Every Friday is Memeday here at We Hunted the Mammoth, and today we’ll be looking at some memes I found on a Facebook page called Feminist Hypocrisy.
At first glance, this page looks like any number of other Men’s Rightsy Facebook pages.
There are the requisite jokey memes mocking feminists. (“What do you call a basement full of feminists?” one caption asks, over the picture of a donkey. “A whine cellar!”) There is a post about Anjali Ramkissoon, the Uber-driver-attacking (female) doctor who’s become something of an obsession amongst MRAs in recent days. There are memes on such Men’s Rights hobbyhorses as the evils of child support — like the one above, which the folks at Feminist Hypocrisy borrowed from A Voice for Men.
Indeed, the admin of the page seems a bit preoccupied with this last issue, in particular with the specter of men being forced to pay for children fathered by other dudes.
Yep, it looks like some Men’s Rights Activists are as obsessed with cuckolding — or, more crudely, “cucking” — as any internet Nazi. Or maybe even more so:
(I had to censor that one a little.)
Now, when the internet Nazis talk about “cucking” there is almost always a racist angle to it — the cuck-er invariably being black or brown and the cuck-ee white. Sometimes this “cucking” is meant literally, other times figuratively — with the internet Nazi squad especially pissed at white “race traitors” who support immigrants said to be “cucking” Western Civilization by, well, not being white.
Guess what? It just so happens that Mr.Feminist Hypocrisy is also racist as hell.
Look how seamlessly the Men’s Rights activism slides into this blatantly racist meme. Bigotries flock together, after all.
Poking around amongst the rest of the memes up on the page, it quickly becomes evident that Mr. Feminist Hypocrisy shares quite a few of the preoccupations of your standard issue internet Nazi — from the terrible oppressions faced by white Christian dudes …
… to, uh, whatever it is we’ve got going on here.
Huh. I thought Obama was supposed to be a secret Muslim, not a secret gay Jew.
There are many more racist memes on the page, including a number too crude and violent to repost here.
And then there are a few memes that seem utterly inexplicable, at least to me; if anyone can decipher the meaning of this thing, I would greatly appreciate it. (The readers of the Feminist Hypocrisy page seem to have been as baffled by it as I am; apparently that’s former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s head photoshopped onto someone else’s body.)
It would be nice if we could just dismiss the Feminist Hypocrisy page as a weird outlier in the world of Men’s Rights Activism. But it’s not. The page has nearly 20,000 “likes” on Facebook. Its posts draw comments and shares.
And the way I found it in the first place? I was looking through a list of Facebook pages “liked” by A Voice for Men, and there it was.
On a less depressing note: My headline today was inspired by the classic commercials for Reece’s Peanut Butter Cups which some readers here will remember from their childhoods. Here’s one of them:
Turns out that chocolate and peanut butter do indeed taste great together. Racism and Men’s Rights Activism, not so much.
Yes, this. Everyone needs this hanging right beside their computer.
Also, hi. I’ve lurked this site for awhile and randomly commented here and there. I’ve gotten run off Imgur, Reddit, Twitter, and even the Cracked comment section by racist/sexist/nthphobic trolls. I figured I’d try here.
The one that gets me is the “destroys dreams” notion.
There are plenty of men, my husband and my daughters partners for three examples, whose dream is to have children they can be dad to.
They want babies in their arms, toddlers they can play silly games with, kids they read books to, kids they can take to the museum and to swimming lessons, kids they can help with homework, kids they can teach to cook. If they could swing it, they’d also like some full-time parenting leave so they could have a baby or toddler to themselves while the mother goes out to work. That’s something they would regard as a bonus , a bonus really worth having.
I’m willing to bet that there are many more men who really want kids and a fully involved family life than there are of these petty shitheads. They’re so uptight that they’re too scared of making duck or train noises while reading a book to a child for fear of looking childish. Those of us with a healthier self regard see a lot of parenting as golden opportunities to let our inner child out for some fun.
Kasper, am I correct in thinking you were objecting more to David blurring out the words in the memes than you not being allowed to use said language?
Because it looks like a few of us have interpreted you as “I should be allowed to use censored words” instead of “David, why are you censoring the memes?”
