Let me take a moment to ignore my regular readers and speak directly to the Men’s Rights Activists who might be reading this blog. I suspect there are a few.
What I would like to talk to you about it ironic humor. Because, here’s the thing, sometimes people say things they don’t actually believe in order to make a little fun at the way other people see them.
When a feminist writer posts a picture of herself wearing a shirt that says “I bathe in male tears,” noting that the picture is directed at the haters who leave nasty comments on everything she writes, she is not actually announcing that she, literally or metaphorically, bathes in male tears. Nor is she saying anything about the vast, overwhelming majority of men. She is saying “fuck you, I’m on vacation” to a small subset of men. That is, those who leave nasty comments on everything she writes. You know, like she explicitly stated she was doing.
I point out what seems to me patently obvious because so many men in the so-called Men’s Rights movement continue to pretend that somehow Jessica Valenti has launched a war against all the good and honest men of the world by wearing a t-shirt that she knew might annoy a teensy tiny fraction of the douchiest of men. And when people point out that she was making an ironic joke, these dudes react as though they’ve never heard of ironic humor.
This isn’t the first time MRAs seem to have had trouble getting ironic humor. In 2012, A Voice for Men launched a campaign of defamation against a college student inspired in large part by a joke she made on Twitter declaring that her political position was “kill all men hail satan.” AVFM’s Paul Elam presented this as proof that the young woman “hate[s] men [and] want[s] them dead or silenced or marginalized or ignored.” Not as the joke it obviously was.
But the thing is, MRAs do know what ironic humor is. Because they indulge in it themselves, all the time.
Over on AVFM, for example, the regulars jokingly refer to themselves as “kitten eaters,” presumably in an attempt to mock what they think people like me think of them.
Now, as you all presumably have figured out, I happen to be a giant fan of cats young and old, regardless of their beliefs. But I don’t for a second think that the assholes at A Voice for Men, despite being some of the worst human beings I’ve ever encountered, actually eat kittens.
I recognize that they are making a joke, albeit a poor one. Because, here’s the thing: I live in the real world, and I can distinguish between things meant seriously and things meant as a joke.
And I think most of those who continue to rail against Valenti and her eeeeevil t-shirt can tell the difference, too. They just choose not to, because they’re not looking for a reason to attack Valenti. They’re looking for an excuse.
Now, is it possible that things meant as ironic jokes can sometimes contain a kernel of truth? Well, yes, but there is no evidence that this is the case with Valenti. There’s no evidence at all that she hates men. None. Zero. Sure, she admits to being less than fond of a few men who are assholes, but that’s because they’re assholes, not because they’re men.
Indeed, in one recent column, she wrote this:
I have the most amazing men in my life. My father, who bought me chemistry sets and robots for every tea set or doll. My husband, an incredible feminist who is an equal partner in parenting and the home. My male friends, who believe that gender justice is important and worth fighting for. I don’t have a hard time finding these amazing men because – shockingly – most men are pretty cool guys.
In another recent column, she stood up for male victim of sexual blackmail online, reminding her readers that “it’s still revenge porn when the victim is a man and the picture is of his penis.”
I know, you can just SMELL THE HATRED there.
But there are some people, I will admit, who don’t do quite so well with their attempts at ironic humor. Ironically, the first people who come to mind are amongst those who profess to be the most shocked, shocked by Valenti’s t-shirt. I speak, of course, of the Misogyny Bunch over at A Voice for Men.
That picture at the top of this post? I didn’t photoshop it. Nor did I come up with that little nickname. They did. Indeed, on their online store, AVFM sells not only pillows but t-shirts, mugs, tote bags and even playing cards emblazoned with the catchphrase. No, really:
Yes, that’s right, the guys (and gals) who are railing against Valenti’s allegedly misandrous t-shirt sell not only t-shirts but also playing cards declaring themselves misogynists.
This shouldn’t be that much of a surprise, given that the head of this little bunch, Paul Elam, posted on YouTube for years as The Happy Misogynist; he posts under his own name now, but TheHappyMisogynist is still part of the URL.
Oh, but it’s an ironic joke! They’re not really misogynists!
Well, except that they kinda are. Well, more than kinda. Unlike in the case of Valenti, there is ample evidence of real, honest-to-goodness hatred coming from this bunch. Ironically, the shirts they intend as ironic jokes aren’t ironic at all.
Proof? Look at my archives. (Well, skip those posts at the top about commemorative plates and coins.) Look at this collection of quotes from Elam – or maybe just the story he published, or the posts he’s written, offering justifications for men to beat their partners. Go to A Voice for Men and type in your favorite anti-woman slur and see just how many articles have featured those slurs, almost always in highly unironic ways. Oh, ok, I’ll do it for you: Bitch, Slut, Slattern, Whore, C*nt. My favorite one in that last group starts off memorably:
Women are facing a very real and grave problem in our culture: They are obnoxious c*nts.
Needless to say, there is no asterisk in the original.
While Valenti describes “most men” as “pretty cool guys,” Elam once suggested that
feminism, consumer products, psychology, media, advertising, politics and social custom [have] all merged into one Great Big Bitch Machine … [T]he modern female psyche is nothing more than a product of that machine … .
Last Father’s Day, Valenti wrote proudly about her feminist father. One recent Mothers Day, Elam suggested that mothers should
Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.
Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death.
You get the idea.
There’s nothing ironic, or even particularly happy, about this man’s “happy misogyny.”
Irony, you’re doing it wrong.
This reminds me of one form of mind-rot found online these days, involving the misuse of ad hominem. E.g.,
Person A: “So that is why developmentally disabled people should be sterilized.”
Person B: “That is an objectively horrible thing to say.”
Person A: “Ad hominem! You used a logical fallacy, therefore I WIN!”
