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.
I have mixed feelings about the term “slut shaming”, but this is a fantastic example of the concept.
Also, have you seen photos of Kim with Kanye and North? They’re just as adorable as any other family. Unless you feel that Kim is permanently tainted by having been filmed having sex, or something.
The first time I heard about KKW’s ass (wow, that’s a strange opening) was when that one dude tried to use her photoshoot to prove that Matt Taylor’s shirt wasn’t actually sexist, or something. That’s about it.
“Broke the internet” indeed. There are already many, many butts on the internet. One more isn’t going to break it. Also, if we’re talking about the effect of butts on men in particular, then doesn’t that argument imply that the internet is all straight dudes?
QFT.
I don’t understand the concept of “broke the Internet” in this context. I have not noticed any service outage or slowdown lately. “Breaking the Internet” is something I would expect from a lack of net neutrality, not from a few photos.
While I’m sure plenty of men (and for that matter lots of women too) masturbated to those photos, it didn’t exactly men to lose all control and take to the streets to loot and riot. Those who were curious looked and then moved on with their lives. People have been looking at depictions of nudity and sex since humans first learned to draw, etch and carve things. Somehow, civilization has managed to advance.
I would also like to point out that when Alexander Skarsgaard did a full frontal scene on True Blood the internet went into a frenzy. It was shot from a bit of a distance so immediately screen caps were taken and blown up so people could get a proper look at his penis. My point is, heterosexual men are not the only ones that like to look at attractive naked people.
It is in fact, in the best interests of women that men learn to respect consent and stop viewing us as sex objects. However, it is not the tyranny of our butts that have caused these issues. As POM pointed out, even rapists control their desires because they make the conscious choice to carry out their crimes away from bystanders who might intervene. They choose victims not necessarily based on how attractive their butts are but whether or not they’re vulnerable. They purposely target victims who are drunk or high, disabled or mentally ill, have a history of abuse etc. They don’t tend to pick victims based on who has the most oppressive mind losingly sexy butt.
This isn’t even true 100% of the time. If someone of any gender or orientation is looking for a long term committed relationship, they shouldn’t make the decision solely on looks. Most people looking to settle do not actually do this. However, if someone is looking for a short term relationship or a one night stand choosing a partner based on looks alone is just fine. It’s also okay to want a committed partner that you are also sexually attracted to. It’s just that your personalities should be compatible too.
It’s important for men to learn that despite the messages our culture sends, women are not sex objects and we weren’t put on this earth to please their boners. Teaching them that the female body harms them and makes them lose control does not teach this. If you look at cultures that take this notion to the extreme, such as the Christian quiverful movement or Afghanistan under the Taliban, you will see that these are not the most advanced and equal cultures.
Now you’re just presuming that what Hollywood and the fashion industry says is attractive is the only type of women men are ever physically attracted to. I don’t know how so many women who don’t look like movies stars end up in happy, healthy relationships if that’s the case.
And yet, despite the fact that Kate Middleton always looks prim and proper and has a thin body type instead of Kim Kardashian’s slutty, slutty curves, paparazzi still took a picture of her topless sunbathing while on vacation. People always seem to want to look at nude pictures of famous people. No matter what they look or act like. Of course, it needs to be said that it is wrong to look at a nude photo that was taken and/or distributed without consent. Just because you want to look at someone’s bits, doesn’t mean you should!
I can vaguely recall being 13, and totally lovesick over George Harrison (who of course didn’t have a clue I even existed). I had a good cry after a couple of weeks of this, and then the feeling dissipated, but my memory is that it was terribly uncomfortable while it lasted.
I wonder if this is what has happened to these MRAs, except that instead of realizing some things just aren’t ever gonna happen, they instead chose to ruminate on it and blame the other person instead of realizing that you can’t have everything you want.
Well, in my case, the time lapse was less than ten years, so he should have still been easy enough to recognize, one would think. But he wasn’t. He’d gone from cute early-twenties guy to prematurely middle-aged, and from very slim to decidedly pudgy. (Nothing against pudgy dudes, I’ve dated them without giving it much thought — but oh, the irony here.)
His new girlfriend was also chubbier than I was, incidentally. But cute just the same, and seemed very sweet. I decided to spare her the account of what he used to say about my ass.
