Quiz! Who said the following, in reference to the presence of women on television?
Enough, ladies. I get it. You have periods. … [W]e’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.
Was it?
W.F. Price of The Spearhead
Christopher in Oregon, legendary vagina-hating Man Going His Own Way
Reddit commenter VjayjaysAreIcky69
Trick question! It was actually Two and a Half Men co-creator Lee Aronsohn, complaining to The Hollywood Reporter about the female-centric sticoms that have popped up of late. (There’s plenty to complain about when it comes to shows like Whitney and 2 Broke Girls, but “the main characters have vaginas” ain’t it.)
In a keynote address at the Toronto Screenwriting Conference, Aronsohn also defended his show’s tendency to portray women in a less-than-flattering light:
Screw it. … We’re centering the show on two very damaged men. What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man.
So brave, Aronsohn, so brave, standing up to the Matriarchy like that!
[H]aving to hear that ladies have menstrual cycles, take birth control pills, and enjoy sex is just unbearable, right? Because even though the number of female characters on television tends to hover in the low 40 percent range, we’re just saturated with vaginas, because god forbid stories about men and their ish don’t absolutely dominate the media? Because even though those shows Aronsohn’s complaining about have actually created more writing and directing jobs for men than women, and resulted in some really awful portrayals as a result, we couldn’t possibly let women come to expect that they’ll have access to stories both about them and by them, could we? Because where would that leave poor, suffering, disadvantaged American men?
And then she takes on the entertainment industry in general, for tolerating his troglodyte views:
[T]hat Aronsohn is dumb and woman-fearing enough not just to believe this, to blithely admit he believes it to a major publication tells you everything about how cosseted Hollywood’s disgusting sexists are. You want to know why we get what we get on movie and television screens? … Because there are, apparently, no consequences in Hollywood for being perfectly open about how much you despise women’s bodies and the contours of women’s lives.
Maude Lebowski, what do you have to say about all this?
Do NOT catch this fever. Symptoms include: Being a girl. Shooting people with arrows. Catching on fire.
Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the locals are pig-biting mad about racism. Are they organizing vigils for murdered black teen Trayvon Martin? Are they challenging the Hunger Games fans who are sending out racist tweets complaining about the character “Rue” being played by a black actress?
Nope. They are doing something much, much braver. They are taking on a white dude for mocking other white dudes who are convinced they are the truly oppressed.
Over on the Boston Magazine web site, blogger Barry Nolan sets forth this truly hateful argument:
I have been a white male all my life and to tell you the truth, I have found it to be a pretty sweet deal. … Wherever you look and by almost any metric, any statistic, it works out to be a pretty sweet deal to start out life as a white male. …
So I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many white men like me can be found whining about how tough it is to be a white man. It’s a mystery to me how they came to feel so beset on every side by feminists, minorities, and “the system.” When in fact, the system is so stacked in our favor, it’s almost embarrassing.
On the Men’s Rights subreddit a post blasting Nolan as a “racist idiot” now boasts 90 upvotes. In the comments, the brave antiracists set poor Nolan straight on a thing or two. To Ellwood78, it’s just a big coincidence that most of the powerful figures in the US happen to be white dudes:
The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.
After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.
In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.
And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!
The word of the day is: whore.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.
Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.
Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.
1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.
2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.
3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.
4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.
5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.
6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.
7. Prostitutes are boring.
8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.
9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.
10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.
11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.
12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.
13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.
14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.
I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.
I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.
I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.
I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …
From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.
Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.
But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.
But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.
So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?
Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?
My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …
They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,
so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….
[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …
So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.
But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.
In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.
Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).
Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).
Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …
[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.
Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.
Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.
[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.
Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …
I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.
Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.
All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point
“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …
Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.
[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …
The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.
There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”
9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.
So I was intrigued when Man Boobz Man Boob All-Star MarkyMark recently promised, in the headline to one of his blog posts, to present “Empirical & Prima Facie Evidence Women Should NOT Vote.” I’m game, MarkyMark. Where exactly do you find the empirical evidence for this evidently self-evident proposition?
In a vast collection of empirical observations called “The Bible.” Specifically, the book of Genesis (not the one with Phil Collins in it).
If you remember Genesis 3 in the Bible, you’ll remember that God gave men & women their respective curses after The Fall. For men, it was to “labor by the sweat of their brow all the days of their lives”; IOW, men were cursed with work. Women were cursed “with pain in childbearing.”
So far this empirical evidence is pretty powerful. MarkyMark continues:
Now, what feminism sought to do was, in ADDITION to having their own curse, was secure for women the curse of men too. And women FELL for it-real smart, Ladies! Not only did you swallow the feminist bullshit hook, line, and sinker; it looks like you ate the rod, reel, and line to boot! Only women could do something so foolish, idiotic, and STUPID.