If it’s the “I should be allowed to use censored words” than I don’t really have all that much sympathy. If it’s the “censoring the memes” thing…
Have you considered that not all of David’s readers are adults? I know for sure that we have had teens who were regulars in the commentariot. Furthermore, some of us might read webpages around other people. I know we have some family folks around.
Would you really be thrilled as a parent if you were reading David’s posts and your little 6 year old (who’s finally aced the whole reading short words thing) walks up behind you and asks “How can a **** be ruined and floppy? I thought they were cats?”
Then, we do also have adults who prefer not to read/listen to crude stuff when we don’t have to.
That’d be me.
I kind of think of foul language like a stress headache (not a migraine, just a little headache).
Is it going to kill me? No.
Can I live with it? Yes.
Is it still obnoxious? Yep.
Does it occasionally make me grouchy and less productive? …yeah.
Why do these dudes always connect single motherhood with feminism? There are feminist single moms, but are feminists more likely to be single moms than the general female population? Not that I know of.
I guess it’s just the typical MRA trick of calling it feminism every time a woman does something they don’t like.
I’m also wondering if it’s only evil to them if it’s men raising kids that aren’t biologically theirs. Is it evil for single dads to partner with women that aren’t the biological mom? Because my cousin is helping raise her stepdaughter along with lots of help from my uncle and his wife. Every one treats the kid as part of the family. Nobody seems to feel oppressed by her presence. Her bio mom is a meth addict who’s sometimes in jail. Is her dad evil for bringing a her into our lives? I never thought so. She’s a pretty good kid. Not a dream destroying flesh monster.
@Kasper, In addition to what everyone else has said, there’s nothing in the comments policy about not allowing you to use foul language; it’s AFAIK just an editorial decision on David’s part. I can’t fathom how one would take issue with that. It’s just such a completely inconsequential thing.
I love how that third-to-last racist one is supposed to be something that… what? Instills fears in us wimminz or something?
I’m about to graduate and become an accountant, hopefully make (okay) money, and I don’t want kids. Because I know that as cute and cuddly as they are, I wouldn’t be a good parent.
So if I lived in a world where suddenly being in business + not having kids meant I was somehow benefiting others (literally anyone) in any (literally any) positive way whatsoever… awesome! Where do I sign up for that?
Is it sort of like some frequent flyer miles thing? Do I go tell someone I don’t want kids, and trade in my right to kids for a points card? Every dollar I earn gets other people points?? How does it work?? Sign. me. up.
(I totally see why they would think it’s scary, though. Because they lack all empathy and it’s inconceivable that anyone would want to ever -gasp- actually assist their other fellow human beings in any way whatsoever)
@ WWTH
I don’t know if it’s the same in the US, but over here “single mother” has often been used in a pejorative way (especially a couple of decades past). It’s not just the “moral turpitude” aspect. There’s a myth that single mums are benefit spongers to such an extent that it’s a common ‘meme'(?) that hordes of teenagers are desperately getting knocked up so they can get free council housing and tons of tax payers’ money.
And we all know how women like to sponge off the hard working male, right? (only men work hard enough to pay tax)
@Alan
Yeah its like that here in the US/Canada. In fact a few weeks ago a guy came into the fast food place I work at wearing a Tee-Shirt that said “I support single moms” with a silhouette of a stripper on a pole.
Alan,
Oh yes. Many people here think women become poor single mothers just to get all that sweet, sweet welfare money. Especially black women. The right is also obsessed with people on EBT (food assistance) using their benefits to buy steak and lobster. Or sillier still, alcohol and cigarettes even though you can’t actually do that.
@ fabe & WWTH
Quick glance at this gives you the idea about the UK and where things started to change. Not making a political point about any particular party. It was very much a societal attitude across the board that was probably parties being populist as much as setting the agenda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-141844/Party-told-blame-single-mothers.html
ETA: I do not recommend you google ‘single mothers’. You’ll see things that make that t-shirt seem positively nice.
That sums up my experiences as a child of a single parent. My Bio Father tried that whole “That child isn’t mine!” stuff, got proven wrong via DNA test, got ordered to pay child support, then lived off of his father’s money so he wouldn’t have to pay for any child support (not just for me, but apparently for a handful of other children, all of them first-born girls as well.). Of course, he paid child support for his precious first-born son, who is going to “carry on” his family name.
