I‘ve said it before, but the imaginary feminists that Men’s Rights Activists spend their lives fighting bear about as much resemblance to real feminists as the imaginary Elders of Zion do to actual Jewish people.
But even by typical MRA standards, the meme above (from A Voice for Men’s Facebook page) is a doozy. It’s hard to say which of these imaginary feminists demands is the most ridiculous. That idea that feminists demand “the entitlement to rape men and young boys” or “the right to take money from men under any pretense?” Or that they want “20 men in prison for each woman who commits a crime?”
As ludicrous as these are, I think the most insidious of the bunch is the complaint that feminists want women to have “the right to intoxication with no consequences.”
No, feminists aren’t campaigning for women to be able to drive drunk with no legal repercussions. The “consequences” being referred to here are, of course, rape and other forms of sexual assault. Yep, AVFM is angry that feminists don’t think that women should face the “consequence” of rape if they go out to a bar on Saturday night. AVFM is angry that feminists want the actual rapists to face the consequences of their actions.
The March of the Straw Feminists continues with more AVFM memes from their Facebook page, below.
(Straw) Feminists want to take away funding for prostate cancer:
(Straw) Feminists like to make shit up, as this made-up example illustrates:
(Straw) Feminists demand that fire departments hire women wearing “sexy firefighter” Halloween costumes.
I … don’t even know what the hell the point of this next one is supposed to be. That it’s wrong to talk about the dangers of rape? That women can’t have successful careers and happy lives unless they have children? That … I give up.
At least this one is clear: DANGER! DANGER! (STRAW) FEMINISTS WANT TO CUT OFF YOUR FINGERS!!!!
You’d think the guy would have noticed. I mean, those finger-clipping shears are fucking gigantic.
For more, many more, straw feminists, check out the rest of the memes on AVFM’s Facebook page.
alaisvex-I know EXACTLY how you feel, they frustrate the hell out of me, too. I find them to be the most repugnant, hypocritical, mind boggling punch of narcissistic freaks I have every come across. I often wonder how they can’t see what awful freaks they are. Fortunately, though, no one else (excepting themselves, of course) is going to take them seriously. Everyone else can smell their bullshit a mile off.
I just love how they don’t provide any evidence for this crap at all and how they pull everything out of their arse. *sarcasm*
“Beware of the colour blue”. Pretty sure that’s a Julia Gillard reference:
That’s apparently become a misogynist dogwhistle now.
Also, it’s a bit rich for MRAs to go on about workplace deaths, given how strongly the demographic overlaps with libertarianism.
Speaking of pulling everything out of their arse, I’m currently on Facebook arguing with an MRA who insists that all feminists hate men. I asked him to provide proof. Naturally he dodges it and says “no u”. I say burden of proof is on you buddy. He gives a list of “feminist leaders who hate men” that includes Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Emma Watson, Brianna Wu, Beyonce etc…and clarifies by saying “belief in the patriarchy, rape culture, 1 in 5 and mgm constitutes male hatred”.
What the ever loving fuck, son.
sorry
Cy6485 | March 9, 2015 at 4:33 pm
MRAs are talking about circumcision. They believe it’s all a feminist agenda to cut off men’s foreskins. Which is kind of silly, because a foreskin something that isn’t needed necessarily, and it started a religious decision (that was made by men), and it became just a common practice.
More and more people are speaking out against it though, feminists included.
But no, MRAs think feminists are the ones who are behind it all! Because men are never wrong and all feminists hate men because they say so!
sparky | March 9, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Funnily enough, there’s a history behind the whole “witches ride broomsticks” thing. It’s VERY NSFW though (Though very hilarious, in a way).
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/why-do-witches-ride-brooms-nsfw/281037/
So apparently Facebook Dude is now claiming that David Futrelle is an advocate for mass male genocide and perpetuates feminist lies such as the prevalence of rape in order to demonize men and justify violence against them. I’m not exaggerating, those are his words.
And apparently I also hate Facebook Dude because I used the word ‘circumcision’ instead of ‘MGM’. Also, believing that WWTM states accurate stats on rape and DV is misandric lunacy. Who’d have thunk it.
I think I’m dealing with an impossible case here.
@sunnysombrera
What is language anyway? Everyone knows words mean whatever the fuck we want them to mean.
Evidently, according to MRAs, talking about rape culture and not twisting the heck out of rape figures is misandry because it paints all men as potential rapists. MRAs can’t grasp, or disingenuously ignore, that systematic denial and minimization of rape and horrific rape statistics can coexist with only a tiny minority of men being rapists, Mainstream feminists have said this, too. But of course, why engage with real feminists when straw feminists are so much more convenient?
@Magpie ‘Sokay. That was a great impression of a troll, so thumbs up.
He flounced and deleted his posts. Not before leaving this gem:
MGA = Male Genocide Advocate.