Oh yeah, I was literally biting my tongue to keep those very words from popping off it. I’m surprised it wasn’t bloody. And like I said…I had to keep from laughing until he was out of earshot. Irony may be lost on the ironic, but it is NEVER lost on me.
Wait, are MRA holding Kate Middleton (like, no, why would I want to look at pictures of her?) as a model of high virtue or something? Like that woman is the best example in the world of their dreaded hypergamy.
Or are they going for a modernized whore/madonna dichotomy? I wouldn’t have thought “women are people too” was such a difficult concept to grasp.
Also agree on the “powerlessness” of having to accept female body autonomy. Apparently the “power” to accept or decline an advance made based on an appreciation of your ass is too much to concede for the gender that holds almost all of the political, military, economic and religious power, who’d have thought.
And as the owner of a many times celebrated posterior, of course that’s bullshit. Best “power” I got was the request to model for a 3D rendering or something (yes I have weird acquaintances).
Okay, Kate, now on to your rubbish…
Uh…it didn’t. The Internets merely yawned, muttered something to the effect of “ho hum, more KardashiAss”, then rolled over and went back to sleep.
“Tyranny of desire”? Oh, please. At worst, desire is but a mild inconvenience, at least for me. And for most of the people I’ve met. Most of us, men and women alike, have no problem finding people we love on all levels, or at least, enough levels that the strictly physical one fades into the background once we’re better acquainted. We have no problem overlooking the minor physical blips because the emotional payoff is much greater. But then, most of us ARE grownups, so…
If some men are so easily misled by women’s looks that they keep making shitty decisions based solely on that, then they should do themselves and society a favor, and exile themselves to a desert island, pronto. To claim they are utterly helpless in the face of a perfect ass, or bouncy boobs, or whatever else, is a huge insult to men, and incidentally, quite at odds with the “men built our great advanced society without any help from women” canard, which is the other big steaming heap of bullshit they tout. MRA “philosophy” is not only the most misogynous, but the most misandrous thing there is, and the fact that you’ve swallowed it holus-bolus makes me very sad for you. And them.
Personally, I wouldn’t. If the media simply stopped mentioning both of them one day, I wouldn’t even notice. (Well, maybe I would, if only to feel relieved and thankful.)
And funny you should mention Kate M, because I distinctly recall reading that William had her firmly in the friendzone until he saw her modelling one of her buddies’ designs in the school fashion show…a see-through knit dress, no less.
No David, the ‘hot ladeez’ NEVER fart!
I really have to have a rant about the Genetic Celebrities – who appear to only be women? The world of fashion has been known to employ a ‘hot lady’ or 2 no? And yet has absolutely NO problem treating them really crappily. Now, I will concede that there are a *few* gay men in the world of fashion, but there are still many many hetero men who really do treat the models as if they are things, not people. So NO – a Genetic Celebrity (what a fucking stupid term, esp as the rules of hotness often lead to cosmetic surgery) does not walk through life never having to taking any responsibility, and never being hurt, physically emotionally or financially.
I have known many women considered to be extremely beautiful in the conventional sense, and one thing that stands out to me is how insecure they are. Models are told constantly that they are not good enough, and this is one way that the industry controls them, and it is the same in many other walks of life. They often hate only being seen in the physical dimension, not being taken seriously (and this does affect them financially), esp in serious roles like medicine and law. The ONLY way being ‘beautiful’ is truly advantageous is if you are a hetero woman who has no ambition, and does not feel shame about leeching off others financially, always focused on using her looks, and I think that we can all agree (outside of the Manosphere) that they are in a small minority.
Kate,
Wasn’t Middleton slut-shamed for sunning topless and being photographed by some tabloid peeping Tom? How did she become the poster girl for “wholesome” women suddenly? How is it she is mentioned as a member of a family and Kardasian-West is not? Showing off your amazing behind does not prevent you from having a family.
Also, what is interesting about monarchy? Monarchy should be a thing of the past. There is nothing special about anyone’s “bloodlines” or about being rich for doing nothing special at all. Who cares?
There is no tyranny in desire. (Except the one from Sandman) Men are not chained to desire. What a load of crap! All genders can feel desire. Feelings are not chains. Straight men do not need to desire any less for gender inequality and sexual abuse to disappear. Sexual harassment, objectification and rape of women are not about desire. They’re about misogyny. People of all genders can feel desire everyday without treating the people they desire as objects whose humanity matters less than their own.
