More brilliant public relations work by the AVFM crew.
The top “meme,” posted on AVFM’s Facebook page, isn’t inexplicable in itself — I assume someone said to the meme-maker that by “criticizing” women he was doing the same thing feminists were doing by criticizing men, and this was meant as an enormous insult? It’s just inexplicable as a way to, you know, reach out to a broader audience beyond misogynist douchebags who think that the idea of ironing a woman in lingerie is inherently hilarious. But I guess that’s not really AVFM’s aim, is it?
Another one from the AVFM Facebook page:
Ah yes, I remember the chants at the last feminist demonstration I went to.
What do we want!?
Childsupprtagencies’protecting’childrendivorcecourtspolicearrests cheaperworkforcecontrolofeducationworkerprisonsdisposablesoldiers!
When do we want it?
Now?
Let’s just finish off this edition of inexplicable AVFM memes with this lovely submission from the AVFM forums, which is ostensibly about child abuse.
AVFM, proving critics of the Men’s Rights movement right pretty much every time they post a meme!
It’s showing the female model for me. I suspect that for photos with more than one model, shutterstock shows a random model. If you reload you might see other pics of the woman instead.
Scratch that. If you click on the link, it shows photos of both of them mixed together. Possibly the small selection you get on the first page is just a random selection.
Ok, I think it’s buggy because the list changes. Sometimes it’s just the guy and sometimes it’s both of them in the list. weird.
The stuff the woman in the second comic is saying about ties and diamond rings does not sound remotely like a feminist. That sounds more like something a culturally conservative anti-fem woman would say.
isn’t ironing, like, really beta?
or is it alpha in this case because he obviously has no clue that you don’t do that with nylon?
I think it’s alpha because it’s hurting a woman 🙁
What always puzzled me was how such people, despite not really giving much thought to it before, then become incredibly defensive – in a “how dare you!” kind of a way – and then skip straight to self-victimizing when they can’t admit that, hey, it’s probably a legitimate point.
I had a recent encounter with someone on facebook who, aggrieved over the fact there had been a controversy over the recent Milo Manara Spider-Woman issue cover and Marvel pulled all the other covers due to such, who claimed (without irony): there is no “cheesecake” or T&A imagery in comics anymore.
Stupefying, right? Being someone who actually reads comics regularly (at least when I can afford it) – it makes no sense, because I still keep coming across it. All. The. Time. There are two publishers, Dynamite and Zenescope, whose published titles cater to an audience who wants (guess what?) “cheesecake” and T&A.
Gets worse: he admits he hasn’t read comics in recent years. This mean he is complaining about the issue cover for a title he won’t likely read, simply because he’s heard about it, and jumping to the conclusion that this means there aren’t any comics…which he does not read…that appeal to carnal pleasures. Because he doesn’t come across it anymore. Along with that, claiming that sexism and misogyny aren’t problems in the industry. When pointing out that, we keep hearing cases of such things, that may be true regardless of what he thinks. Apparently that crossed some line with him and he got mad by saying it can’t be true and “just an opinion.” Because, as we all know, that isn’t an easy way to dismiss facts – by reducing everything to being a subjective point of view.
My point? That’s both privilege in a nutshell and writ large in red crayon. It continues to take everything for granted and, only when contradicted, act as if the exact opposite is true. Evidence doesn’t matter because they will always appeal to either ignorance or conspiracy – thus, why they are often in the wrong and so disconnected from reality.
In certain layouts, it certainly looks like that. In others, it looks more like a coffee mug stain.
For some time, I wondered why the AVFM’s motto (in barely readable font) seems to be “John Galt”. I mean, I get that they often lean libertatarian, but still? Then I figured it’s probably the logo artist’s signature. He got paid in ego strokes.
Win!
Rule 34 really applies to stock photos. I wouldn’t be surprised even if it had been staged with live models. However, since it looks like a semi-competent Photoshop job, I initially assumed it was made by some MRA for poster purposes.
Allegedly my grandma once tried to iron my uncle’s shirt while he wore it. Apparently, he didn’t need hospitalization.
Nah, they never rise to the level of semi-competent.
Semi-competent would be a vast improvement for them.
I went looking for the photo with the Russian caption and found the same photo with a different caption instead.
“Ironing fail
1. Ironing is a woman’s job, always.
2. Why would you want to flatten that out?”
Seriously? Those are your complaints about the photo? I mean, I agree that you should not iron a person, but I think that way because it would hurt, especially with nylon stockings on.
