Never underestimate the ability of Men’s Rights Activists to get worked up over the most ridiculous nonsense.
I found the meme above on the Men’s Rights Australia Facebook page, accompanied by this explanation:
Women are allowed to wear whatever they like to work, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, and even thongs. Yet if a man were to wear sleeveless tops, shorts, or thongs you can be sure he’d be sent home from work or even fired. In summer men have to suffer in the heat wearing trousers, long sleeve shirts, and tie. Feminists claim they also care about inequalities facing men so why aren’t they fighting against this? -ms
YEAH FEMINISTS WHY AREN’T YOU FIGHTING AGAINST THIS TERRIBLE INJUSTICE, WOMEN NEVER HAVE TO WEAR ANYTHING UNCOMFORTABLE OR AWKWARD AT WORK 0h wait
Note: I should point out that the “thongs” being referenced aren’t the ones that ride up your butt, but rather are the ones you wear on your feet and that are also called flip flops, at least here in the US.
BONUS MEME: This isn’t a Men’s Rights meme, obviously, but it literally made me laugh out loud.
Apparently the best way to fight communism is to do nothing while the oceans rise. I guess the Communists have their secret bases on the Marshall Islands?
I’m reminded of this legendary toilet paper ad.
A spectre is haunting the bathroom — the spectre of really really scratchy toilet paper.
http://i.imgur.com/pSCmZ19.gif
We’ve heard your opinion a bajillion times from various internet-faces, Ruprect. Your wit is ignorance, your confidence is a lack of curiousity, and your solutions don’t solve anything. Go away.
I’m with the cat in LindsayIrene’s comment.
Ruprect, you’re pushing the limits of my patience, and your’ve aready exhausted the patience of a lot of the other commenters.
What are you even trying to accomplish here? People here have already heard and rejected the arguments you’re making; they’re not original. You’re clearly not taking any new information in. And that “trigger warning” remark, and some of your other comments, make me wonder if you’re discussing anything in good faith.
I’m putting you on moderation and will only let through comments of yours that don’t cause me to react like that cat in the gif.
Notwithstanding that it’s no doubt possible for women to sexually harass men it’s not equivalent to m-f harassment.
A minor point is that it’s probably (for all sorts of reasons) a relatively unusual occurance, whereas for women it’s just part of their everyday experience.
But, more importantly in my view, it’s the context. A man dismissing or rejecting a female harasser doesn’t have to worry about the consequences. I don’t want negate any unpleasantness that may result, but that’s going to be the height of it, unpleasantness. The man doesn’t have to fear about being assaulted, raped or murdered.
How many times on this blog alone has there been a post about that happening to a woman who had the audacity to say ‘no’ or stand up for herself?
Outside of fiction can anyone think of an example the other way round? “Bunny boiler” has entered common parlance, but the fact that it’s treated as a joke shows how unreal that threat is. There doesn’t need to be a fictional equivalent in relation to men because there are too many real world examples.
Thank you David!
Guys, sorry lets flip that and say Ladies, the thing is: ABUSERS CANT BE CONVINCED NOT TO ABUSE BY HEARING HOW BAD ABUSE IS BECAUSE THEY LIKE ABUSE.
& bigots are just abusers.
@Alan
That makes a lot of sense and actually explains Ruprect’s position–the exception is one where the woman has a position of power over the man, such as where she’s his boss. Since Ruprect doesn’t believe there are any other systems of oppression other than employer over employee, he believes this is the only scenario where sexual harassment can actually happen.
Thank you David!
I don’t know what a ‘bunny boiler’ is.
EDIT: ohhhhhh.
EDIT EDIT: That’s a great point Kale! There’s probably more than a little selective hearing going on. Gotta protect those abusin’ privileges!
Something interesting about the sexual harassment of men at work*:
Source
*Not related to Men At Work
“There are people outright telling me that my statements, premises and proposals are fundamentally flawed, and explain in painstaking detail why. Should I reconsider my points? Nah I’ll just rephrase my words, victim blame and clamor for revolution ad nausea.”
Alan,
I don’t know if you’re still following the thread, but I saw this (off topic) picture of Doris Day that I thought you might enjoy.
http://dlisted.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/hbdorisday2016-500×667.jpg
Oh WWTH!
That’s wonderful. Thank you!!!!!!
(I’m making a conscious effort to dial down the rhetoric on the animal thing and all other topics, but that’s so perfect)
🙂
Very late to the party, and only on page seven of ten, but thought I might chime in on the ‘men identifying as feminists’ issue.
I am a man who identifies as feminist, but I am not interested in arguing with women who identify as feminists because I realize the experience of women in this culture is going to be very different than my own, and therefore their insights are likely to be better informed than my own. It’s better I listen to people who are in a position to educate me and try to learn ways to recognize patterns of thought and behaviors that I exhibit that are not reflective of my conscious choice to become an ally and partner to others.
Even if I don’t go about my day feeling like I am privileged a few moments of reflection easily prove that I am. The point is not to feel guilty but to improve my words and actions because they affect other people – sometimes in ways I don’t imagine.
