Categories
antifeminism butts evil sexy ladies imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression misogyny MRA reddit warren farrell

Butt Seriously: The Men's Rights Movement is as ridiculous as The Onion's fake political cartoons

Not a real editorial cartoon
Not a real editorial cartoon

Over on Reddit, a regular on the Blue Pill subreddit — devoted to mocking Red Pill ridiculousness — recently reposted the cartoon above, one of The Onion’s brilliant parodies of the terrible political cartoons that are pretty much omnipresent in every second-string newspaper in the country. I don’t think I’ve ever posted it here before — I’m not sure I ever saw it until today — so I thought I’d share it here as well.

What makes this particular cartoon extra delicious is that its “argument,” such as it is, is one that a lot of Men’s Rights Activists actually believe. Indeed, it calls to mind the cover of the revised ebook edition of Warren Farrell‘s seminal MRA manifesto The Myth of Male Power, in which a picture of a woman’s posterior is presented as if it truly is, somehow, a threat to the rights of men:

No, this really is the real cover.
No, this really is the real cover.

Hell, as you can see, that woman’s butt is literally shattering the word “power.” The only question in my mind  is whether the butt-damage was caused by some overenthusiastic twerking, or by a particularly powerful fart.

But Farrell — who is essentially the Founding Father of the Men’s Rights movement — didn’t mean it as a joke. As he explained in the new introduction to his book, he intended the cover to highlight the power “genetic celebrities” — his term for attractive women — have over hapless horny men:

When asked about the cover in a Reddit Ask Me Anything thread, Farrell doubled down:

MRA’s: when the arguments of your most famous “intellectual” are indistinguishable from a parody editorial cartoon in The Onion, it might be time to rethink your whole movement.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

342 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Hey, my niece gave my dad a smoking lecture when she was about 7 or 8, and my dad has been cigarette-free for more than 10 years as a result. I bow to the power of kids!

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

aw, that’s actually really sweet. Did it help? Obviously I wasn’t around back then but family lore says my aunt “persuaded” my grandfather to quit smoking when she was a kid. He’s still with us… and she went on to a nice career in medical equipment/pharmaceutical sales.

kittehserf
5 years ago

ceebarks, now you just need to fix it so your mother and grandmother use a Bad Word in front of the kid. She’ll probably need smelling salts afterward. 😉

This all reminds me of the ep of New Tricks where they had a swear box that disappears at the end of the story. “What happened to it?” “This is a police station. Somebody nicked it.”

kittehserf
5 years ago

Bravo to your niece, PoM! And to your dad for listening to her. ::applause::

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

When I was 5 they were already doing anti drug talks at school. Soon after, I ran inside from the yard and told my mom I saw my dad doing cocaine. She went outside to investigate. He was smoking a cigarette. All I knew was that coke is white and so were the cigarettes so I made an assumption.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

My daughter is 8 right now. I think there’s something about that general age and Rules. The older three are 9, 8, and 6 so the rule-making gets thick up there… like a complex, volatile little society where I’m an oppressive occupying force, and their 4 year old littlebro is an merrily anarchic troublemaker.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@kitteh

I wasn’t there, but I believe the lecture concluded with, “I’d really like for you to be alive when I graduate from high-school, Grandpa.” That was super-effective.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
5 years ago

Nagging my parents totally worked, though my mum would sneak off and have one in private for a while after they officially quit.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

ceebarks, now you just need to fix it so your mother and grandmother use a Bad Word in front of the kid. She’ll probably need smelling salts afterward. 😉

I would need smelling salts after that! I’d be bowled over to even hear my grandma say so much as “crap” or “heck.” “Shoooooot” is about as profane as it gets there. 🙂

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

@cassandra That’s awesome. And they say nagging doesn’t work!

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
5 years ago

My mom’s dad died before I was born of lung cancer, so no smoking for either of my parents. I think all my other grandparents did and quit. I think by the time I got to high school, marijuana was more popular than cigarettes.

Speaking of which, I found this in the local Barnes and Noble in Washington:

http://imgur.com/53ZPW8q

Check out the section title.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
5 years ago

Behold, the power of nagging! Much more effective coming from a kid, though.

kittehserf
5 years ago

PoM, she sure knew how to make her point!

ceebarks, LOL, I suspected that might be the case about your mother and grandmother.

