I’m getting messages saying that the straw feminism that is circulating around us isn’t too good.
And we’re back! In this Memeday Rewind, which is something I just came up with as a way to do a followup to my Memeday post on Friday, let’s return again to that awful Feminist Nazi meme — a meme intended to highlight alleged feminist hypocrisies, but which invariably ends up highlighting the meme-makers’ complete and utter ignorance of the subject.
This batch is possibly even more baffling than the first.
Let’s get started!
Try saying this one five times quickly!
Apparently this guy has confused “feminism” with “stuff my girlfriend does that annoys me, or that I think a girlfriend might do if I had one.”
Yeah, I’m sure the “help” this meme-maker was providing was super-duper helpful and not patronizing crap she already thought of.
Will the oppression of men never end? No pun intended.
Why do so many of these guys’ complaints always come back to “why can’t I just rape women who don’t want to have sex with me?”
Have you ever noticed that this question is an example of the fallacy of relative privation?
Have you ever noticed that the reason feminists don’t want to talk about feminism with you is that you ask a lot of leading questions in bad faith?
Happily, some feminists have written their own captions for Ms. Feminist Nazi.
That last one sums up an awful lot of these memes.
hugseverycat | May 2, 2016 at 10:27 am
Yeah I’m not personally sold on telling guys to receive anal before giving it. I’m cool with doing things a sex partner wouldn’t necessarily do, and vice versa. And yeah, some dudes like receiving anal so it’s not necessarily a “gotcha”.
It’s less of a “gotcha” and it’s more of a “This is what you’re asking me to do, and if you’re not comfortable doing it, I don’t see why you want me to go through that discomfort, after I’ve already expressed that this is uncomfortable for me.” It’s a way to get them to realize what they’re asking of me.
I’d personally never level that against someone who was suggesting it, and was willing to talk about it first, just a guy who is really trying to pressure me into it, without taking my no for an answer.
I try to avoid guys like that anyways. ;P
hugseverycat
8 years ago
It’s less of a “gotcha” and it’s more of a “This is what you’re asking me to do, and if you’re not comfortable doing it, I don’t see why you want me to go through that discomfort, after I’ve already expressed that this is uncomfortable for me.” It’s a way to get them to realize what they’re asking of me.
Yeah, I get why people say it. It’s just that it tends to turn the conversation into: “you should only expect me to do sexual acts you’re willing to do too” when the real problem is that they shouldn’t be pressuring people to do things they’re not interested in doing, period.
Anyway I’m meeting a lot more het guys who are a lot more open to trying anal play on themselves, so it’s not even going to work a lot of the time.
Her Grace Phryne Purriosa Fisher
8 years ago
@kupo Thank you!
(I honestly don’t know if anyone replies to me, because whenever I try to subscribe to either the blog or comments, WordPress says the request “timed out”. Anyone know how to fix that?)
joekster
8 years ago
I think this whole conversation about anal has outlined what really bothers me about PUA’s, and that’s that they think that if you pressure, cajole, or otherwise ‘convince’ the object of your affections to engage in sexual acts with you, that that constitutes consent. It’s reflective of one of the shortcomings in the ‘no means no’ thinking, where if a woman does not vigorously object to the act, than she is assumed to have consented to it. (I once had a professor who used to say in class, whenever he asked for questions, ‘silence means consent’. I was so naïve to the subject that I honestly thought he was referring to Germany’s presumed consent to the actions of Adolf Hitler, but I now know that he was speaking about something different).
When I have children, I’m not going to teach them ‘no means no’. That leaves too much grey area, too much room for people to creatively misinterpret consent. I’m going to teach them that ‘yes (and only yes) means yes’. Anything short of that is not consent. Period.
Skiriki
8 years ago
Moggie:
Yes! http://www.buttcoinfoundation.org/ — this is what they scrounged up from Google cache and archive.org to get some of the funny content back after that sale-which-went-real-bad.
There’s another Buttcoin site? I know about /r/Buttcoin, but, while it’s largely non-toxic over there, it’s still Reddit, and, you know, fuck Reddit.
This Satoshi Nakamoto reveal will result in a lot of comedy gold being mined in the Buttersphere. Maybe I need to pay attention to that cult again.
I know! Fuck Reddit, but it seems that they’ve forsaken that site 🙁 There’s also their Twitter account, too.
In any case, I should stock up on popcorn…
History Nerd
8 years ago
Unfortunately, for a significant portion of men it’s normal to pressure women into sexual acts the women don’t want to perform. Legally speaking, that isn’t rape or sexual assault because the faux “consent” wasn’t obtained through force or threat of force. Affirmative consent would probably let you prosecute more of those people as rapists though, since you wouldn’t even need to deal with the “force” question.
