Men’s Rights Activists and other antifeminists love playing “gotcha” — demanding answers to questions designed to make feminists look hypocritical or illogical or just plain dumb.
Trouble is, despite their fondness for the “gotcha” game, most MRAs and antifeminists just aren’t very good at it. Their questions, often based on gross misunderstandings, tend to reveal less about the alleged hypocrisies of feminists than they reveal about their own profound ignorance of feminism.
Let’s take a look at a few of these failed gotcha memes, collected from a couple of antifeminst Facebook pages and elsewhere online and making use of the popular philosoraptor meme template
Well, that would be because women have been systematically oppressed for thousands of years; in order to get to equality, we need to focus on the things that have held women back. It’s the same reason that the civil rights movement fought for the rights of black people instead of white people.
If you think it’s wrong to call oneself a feminist instead of a humanist or equalist or whatever, why do you support something called the Men’s Rights movement?
Uh, because fighting for the “rights” of a group of people who already have more than their fair share of privileges is backwards and silly? Because MRAs are less interested in making life better for men than they are in making things worse for women? Because most MRAs are ridiculous?
Uh, because they don’t? Feminists do sometimes point out that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, but they don’t call all men rapists.
Er, what? That doesn’t make any sense. Among other things, ‘rapists” and “whores” aren’t equivalent categories, given that the latter category involves consensual sex and the former involves nonconsensual sex.
Do you not understand how adjectives work? When feminists talk about “toxic masculinity” they don’t mean that masculinity itself is inherently toxic any more than someone referring to a “red car” means that all cars are red. Some kinds of masculinity can be toxic; that’s what feminists are taking about when they talk about “toxic masculinity. As the Geek Feminism wiki explains it, “toxic masculinity … refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.
I don’t know why so many MRAs still don’t understand this; it’s certainly been explained to them more than enough times. And do MRAs not know how to use Google? That Geek Feminism definition I quoted above is literally the first result you get if you Google “toxic masculinity.”
And now we’re just getting silly. First off, fictional characters don’t hijack franchises; they’re fictional characters. Second, since when do movie franchises belong to a certain gender? There’s no movie law that says ghostbusters have to all be dudes, just because that’s what they were in the original Ghostbusters films.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but “hitting someone back” in a punitive manner is an escalation of the fight, and that’s not a good thing. Also, why are you putting “woman” in scare quotes?
I can’t even. What?
God, these MRAs have succeeded in turning Philosoraptor into Dr. Dinosaur.
http://i.imgur.com/G8FW8hY.jpg
http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/FNF-DrDinosaur1.jpg
To be fair, that’s not boneheaded. That’s the result of wearing skirts with a 6-foot diameter and not wanting to faceplant trying to wrestle yourself out of a small carriage.
Dress reform was a major, major part of that era of feminism, and for a *very* good reason. There was even a story of a woman whose gown was caught by the wind and was actually blown out to sea, though who knows if it’s true.
Hannah Tracy Cutler, reporting on the 1851 Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, stated, “I recall Mrs. [Jane] Swisshelm as insisting that woman should claim her right to be helped over bad roads and to be fed whether she worked or not.” No, that’s boneheaded. Swisshelm wasn’t arguing in favor of social welfare for everyone (which would have been awesome) but just for women. There’s some other stuff in there about Swisshelm being pretty racist, so she was kind of a bonehead about a number of things.
I recall seeing other things along these same lines, but this is the one I can lay my hands on easily.
You won’t get any argument out of me there, but that’s not what the first-wave feminists were talking about, any more than they were talking about universal social welfare when they spoke about being cared for even if they didn’t work. They were talking out of their wealth and race privilege and their unwillingness to give it up, because you didn’t hear poor feminists, or black feminists, or poor black feminists, making these arguments.
Again, not sure I’d classify being helped over a road when you’re wearing restrictive clothes as boneheaded.
And wealth was a factor in the clothing, obviously. Poor women wore more sensible clothes; it’s a mark of “class” that your wife didn’t have to work (and could wear the stupid clothes that wouldn’t let her anyway).
maybe on the rapist = whore false equivalency? being called a rapist (when you aren’t one, well hell even if you are one) is degrading and slanderous- because rape is a heinous crime against humans (not just women). and the most degrading and slanderous thing they believe they can call women is whores. and with the (unfair) stigma and criminality of prostitution, it seems they’re not smart enough to consider that a sexual transaction between humans is consensual, not to mention not restricted to women. it’s dumbass name-calling.. right? maybe?
