I sometimes make fun of Men’s Rights activists for their assorted misunderstandings of feminism. But this guy gets it! I’ve never seen the essence of feminism distilled into a comic as ably as this.
It brings back memories of the first time I read Andrea Dworkin’s classic “Intercourse: You’re Not Getting Any Unless You Pay for My Dinner.”
Found on the Men’s Rights subreddit, with 100 upvotes.
H/T — r/againstmensrights
NOTE: POST CONTAINS SARCASM
Are you sure a MRA posted it? The drawing isn’t half bad and there is nary a sexbot to be found in the comic.
Why is the dude black and white, while the woman is in color? Is this some kind of subliminal thing? A comment on the doodler’s limited worldview, perchance?
Also: “Pablo Stanley”? As in that guy from KISS?
The woman is in color to emphasize that she is the center of attention which is, of course, wrong. The men are all taken aback and spoken over, they all have the “sad eyebrows” thing going on, while she has the “angry eyebrows” (see: Michelle Obama) indicating she is a mean, mean person.
She’s wearing red and showing off her boobs just to taunt those poor men like her boss who has no power over her and who has to pay her extra money rather than paying her co-worker who’s of course always smarter and has more experience, but that’s why he didn’t get a raise this year! This bitch.
Also, I think you’ll agree that Kate Beaton’s rendering of feminists is much more accurate, http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=382
One thing that often baffles me about this supposed “inequality” on their part is the whole “paying for dinner” thing. Like, is that even a thing? Has that even been a thing for decades now? Cause everyone I know and who’s a little older than me has done 50-50 dating or “I cover, you cover” trading with established relationships.
It’s like their whole “buying women drinks at the bar” thing. Like, most people don’t just pay for their own drinks or buy drinks for their friends in alternate rounds. But at least with that, there’s some connection to reality and something that may somehow occur in practice.
But the “buying dinner” thing feels like super archaic. Like, has the person who’s complaining about it even dated anyone in the last decade and are they just going off of what’s in movies because movies are equally behind the times and disconnected from how people really date?
Like I hope that’s the case as it would mean that these people aren’t inflicting themselves another person for the full length of a dinner.
Or is it just a thing in the more creepy conservative dating circles they inhabit where of course a man pays, because otherwise that emasculates him and a lady must playact some 1950s shit so the man doesn’t feel like his romances are ruined by feminists?
Yes. This is exactly the answer to your question. They work themselves up other things they’ve seen in movies and on TV. It’s often high school movies, too. Hence the hangup on “jocks” and the whole alpha/beta thing. None of this crap comes from observing reality.
@Cerberus
Actually, now that I’ve read the rest of your comment (posting too soon – classic mistake!!) maybe there really IS something to the idea that most of these guys seem to be politically conservative or right wing extremists, and I simply know nothing about what it’s like to exist in that warped universe.
@cerberus:
I have always seen it as the continuation of the straw argument that women are only out there to screw men over any way they can. I would not be surprised if an earlier version of that panel has the guy eating a small salad appetizer while she has two lobsters, a giant steak dinner and an expensive bottle of wine while flirting with the biker sitting behind her.
I have been out of the dating world for a while, but yah I fully agree with you. It seems (via conversations with my dating friends) the requirement that only the man pays just does not exist anymore except in the minds of people like the comic artist.
I like that “occasionally feeling like you are obligated to pay for dinner” is the hill some of them have chosen to die on.
One thing I never tire of is how often these yahoos depict themselves (as a stand-in for men in general) as pathetic losers. How rock-stupid do they have to be not to realize that this sort of thing, you know, undermines their superiority narrative?
Quiero rock and roll toda la noche…
And if it’s not that, it’s the “I paid, now you have to put out” one. Because all women are secretly prostitutes, don’cha know?
I get the feeling that they just won’t be satisfied until women pay for everything, take less than half pay for more than twice the work, AND put out for them every time, because why else would they put up with our repulsive presence and not-just-showered uncleanliness? Anything less would be misandry, and whoredom, and Goddess knows what all else.
I just noticed — the male diner has nothing in his wallet. Was he expecting *her* to pay?
@violetvolume
misendry is misendry beb~ B)
Is that a scented candle on the table?
Of course the woman demanding a raise is seen as not as qualified or having put in the time at the company to have earned what she has demanded. Equality means a free ride, getting something for nothing. The good old myth that that the wage gap is the direct result of women making different life choices, not pursuing the same opportunities, etc.
And of course, in the second frame, she is accosting random dude on the street about her breasts, right? and who says “you sexist pig” anymore? I also like the way the boobs are emphasized in that frame, as if to say, “see? she’s asking for us to stare at her boobs!”
And all those guys are just a bunch of nice guys tm, right?
Oh, poor naive Bina. I like how you think they could possibly be satisfied. It we work, we’re taking jobs from men, but if we don’t work we’re freeloading. If we don’t put out for them, we’re frigid or friendzoning, but if we do we’re sluts unworthy of them. There is no satisfying them.
I think it’s a combination of
1) That’s what’s portrayed in some media.
2) That may be how it still plays out in some conservative circles.
3) An echo chamber about the above reinforcing that that’s TOTALLY the way things REALLY ARE.
re: Dating and payment: First date seperate checks are completely acceptable / the norm (unless one party makes it clear that it’s their treat).
After that, seperate checks, the one who asks / suggests a venue pays, “I’ve got this if you get coffee/dessert/etc.”
Or, you know, whatever in the hell works for the people in question. Whatever happened to discussing things and adjusting fire as dictated the situation and the individuals involved?
But perhaps it’s too difficult to complain about grey areas when you can construct your own black and white monolith to rage against.
To clarify, the list in my above post was about dating and payment.
In fairness, to some extent it does seem to be about life choices, but usually those who argue that point like to pretend that “life choices” occur in a cultural vacuum – that there’s no disparity in treatment and expectations.
But I think a number of more articulate amd knowledgeable commenter have already addressed how that seems to be a particular tactic (or perhaps weakness) of US Libertarianism.
Commenters* – my autocorrect apparently doesn’t like that word in plural.
“There is no satisfying them.”
Well, I think there is– if you’re a perfect 10, submissive, virginal, traditionally feminine, and live to serve your man and always do whatever he wants and make your life all about what he needs and desires, then they might be satisfied. Maybe. Until that perfect 10 has the audacity to get old or gain weight. Then maybe not so much.
Oh, but of course. I keep forgetting.
Why, oh why don’t they just Go Their Own Damn Way, Already? It’s obvious that they’re all misanthropes and grouches and nobody likes them, either.
Well, duh! If women earn less then how the hell will they be able to afford dinner!? It’s not like the poor little lady brain can *budget* for said dinner!
I thought the name “Pablo Stanley” was familiar – someone from Gamergate altered a cartoon of his about Tiananmen Square to depict themselves standing in front of the tanks instead (as they are in themselves a completely artless movement). So I was very disappointed to find out that this one appears to be unaltered and the message is completely as intended.