I think it’s mostly power and control and guys feeling like they need porn sex (for whatever reason).
Pie
8 years ago
Eh, I dunno if these guys demanding anal sex is as a result of “all the porns do it, so we must do it too”, so much as “I associate this sex act with subjugation and degradation, so I totally want to do it to you! Especially as I imagine it is something you don’t really want!”
The interesting thing is, there may be a biological reason why men would get pleasure out of receiving anal sex: there actually is a fairly significant nerve plexus around the prostate, which is supposed to send off all sorts of pleasurable signals when stimulated. This is why, when I was a med student working the ED in Vegas, we had three men come in with rectal foreign bodies in one week (one of them was in for the fourth time, and it was very hard to keep a straight face when I was with the poor surgery intern, who was called in to remove it).
Women do have a similar plexus around the vaginal vault, but it’s still hotly debated if that plexus can be stimulated from the rectal vault the same way as the prostate can.
Catalpa
8 years ago
When taking a first aid course, we were taught that you cannot apply first aid to someone who isn’t consenting to it; but if they’re unconscious, they’re assumed to have consented. Even if they were telling you not to touch them /before/ they pass out.
Of course, this is talking about potentially life-saving medical assistance, not having sex with someone without their consent. Kind of a different situation. (though I was a bit like ‘erk, do you gotta put it like that’.)
Alan Robertshaw
8 years ago
@ catalpa
I do some lecturing for the emergency services on this.
The scenarios that crop up a lot are things like some drunk with a gaping head wound who insists he’s ok; then dies in the night and his family sues.
People who try to commit suicide.
Technically, anyone with agency can refuse treatment and any treatment after that is assault.
In practice though there isn’t a court in the land that would hold a medic liable for treating someone in those situations. They’ll always fall back on the fact that the injury is a good reason for assuming someone doesn’t necessarily have full capacity and if someone’s that keen on suicide they can always have another go.
It doesn’t stop nuisance lawsuits of course though which is why medics do seek advice about this.
We do have to talk in terms of consent though as that’s the proper legal terminology unfortunately.
Suicide is a tricky one. When a patient attempts to commit suicide, they are automatically assumed to be doing so because of a mental illness (most likely depression, though there are others), and so we are mandated to treat them, even if they are not intoxicated, have no distracting wounds, and say repeatedly, clearly, and loudly, that they just want to go home and die. I understand that logic, but part of me thinks, ‘if this person wants to kill themselves, who are we to stand in their way? shouldn’t ‘right to life’ indicate ‘right to end your own life?”.
But, that’s the law. Even in right to die states, there is a formidable process the patient has to go through in order to end their own life (legally), and if a patient who hasn’t gone through the process comes in after overdosing or slitting their wrists, they’re still going to be placed on a psych hold and treated against their wishes.
Alan Robertshaw
8 years ago
@ jokester
Over here, if the person say takes pills but then calls someone, it’s generally regarded (by the courts at least) as a ‘cry for help’ rather than a serious attempt. Becomes more complicated if they’ve clearly got everything in place and they’re discovered accidentally. But like I say, then the courts pretty much take the view that it’s better to erroneously stop a genuine attempt (they can always try again) than erroneously fail to stop a ‘mistaken’ attempt (where there’s no possibility of remedying the situation if you’ve misread their intentions)
Where there’s even a hint that it’s a mental health problem the courts will intervene even if it means ‘sectioning’ someone. But if say an athlete suffers an permanent injury or someone has a painful but terminal illness the courts generally won’t interfere.
But like I say, the courts will always give medics the benefit of the doubt if they do intervene. If it’s a hospital situation then the courts will probably issue a declaration saying it’s ok for medics to stop treatment and they won’t be held liable. That’s obviously different from actively helping someone to commit suicide though, which is still an offence here.
ETA: attempting suicide used to be a capital offence here! That’s law for you.
Skiriki
8 years ago
CN: talk about suicide and gross sexual things.
Putting some space here…
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, so. Way back then, in Ye Olde Tyme Finland, suicide was forbidden by the church, and people who committed suicide did not get buried to graveyards, as was proper.
There were a slew of crimes that netted death penalty, though.
Like bestiality. Hanky-panky with animals. Having a thing for furs. Chop goes your head.
Recent research of this taboo topic — because there was a staggering number of court cases related to bestiality in 18th century, and a startling number of them were self-confessions without any form of duress — has shown that (claiming) having performed an unnatural act with an another animal was a way to commit suicide, rather than farmers getting bored during winter months. A way to leave the world, and get buried to a church graveyard (although probably to some far corner rather than with “proper” people).