I can’t really be that mad at old feminists. I mean, modern feminism didn’t exist yet. Actually, I take that back. Something like it existed, but it would have been seen as super radical. Unrelated, but I have problem when historical shows have a modern feminist-type character where it couldn’t have been reasonably possible. Or really, any type of activist for a movement that wouldn’t have been that accepted. I feel that it takes me out of the setting when I hear a women in the Victorian age say things like “I don’t need no man to help me.”, (or something Hollywood thinks feminists say), without other characters acknowledging how radical it was at the time. Or how only the super bad-guys have the… “politically incorrect” thoughts about races, genders, or sexuality, even if it was both accepted and even thought to be enlighten for the time period. I think that it serves as a good reminder that the past had an almost entirely different set of morals and values, and how important it is to question all the “truths” society teaches you. But mostly, it teaches you that even though people throughout history had different thoughts, they all tried to be good people, and that they usually thought that they were.
The sky is blue, therefor Batman. Checkmate, feminsits!
The word “feminisme” was first used by nineteenth century French socialists (mostly male) who supported political and social equality of men and women.
Nobody cares about the original marvel character with the title captain marvel, Mar-Vel will stay dead by Carol Danvers will show up on the big screen. Supergirl is a more interesting character for tv, because she came to earth as a teenager and doesn’t fit in as well (plus she remembers krypton)
1. Using MHRA rather than MRA is also a sure sign that the person using it is a cult member at A Voice For Men.
2. There is very much an idea among some men that in some circumstances violence is justified and even laudable. If someone “starts something” either verbally or physically, it is your Sacred Duty as a Man to beat the crap out of them. It’s not just self-defense, it’s an sense that if someone “crosses a line,” then you can do whatever to them and this is a good thing; they deserve it and you’re awesome. This reminds me of gun-fetishists’ fantasies about defending freedom, or the plot of every “they killed his family, now he’s out for revenge” movie; there’s a desire for and glorification of violence, but coupled with a need to feel righteous and justified at the same time, and a similar longing for someone to do something that would justify a righteous asskicking. This is a very different standard than the legal one.
I think that, when men complain about “not being able to hit women back,” they’re mostly talking about how women are excluded from this sort of laudable retributory violence. People aren’t going to (usually) cheer you for beating up a woman who “starts something” in the way that they might for beating up a man who does the same thing.
I should add that I think we do treat men and women victims of violence differently. Culturally, we have trouble thinking that men can be the victims of violence done by women. And, even if they are, this is often viewed as a sign of weakness or loss of masculinity on the part of the man. This is a serious problem, and we need to address it.
However, anyone who is advocating for the “start shit, get hit” model where violence is awesome when the victim “deserves it” is not helping anything, and is, ultimately, using male victims of violence as a fig leaf for their own stupid preoccupations.
It is not surprising that these guys can’t understand that fictional characters cannot, by virtue of being fictional, “hijack” anything. After all, they’re the ones who can’t differentiate between scantily-clad, impractically dressed fictional women in their video games and living, breathing women making their choices of attire. Yes, to them, a feminist crititizing a fictional woman dressed in highly sexualized clothes and no protection on the battlefield is “slut-shaming” that fictional woman (who, again, has no agency over how she’s dressing in any situation).
This is where I think many of them are getting many of their bullshit arguments, like “feminists are anti-sex”. Because they literally cannot tell apart a real woman from a fictional woman, and consequently they don’t understand the concept of consensuality. To them, a fictional woman who has been put in a sexual situation by her creator(s) for the sole reason of the male gaze is there willingly. So, what they really should be saying is: “feminists are anti-rape”, which is correct, but they’re too far gone to see the connection.
Thanks for these, David. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly backwards the MRM mindset is.
What the fuck is that semicolon doing in the “term also used by feminists” meme?
I like that one of the “Memes” is still sulking about Mad Max. Which MRAs totally didn’t boycott, that was feminist propaganda, don’t believe your lying eyes, lib’rul false flag, you’re worse than Hitler, argle bargle ragestroke, etc.
(Man, they’re going to be incomprehensible with rage – well, moreso than usual – when Mad Max sweeps the Oscars. The sweetest male tears of all.)
another stupid argument is that racism and feminism are similar.
in one case i explained that their Etymology is different and feminism literally means “women movement” and “ism” mean the same thing in environmentalism…they were too fuking stupid to understand
Okay, so I’ve gotta do a quick rant about the “potential rapists” thing…
Yes, meme-making dude (I’ma call you M.M.D.), in the very most technical, existential sense, you ARE a potential rapist. But in the very most technical, existential sense, so am I. In fact, the only things that I can logically, conclusively rule out of my future are things where my window of opportunity is gone (e.g., I am not a potential child prodigy or a potential prom queen). Anything that is technically within my capability, I have potential for, so I am a potential famous author, and a potential hitwoman, and a potential mother, and a potential nun, and a potential fraudster, and a potential world leader, etc. etc. etc. Will I actually BE all, or any, of those things? No; my field of possibilities will continue to narrow throughout my life, and will be shaped by my desires and my opportunities. But right now, I am technically potentially all of those things. So, yes, M.M.D., you are technically a potential rapist.