It seems as if people who believe in what they consider to be ‘traditional’ social and moral dicta are distressed by those who do not. We (the Mammothariat)* do not, as far as I know, judge and mock those who want to live like IB. But we do judge and mock those who insist, on specious grounds, that that is the One True Way to live.
One aspect of my marriage that might give pause to some people is that my husband has access to my bank account. I do not have access to his. This is because he handles all the household finances – I just bring in the money. I am following my own father’s example in this, having married a man very much like my mother and being a man very much like my father. It works for us, but I would eat a hissing cockroach before insisting that it was right for anyone else.
*Autocorrect asked ‘mammoth aria’?
“You’re trying to equate patriarchal oppression (which we consider bad) to government benefits, which to anyone with a brain means you want the latter to be considered bad by association”
Fortunately for us all, government exists in purity outside of the patriarchy, orbiting around in it’s own little benevolent universe.
Well, she’s already accused of misinterpreting her and being intolerant of her “beliefs.” I figured meanness would follow soon after. I’m not sure what she’s expecting when she comes here. We’re feminists/womanists. Not anit-feminists. Rejecting her ideas is kind of…what we would normally do? What anyone would do? Disagreement? Criticism? But, no. We’re the bad guys because we don’t offer her cookies and flowers for being a special snowflake.
IB, it would be really good if you could learn some basic argument skills, like not shifting the goalposts.
The topic under discussion is not government in toto, but government-provided benefits. You’ve now attempted to shift the goalposts to mean all of government.
That’s interesting. Is this just a weird non sequitur, or are you really trying to argue that the government forwards patriarchy, which is bad? I mean, I would agree with that to a degree, but it directly contradicts everything else you’ve said previously about how patriarchy is the bestest ever.
Katz: My usual course of research is to find the local mall directory, and then hit up the websites for the chain stores. The fashion splashes give a good general mix of styles to work with.
@redpoppy: there’s too many people expousing the same attitudes as IB for me to consider her a special snowflake. If she wants to be a special snowflake, she’s better off becoming a Honey Badger (what an insult to those animals) at AVfM. She’ll be one of their special snowflakes until she writes something that gets the menz upset.
I guess I had been using the term incorrectly but I also meant it in the most sarcastic of ways. Still, she just keeps digging.
I think that last comment from IB22 was meant to be sarcastic, and implying patriarchal norms are so wrapped up in government that it’s impossible to criticise one but not the other? It’s kinda hard to tell when she’s being so obtuse and claiming misrepresentation when we paraphrase her own arguments back to her.
Regardless, the point stands the taking away people’s rights isn’t the same as providing them with assistance they can take up if they wish, or curtailing of freedoms for safety reasons. If you want to argue government benefits are somehow oppressive then go ahead and make that argument, but trying to bait-and-switch into a different argument about equating all different kinds of external intervention won’t look much like engaging in a grown-up discussion.
Hey, I’m happy for you to think she’s a special snowflake. 🙂 I just don’t think she’s interesting enough, or unique enough, for me to think that about her.
This is likely an each-to-their-own situation. 🙂 🙂
Either way, it would be nice if she flounced.
@strivingally I took the last comment as sarcastic. Which seems to set up her argument as the government can’t do anything good for women because it’s a patriarchal institution, and patriarchal institutions can only do bad things to women.
Which is a really bizarre thing to say given that the government does supply some benefits to some women, and therefore that assertion about government is demonstrably incorrect.
IB seems to be another one lost in Wonderland.
If IB22 were a grown-up having a grown-up discussion, there would be something in there about how government benefits are weirdly gendered, how they frequently disincentive any and all paths out of poverty, and how there are many options for fixing these issues that are antagonistically blockaded by moral crusaders who think anyone who needs and accepts benefits is a leech and probably a criminal, and also probably black and female and having a bunch of unsanctioned sex that needs to be controlled.
But IB22 is not a grown-up having a grown-up discussion, so instead we get half-assed innuendo and no actual statements on that topic.
insanitybytes22: If “men” are tasked with providing protection, then a woman without a man is unprotected. If a universally available government program is providing protections to all, there is no dis-empowerment of one group over another.
If women must rely on individual men for protection, then the quality of the individual is vital. Since quality individuals are not universal (i.e. include deadbeats, criminals and abusers) then many women are forced to choose between no protection, or substandard/actively harmful “protection” from flawed individuals. In a universal government system, the quality of the service affects all users, and thus collective action can improve the quality of the service for all.
Finally, a system where individuals are put in a position of power always increases the potential for abuse of that power. In a collective system, structures for accountability and regulation can be put in place to minimize the potential for abuse. In an individualized system, those systems are often haphazard, inaequate or nonexistant, relying on the balance of power within the relationship to be solved. That imbalance of power is self perpetuating, resulting in Patriarchy.
Hey, I’M the special snowflake here. Inanity said so.
Just because two things happen together, it does not mean they are related. You need to demonstrate what is patriarchal about government benefits in order for the association to make sense.
@hellkell: just for you, we need moar cat gifs in this thread! http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/why_so_mean.jpg
Hellkell, oops. You’re right. Hahaha
I’m pretty sure Inanity thinks government benefits are patriarchal because patriarchal family structures are the same as government benefits. Because.
(/sarcasm)
I’ve yet to see evidence of this. 😛
She seems to have the same view of government as this chucklehead.
Touché, pallygirl, touché.
@redpoppy: so I have menstruated most months since the onset of menses because I am a liberal and therefore I am too weak-willed to prevent it? Do republican women only enter oestrus when there is a rich man around?
Aw, special snowflake kitty is adorable.
According to Mike Huckabee…yes. Which is why I detest him. (He seems to not know much about certain women’s bodily functions.)