I did give him feminist leaders who don’t hate men but because they didn’t fit with his worldview they were rejected. Naturally.
Given that most if not all MRAs are also murderously antisemitic, I kinda wonder if this “CIRCUMCISION = FEMINIST GYNOCRACY” nonsense started from their bigotry circuits getting crossed.
If not, it’s like going on a screaming rant about the Galapagos giant tortoise every time somebody brings up their preferred sort of hardwood. Just, what?
I do believe he meant Elizabeth Sheehy, who indeed wrote a book of that title. Why am I not surprised that he utterly mischaraterized Sheehy’s work and is unable to contain his animosity against DV victims?
Ableist language aside, there’s a brief glimmer of self-awareness in word if not in intent.
…And now he crosses into the realm of unintended poetry. I mean, does anyone talk like this with a straight face? If I tried to say this to a friend during an argument we’d both burst out laughing.
Oh thank God the feminist fire brigade showed up to my burning house! The MRA fire brigade is just hanging out whining.
@sunnysombrera:
I’m trying to get my head around this:
– Feminists believe* there is a power imbalance and that women are on the losing team because the power imbalance keeps them there – not that anyone got to choose their team.
– If you believe* this then you hate men.
I feel like I’m missing a link between those (“- ???”?), and maybe “- Profit!” at the end.
Presumably you’d have to hate men to believe* these things?
* believe/point at facts such as statistics and vast quantities of experiences showing these things to be true. Yes, in sufficient quantities anecdotal evidence becomes actual data.
@sunnysombrera:
Related – someone just linked this article explaining consent, it’s rather good:
http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/
Aw. Everyone gets the monster eventually.
@lith
That is a brilliant. I’m just waiting for PUAs to discover it and try to find a way of saying that actually people who don’t want tea DO want tea (and thanks to 50 Shades enjoy having hot liquid suddenly poured down their throat) they just don’t want to come across as a beverage-slut. Also if she’s not screaming the house down and trying to knock the cup out of your hand, she wants the tea. If she agrees to cookies but not tea, she totally wants tea as well.
If she really really doesn’t want the tea she’s an entitled bitch. I mean, she’s had plenty of cuppas before, right? She thinks she’s too good for yours!
Oh that’s a good point the list forgot to mention. “If they agree to eating a slice of cake, that does not mean they want tea to be poured down their throat as well. You don’t force tea on someone that didn’t ask for it, right? No.”
Why is this likely and men hitting – not actually murdering – women not?
Why would women be hell-bent on killing men and make up excuses to murder them? I mean in the general case rather than the few where they actually did.
How can he not see this?
Presumably the statistics showing that DV is significantly higher than the murder rate only prove that women are incompetent at murder?
And women go into hiding at shelters because… they failed and had to for fear of righteous revenge?
And here I’ll repeat myself because I can’t absorb the ignorance and paranoia – Why is it more likely that women are finding excuses to murder men than that men are hitting women?
I must have missed the lesson in school where they explained that all women are just looking for an excuse to murder me. Or maybe my parents didn’t have ‘the talk’ with me. I should be sure to teach my sons before it’s too late.
classy.
@lith
When it comes to radical groups, to create a stronger bond within its members an enemy must be invented. That enemy must have a reason to be hated. MRAs have made up all sorts of ridiculous shit about women being the enemy in order to, to quote Facebook Dude himself, justify violence against them. Assuming that plenty of women want to physically harm men is part of that bullshit. Elam is a prime example of this foul play. Yet I have never seen, and the troll didn’t provide, any proof of feminists trying to make enemies out of men in order to justify assaulting them. Manospherians on the other hand are relentlessly making excuses for male attacks on women, on top of making up crap about ‘feeeemale nature’, then turn around and say they’re not misogynists.
It’s true. It’s all true. I just can’t absorb it.
Excuse me. I’m lost. Is this the right place to ask for directions? Only I’m trying to work out How You Get To The Place That You Actually Believe This Bullshit.
IKR. Especially the ‘using the medical term for removing a foreskin means you want to kill all men!” lojik.
That one sounds like someone saw a similar thing done elsewhere for a different topic and applied it in a case that doesn’t equate.
It’s like the thing in a GG discussion about using SJW words and phrases to win the argument. But it didn’t seem to get that ‘SJW phrases’ have actual meanings and contexts.
To be honest MRAs think that even the word “context” means something different than it does. They keep wangsting that WWTM takes everything ‘out of context’ when David actually quotes large chunks ad verbatim and links to the original piece every time. I forget who said it before, but it’s like they think that by screeching ‘CONTEXT!’ at us it’ll act like some sort of magic word that makes us shut up.
Witches were also accused of killing babies and stealing men’s genitals.
Uppity women have been terrorized for a long time.
Then there’s this:
http://f.tqn.com/y/womenshistory/1/S/9/s/3/wife-wont-let-me484176257x.jpg
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Nothing new under the sun.