Now, practically, of course, there are a bunch of potential outcomes for my life that I sincerely do not want, and therefore will not do and/or become. I find the idea of harming another human being utterly repulsive and horrifying, so the chances of me beating, violating, killing, or otherwise hurting other people is basically zero. I dislike the modern political process, so world leader can probably go, too. Because I know myself, I can rule those potential futures out based on the likelihood of my following through with any of them.
Dear M.M.D., I’m going to choose to believe that you find the idea of raping women properly abhorrent (and I’m going to be extra generous and assume that this horror rightly extends to everything that falls short of enthusiastic, uncoerced consent). This would mean that practically, you are not a rapist, potential or otherwise. This does not change your–or anyone else’s–technical potential to be a very slimy, dangerous human being.
And if you would go actually READ THE FLIPPING ARTICLE* that all this brouhaha stems from, you would understand that the “men are potential rapists” thing actually refers to the calculations a woman has to do when meeting you for the first time. All she can see is your technical potential, and until she knows you well enough to feel like she can read your practical potential, she has every right to be wary of your intentions. This is especially true since she has a substantial practical potential of being assaulted in her lifetime, and she would like to keep that from manifesting in reality any more than it already has.
And by the way, M.M.D., if you’re so zealous for equality, you have every right to be wary of strange women whom you have no reason to trust. You have every right to take your time getting to know them before you consent to give them your phone number, meet them one-on-one, or agree to date them. You have every right to tell them to leave you alone and then never contact them again if they are scaring you. You have full license to suspect that any (or every!) given woman might have bad motives, and to give them a wide berth for as long as you like. You have every right to object to being creeped on. Go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
—————-
*I’m assuming that the “potential rapists” comes from years of Manospherians willfully misconstruing the Schrodinger’s Rapist post; is there anywhere else they have picked up on this idea from?
Can I inquire about the violence issue, because I don’t think women as a group are hugely confident in its efficacy, empirically speaking, it seem like total fiction, V.A.W isn’t some strange, weird occurrence like an eclipse, we see it every day.
I haven’t heard of that post. I just assumed they were reacting to anti-rape campaigns, #yesallwomen, and just the general discussion around how women worry about people they trust being potential rapists.
@Kootiepatra
I’m pretty sure this meme predates “Schodinger’s rapist”?
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/10/and-one-more-time-andrea-dworkin-never-said-all-sex-is-rape-but-how-many-times-does-that-have-to-be-said-for-anti-feminists-to-believe-it-2465298.html
@ Jarnsaxa – I hadn’t heard the blown out to sea story – it wouldn’t surprise me – but there was certainly a woman who jumped off the Clifton Suspension Bridge in the 1860s and whose life was saved by her crinolines acting as a parachute.
The main cause of death and injury was how flammable all the layers were – especially as you couldn’t get them off without being helped and unlaced.
The papers around 1800, when the fashion was for floaty, narrow white muslin dresses, are full of stories of women burned to death or burnt so badly they almost certainly died not long after. Naked flames everywhere, of course.
The other thing was how impractical all the fashions were. Shoes you couldn’t walk in outdoors (satin or kid – ruined in minutes if it was wet underfoot), clothes you couldn’t put on without help, lacing, skirts you couldn’t get through a door in.
It’s a visual form of conspicuous consumption where not only the clothes (relatively far more expensive than they are now) are the consumable, but also signify that the woman’s male relatives are rich enough that they can afford her to be unable to work, or even move.
yet,when real flesh and blood women cosplaying those characters get sexually harassed or even assaulted those same guys call them ‘sluts’ and/or ‘attention whores’.
They do. They just suffer from what I call “selective literal mindedness.” Oh, these MRA pissbaby types are perfectly capable of understanding metaphors, similes, and sarcasm when they’re doing it themselves, or if someone they like is doing it. Somebody else makes a metaphor or something though, suddenly they turn into Drax.
Falconer, Dr. Dinosaur might be my favorite Atomic Robo character. (But it’s so hard to pick!)
Brian Clevinger is a freakin’ genius.
Kootiepatra, you are once again proved to be amazing.