This also applies to my other ‘identities’ like race, gender preference, and class (and probably a ton of other things!).
Whatever consciousness I have about feminism may have its foundation in my sister buying a subscription to MS. Magazine for my mother when I was younger. Being a voracious reader at that time in my life I was at least made aware that sexism was a thing.
tl;dr I need feminism because the alternative is shit.
@ proudfootz
I wish I’d written your third paragraph. That encapsulates my thoughts exactly.
I should hasten to add that I don’t go around introducing myself as a feminist – that would be awkward!
One of the nicest compliments I ever received was that a woman with whom I had a long term relationship called me a feminist.
While I am flattered that this brilliant woman thought so highly of me, I do realize I have miles to go yet.
Ah, libertarians, people who claim to have the solution for all problems yet have never solved a single problem.
I do enjoy how Ruprect thinks empathy is us caring about what he thinks.
The great thing about this – and the general line of thinking that Ruprect seems to be peddling – is that it doesn’t really acknowledge that harassing behavior is a problem, but rather it’s a problem that people feel harassed. So that way we can avoid asking the people actually causing the problem to modify their behavior, because it’s not actually a problem, and instead require victims be responsible for not getting harassed.
Not to mention that – even if this wasn’t completely asinine- what the fuck are we supposed to do in the meantime? Societal change doesn’t happen overnight. Harassment is happening now. Mumble mumble something something, I guess?
Question- In Ruprect’s ideal word where no one has economic power over the other, wouldn’t that mean that harassers and assholes are ALSO able to act as they like and harass whomever they want without repurcussion?
I suppose Ruprect might argue that, well, yes, technically, but since they don’t have any economic power over their victims, that the freely allowed harassment won’t be harmful at all! Because an environment where people don’t hold significant real-world power but also never face any meaningful consequences for their actions has NEVER contributed to an environment where, say, a woman is subjected to a never-ending torrent of virulent harrassment and abuse.
Ruprect seems believes that unfettered freedom of association, the ability to “peace out” when faced with any discrimination in any situation, will save assholes from having to modify their behavior in any meaningful way. That’s unrealistically simplistic even for a libertarian which is really saying something.
On a personal note, I’m glad that Ruprect was banned because lately my patience with white guy progressive libertarians has dwindled to nothing. I was close to type-vomiting out a fury filled screed, but now I can go to bed no longer thinking of Ruprect trying to free men from the burden of being judged for their sexism.
So we’re not a hive-mind that feels one way and thinks the same thing about every possible issue/subject/experience there has ever been and ever will be?
Well that certainly complicates matters. Guess I’ll have to go ask the s/o to tell me what to think, how to feel, and what to do…
(falls to floor laughing)
S/o says: “That’s not the relationship dynamic I signed on for, you’re….kidding….right?”
Poor dear.
The reason it’s unreasonable for you to “not accept women’s policy proposals,” Ruprect, is that you are not on the board of directors of the universe. You’re intrinsically casting yourself as the person who decides what course of action we take and women as the people who can only make proposals and have to rely on getting your approval.
Crap. I got here too late to play with Ruprect. Oh well.
Women: “Hey, we have some ideas about how men can stop harassing women!”
Ruprect: “Well, I reject them. They don’t make any sense to me, and you should accept MY proposal instead, where you just give up everything and get out and stop talking about harassment.”
Women: “Uh…but you’ve never experienced the same harassment as us, so you don’t have a nuanced understanding of what it’s like, and thus your idea doesn’t make any sense, because we can’t just give everything up and get out. It’s far more complicated than that!”
Ruprect: “Are you accusing me of misogyny for simply dismissing your ideas out of hand, women?! How dare you!”
I knew it when he started moaning about how men are oppressed by all the praise and respect they receive for their accomplishments. Red Pill dudes call it “the burden of performance” and are very upset about it.
Ruprect is one of those guys who thinks that “rational” is simply a thing you inherently either are or aren’t as opposed to the conscious process it actually is. Argumentation to him is just riffing on your preconceptions. He is rational so everything he thinks is rational, of necessity.
If you don’t agree with him, it must be because you literally didn’t understand his words. So he just rephrases his preconceptions over and over. He knows his preconceptions are an accurate reflection of the real world. He’s never actually verified any of it, except by comparing notes with others who affirm him (“I spoke to a woman and she said…”), but he is rational, therefore his preconceptions must match reality.
He doesn’t need to engage with what anyone else says if it doesn’t match his preconceptions. If it was in any way reasonable, it would match.
I strongly suspect this is why anti-feminist Youtube videos are always a million hours long. They’re not actually constructing an argument, they’re just stream of consciousness riffing on their presumptions. So they just talk until they can’t think of anything more to say.
Wait? Red pillers are upset about being judged based on their actions? I…um…I don’t suppose there is a way to make that make sense? I’m getting a divide by zero error here. Maybe some big manly STEMLogik dude can explain it to me, like I’m five? *doe eyes*
(I’m the woman that would get told I had nice hair after fixing tech problems, so being praised based on my accomplishments would be really FUCKING fantastic. Side note: I work at home now, people suck and outside is bullshit.)
–Clever