Regional gardening, eh? That’s … different.

mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

I can’t help but wonder what his motive was for doing that “research” in the first place, since he is not an expert in the field or anything remotely related. It seems he had an agenda going in, and the agenda was to prove that women are supposed to LIKE being abused, and even little girls are into it.

Well. The first edition was published in 93, so he must have done his research earlier thsn that. There was one aspect of sexual “liberation” beginning in the 70s which advanced the view that all of us who’d grown up in the repressive, inhibited 50s would have been a lot better off if childhood sexuality had been encouraged rather than suppressed and punished. Which led to a some pretty nasty family and “communal” sexual behaviours in some families and communities which were, for the most part, abusive and/or exploitive by any standards, 1950s and 21st century both, even though different language and concepts would be applied.

He actually had the chance, given the evidence he’d accumulated, to show that these ideas of encouraging overt sensuality and actual sexual interaction between adults and children within households were not only incorrect but damaging. Damaging the chances of a happy, uninhibited adult sexual life for the women (and men) affected by abuse during childhood. But he himself demonstrated instead the limitations of faulty sexual attitudes and beliefs by ignoring the realities he was presented with and using even-more-warped-than-usual Freudian style dismissal of women’s reports of their own experiences in order to hold onto the ideas he’d started out with.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

My guess would be prurient interest, as gross as that is.

Yeah, that would be my first one, too. It fits the general pattern of grossness and creepiness around him, for sure.

There was one aspect of sexual “liberation” beginning in the 70s which advanced the view that all of us who’d grown up in the repressive, inhibited 50s would have been a lot better off if childhood sexuality had been encouraged rather than suppressed and punished. Which led to a some pretty nasty family and “communal” sexual behaviours in some families and communities which were, for the most part, abusive and/or exploitive by any standards, 1950s and 21st century both, even though different language and concepts would be applied.

Yipp. They kept the abusive/exploitive dynamics of the old patriarchy intact, even as they were trying to detonate the nuclear family. Speaks volumes as to their real motives there. Reminds me of a German news article I translated for my blog, on a prominent Green politician who’d admitted to sexually abusing at least one kid at a radical “non-hierarchical” Kindergarten, back in those all-excusing “different times”. Of course, he didn’t see what he did as abusive at all, because the kid was supposedly the aggressor, and that it was just a fun “game”. (Ow, there go my eyes, rolling out of my head again…)

He actually had the chance, given the evidence he’d accumulated, to show that these ideas of encouraging overt sensuality and actual sexual interaction between adults and children within households were not only incorrect but damaging. Damaging the chances of a happy, uninhibited adult sexual life for the women (and men) affected by abuse during childhood. But he himself demonstrated instead the limitations of faulty sexual attitudes and beliefs by ignoring the realities he was presented with and using even-more-warped-than-usual Freudian style dismissal of women’s reports of their own experiences in order to hold onto the ideas he’d started out with.

And that’s what’s most disgusting and reprehensible about all this. Instead of issuing a retraction and admitting he’d subscribed to some messed-up ideas that he now regretted, and denouncing that sort of thing after realizing it was unhealthy, he retrenched…when he wasn’t burying it all, hoping that people had forgotten. A pity for him that somebody kept and saved the evidence. For those scratching their heads at his dumbfuckery and grossness, this is just more evidence that he really is put out that he can’t just have sex with any young female that he wants, without pesky legal interference or boner-wilting complaints from the victims. And that their being under-age and/or a blood relative isn’t an automatic no-go for him.

kittehserf
5 years ago

mildlymagnificent, Bina – yes, prurient interest is the most innocent interpretation I’d put on it, and I’d forgotten the timeframe and the encouragement liberated dudes abusers were getting then.

Orion
5 years ago

Didn’t he retract/repent of most of his weird incest writing later in life? Or did I make that up?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Not that I’m aware. He claims he was misquoted on one word (he was quoted as saying that parents should “genitally caress” their children, and he claims he actually said they should “generally caress” which is quite different). Aside from that, I believe he’s stated that he totally stands behind everything he said back in the day.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
5 years ago

And the thing is, as those of us who can remember the 70s at all can attest, there was a lot of that shit going around, so there were lots of people saying deeply awful things about childhood and sexuality, but most of the people who said those things will now admit that they were wrong. Not this guy, though! This guy thinks that the fact that society eventually moved beyond that moment in history is a bad thing, and that what should have happened is that the sexualization of children and their exploitation by adults should have become more normalized, and would have done so if it wasn’t for those meddling feminists.