And now he comes to the nub of his argument:
Though many arguments could be made against women’s suffrage, though many arguments could be made against giving women the right to vote, this situation right here provides both empirical and prima facie evidence that women are NOT smart enough to vote; they do not have the mental wherewithal to vote. I mean, come on! How stupid do you have to be to DOUBLE your cursings from God? …
Seriously, men do NOT go around seeking to add to their curses in life. Have you ever seen men CLAMORING to experience child birth, and all the pain that goes along with it?! No, you have not. …
In closing, though many arguments could be made against women’s suffrage, we don’t need many arguments; we only need one: women, not men, chose to DOUBLE their divine curse; women, not men sought to ADD to whatever pain child birth brought into their lives; finally, women did this eagerly, accepting men’s divine curse with gusto as they STAMPEDED into the world of work. That alone shows us that women cannot think causally, linearly, logically, or for the good of others. Therefore, women should not be allowed to vote-end of story.
After all this talk of divine curses, I thought I would share with you a Divine blessing. Here’s Divine, with her 1983 club hit “Love Reaction.” I think they call her Divine because she sings like an angel. And yeah, the song does sound an eensy teensy little bit like “Blue Monday” by New Order. Her producer was sort of known for completely ripping off other people’s songs.
Tom Martin, a former gender studies student at the London School of Economics, recently became a minor celebrity amongst Men’s Rights activists and other angry men when he sued his alma mater for alleged sexism against men.
He’s now had his case thrown out of court. Let’s go to the Camden New Journal for details:
Tom Martin, 39, who lives in Covent Garden, claimed he suffered “anti-male discrimination” while studying for a master’s degree in gender, media and culture at the world-famous university in Holborn.
Representing himself at his application for a trial at the Central London County Court on Tuesday, Mr Martin complained of a lack of men-only sessions in the university’s gym and the preponderance of posters in the corridors advertising services for women without the presence of similar materials geared towards men.
Mr Martin, who describes himself as a feminist, said “hard” chairs in the library were uncomfortable for men and that a “male blaming culture” was evident in course materials, which “ignored men’s issues” and focused on wrongs done by them.
Damn those misandrist chairs and their man-hating hardness!
The judge didn’t buy it, saying Martin’s case had essentially no chance of success. He threw out the case and ordered Martin to pay LSE’s legal costs.
Martin, welcome to reality.
On Twitter, Martin responded to the news by calling his critics “whores.” One of many examples:
But I was really discriminated against, you whores!
My legal complaint did NOT involve a complaint about the seating. You have been misled by the press – The Times and the West End Extra/Camden New Journal both mysteriously got it wrong.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
He then details his attempts to fight this grave injustice. Also, there’s this:
[S]everal comments here are confusing ‘whore’ with ‘slut’. A slut has sex freely, which I am all for. Freedom of association is the ultimate in humanity. A whore charges for sex. Even if a woman is a virgin, but is waiting for Mr Right to buy her something, she’s a whore.
It’s counter-intuitive, but a lot of professional feminists are whores. They expect the government and men to do them special favours. They make up stories to convince men and government to believe that we all owe women something.
But really, if someone were keeping a tab, then…
Women owe men five years pension. Women owe men some National Service. Women owe men some inventions. Women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula. Women owe men some child access. It’s women’s round at the bar too.
Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:
I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history. It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.
Go on.
Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today. Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is: a pirate
Uh, what?
Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.
Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.
Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:
[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.
Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:
her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.
Thanks, Chuck.
Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.
Stickman writes:
forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.
Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.
SOBL1 adds:
As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.
Did he mention he went to CORNELL?
One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:
This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).
Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.
Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.
Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:
When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed
It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.” The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.
All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?
NOTE: Today is Day Two of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
So the other day, the atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, had this little conversation on Twitter:
Watson, you may recall, got herself onto the Men’s Rights radar a few months back, after a brief comment she made in a podcast — suggesting that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea for a guy to hit on woman he’s never spoken to before while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4 AM – somehow turned into a Big Fucking Thing on the Internet, because how dare she say such a thing, it’s creep-shaming, she must hate men, bla bla bla.
So, anyhoo, one Men’s Rights Reddit noticed this little Twitter exchange, and posted it to the Men’s Rights subreddit. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. MRAs hating women? How dare she suggest such a thing!
Here are some of the things that assorted Men’s Rights Redditors posted in response, to remind us all that the Men’s Rights movement isn’t all about shitting on women. Let’s start with this lovely rebuttal, boasting nearly 60 net upvotes:
This comment inspired a long and winding discussion of the word “cunt,” and why it’s like totally ok to use it all the time, because in England the UK people call men “cunts” as well.
