So the other day some of the fellas over on Chateau Heartiste — one of the internet’s top destinations for racist, misogynist pickup artist wannabes — ran across a little graphic celebrating some of the lesser-known “[w]omen in science that you should know … and probably don’t.”
Apparently offended by the reminder that, yes, women have actually had some influence over history, one of Heartiste’s readers decided to make a graphic similarly celebrating the men of science. But while the original graphic contained pictures of only 12 women, this new graphic featured a vast sea of male faces, as if to rub in just how male dominated the world of science has been, and still is.
Looking at the graphic, Heartiste also thought he spotted another demographic anomaly: a preponderance of white faces. “That’s one pale looking pastiche,” he wrote.
“The Men in Science poster. A Snowvalanche of Whiteness,” agreed one of his commenters,”Bwahahaha.”
Huh. That’s weird. because when I look at the poster I don’t see a lot of white. I mean, if you blow it up a little you can see that the spaces between the various squares are white, but the squares themselves are all sorts of colors. Red. Pink. Black. Brown. Blue. Green.
Are a significant portion of the Men of Science from Mars?
And there’s another odd thing about this not-so-pale pastiche: it’s full of repeating patterns. If you look closely, you’ll discover that this isn’t one vast sea of male faces. It’s a small pond, endlessly repeated.
Specifically, it’s this bit (from the upper left-hand corner) pasted over and over.
Also, when you look closely at these alleged “scientists” they turn out to be real blockheads. Yep, if you zoom in a little further you don’t find an assortment of tiny Einsteins and fig-sized Newtons. You get this:
All hail the founding pixels of science!
Heartiste, you may want to get your eyes checked for bigotry.
Thanks to dashapants for bringing this wondrous graphic and its repeating patterns to my attention.
My new favorite terrible Tumblr blog is this is female privilege, a blog that posts user-submitted examples of, well, female privilege. It’s a pretty MRA-adjacent idea for a blog, seemingly designed to be appreciated only by those who can use the word “misandry” without giggling. The woman who runs the blog seems to be fairly MRA-adjacent type herself; she recently responded to one critic with a sarcastic “Wow waahhhh it’s so hard to be a woman wahhhh!” (Literally; that’s an exact quote.)
So it’s hardly surprising that many of the posts seem to have been cut and pasted straight from the Men’s Rights subreddit – at least figuratively, if not literally. (Click on the pics to see the posts in context at this is female privilege.)
But a lot of the alleged privileges are a bit, well, odder than that. The blogger says she posts everything she gets, so either a lot of people have pretty cockeyed notions of just what privileges are, or some feminists are trolling her blog by sending along the dumbest non-privileges they can think of to make the blog even more ridiculous than it already is.
Bludstone, meanwhile, raises some practical questions:
As there is -still- no reddit island business plan, there is no real reason to be looking for physical islands yet. We need a comprehensive mathematical analysis on how to make a profitable (or at least sustainable) island living.
And ive said that since day 1.
Later in the discussion – which you also need to read in its entirety — he accuses his fellow Reddit Island enthusiasts of being a bunch of unserious dabblers in the fine art of island-utopia-making:
You need a comprehensive plan, contracts vetted by lawyers on both sides, etc.
Honestly this whole project has screamed AMATEURS from the start. Its a real shame since its a cool as hell idea.
Property buying and selling, rights, early adopters, etc’, what’s the current consensus on that? If I “donate”/”pledge” $100 right now, will it assure anything for when the time comes? Will I get a small place where I can build my hut? or will I get a 2 bedroom apartment in a 50 stories high sky scraper?
In still another thread, Reddit Islanders reject one island in Florida – on sale for $42,000 — as too small, though one suggests they could build a tall tower on it to accommodate more Redditors.
Manosphere doofuses have a wide assortment of excuses for dismissing this blog without actually having to deal with anything I’ve ever actually said. There’s the old “you’re a misandrist bigot so I don’t have to read anything of yours to know what you think” argument; no evidence of the alleged misandry is ever given. There’s the old “you call yourself Man Boobz and that’s a silly name so I can pretend that nothing you say counts” excuse; actually, I call you guys the “man boobz,” but never mind. Then there’s the old “he’s fat” chestnut. (See the next-to-last pic here.)
My favorite excuse, though, is a little logical fallacy you might call “argumentum ad kittypicturem.” That is, the claim that I can’t be taken seriously because sometimes I post pictures of adorable kitties. I’m not sure why these pictures confuse and infuriate misogynists to the extent that they do, but I’m sort of happy this is the case, because every time I run across it, it gives me an excuse to POST MORE KITTY PICTURES.
I wanted to reveal just how twisted these men can be in the pursuit of their agenda so I came up with a story they could not resist. …
The spermjacker trope is irresistible to “men’s rights” activists because they believe they are perfect Darwinian examples of masculinity and as a result are irresistible to the hormonally irrational schemers that make up womankind. Narcissism and misogyny collide to make a toxic brew.
Oh, and I added the twist that this man punched his girlfriend so hard in the stomach that she bruised. Surely such fierce proponents of “gender equality” would not support violence against women. Right?
The “men’s rights” movement is morally bankrupt. It is made up of people who support hitting women. It is made up of people who refuse to say it is wrong to hit women. It is made up of people who are so paranoid of women that they think people actually talk like this:
You fucking bastard, how dare you punch me for what I’m entitled to! Call me the minute you get this god damn message or I’ll call the fucking police and end your future. CALL MEEEE.