(Finns were super-duper superstitious about people getting improper burial, because that would easily result ghosts that would haunt places for an eternity and it wouldn’t be much fun for the ghost either. Plus, there was the family reputation to upkeep. Assuming there was any family left, famine and disease reaped people like a harvester combine.)
kale
8 years ago
@Chiomara THANKS! I didnt take it as patronizing, lol, I legit dont know a lot of this stuff even tho I can also be weirdly contradict…torily?… competent in other stuff like finding research sources. Prob bc for the majority of my online life my time was limited to more or less strictly business. w a sprinkling of runescape… lol… anyway appreciate ya! 🙂
Her Grace Phryne Purriosa Fisher
8 years ago
I try to teach my kids “if it’s not an enthusiastic yes, it’s a no”. I think the older one has got it, but the younger one… I think it still requires some work.
Chris
8 years ago
Feminists bullying a man, who was a victim if domestic violence, to suicide.
90-95% of biased child custody cases. Outdated alimony.
Men make up for over 40% of domestic victims according to hospital records yet receive farrrr less support. In fact it’s mocked especially in sitcoms.
Apparently sexualiation of women is also empowering. Now go back to watching your Magic Mike.
Equal Rights??? Realy? So you want women to serve longer prison terms? Have less custody? Receive far less support? Be forced into war? Be labeled GUILTY without evidence?
It’s less of a “gotcha” and it’s more of a “This is what you’re asking me to do, and if you’re not comfortable doing it, I don’t see why you want me to go through that discomfort, after I’ve already expressed that this is uncomfortable for me.” It’s a way to get them to realize what they’re asking of me.
I’d personally never level that against someone who was suggesting it, and was willing to talk about it first, just a guy who is really trying to pressure me into it, without taking my no for an answer.
I try to avoid guys like that anyways. ;P
Yeah, I get why people say it. It’s just that it tends to turn the conversation into: “you should only expect me to do sexual acts you’re willing to do too” when the real problem is that they shouldn’t be pressuring people to do things they’re not interested in doing, period.
Anyway I’m meeting a lot more het guys who are a lot more open to trying anal play on themselves, so it’s not even going to work a lot of the time.
@kupo Thank you!
(I honestly don’t know if anyone replies to me, because whenever I try to subscribe to either the blog or comments, WordPress says the request “timed out”. Anyone know how to fix that?)
I think this whole conversation about anal has outlined what really bothers me about PUA’s, and that’s that they think that if you pressure, cajole, or otherwise ‘convince’ the object of your affections to engage in sexual acts with you, that that constitutes consent. It’s reflective of one of the shortcomings in the ‘no means no’ thinking, where if a woman does not vigorously object to the act, than she is assumed to have consented to it. (I once had a professor who used to say in class, whenever he asked for questions, ‘silence means consent’. I was so naïve to the subject that I honestly thought he was referring to Germany’s presumed consent to the actions of Adolf Hitler, but I now know that he was speaking about something different).
When I have children, I’m not going to teach them ‘no means no’. That leaves too much grey area, too much room for people to creatively misinterpret consent. I’m going to teach them that ‘yes (and only yes) means yes’. Anything short of that is not consent. Period.
Moggie:
Yes! http://www.buttcoinfoundation.org/ — this is what they scrounged up from Google cache and archive.org to get some of the funny content back after that sale-which-went-real-bad.
I know! Fuck Reddit, but it seems that they’ve forsaken that site 🙁 There’s also their Twitter account, too.
In any case, I should stock up on popcorn…
Unfortunately, for a significant portion of men it’s normal to pressure women into sexual acts the women don’t want to perform. Legally speaking, that isn’t rape or sexual assault because the faux “consent” wasn’t obtained through force or threat of force. Affirmative consent would probably let you prosecute more of those people as rapists though, since you wouldn’t even need to deal with the “force” question.
I think it’s mostly power and control and guys feeling like they need porn sex (for whatever reason).
Eh, I dunno if these guys demanding anal sex is as a result of “all the porns do it, so we must do it too”, so much as “I associate this sex act with subjugation and degradation, so I totally want to do it to you! Especially as I imagine it is something you don’t really want!”
The interesting thing is, there may be a biological reason why men would get pleasure out of receiving anal sex: there actually is a fairly significant nerve plexus around the prostate, which is supposed to send off all sorts of pleasurable signals when stimulated. This is why, when I was a med student working the ED in Vegas, we had three men come in with rectal foreign bodies in one week (one of them was in for the fourth time, and it was very hard to keep a straight face when I was with the poor surgery intern, who was called in to remove it).
Women do have a similar plexus around the vaginal vault, but it’s still hotly debated if that plexus can be stimulated from the rectal vault the same way as the prostate can.
