We Hunted The Mammoth
Yesterday we looked at far-right manospheran clod/philosopher Vox Day’s melodramatic response to a Canadian sexbot ban that’s completely imaginary (but that Vox, natch, believed was real). Today, let’s look at an almost 3000-word post by one “Ian Ironwood” of the Red Pill Room, spelling out the dire implications of this imaginary legislation.
ProTip: Before writing 3000-word screeds denouncing something, spend 5 minutes with Teh Google to see if what you’re denouncing is in fact real.
So this weekend I attended an interesting conference on the future of feminism. I’d like to present some of the most insightful papers from it.
Clarification: When I said I “attended a conference” I meant I “took a look at the Men’s Rights subreddit.” By “interesting” I meant “tedious” and by “insightful” I meant “ridiculous.” And by “papers” of course I meant “comments.”
So here, without further ado, are some of the pearls of wisdom I found in a thread asking the twin questions “What, in your opinion, is Feminism’s ultimate goal? When do you think they’ll consider their job ‘done?’” (Each yellow comment is a direct answer to one or both of the questions.)
Oh, ShitRedditSays! Not only are SRSers fighting the good fight against bigotry and assyness and general shitlordery on Reddit, but they also manage to come up with some of the best and most hilarious faux-propaganda graphics you’re likely to run across online, many of which are gathered together on the SRS FArtistry tumblr blog.
SRS being a bit of a circlejerk, the graphics are mainly designed to amuse other SRSers, and are full of in-jokes and references to the ridiculous reputation SRS has amongst Redditors at large as being the home to humorless man-hating Dworkinite feminazis eager to oppress helpless Straight White Males. By pelting them with dildoes.
Here, for example, is a lovely drawing illustrating how many Redditors actually see the unending battle between SRS (represented here by surly angels armed with purple dildoes) and the upstanding free-speech defenders of Reddit.
Other SRS graphics play on old propaganda tropes:
Still others are just excuses to make in-jokes. (For some reason, SRSers like to refer to dogs as “dags.”)
It’s interesting to see the contrast between SRS FArt and the, er, art generated by MRAs online. Here, for example, is a graphic taken from the Artistry Against Misandry site, a collection of “art” and “music” and even “poetry” from angry, art-, music- and poetry-challenged MRAs. AAM is heavily promoted on A Voice for Men; heck, Paul Elam recently sent them $100 of his own (supporters’) money to fight the (allegedly) good fight.
This hilarious piece of WTFery, if you haven’t figured it out already, is evidently supposed to be a picture of me. Or possibly Michael Moore. Whoever it’s supposed to be, I cackled with glee when I first saw it yesterday. (For future reference, I don’t own either a baseball cap or that particular kind of flogger.)
I will be exploring the vast artistic richness (sarcasm) of Artistry Against Misandry in several upcoming posts.
And after that I will highlight some of the magnificent art (not sarcasm) produced by some of Man Boobz’ own.
In the meantime, enjoy this one last bit of SRS FArtistry, which might be suitable for desktop wallpaper:
Here are a couple of, well, let’s just call them very intriguing questions asked of me by a Men’s Rights Redditor. Since I can’t respond to them on the Men’s Rights subreddit — I’m banned — I thought I’d respond here:
Mr. Levelate, allow me to answer your serious questions with some equally serious questions of my own:
I’ve wondered for a long time how people like you react to the men’s rights mantra of ‘all women are wombats’, when you see a woman who isn’t a wombat, how do you explain this?
Also, many MRAs advocate turning all squirrels into bologna, what makes you think squirrel bologna would taste better than regular bologna, and what would the world do with all those extra uneaten nuts, were it ever to come to that?
Here’s the thing, Mr. Levelate: those things you think feminists believe? FEMINISTS DON’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.
That “all men are rapists” quote from Marilyn French you guys like to pass around? That was from a character in a novel.
The number of radical feminists who seriously want to get rid of men, or a significant number of them, you could probably count on your fingers. I’m not sure how many MRAs want to make squirrel bologna, but the numbers are probably similar. And, fyi, there are actually more than a few MRAs who fantasize about breeding certain types of women out of existence, like this dude on The Spearhead, and a small army of MRAs and MGTOWers who pine for the imaginary future where babies are gestated in artificial wombs and women are all replaced by sexy sexbots.
Listening to MRAs talking about feminism is a bit like sitting in on a book club in which no one has read the book.
So our dear friend Fidelbogen, self-declared Counter-Feminist Agent of Change and the wannabe philosopher-king of the Men’s Rights movement, has written an exceedingly dull and verbose post for A Voice for Men rehashing the whole Agent-Orange-RadFemHub-thing. Now, it’s a lovely, slightly too-hot Sunday afternoon here at Man Boobz headquarters, so naturally I didn’t do much more than lightly skim the whole thing. But I did notice this interesting little “argument” part way through.
Apparently Fidelbogen has concluded that it’s perfectly fine for critics of feminism to completely ignore the ideas of most feminists and focus only on the dogmas of the most radical of RadFems:
We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only “fringe radicals” or “extremists”, and that we mustn’t judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn’t we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the moderate feminists really add up to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by mellowness and grooviness — by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?
That weird choice of alternatives at the end is pretty much a textbook example of a “false dichotomy.” You would think that someone with a brain as big as Fidelbogen’s would be able to recognize and avoid such an elementary logical fallacy.
Fidelbogen continues:
Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don’t make history. And which is more, I’ve got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: “Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem.”
Dude, “projection” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