I am going to have to disagree about the ironing being a woman’s job. As domestic chores go, it’s really not that hard. Anyone can do it!
How many photos would Neil Armstrong have taken if he’d had a digital camera with humungous amounts of memory? I’m guessing a lot more than 37, and a fair bit of HD video too.
Now I’m sad thinking of the lunar duckface selfies that were lost to history simply because the technology wasn’t available.
@Wetherby: I’m guessing Chris Hadfield is our nearest current equivalent, and I’m pretty sure he has photos and videos of himself allllll over the internet. Oddly enough, I’m also pretty sure nobody thinks he’s a narcissist.
What was the original meaning behind that iron image? This just beautifully illustrates the disjointed incoherent nature of MRM. Their memes just completely lack a clear message of any kind. There are too many straw men putting it out of focus.
…
Looks like a… sperm swallowing its tail?
Yep. It’s a sperm swallowing its tail.
Actually, the still cameras that the astronauts used had a capacity of over 100 photos in color per magazine, even though they used 70mm film. And they did take a lot of photos.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?11
Not exactly “duckface”, but…
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg
The technology of the time wasn’t very suitable for “selfies” in the modern sense, but in a few Apollo photos the photographer is close enough to the other astronaut for his reflection to be seen in the mirror-like visor of the other’s helmet. So yeah, they totally took their pictures in a mirror. 🙂
Crap, I didn’t intend that to embed. How did it happen?
No wonder they’re so frightened of losing unearned privilege. They’re not exactly highly skilled individuals.
…or talented.
…or knowledgeable.
…or terribly bright.
They’re good at hating. They’re great for mocking. That’s about it.
I am looking at those images, and I can not tell, if I am too high or not high enough. What ever the case, the level of mind-altering chemicals in my blood stream is not at the correct level to understand those pictures.
@Z
Exactly! There are rolls and rolls and rolls of film produced by the Apollo astronauts. Which makes me get even more irritated at the fake landing tinhats who haven’t looked at actual footage instead of shitty retransmitted TV crap.
“Sexy ironing”? “Iron Man domination”? “Sexist asshole”? “Alpha male doing women’s work”?
Yuppers. They just didn’t strike silly poses or pull stupid faces. When film was all you had, you didn’t waste it on things like that.
And if you really wanna know something that will make MRAs shit their pants, Neil Armstrong was NOT a macho showman like Buzz Aldrin — he was quiet and humble and thus a total beta, by their lights.
And anyway, that “selfie airhead” shot would have still said the same thing if the person in front of the mirror had been a teenage Bieber clone, shirtless and duckfacing. But hey, anything to make women look totally vain, eh?
Incoherent doesn’t even begin to describe the top one. It’s a hot mess of anti-logic.
On the comparative scale of narcissism, sitting on your butt at a keyboard trying to appropriate credit for the moon landing outranks bathroom selfies.
Also, many of the scientists, engineers, and support crew who worked on the moon landing were women (Bobbie Johnson, Judith Love Cohen, Ann Dickson, and Ann Maybury, to take a few examples). The trajectory of the Apollo 11 mission was calculated by a woman, Katherine Johnson. Another woman, Margaret Hamilton, pioneered software error handling that actually prevented the mission from aborting as it neared the moon. Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins didn’t just tape some fins to a trash can and propel themselves there.
A douchebro steps into a spotlight:
“How dare you use cameras to take pictures of yourself? Never in the history of humanity have men ever stooped to showing off portraits of themselves! How dare you act as if you shouldn’t be seen or heard? You think you’re interesting enough to take a photo of? Vainity! Harlot!
That makes me so angry that I’m going to take to the internet to complain about how much of a bunch my jockey shorts are in. I’m so much better than you for whining about what random people do on their personal social networking pages instead of posting a photo of my face on my Facebook page. That’s why my gender is awesomerer than yours!”
*drops mic*
Falls into the orchestra pit.
The manbaby complaints all boil down to: “Why can’t everything be about meeeee? Look at meeee! Cater to meeee!”
That seems to be a common complaint from folks from privileged groups who hold on to their privilege more tightly when they see it going away. They remind me of kids who get frustrated because they don’t want to have to take turns or play fair on the playground. I want to give them some juice and and a blankie and tell them to take a nap and get over it. Maybe that’s because of how often they come here expecting to be babysat.