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:
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.
. http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/k620/demonsthenese13/th2_zps7c5086db.jpg
It must have been hard to resist saying “…Oh, right, the guy who didn’t like my butt! I remember you now.”
“Oh, I remember when you used to go on and on about how my butt wasn’t good enough for you. That’s so funny!”
I’m not convinced Farrell didn’t make that design choice out of an awareness that his target audience wouldn’t buy a book unless it had a naked lady on the cover.
Hmm..that list of things now banned in porn just came up in my FB. Stupid.
[quote]Do men ever get sick of being portrayed as these useless lumps that succumb to their biological urges no matter what their brain is telling them?
I swear, if I was a guy I’d be pretty annoyed at that summation of the male gender.[/quote]
It is pretty annoying, since it’s not just these guys doing it – there’s a lot of societal pressure to perform masculinity in a similar way – but it’s also reasonably easy to ignore if you don’t watch TV or read magazines, where advertising attempts to cater to men this way the most.
I mean, I saw the cover of the book, thought “ok that’s a woman’s butt” and scrolled on, so I guess it’s not necessarily something I struggle with regularly, but if I were 16 and saw that I might completely agree with his assessment of gender relations. And I think that’s the problem – MRAs are either all teenagers or haven’t developed (intellectually, socially, take your pick) beyond adolescence so they assume that sort of approach to interacting with women is the norm.
Bizarre. Well, there are certainly worse people to be compared with than Louis CK, given that he’s, you know, one of the funniest people in the world.
paythepiper, where is that pic from? what is going on?
@Leisha:
They make themselves sound like primates so I don’t feel like I’m being included in the group.
“I hate women because I lose all self control around them. And it’s entirely their fault. Apart from the ones I don’t like, I just hate them for not being attractive or subservient.”
kirbywarp:
The powerlessness does not come from the viewing of the attractive butt, but rather the knowledge that you are not allowed grope, pinch, slap or otherwise touch the butt without first gaining consent from its owner. Much like a spoiled privileged child feels “powerless” when a parent refuses to buy them sweets.
Warren Farrell’s nonsense confirms that the MRM is one giant extended temper tantrum over women having bodily autonomy.
NickNameNick:
There was actually a study done on this that found that business students (particularly finance majors) tend to be less empathetic and more narcissistic than their counterparts in other academic fields.
Speaking of studies and ethical behaviour, did others see the one about bankers?
Turns out that bankers are just like other people — until they put on the banker hat. The industry trains them to be like that.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/study-finds-bankers-dishonest-by-training-not-by-nature/5925814
Whoda thunkit?
That little quote is pretty much the credo of every petty narcissist that has ever walked the earth. Note how it’s all about his purulent ego-wounds. Women are to be hated because their very existence poses a threat to that frail ego.
tinyorc, that doesn’t surprise me in the least, and reminds me of a moment a couple of months ago when I was doing a short course in business admin. I expressed distaste for Steve Jobs being held up as WOO WONDERFUL BUSINESSMAN GENIUS, and mentioned the little matter of business ethics. The instructor’s reaction? “Ethics are irrelevant.”
A! B! C!
Always! Be! Closing! Always be closing!
@David Futrelle
that picture was from a Japanese museum, where molded sculptures of butts are placed on the wall for men to admire and lick and kiss and well, whatever they want to, I guess. The pictures of the faces are trying to depict that the molded sculptures of the butts belong to those women. Not sure if there’s much beyond that going on in that display.
I’ve got a little question here… May not be the right place, but perhaps…
I have seen some recurring responses from GamerGate members to accusations that the movement itself is misogynistic, about harrasment, inherently unethical, etc.
1) Ignore it and continue as if that simply is not important.
2) Claim that these are lies, that there is no harrasment and every piece of bad behavior is just some SWJ shills trying to make the movement look bad.
3) Claim that these things are done by trolls who are not really part of the movement but just abuse it to do bad stuff.
4) Answer with more misgoynistic harrasment.
While we can easily dismiss 1 (obviously), 2 (don’t talk to conspiracy crazies) and 4 (obvious again), my google-fu is weak and I haven’t found something that directly counters that, by, for example, simply listing some major figures in the GamerGate movement who cannot be dismissed as free riding trolls and have exactly been doing that. Can someone point me to something there, to refine my answer to people claiming 3) ?
@TwistedInspiration
I have a few: Mike Cernovich,who’s so huge in #GG circles that they call him their Based Lawyer; Cameralady (more here), who’s been with #GG since the original IRC chatrooms; Milo Yiannopoulos,, #GG’s favourite journalist.
Don’t expect any of #GG’s sealions to read the links you provide them, though.
*Two commas in a row for some reason, remove one.
Unless, as NNN points out, it’s a (US)Libertarian-leaning economics or law (strict Constitutionalist) department or, perhaps, some hard-STEM.
The University that I attended had the former two and – woo dawgies – I don’t think anyone left of Scalia would call them liberal.
David,
If he didn’t have a point, how was KKW’s butt able to “break the internet”?
Do you really disagree that it is also in a woman’s best interest for men to unchain themselves from what has been called by another writer “the tyranny of desire”? Men make bad mate selections when they base that choice only on looks. Its in society as a whole’s best interest for them to understand why they are attracted to what they are attracted to and make responsible decisions regardless. Men have their own form of “tingles” (garg, I hate that word) driven mate choice that leaves inner beauty girls with their mouths agape sputtering, huh?
Personally, I’d rather see more photos of Kate Middleton and her family than the hind end of a girl whose porn tape made her a superstar.
Wow, you really do think poorly of men, don’t you, Kate Minter?
My main take-away is that I’m pissed off that this a-hole gives so little credit to men in general.
Men are people, not friggin’ lust-bots; and if the author and his ilk don’t think more of themselves than that, perhaps they should investigate the behavioral equivalent of a niqab rather than allude to the “necessity” of (their idea) of appropriate modesty in women.
But I guess that’s their TwooScience™ take on things – men are fundamental list-bots, women are fundamentally sex-bots, and all culture and behavior is molded by and must now to those Facts.
I love how so many of these asshats prattle on about how intohard STEM they are, but then happily (and loudly) embrace and spout whatever evo-psych bullshit happens to suit their fancy.
I’ve studied evo-psyche at an academic level, and you want to know its dirty little (not-so-)secret?
It can be bent to sit pretty much whatever the fuck you’d like to assert.
It is, fundamentally, advanced speculation, a heady compilation of “just-so” stories. While it’s fun to entertain at on an intellectual level, it is not something on which to base policy or the structure of your life.
Urgh.
“Lust-bots”, not “list-bots” and “are” not “is”.
*goes to wake up kiddos so they can finish their homework*
Having read his books, I can safely say he really doesn’t have a point. There’s words and structure and paragraphs in those books, but nary a point to be found. Or much of anything, really, other than vapid run-on talk that meanders.
*headdesk*
Fundamentally*
Bow* (not “now”)
*gives up on further edits because my eldest really does need to get to painting some canopic jars for a diorama*