MEMEDAY continues with the pic below that I also found on the Twitters.
While not technically a “meme” per se, it’s one of those things that antifeminists like to pass around amongst themselves — and that no one outside their little world will really understand, largely because it makes no damn sense.
Ok, so, a couple of Channers are talking about the eeeeeevil Anita Sarkeesian:
rekt pic.twitter.com/Ekxk0rO2Fw
— Victor Zen (@VictorZenMHRA) October 23, 2015
The first delightful thing to point out about this little exchange — and I’m using the word “delightful” to mean the total and complete opposite of delightful — is that Anita’s haters apparently really think that her speeches, videos and whatnot are little more than than excuses to say bad things about men.
She might say something like, well, to pick a random example from a recent blog post of hers about the Netflix show Jessica Jones:
To its credit, as one critic observed, Jessica Jones conveys the horror of Jessica’s past without ever depicting it. In this way, it avoids sensationalizing sexual assault, acknowledges that trauma leaves a lasting impact on people, and relieves the audience of the burden of having to bear witness to the worst of what Jones has endured.
But what Anita’s haters apparently hear is something like this:
Men are bad. Blah Blah. Blah They are all a bunch of patriarchal poopyheads. Blah. They should be put in jail just for being men. Bla Blah. Did I mention I hate men? KILL ALL MEN.
The second delightful (see above) thing about this little screencap — and the one that prompted Mr. Zen to post that triumphant “REKT” — is that supposed racial “gotcha.”
Anita’s haters (and internet antifeminists generally) have such a poor understanding of the basics of intersectional feminism that they think they can trump anything an SJW might say by accusing them randomly of racism.
If she says bad things about men, ask if she means black men as well.
Well, that would kind of depend on what she said, wouldn’t it?
Some things are true of all men. Some things aren’t. Sometimes race makes a difference. Sometimes it doesn’t.
It’s certainly not racist to say, for example, that men generally benefit from unexamined privilege — at least if you acknowledge that this is not the whole story, and that other things (race, class, sexual orientation, and so forth) affect men in huge and complicated ways that can overshadow gender.
But the belief that feminists aren’t allowed — according to some imagined SJW rulebook — to include men of color in their analyses because that would be RACIST is a fairly common one amongst internet antifeminsts.
Take, for example, the case of one Dean Esmay — Twitter “activist” and former A Voice for Men managing editor. Several months back he posted a series of Tweets in which he essentially tried to argue that feminists who include men of color in their analyses are inherently racist.
He put it a bit more bluntly than that:
https://twitter.com/deanesmay/status/616223240642408448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Even aside from the jarring line about “their women” — suggesting that black women are rightfully the property of black men — this is a bizarre claim. Feminists aren’t the Klan. They don’t argue that black men are uniquely violent; they simply note that, yes, there are black men who rape and beat women — just as there are white men and indeed men of every complexion who do.
As Esmay sees it, his charge not only applies to white feminists allegedly throwing shade at black men. It also applies to black feminists who criticize black men in any way.
https://twitter.com/deanesmay/status/616222039578296320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
And black feminist men as well.
https://twitter.com/deanesmay/status/616222290758373376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The weird thing about Esmay is that he doesn’t seem to be playing a game of “SJW gotcha” here; he seems to actually think he’s making some sort of rational argument.
Internet antifeminists are weird.
This particular flavor of dumbth seems to be related to the claim that “feminism means never criticizing any woman for anything ever ever ever”. A willful misunderstanding.
BOOYAH!!! Everyone knows feminists can’t criticize people of colour! (evil laughter)
I don’t know about you, but I would think the fact that the MRBM considers Jack Barnes to be one of its most exalted kliegles…er, I mean leaders…should tell you all you need to know about what the movement thinks of Black folks generally.
Nothing says concern for the human rights of men like ignoring the racism that black men face (ETA: Or engaging in said racism themselves). Until it comes time to use black men in an attempt to score cheap points off of feminism that is.
Is the quote you posted (the one about the interpretation Anita’s haters made of her statement) real? Did one of them actually write that? Because, well, I was certain that those guys don’t really try to understand what Anita writes before running their mouths off, but that’s… I don’t know; I don’t think there’s a word for that.
Anita Sarkeesian:
Channer:
Anita:
Channer:
If one has to ask advice on how to rustle someone’s “jimmies”, be logical, and destroy their “flawed” logic, maybe you’re not logical and their logic isn’t flawed.
^I literally laughed aloud at that chaltab.
I find this a little odd, given the incredible hatred that Gaters, channers and other such types have for Black men, and anyone who isn’t “white” as defined as such in the USA.
Most of the time they’re pulling lines directly from “Birth of a nation” at best.
where do these guys get off accusing Sarkesian of racism? It’s like accusing me of having two heads and six horns. you can claim it, but it doesn’t make it more real the more you clap your hands and post on reddit.
“Rekt” isn’t a word. In fact, it isn’t even a meaningful syllable. It’s just a four-letter fragment of…gibberish.
And just think, this bon mot was uttered by one “Victor Zen”, real name Sage Gerard, who fancies himself a sensitive, brilliant poet-slash-artist of antifeminism.
It is to laugh.
I’d hate to see these folks at an otter symposium.
This level of willful ignorance and spreading of disinformation is frightening, considering that we humans have quite a challenge on our hands, probably the most important challenge humanity has ever faced: saving the planet. The task of saving our one and only home will continue to require a long, sober look at facts and well-thought-out action, with a continuing re-evaluation of both theory and action. This is just the opposite of what the MRM does.
Luckily — luckily! — we can do it without them. It will just take a bit more effort.