I’ve never met my sperm donor, nor have I met any of my step-siblings. I’d like to one day, just so I can give my step-siblings a hug, and tell Sperm Donor to fuck right off.
I imagine they’d think it’s the worst thing ever. Until they’re praised for giving a child a “good” home, then it’s a totally “Alpha” move because then they can martyr themselves all over the place.
“Lookit me, I’m sacrificing SO MUCH to raise this little lump of flesh that isn’t mine! Praise me!”
I feel sorry for any child who gets adopted by one of these shitheels. They’d most likely be used as a status symbol.
On the topic of EBT: Apparently Wisconsin is trying to pass a ban that says that people can’t spend some of their EBT allowance on shellfish.
But, they have to spend 2/3 of their allowance on things the state deems “nutritional”, like white potatoes, meat, and fresh produce. The idea is to “promote healthier eating” and to “stop fraud”.
And, of course, this does seem to be based on purely anecdotal evidence.
Of course, since EBT and SNAP benefits are federal level and not state, Wisconsin would need a federal waiver to get this passed, and no state has ever gotten something like that granted.
Doesn’t stop those pushing for it from thinking it’ll go through anyways.
So let me get this straight: single mothers “get the kids and the praise”, where “kids” means “balls of flesh that eat money, destroy dreams, and sh_t stress” and “praise” means being considered some sort of unlovable creature with ruined genitalia and mental issues?
I think that the AVFM’s endorsement of a page that depicts single mothers and their children in such a negative manner isn’t really that surprising given Paul Elam’s own less than stellar parenting. Why aren’t men who have kids with these women being held to any standard of responsibility within the AVFM paradigm? And exactly why shouldn’t a single mother pursue a relationship with someone she’s in love with? My reaction, if it works out, would be happiness for them, whereas the MRA would see this as some sort of tragedy. Genetics and natural/sexual selection are descriptions of a process, they are not moral imperatives.
They can kid themselves, but they’d be just as crap at parenting ‘their own’ kids as they would any other child.
I remember my father suddenly showing in interest in me at 19. Later I realized he’d found out my mother’s diagnosis. Must have thought I’d inherit her estate. What a guy!
@ david n-t
It’s simple in their mindset.
Man who walks out on a child forever = hero standing up for his rights
Woman who gets a babysitter in once a month so she can see friends = feckless irresponsible slattern
Another state did something similar. Either Kansas or Missouri. I forget which.
That so many people care how a recipient spends their EBT is proof positive that they don’t care about “small government” or “fiscal responsibility.” They just want poor people to suffer. According to the just world fallacy the right always seems to operate from, they must deserve to suffer because if they were decent people, they wouldn’t have wound up poor.
One gets a set amount on their EBT card a month. If someone blows the whole thing the first day of the month on expensive items, the “taxpayers” aren’t out any more money. It’s not like when your allotment runs out, you just go fill it back up on the government’s dime. So why do they care about this? It can’t be for any other reason than that they think poor people must be constantly miserable and suffering and can never spend money on anything more than lentils and the monthly bills.
@WWTH:
There is another reason, but it’s not that much better. They think that the poor are poor because of bad choices, not bad circumstances. Blowing their EBT card on one meal means they aren’t spending their money “better,” which means they stay poor longer (and in worse circumstances, thereby making it necessary to give them even more money), and are thus more of a drain on the system.
Somehow they think that avoiding spending $100 once on a microwave is going to be the deal-breaker that could have lifted a poor person out of poverty.
And there’s just the simple “how dare you spend MY (tiny tiny share of a huge tax-payer pool of) MONEY on frivolities! If you’re just gonna spend MY (teeny tiny share of probably-going-entirely-to-the-defense-budget-anyway tax) MONEY on things you don’t absolutely need, then why in the world am I even being charitable in the first place?”
But that last one is pretty much what you’ve already said.
I guess the reasoning must be something along the lines of “If they spend their allowance on ‘luxury’ items, they must not actually need it.” Because if they must accept the existence of a social safety net, they want it to provide only up to the point where recipients are not literally and immediately starving to death, but nothing more. Which likely extends from, as you’ve said, the idea that poor people deserve to suffer for so long as they “choose” to remain poor.