Attention MRA’s: You have all exposed yourselves as rotten human beings and you have discredited your movement (again). …
I wrote this story by stitching together nearly every cliche I have ever come across in the “men’s rights” movement. I tried to see if the MRAs had any line they would not cross. Apparently they do not. Looks like the SPLC made a good call.
He panicked and hit her. Sure he should have just have restrained her and took the condom out of her hands but we’re human and its not like he continually beat her into a pulp.
Yep, no big deal, “its not like he continually beat her into a pulp.”
The comment containing that line got 11 upvotes, and zero downvotes.
The Men’s Rights Movement, beyond the pale — but also beyond parody.
EDITED TO ADD: The Men’s Rights regulars respond to the big reveal here. They are apparently determined to learn absolutely nothing from the whole episode. At the moment this is the most highly upvoted comment:
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: Ineedhelpnow1234/Eschatology posted about this in the TwoXChromosomes subreddit, Naturally, a small horde of r/mensrightsers invaded the thread and pooped all over it.
Oh, Yahoo Answers! Why do you always raise more questions than you answer? For example, let’s just take this intriguing question, recently posed to Yahoo Answers Gender Studies by a fellow calling himself Tubetruth.
Not sure I quite get you, Tube. Care to elaborate?
I’m still not quite sure I get you, Tube, but no matter! For danilhastings has already provided us with an answer!
I guess that’s all there is to say on the subject, then.
Happily, those whose gender studies appetites have been whetted by this lively exchange will find many other fascinating gender studies questions to contemplate elsewhere on Yahoo Answers.
You know how in Cosmo they have all those little guides on how to spice up your relationships? Well, now the douchebag PUA guru Heartiste has helpfully prepared a guide of his own.
[T]hanks to the wonders of game, men can limit their relationship energy requirements while maximizing the impact each unit of spent energy has on women’s interest levels. In layman’s terms, men can easily spice up relationships (and dates) with almost no effort by employing the drive-by tease.
Here are a few of his tricks. I am not making these up. These are actual suggestions as to ways to “spice up” relationships written by a man who is reportedly in his forties. He starts off fairly mild:
Flush the toilet when she’s in the shower.
Then he starts getting mean:
Put a “pinch my butt” post-it note on her back as she’s heading out for work.
Slip her car into neutral when she’s driving. (Note: not recommended on women with exceptionally bad driving skills.)
The rest of the list is a mixture of the stupid:
Paint a picture of her. With great fanfare, unveil a stick figure drawing.
Replace her cosmetics with crayons.
Draw smiley faces or penises on her tampons.
Honk her tits. Make loud honking noise. Bonus points if you use an air horn.
Dutch oven. Shower oven. Car oven.
Put her panties on her cat (Don’t put them on the dog if the dog is yours. There are some lines not meant to be crossed.)
And the just plain assholish:
Pretend to throw her cat out the window. (A full throwing motion accompanied by frantic mewing will boost dramatic effect.)
Place a giant stuffed animal or clown doll in bed, facing her. When she wakes up, she’ll freak.
Heartiste then explains the SCIENCE behind all this idiocy:
The drive-by tease is, typically, the non-verbal equivalent of the cocky/funny neg. … The DBT subliminally asserts male dominance as well as creativity, both of which are catnip to women. Dominance assertion is telegraphed in any act where the subtext is “I don’t care if you’re offended by this.”
Really? Drawing a smiley face on her tampon “asserts male dominance?” Farting demonstrates creativity?
In any case, I have a few suggestions for women whose boyfriends actually do any of this shit in an attempt to show what awesome dudes they are:
Take a shit in his underwear drawer. Claim it was the dog, even if you don’t have a dog.
Throw his Xbox360 out the window. (A full throwing motion accompanied by frantic mewing will boost dramatic effect.)
Make him a BBQ sandwich, using menstrual blood instead of BBQ sauce.
Actually, you’d probably do best just to skip directly to that last one.
Do you like your Men’s Rights activism plain, or with a side order of racist bullshit? Regular readers of Man Boobz will remember Christian J, the man behind the blog What Men Are Saying About Women, a self-described “Male Renaissance Agitator” and inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipses. (Heck, I wrote about him just the other day.)
Christian’s excuse for this tirade is a video he found of a white woman complaining about a black woman who was rude to her at a restaurant. According to him, the video addresses the following “issues.”
1. Black women generally suck..
2. Black Women are so full of themselves..
3. Black Women have major issues cause they can’t get no man..
4. Black Women are “strong” in their own mind, make that “stupid” and “Ignorant”. as well..
5. Black Women lack the basic social graces and also basic sanitary habits..
To this he adds:
Black females have wallowed in and adopted the feminist’s hate doctrine as statistics have already demonstrated, single mothers stands at 70% and similar divorce stats. also demonstrates that they are incapable of keeping in a relationship, whatever excuse they justify in their own minds. They are to be avoided at all costs as any black man/dude/bro will testify..
Having read all this, I expected the video to be some sort of White Power rant. It’s nothing of the sort. While the videomaker, a sort of wannabe Pamela Anderson, makes a few problematic and arguably racist comments here and there, she doesn’t actually make any of the sweeping racist generalizations about black women that Christian attributes to her. Nope. That’s all him.
Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!