Oh! I remember my first encounter with this phenomenon! A few weeks ago, I was looking up stuff on early reactions to Cassie Jaye’s movie and ended up finding a few, older Something Awful threads posted all by the same guy who would be banned for his misogynist bullshit only to buy new accounts to shitpost with. One thread was titled “Who has it worse? Women or black men?” (I was refreshed that the thread was primarily tearing the guy down for either his reputation or this specific outting.)
But, yeah, I had no idea that was a thing outside that instance. The above examples are pathetic even by that thread poster’s low standard. He tried to trick us into admitting we’re racist by getting us to say that we care more about women than another disenfranchised group, falling into the pitfall of forgetting that it’s possible to care about more than one thing, but that image up there and the tweets are saying, “Look at how much this person/these people obviously hate black people! Don’t you see all the evidence!?”
In a strange, roundabout way, their logic might make some sort of sense. If, for instance, you consider that they have no respect for the arguments of their opponents (and thus, no need to read such arguments), they will fashion any sort of argument together and call it the truth.
Not to mention, the uh, “I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense is a very popular one among the neo-right. They’re very keen on deflecting accusations of racism against them by accusing others of racism. Or sexism. Or of being a reactionary fool.
So, taking those together, it could almost make sense!
…
Nah, it still doesn’t.
Good lord, it’s like these people don’t even listen.
Oh wait.
The idea that we can’t criticize people in oppressed groups or claim that they have privilege outside of other oppressed traits (like race) is really fucking laughable, and it reeks of antifeminist stupidity.
For instance, I can think that Caitlyn Jenner is a terrible human being who benefits from her privileges of being white and rich, and I can bring it up without mentioning her being trans, or saying that she’s a terrible person because she’s trans, therefore, I can criticize her without being transphobic.
I can criticize a black man who plays for the NBA (and he’s from my hometown team) for using a gay slur against a referee, who then came out as gay, and then also criticize his non-apology, without being racist.
Funny how that works.
It must be satisfying to routinely win debates against people who exist only in your imagination.
In the same way that masturbating in your closet so God can’t see you is satisfying, that is.
Robert, that made me laugh.
Also because there’s a cat in my wardrobe (closet) at the moment, and from time to time she rocks about and makes the door (which is open) rattle.
@Dan Kasteray: I think they believe that accusing her of racism will somehow disarm her and embarrass her and possibly ruin her speech, plus turn every “PC” person in the audience against her. It really seems like they think we all play follow the leader like the various MRAs seem to…
My theory regarding these sorts of arguments has always been hateful people tend to be afflicted of more than one type of bigotry. Because they hold a number of racist beliefs to be self evident they feel that the “rules” of “liberals” involve never acknowledging these “obvious truths” or at the very least never criticizing in any way various “protected groups” (read: marginalized people.) So when an intersectional issue comes up they see it as showing logical inconsistencies in the overall “liberal” mindset.
Or they could just be being disingenuous and saying anything they think might be perceived as a “gotcha” without actually putting any thought into the argument. It could be that too.
As a black man, I just want to know why people keep using us as debate-cannon fodder.
First there was the MRA who said that Men are the new N-words, and now this.
Then there’s the MRA types who insist that we’re either all cucking their women-plates, or that we’re effeminate, weak Steve Urkel-types with tiny dicks and that they totally have larger white penises, like the Fetlife dude David covered here:
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/12/07/fetlife-sadist-the-new-star-wars-movie-is-cuckolding-me-with-its-big-black-you-know-what
Why the hell are we the Demilitarized Zone between MRAs and women? Can someone explain that? Why the fuck do MRAs and the Manuresphere constantly invoke us in quarrels?
Average MRA: Something something something, feeeemales, OH AND BLACK MALES!1
I’m uncomfortable with this whole scenario. It’s taking on a deeply bizarre aspect.
You cannot deny that this is a trend in the Manuresphere. It’s definitely a real thing that MRAs appear to be doing.
I originally read “jimmies” as “jammies” and was very confused as to why this person thought that Anita Sarkeesian would be giving her talk in her pyjamas. Though I suppose if she did so it would be an argument that she is indeed “a degenerate.”
I was then left wondering why he* wasn’t going for advice on how to “rustle her jammies” on a PUA site, since I assumed that meant he was hoping to turn her on.
Then I reread it and it started to make much less sense.
*I think it’s safe to assume Anonymous up there is a “he,” isn’t it?
Anti-feminists love attempting these stupid little gotchas where they change who plays the role of oppressor/oppressed and expect you to suddenly be caught with your pants down approving of oppression when its not being done to you. They literally can’t conceive of people who don’t want to exert power over those weaker than themselves.
Off-topic:
Male circumcision foe becomes admin for the Silent Hill Wiki and wreaks havoc.
(There’s a little bit of ableism in the commentary, but it’s surprisingly restrained, considering.)
@ Frank Torpedo
My guess would be the same reason they use male suicide rates, prison rape, the draft, dangerous jobs, etc. against feminists. Just yesterday a feminist I follow on Twitter used the word “homophobia” in a joking tweet and there is now a KiA thread crying about how homophobic and hypocritical she is. I’ve seen them attempt to weaponize trans identities as well when it suits them. It’s just a thing they think will resonate with some percentage of people that will help radicalize them against women.
It is kind of very handy to be a Men’s rightser on the interwebz. First thing you need to know is that you feel bad. No need to analyse it, just dwell in your anger and disappointment. Next thing you need is something to blame it on. That’s when you find other angry people who’ve already got the answer: feminism! No need to base it on anything feminists do or say, just dwell in your anger and disappointment. Now you’re ready for war. All you need is some awesome copy/paste arguments provided by your comrades and spit them out at any sign of wimmins or feminumists or whatever they were called. Two rules: Never listen, always win. This is where list items ‘???’ and ‘profit’ naturally follow.