And can we stop referring to people as “mates” unless it is referring to friends? It doesn’t make you sound science-y. It makes you sound ignorant and like you feel a need to dehumanize people. When people make bad choices based on their own shallow values, it does not mean their entire gender shares those values or make those choices. Those choices are not inevitable. They are not the fault of women for having bodies.
You write alot but say very little. The solution to the problem you imagine is what exactly? burkas? Less independence for women? That’s what MRAs are always on about. They see themselves as victims when they cannot make victims of women and that’s fucking disgusting, as are you for defending them.
As to feeling powerless for by nor having a super model body: Bullshit. A woman’s power is not bestowed upon her by male approval. I lose nothing at all when strangers don’t feel like eye-fucking me. I have no fucks to give about other people’s physical preferences. My body is for me to enjoy first and for others of my choosing second. That in its self is a sort of power.
Yeah, if people think models are always treated well, they need only look up Terry Richardson’s sexual harassment allegations or Janice Dickinson’s story of being drugged and raped by Bill Cosby. Then there’s the issue of teenage girls being imported from developing countries by modeling agencies and then not being exploited and underpaid.
I don’t know that not got in there. I mean that they are exploited and underpaid. Oops.
The Tyranny of Desire sounds like a bad Mills and Boon (Harlequin) bodice ripper.
In actual practise there is no such beast as tyrannical desire, just a few irresponsible idiots on all sides of the gender equation using the concept as an excuse for abuse and objectification or even rape.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … there have been studies that people who are not conventionally attractive are hired at a reduced rate than people who are, and promoted at work at a lower rate, and the gap is much wider for women than for men. There’s also a common stereotype that fat people are lazy, unmotivated, and uncommitted, and this translates into discrimination in the workplace. Again, the gap was higher for women than for men.
It might be more accurate to say that not being beautiful is a distinct disadvantage, rather than that beauty is an advantage, and the disadvantage is higher for women than for men, because pretty men and pretty women have more or less the same rate of preferential treatment, but men and women who are not conventionally attractive have a wide gap between them, with non-pretty women experiencing higher rates of discrimination than non-pretty men.
WWTH,
I think of poor Marilyn Monroe and how exploited, lonely and miserable she was when people claim beautiful women are powerful.
Ha ha, I can’t get over the relabeling of “woman who is attractive to me” to “genetic celebrity”. He’s so insecure about physical attraction that he does a little mental parallel bars so that those he is attracted to are only that way because they are lucky (genetic) and thus hold privileged status (celebrity).
Or Sidney Sheldon.
So butts make people famous with… genes? Um. I’m not sure where the mythical sense this makes is hiding.
Here’s a cute butt to oppress y’all!
http://i.imgur.com/Ik3Z3wu.gif
PoM,
Good point. It’a true that youth, thinness and beauty do bestow some privilege. But being a less discriminated against as a woman isn’t really the same as power, as Farrell claims. It seems a bit like lighter skinned black people facing less discrimination than darker skinned black people. It’s arbitrary. It’s about being more acceptable to the class actually in power. There’s also the stereotypes of beautiful young women being vain, man-eaters, people pleasers, vapid, “slutty” etc. She may make it to the top, but she will not necessarily be treated as if she earned her way there. That’s especially true if you aren’t white.
You can’t win in a system like that. You have to smash it and rebuild.
skiriki,
I am thoroughly oppressed by that bottom. 🙂
@Lea — yes, and that little triangle-tail! OH MAH GOODNESS i cant even
Truly, the furrinati oppress us all.
@Lea
I don’t know if I would say that they bestow privilege so much as the lack of them creates a lack of privilege. The differential winds up being the same, but the important distinction is which one we assign as the “default,” the characteristic that people envision subconsciously when you say the word “human being” to them. To many, many people in the United States, the “default human being” is male, cisgender, white, physically fit without being bodybuilder-muscular, around 6′ tall, middle-class, heterosexual, etc. and the farther one deviates from that default the more privilege is taken away.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I actually think it’s really important, because a lot of this could be addressed by altering the “default human being” to be more inclusive.
Imagine what it’s to be constantly mistaken as a genetic celebrity because your identical twin sister is one.