RE: EBT cards. Ugh. There is so much demonization of poor people and what they should be able to buy/not buy with their gubbmint money. All this discussion about what kind of meat, seafood, veggies they should be able to buy is disgusting. They can buy all manner of junk food, but fish is considered luxury?
Then, there are all those (I’m assuming phony) stories about “food stamp people” having “iPhones” (it’s always iPhones too) and designer purses and tattoos (seriously? are people supposed to remove their tattoos to merit getting food stamps? which is a bigger cost. I guess the assumption is they got the tattoos with money they could have used to buy food?).
Americans like to brag about how there are no classes, but when you read the stories about EBT cards, it’s really apparent how we construct class in this country.
And to touch on the meme and my earlier comments, a lot of those stories have racist hues with specific music being played or specific names or phrases associated with African-American communities.
@Alan
Yeah, I know. There’s just something about AVFM’s use of ethics of convenience that really bothers me. It’s the basest form of selfishness trying to masquerade as something admirable.
@MexicanHotChocolate
Don’t forget the yelling about how everything is everyone else’s fault, bc he is holy and blameless.
My dad was always hit or miss with the child support and flaked on me more often than not. I just got lucky that mom’s side of the family is super close so one family members troubles become something we all work on together.
@dlouwe
“they want it to provide only up to the point where recipients are not literally and immediately starving to death, but nothing more”
Given some of the descriptions out there, I think they want to see the extended bellies of people in extreme deprivation, like in those commercials to give money to the starving children in Africa. So much of the rhetoric is that people should literally not have a penny to their name, be out on the street and not eaten in months to deserve any sympathy.
I also like how it is assumed that being a single mother = mental problems
I bet he means “She isn’t about to mess with my triffling ass because she’s experienced and knows a red flag when she sees one.”
These same men advocate abusing women and destroying them mentally and emotionally and claim women lie about being abused to steal those children these men clearly see as things.
They’re so transparent. What they’re really angry about is not being masters over other human beings.
Some people have snuck pictures on their phones of these supposed “phonies” and posted them online, but thankfully quite a few people raised some valid points:
1. Those “luxury” items could have been gifts from better-off people in their lives.
2. You need a phone to look for a job these days, and smartphones might be the only access someone has to the internet (my mom’s an example of this), and thus contact with potential employers and family and friends.
3. Some of those “luxury” purses and such could be knock offs. I know I could go down to my local flea market and pay roughly twenty bucks for a “Louis Voitton” purse (Which honestly I’d rather do if I wanted that look than spend upwards of ten times that much on a purse I’d be too afraid to take anywhere for fear of ruining it).
4. Those items could have been purchased at an earlier point in that person’s life when they weren’t facing hardships.
5. That person is especially thrifty and managed to get good “luxury” items at a really, really, discounted price.
I also see people say things like “Well, why don’t you just sell your luxury items to pay your bills?!” when my bills are in the thousands, and all my “luxury” items would add up to just a couple hundred dollars, so why sacrifice the few luxury items I have in order to make a dent in a bill that will no doubt accrue interest?
It’s like well-off people can’t fathom that some of the “luxuries” they enjoy are available to poor people because poor people have liquid cash, which banks and the like take advantage of.
And you’re right, there is a hell of a lot of racism involved in this as well.
I just hate the mentality that poor people are poor because they’re immoral and lazy, and that the only thing stopping them from bootstrapping is that they like to rely on handouts.
The research on how poverty effects people says just the opposite. That scarcity makes people have to expend all their mental energy on scraping by. You want people to put in lots of time and energy on job hunting and education? Give them enough aid so they don’t have spend all their energy figuring out how to jump through the bureaucratic hoops in order to get amounts of aid that are so small that obsessive penny pinching is still required.
This is a pretty good summary of the current psychological research on the matter http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2015/september-15/how-poverty-affects-the-brain-and-behavior.html
Not that this will get through to the bootstrapping brigade. I read a story on how giving homeless people homes actually costs the government less money than all the various costs associated with homelessness does. The comments were still full of people whining about how totally unfair it is that homeless people might get free housing when the rest of us have to pay for ours. The money spent on social safety nets is no more the point than opposing welfare programs than journalistic ethics is the point of gamergate.