual silliness was getting in the way. I have no idea how y’all can find the patience to actually debate these guys instead of making up tall tales and linking animal pictures. I admire that fortitude.
Well, since he was freed from the gadfly that was my puerile humor, let me see the rhetorical wonders that niall the unbiased has surely bestowed upon us all.
::Reads::
Well, maybe it’s because I’m a pseudo feminist, but I found that underwhelming.
Yes, it’s too bad men are so underrepresented in mainstream culture, business, and politics, both currently and historically.
I hope one day men get their chance to shine!
niall:
Oh, sure. Right after the MRM stops being totally fucking incompetent. Those no-talent assclowns could fuck up a one car parade.
Men already have political clout. Stop being such a numpty.
How does one tell a pseudo feminist from a true feminist? Asking for a friend.
@hellkell
Maybe it’s like telling which dildos are safe or not apart – maybe pseudo feminists smell like chemicals and rubber? And true feminist smells like silicon.
Do I detect a hint of seething resentment and an odor of sock from niall?
Resentment and sock odor sounds like an MRA cologne.
A pseudofeminist wants to take you to Funky Town. 🙂
Following up on @Lids’ point, a true feminist doesn’t cause others to break out in hives.
Hey, this is totally off-topic, but does anyone know of any actually-good forums for writers? All writing forums I’ve ever been on are mostly teenagers writing their first novels and a couple of obnoxious know-it-alls lording it over them.
I don’t know how much online stuff they have, but do you know the Greater Los Angeles Writers’ Society? My bff is a long-term member and involvement with that group helped her in preparing her trilogy for publication (and the first book of her second trilogy is out, yay!)
He did not mention the dog! MISCANUSRY!!! (Or does “miscynosry” sound better? I mean if Vox Day can mix his Greek and Latin, can I?)
I’m going to be pedantic here because…I can. 🙂
There doesn’t seem–at least from a cursory examination of the model words (i.e. misogyny and misandry)–any strict way of forming mis(o)-compounds. “Misogyny” takes the nominative gūnē, whereas “misandry” takes the genitive andros.
That said, “hatred of dogs” would not be “mis(o)cyonry”, “mis(o)cynosry”, “mis(o)canisry”, or “mis(o)canusry” in all cases because the “r” is part or the anēr, andr– stem and in the lattermost case because canis (genitive canis)–not canus–is the Latin word for “dog”.
Note: The above is meant to convey a I’m-taking-this-so-literally-that-I’m-missing-the-point sentiment–not any other one.
Ignoring most of the actual arguments those women are making, is silly. There’s an irony involved in the fact many of the more childish online ‘feminist’ sites couldn’t respond to the criticisms made by the WAF site, likely because they couldn’t blame men or the patriarchy. To me their responses were not convincing at all.
For a start, this disingenuously misinterprets what most of those women mean when they talk about feminism “turning them into victims”. This WAF site isn’t a denial that women are never victimised or discriminated against; this is generally referring to the way feminists dismiss women who make “wrong” choices as “brainwashed by the patriarchy”, or suffering from “false consciousness”.
Those women, who dress the wrong way, have the wrong kind of sex, work the wrong job, etc. are often condescendingly treated like victims who didn’t really make a choice, no matter what they believe, or how happy they are with their lives. Is it any wonder that some women oppose that kind of infantilisation?
It’s also a criticism of feminist exaggerations and manipulation of statistics to makes things look worse for women than they really are. Ironically, I’ve seen a series of feminists respond to “women against feminism” with some of the most blatant examples of that, e.g. presenting the average wage gap across all jobs as the difference in pay for equal work, or quoting absurd scare statistics about rape and sex trafficking to prove how victimised women are. They think they’re fighting back for feminism, but in reality they’re just providing evidence that this criticism of feminism is valid.
Of course feminism has done a lot of good, but bringing up its historical achievements is a red herring when most “women against feminism” make it clear that they believe in equality, and are just criticising the modern feminist movement. Arguing that women can’t criticise feminism today because feminists won them the vote a century ago, is like saying that black Americans can’t reject the modern Republican party because Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.
And the true irony, is that the meme on cats actually provided cover for many ‘feminist sites’. They were incapable of providing a coherent and genuine response to the WAF site.
You go on telling yourself that, cupcake. ::pats troll on head::
It’s very telling that this tumblr is what catapulted you to some level of stardom, not your blog. It shows the priorities of the feminist community.
No need. I’m not a ‘dude confused’ – you are.
Shut up, Woody.
Seething resentment is seething.
Squeeze them eyes shut a little harder.
Push them fingers deeper in your ears.
Wish harder, and maybe — just maybe — some feminist, somewhere, will be flabbergasted for just a moment at your profound lack of brains, allowing you to hop in and announce victory.