Speaking of fantasy, here’s a strange bit of paranoia, which nonetheless drew upvotes from the very same people who are outraged that Watson was a bit creeped out by a dude she didn’t know asking her to come to his hotel room at 4 AM:
And here’s still more evidence that MRAs, despite their many egregious flaws, do at least have vivid imaginations:
Some other comments, all of which got at least a few upvotes from the MR regulars:
Let’s end with this eloquent plea for people to not give a shit if MRAs hate women:
The folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently debating whether or not to change the subreddit’s slogan, which is currently: “Mens’ Rights: Earning Scorn from Bigoted Feminists and White Knights Since 2008.”
So let me humbly suggest:
Mens’ Rights: Like it’s even relevant if mens rights is anti women in regard to if mens rights is a movement about addressing mens issues.
Or the even punchier:
Men’s Rights: i’m tired of not using the term “cunt”.
Oy, Sorry for more Rush Limbaugh-related crap, but this cartoon, by Gary McCoy, was just too appalling not to post.
I’m not even going to get into the slut-shaming, or that the cartoonist is bizarrely trying to fat-shame someone who is not actually fat, but I would like to point out once again that WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDING FREE BIRTH CONTROL (even though that sounds like a nifty idea to me). We’re talking about INSURANCE COMPANIES COVERING BIRTH CONTROL LIKE THEY COVER OTHER MEDICAL EXPENSES. You know about insurance, right? That thing that people PAY FOR THEMSELVES, with THEIR OWN MONEY?
Are Rush and his fans really so ignorant and obtuse that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is about the government paying for birth control? Or are they deliberately misrepresenting the issue, knowing that most of their readers/listeners/whatever won’t bother to check the facts?
What can you do when you realize that you’re losing the war of ideas? You can rethink some or all of your ideas, seriously considering the unnerving possibility that you might be, well, wrong. You can reconsider how you present your ideas.
Or you can give up on ideas entirely, and attempt to pressure or harass or even terrorize others into some form of surrender. That’s what the the uber-radical Weathermen did in the 1960s and 70s, turning first to violent direct action in the aptly named “days of rage” and then to bombs when the revolution that many in the New Left had been prophesying failed to materialize. That’s what the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades now, with some in the movement harassing women trying to get abortions while more radical antis bomb clinics and kill doctors. .
And now we’re seeing rhetoric from Men’s Rights Activists that suggests some in that movement may also be giving up on talk. Consider A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam, who declared in a fundraising letter a couple of months back that:
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
Elam isn’t the only MRA who has officially given up on “debate and reason” in favor of “inflicting … pain” on feminists. The “counter-feminist” wannabe philosopher who calls himself Fidelbogen makes a similar argument in a recent post on his blog:
Feminism is your enemy, and the obligation to treat feminists as fellow human beings is officially waived. They are not fellow human beings, they are ALIENS.
Dehumanizing the enemy always a good start.
[L]et’s not hear any crap about so-called “hate speech”. You see, there is simply no way that you can resist evil, denounce tyranny, or call pernicious things by their right names, without crossing a fine line into “hate speech” or something very like it. Extremism against a bully is no vice, and since bullies have their own moral economy, you are entitled to pay them in their own coin.
It’s not hate speech if you really do hate them?
The important thing to understand about the feminists is, that they will not change their outward behavior unless social heat and pressure are inflicted upon them.
Fidelbogen, a sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, is also vague about what exactly he means by this “social heat and pressure.” He continues:
What, do you think they will stop what they are doing just because somebody intellectually convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, because they are people with an agenda who know they are “right”, and they lack the gift to see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
IRONY ALERT. IRONY ALERT.
Over on Reddit, meanwhile, the charming JeremiahMRA – who used to post comments here as Things Are Bad – thinks the “inflict pain” policy should be extended to all women, any time they engage in “bad behavior.” Responding to a poster asking how to handle a disagreement with his mother, he explained his theory in (sometimes redundant) detail, receiving several dozen net upvotes for his post:
The ONLY way you change women’s bad behavior is by punishing them if they won’t start acting like adults. …
The only way you change a woman’s bad behavior is by making sure they know it hurts them. …
Reasoning with her will not work. The only answer is to use the power he has as her SON to threaten to hurt her emotionally. Women are emotional creatures. Nothing else will work. This is what it means to be a man: you do what you have to do so that things will be better in the end, even if you don’t like it. …
It isn’t about convincing her what’s right, it’s about showing her she will suffer if she doesn’t do what’s right. That is the only thing that will work.
The Men’s Rights Movement likes to pretend that is it a civil rights movement. But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement. These are the tactics of angry narcissists clinging to retrograde prejudices, who have given up on the war of ideas because on some level they know that history is against them, and that they will never win.