(He’s kind of right about the last part. Everyone else, take a moment to thank the Second Wave feminists who contributed to getting that shit shut down.)

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Everyone else, take a moment to thank the Second Wave feminists who contributed to getting that shit shut down.

…and especially the ones who’d been sexually abused kids themselves, and so they knew in their bones that it was effed up and wrong.

Fibinachi
5 years ago

Actually, I’ve never thought of it in exactly these terms, but the contradiction goes way deeper than the one sentence. You shouldn’t be able to believe both that “women as a class have a *unique* sexual power over men, which is not reciprocal.” and “women are choosing to pursue ‘bad boys’ even when said bad boys exploit them and don’t have their best interests at heart.”

Like… that’s a clear-cut example of men exercising the exact kind of sexual power that Dr. Farrell is so concerned about.

interestingly, that’s not necessarily what Farrell argues. The argument is that women do indeed have special sexual power over all men, yes. However, he argues that they use this power to make men conform to the expected male role of protection, provision and procreation – the usual 3 P hogwash.

Now hold on to your minds, this is where it gets funky.

Specifically abusive men, his argument is actually that abusive people are good protectors – they can offer more “Protection” than someone less abusive, because someone less abusive would be less inclined to fight someone else physically / some other reason a woman just intuitively knows. So women like that, and keep returning to it, because the protectors are like monarchs in that even if they sometimes abuse their power, that’s just the sort of risk you have to take if you want to be protected.

No, that is the argument as presented. The abuse is a bug of a functional system, and is really just a risk that sometimes happen, and anyhow, it’s their own fault because they’re forcing men to conform to the role of protector and if you grant someone sovereign authority to protect you like, say, a king, you are more protected but you might also get abused.

Fibinachi
5 years ago

For the reader’s edification, here’s my source from The Myth of Male Power, 1994 version:

The Hazards of Heroism

When females ask males to protect them with their strength, the risk is having the very strength that protects them in one instance be used against them in another. Thus the athletes for whom females cheer are also involved in one third of campus sexual assaults.On a broader level, when people allow kings “divine rights,” the upside is the potential for greater protection; the downside, the potential for greater misuse. When individuals empower their drugs, religions, kings, or males, they risk being disempowered. […] Just as genius walks a thin line with destructiveness, so heroism walks a thin line with both the destruction of others and self-destruction.

Don’t leaders often manipulate their way into power? Yes. And people manipulate their leaders by choosing leaders who tell them what they want to hear. The Aryans were willing to make someone chancellor in exchange for being told they weren’t doing as well as the Jews because the Jews were oppressing them. A young man named Adolf spoke to the Aryan fear of taking personal responsibility. He was soon rewarded. If the pay is good enough, the prostitute will appear.

Soooooo to sum: “It’s your own damn fault”

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I admit to being really confused.

Don’t leaders often manipulate their way into power? Yes. And people manipulate their leaders by choosing leaders who tell them what they want to hear.

So in this analogy, the people = women who want men to protect them, and the leaders = the men who are manipulated into protecting women by women telling them what they want to hear.

The Aryans were willing to make someone chancellor in exchange for being told they weren’t doing as well as the Jews because the Jews were oppressing them. A young man named Adolf spoke to the Aryan fear of taking personal responsibility.

So now “the Aryans” = women and Adolf Hitler = men? Did WTF really just compare men to Hitler?

He was soon rewarded. If the pay is good enough, the prostitute will appear.

Did WTF really just compare men to prostitutes?

This is some serious business misandry.

Fibinachi
5 years ago

It really is better if you don’t think about it.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
5 years ago

I’m guessing the point is that women = Nazis who’re scapegoating some men for reasons? This is going to end up tying back into Farrell’s love of pedophilia again, isn’t it?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

The main point I get out of it is that WTF thinks that Hitler was a manipulated victim of those scheming Aryans.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
5 years ago

Ironically, allowing people to evade responsibility for their horrible behavior is exactly what his pretzel logic wherein other people manipulate them into said horrible behavior is all about. It’s a classic reversal.