When taking a first aid course, we were taught that you cannot apply first aid to someone who isn’t consenting to it; but if they’re unconscious, they’re assumed to have consented. Even if they were telling you not to touch them /before/ they pass out.
Of course, this is talking about potentially life-saving medical assistance, not having sex with someone without their consent. Kind of a different situation. (though I was a bit like ‘erk, do you gotta put it like that’.)
@ catalpa
I do some lecturing for the emergency services on this.
The scenarios that crop up a lot are things like some drunk with a gaping head wound who insists he’s ok; then dies in the night and his family sues.
People who try to commit suicide.
Technically, anyone with agency can refuse treatment and any treatment after that is assault.
In practice though there isn’t a court in the land that would hold a medic liable for treating someone in those situations. They’ll always fall back on the fact that the injury is a good reason for assuming someone doesn’t necessarily have full capacity and if someone’s that keen on suicide they can always have another go.
It doesn’t stop nuisance lawsuits of course though which is why medics do seek advice about this.
We do have to talk in terms of consent though as that’s the proper legal terminology unfortunately.
Suicide is a tricky one. When a patient attempts to commit suicide, they are automatically assumed to be doing so because of a mental illness (most likely depression, though there are others), and so we are mandated to treat them, even if they are not intoxicated, have no distracting wounds, and say repeatedly, clearly, and loudly, that they just want to go home and die. I understand that logic, but part of me thinks, ‘if this person wants to kill themselves, who are we to stand in their way? shouldn’t ‘right to life’ indicate ‘right to end your own life?”.
But, that’s the law. Even in right to die states, there is a formidable process the patient has to go through in order to end their own life (legally), and if a patient who hasn’t gone through the process comes in after overdosing or slitting their wrists, they’re still going to be placed on a psych hold and treated against their wishes.
@ jokester
Over here, if the person say takes pills but then calls someone, it’s generally regarded (by the courts at least) as a ‘cry for help’ rather than a serious attempt. Becomes more complicated if they’ve clearly got everything in place and they’re discovered accidentally. But like I say, then the courts pretty much take the view that it’s better to erroneously stop a genuine attempt (they can always try again) than erroneously fail to stop a ‘mistaken’ attempt (where there’s no possibility of remedying the situation if you’ve misread their intentions)
Where there’s even a hint that it’s a mental health problem the courts will intervene even if it means ‘sectioning’ someone. But if say an athlete suffers an permanent injury or someone has a painful but terminal illness the courts generally won’t interfere.
But like I say, the courts will always give medics the benefit of the doubt if they do intervene. If it’s a hospital situation then the courts will probably issue a declaration saying it’s ok for medics to stop treatment and they won’t be held liable. That’s obviously different from actively helping someone to commit suicide though, which is still an offence here.
ETA: attempting suicide used to be a capital offence here! That’s law for you.
CN: talk about suicide and gross sexual things.
Putting some space here…
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, so. Way back then, in Ye Olde Tyme Finland, suicide was forbidden by the church, and people who committed suicide did not get buried to graveyards, as was proper.
There were a slew of crimes that netted death penalty, though.
Like bestiality. Hanky-panky with animals. Having a thing for furs. Chop goes your head.
Recent research of this taboo topic — because there was a staggering number of court cases related to bestiality in 18th century, and a startling number of them were self-confessions without any form of duress — has shown that (claiming) having performed an unnatural act with an another animal was a way to commit suicide, rather than farmers getting bored during winter months. A way to leave the world, and get buried to a church graveyard (although probably to some far corner rather than with “proper” people).
(Finns were super-duper superstitious about people getting improper burial, because that would easily result ghosts that would haunt places for an eternity and it wouldn’t be much fun for the ghost either. Plus, there was the family reputation to upkeep. Assuming there was any family left, famine and disease reaped people like a harvester combine.)
@Chiomara THANKS! I didnt take it as patronizing, lol, I legit dont know a lot of this stuff even tho I can also be weirdly contradict…torily?… competent in other stuff like finding research sources. Prob bc for the majority of my online life my time was limited to more or less strictly business. w a sprinkling of runescape… lol… anyway appreciate ya! 🙂
I try to teach my kids “if it’s not an enthusiastic yes, it’s a no”. I think the older one has got it, but the younger one… I think it still requires some work.
Feminists bullying a man, who was a victim if domestic violence, to suicide.
90-95% of biased child custody cases. Outdated alimony.
Men make up for over 40% of domestic victims according to hospital records yet receive farrrr less support. In fact it’s mocked especially in sitcoms.
Apparently sexualiation of women is also empowering. Now go back to watching your Magic Mike.
Equal Rights??? Realy? So you want women to serve longer prison terms? Have less custody? Receive far less support? Be forced into war? Be labeled GUILTY without evidence?