That last post was a bit, well, grim. So I thought I’d lighten the mood with some terrible, terrible memes from A Voice for Men’s Facebook page. They’re so Men’s Human Rightsy that you can practically smell the human rights wafting off of them!
Or could that be the powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity?
Either way, enjoy! For a fun game, see how many different examples of ideas that do not actually enhance human rights you can find in the memes below! For example, I found both misogyny and transphobia! See what else you can find!
This last one is kind of my favorite. Fuck you, mom! I took out the garbage last week!
@brooked: all feminists are hideous inhuman monsters. The physically unattractive ones look exactly like the image on the cover. The physically attractive ones are all whores, whose inner ugliness looks exactly like the image on the cover.
MRAs: their dictionary does not include the word “subtle”.*
* Their dictionary includes words like fact, statistics, but the definitions are not what you would expect.
Well, yes.
So… yeah. Inhuman ugly monsters.
Mike B just MMD.
What’s MMD stand?
Yeah, I chose that image because it came up in a Google image search of “ugly feminist monster*” (I wanted something over-the-top) and saw that was on Mikey B’s book cover, so I couldn’t resist. They truly, truly seem to believe that feminists and women are some kind of blood-thirsty horror movie monsters.
*I do not recommend doing a google image search on “ugly feminist monster” unless you are prepared to get angry and/or have a strong stomach.
Of course it is. Does he compare the link between physical attractiveness and MRAs? Not that I think anyone should, but Five Blogs obviously finds this line of thinking productive.
To people who ask why I chose the image of a female vampire for the cover of this book, I say that the image reflects two defining characteristics of feminism: anger and ugliness.
Strange – if most people put images of female vampires on anything, it’d be because they wanted to appeal to overheated prurient fantasies about dangerous bisexual vixens.
OMG!
Being Scots, I made the mistake of going to MB’s political party website.
Thank the goddess all the seats seem to be in England.
He had a link to a youtube video where it was him and three others (two women, one man) appearing in front of what I assume to be a select committee. When asked about their backgrounds, the women mentioned detailed training and experience, Mike didn’t mention anything, and the other guy mentioned something about one study he did. I only watched about 10 minutes – the damn thing is over an hour long – and MB seems to think it’s a pinnacle of his achievement as a MRA. In the bit I saw, the select committee were being as polite to him as they would be to anyone who seemed hopelessly out of their depth and had information that wasn’t factual or relevant. One of the *male* politicians (I’m assuming politician because I’m assuming select committee) asked him about why he was using data from Saudi Arabia when the issue was in the UK. The committee chair (also male) also seemed to not be very impressed with MB, although again he was very polite.
Not seeing how this was a triumph for MB.
I found a site by a lady who’s visited Pakistan, and it looks interesting…until her FMRA colors show. She idolizes Pizzey and Straughan. She argues that Pakistan needs electricity, not feminism. Maybe it needs both? I mean, there are problems with infrastructure, living standards, and misogyny. Perhaps electricity and feminism are both ways to address this?
Riffat Hassan (Pakistani Muslim feminist) might have a word to say with this woman. Anyway, the site is called Ice Cream in Pakistan, and…oy. I need to steer clear because the MRA-ness, it buuuuuuurrrns!
Oh, those castle/stand your ground laws protect women who’re trying to defend themselves from abusive partners, do they? That’s what they’re for?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-prison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense
The correct title for that book by Mike Buchanan should be Feminism, The Halloween Costume for sad insecure men who hate ladies.
There’s a huge difference between castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
For one, castle doctrine was case law that was built organically around life as people actually experienced. Once you’ve run to your home, your last safe place, there’s not a lot further you can run.
Stand your ground is ALEC-written corporate law being spread by the usual suspects, and there is nothing good about it.
Law enforcements personnel kind of like castle doctrine.
Most cops I’ve asked hate SYG.
As was mentioned before, castle doctrine came from a case where a woman defended herself, and is explicitly about allowing that defense.
SYG explicitly excludes protecting oneself from domestic violence. Explicitly.
Which is not to say castle doctrine is great or anything; but please don’t lump them together. I don’t think they’re really in the same category at all.
I mean, just to emphasize the difference between the two here, the case that was mentioned above involved somebody going to jail, right?
The case in Florida that was the specific trigger for Stand Your Ground? Firstly, was already covered under Castle doctrine, because it was in their home? Secondly?
They didn’t go to jail for it.
They were never even charged for it.
(and it’s actually a sad and tragic story about an aid worker who was so desperately dehydrated and just needed help and water and got shot by a scared old man who wishes he’d never pulled that trigger)
And the legislature rushed to pass SYG anyway.
I get passionate about SYG and what a crock of shit it is.
I have pretty much zero sympathy for any pro-gun position, tbh, but if it’s not being applied in as egregiously awful a way as stand your ground that’s something.
Also, Cassandrakitty, here’s a study which goes through a bunch of SYG cases to confirm that Marissa’s case wasn’t any kind of fluke–it’s the rule.
(not that you needed it, but, y’know, just to be clear)
If Florida has the castle doctrine, and it’s supposed to help abused women protect themselves from their abusers, why didn’t it help Marissa Alexander?
I don’t really mean to come off as pro-castle doctrine so much as I’m trying to emphasize what a fucking joke SYG laws are. There are literally police chiefs running around going ‘but now who do I arrest after a couple of gangs have a literal shootout in the streets–this law means that no laws have been broken and they are immune from all prosecution, you get that, right’ — and the conservatives are running around spreading it to more states because it’s good for handgun sales.
But do the SYG laws somehow invalidate the castle doctrine laws that were already there? Because if not I’m still not seeing how, if it’s true that castle doctrine helps to protect abused women, it failed to protect Alexander (and, according to your last link, lots of other women too).
@cassandrakitty
Well, for starters, uneven application of the Castle doctrine along race-based and gender-based lines. But that’s an issue with all our laws.
And SYG in Florida literally says ‘and this doesn’t apply to a husband, of course.’
Again, though, the claim was that protecting women was the goal of castle doctrine and that things were working as planned in that regard.
(Not a claim that you made, I know, you’re not the one I’m side-eyeing.)
You’re absolutely right; furthermore, a quick Google at Massacheusets law gives me this:
“Unlawfully present” …which means in a domestic violence incident, unless you already got a restraining order, then it doesn’t apply.
Which seems like it wouldn’t be how you’d word it if you were writing it in the wake of a domestic violence incident.
Or possibly…electric ladies?
@ Howard
Well look at that. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that the assertion made upthread turned out to be not entirely credible.
(And also too sleepy to google effectively, so thank you.)
I was pretty suspicious too, since I’ve heard lots of “rah rah gun” stories about those laws, but not ONCE did I ever hear about it in protection in case of domestic violence. It was always break-ins, muggers, or horrible breaches of justice.
(I think I heard ONE story where a young single mother protected her two children from some creepy dude who was hacking through their front door with an axe, talking about what he’d do to her, but he was a stranger, which was why she was allowed to shoot him. And even then, she was on the phone with the cops and they SPECIFICALLY said she had to wait until he’d entirely hacked through the door, or it wouldn’t count.)
(And yes, her children were there. While this was happening. While she was talking with the cops, holding a gun, waiting for this guy to finish hacking through their door.)