Any time you see someone trying to pull one of those, watch out, that is a dangerous person who will hurt others and feel no remorse at all.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

“Aryans” don’t exist, unless you’re using an old Persian word the Iranians use to refer to themselves. The people he’s talking about are MY people, the Germans.

And they didn’t manipulate Hitler into seeking power; he bullied and schemed and backroom-bargained his way into it. What the fuck does this asshole think a dictator is? It sure isn’t a benevolent protector whom anyone actually WANTS in power. I can tell you from family experience that Germans didn’t WANT Hitler, they were terrified of him (and of what would happen if anyone tried to oust him).

Also, those famous elections? Were RIGGED.

Farrell is as stupid about history as he is about biology. And everything else, too.

kittehserf
5 years ago

I’m sneering at his suggestion that abusive men are somehow also brave dudes who will physically protect women from other men. Because no abuser has ever been a coward, or hidden his abusiveness from all the world and got the “But he was such a nice guy!” shocked response from family and friends when the truth has come out, has he?

Promoting abuse and promoting incest … I wonder how many skeletons there are in his closet?

vaiyt
5 years ago

Dictatorships usually count with the support of a part of the population that believes only other people will bear the brunt of tyranny.

vaiyt
5 years ago

I’m sneering at his suggestion that abusive men are somehow also brave dudes who will physically protect women from other men.

To protect themselves, women should seek exactly the kind of man they’re supposed to be protected from?

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

The abusive = protective thing reminds me of people who believe that in order to be a good guard dog, the dog must be mean. In the past people have even abused dogs in the hopes of making them into “guard dogs”. General aggression, fear biting and guarding are different behaviors and while guarding behavior can be misplaced it highly unlikely to become aggression toward the person, animal or object being protected.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
5 years ago

This thread is getting disturbing. Needs more hypnotic butts.

http://i.imgur.com/vPxvckW.jpg

With bonus floof halo courtesy of Jade.

kittehserf
5 years ago

OPPRESSIVE KITTY BUTT!!!

http://youtu.be/gi2Mo6S60Hk

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

FLOOF!!!!

Dictatorships usually count with the support of a part of the population that believes only other people will bear the brunt of tyranny.

Welp, by my late grandpa’s estimation, it was maybe one German in five; two in five at the height of Hitler’s popularity. But he didn’t vote for the bastard the first time ’round, and didn’t know anyone else who had, either. The one-in-five estimate is how many people he knew who were, in his words, “convinced Nazis”. The rest were just ordinary Germans, ducking their heads and trying to stay out of trouble with the Gestapo. Subsequent elections were less a test of political wills than they were a show put on by bullyboys.

But yeah. The convinced ones were, indeed, the believers in Special Snow, and all.

Orion
5 years ago

After much searching I can’t find it, but I really thought he said that now that he has children he’s realized how incredibly misguided his incest-advocacy was.

Obviously he hasn’t given up on hypno-butts.

Orion
5 years ago

Found it, in david’s article on farrel’s AMA. It’s a very weaselly non-apology, but at least he’s distancing himself from his incest advocasy:

” i did this research when my research skills as a new Ph.D. were in the foreground and my raising two daughters was in the future. had i and my wife helped raise two daughters first, the intellectual interest would have evaporated. life teaches; children teach you more. “

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

So, he does have some limits to his horridity after all. Who knew?

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

I always like the arguments in defense of “patriarchy as protection racket” because it really falls apart when prodded, even a little bit.

Are men-as-a-whole hair-triggered violent fuckups from whom women need constant sheltering? Then why is it a good idea for women-as-a-whole rely on them to provide protection?

Are men good and kind deep in their souls? Then why exactly do do women-as-a-whole need protection from them?

Neh?

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
5 years ago

So, he does have some limits to his horridity after all.

Yes: it’s a problem when it starts to affect him.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

”i did this research when my research skills as a new Ph.D. were in the foreground and my raising two daughters was in the future. had i and my wife helped raise two daughters first, the intellectual interest would have evaporated. life teaches; children teach you more.“

That’s not really a walk-back. “I wouldn’t do that same thing today” is different from “I no longer believe the things I said I believed in the past.”

kittehserf
5 years ago

ceebarks, you nailed it!

1 5 6 7