Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Scott Adams to Men's Rights Activists: You'll never win an argument with a woman

Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert's boss.
So Scott Adams -- the Dilbert guy -- has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men's Rights. And so he did.

What they got from him wasn't quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn't what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten "a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle."

Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small  -- from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system.  Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.

We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don't know how to ask for raises.

So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men's rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others -- mangina anyone? -- but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.

But here's where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men's Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards.  It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should "get over it" is that ... well, read it for yourself.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead.  But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It's called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you're still crying about your pawn when you're having your way with the queen, there's something wrong with you and it isn't men's rights.

Apparently In Scott Adams' world, chess players don't get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine. 

After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don't make any more sense than what I've quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn't have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.

As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you'll never win this argument with a women -- you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe ... you'll get to fuck the queen? 

No wonder he deleted the post. 

Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let's see if I can get it stuck in your head:



--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

123 comments:

  1. I've encountered Scott Adams's, er, unique form of reasoning in the past, so this doesn't surprise me in the least. The guy's convinced that he's a brilliant thinker, but his output is all, well, exactly like the post you're quoting here. So yeah, I don't like him.

    One of the funnier episodes in his sordid career of being a twit involved a short book he wrote called God's Debris. You can actually read it in its entirety (legally) here: http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

    It posits that God committed suicide and apparently subsequently exploded, and we're all leftover shards of his blasted corpse. It's billed as a "thought experiment," but immediately after publishing it Adams went off the deep end and, in typical stoner-philosopher fashion, couldn't be convinced that it was anything less than a revolutionary, world-changing idea that nobody had ever conceived of before ever in all the history of humankind.

    He's not saying it's literally true, mind you, just that if you read it there's a 100% chance that you'll never see reality the same away again and everything you've ever known will be cast in a new light. And if you deny that this happened, you're lying. Seriously.

    Apparently it didn't occur to him that some people are atheists and agnostics, and a (supposedly) new idea about what God is isn't really any more world-changing than a new theory about how Jack Bauer goes to the bathroom when he's onscreen for 24 straight hours.

    So yeah, I think he's a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had an exchange with Mr. Adams a few years ago about politics. Basically he is a lazy person-he claims that since you cannot know everything about a candidate, why bother voting?

    Same with arguing with a woman-you cannot "win" therefore why even try?

    He is not stupid-his comics can be funny...but he is not really that great of a thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've actually been rereading my Dilbert books lately- and each time I read them I realize more how completely sexist he is. One example that really brought it home was when he did a poll about Tina the Brittle Tech Writer, and people said, "Keep her, but balance out the cast with less stereotyped women." So he introduced Antina, who's basically a butch who weightlifts and wears a tie. Check it out.

    I dig Scott Adams, but I won't be buying any more of his stuff. His attitude towards women is just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This will not only teach Scott Adams to stay away from the male feminists called MRAs: but will also discourage anybody in the public eye to stay from them as well: They will use what happened to Scott Adams as an example.

    One point of my blog was to demonstrate how self-defeating the MRM is.

    I suggest that is by design: more specifically: the leaders.

    @susannah: you're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave: Nice Murray Head reference.

    I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group.

    Oh wait, that's pretty much exactly what you said!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh no, how dare a man criticises women. It can't be trueee, women are perfect princesses. But it’s all okay to criticise men on a constant basis for decades of course.

    Not only that, its impossible for men to be discriminated against in society. It must be all a big misunderstanding

    Ask the feminist bigots

    ReplyDelete
  7. tri: Ay yi yi. Just read the intro to The Religion War. I knew Adams was an egomaniac, but I had no idea it went this far. YOU ARE GETTING VERY SLEEPY. That stuff about how he incorporated hypnosis techniques into the writing is bizarre. YOUR EYELIDS ARE GROWING HEAVY.

    At least when Philip K. Dick developed his crazy religious ideas in his later years he was actually pretty humble and self-aware about it. YOU WILL BUY MAN BOOBZ T-SHIRTS. Also, his ideas were sort of interesting. AND MAYBE A MUG.

    Susannah: I hadn't run across Antina, but does anyone else think that she looks exactly like Scott Adams himself, except for the boobs? Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wondered where you wandered off to Nickelback.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's funny how men can be criticised or female issues can be talked about at any place and any time.

    But when women are criticised or male issues are talked about, the person is deemed as an idiot.

    The feminist bigots want their cake and eat it too. When it comes to PC that's exactly what they get.

    The word "sexism" is usually used in western societies these days to oppress men as it's used to silence any opinion that's in favour of men no matter how valid the points are.

    The little greedy feminist bigots want all the focus on women instead of equal and fair balanced consideration towards men.

    Obviously, most feminists (all feminist in this blog) are only against misogyny, not misandry. So really they are not against sexism as a whole, they are only against half of it. This is considered to be sexist within it's self

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nick, did you ever create that blog we suggested you create to highlight all of this misandry? No? Then why are you still here?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It can't be trueee, women are perfect princesses.

    I really wish I knew how to get you to stop repeating this point. I feel like we've demonstrated enough times that it's not true.

    Should I name examples of women I don't like or something? Okay. Jenny McCarthy. Margaret Thatcher. That girl in middle school who knocked a cookie out of my hand so I couldn't eat it and it made me sad.

    See? I don't think women are perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  12. tri --

    I need to do a post on all these idiotic non-arguments that MRAs love to post here all the time. Princesses, "white knights," "male feminists just want to get laid, but they won't," etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Um, niko, dear?

    I am a regular reader of and commentor on feminist blogs. I write a sex blog from a feminist perspective. I'm minoring in Gender Studies, for crying out loud.

    I have occasionally seen a woman say we shouldn't debate men because they are all evil stupid rapists. The response of feminists? "There are lots of feminist men, feminism is against patriarchy not men, patriarchy hurts men too, basically you are stupid so STFU."

    ReplyDelete
  14. To believe patriarchy exist in American society 2011 means you’re incredibly stupid and delusional.

    Grow the hell up and take responsibility for a change instead of acting like children by blaming every wrong in your life on patriarchy

    ReplyDelete
  15. To believe that the patriarchy doesn't exist in American society 2011 means you're incredibly stupid and delusional.

    Grow the hell up and take responsibility for a change instead of acting like children by blaming every wrong in your life on women.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "To believe that the patriarchy doesn't exist in American society 2011 means you're incredibly stupid and delusional."

    Prove it.

    "Grow the hell up and take responsibility for a change instead of acting like children by blaming every wrong in your life on women."

    Examples?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "To believe patriarchy exist in American society 2011 means you’re incredibly stupid and delusional."

    Prove it.

    "Grow the hell up and take responsibility for a change instead of acting like children by blaming every wrong in your life on patriarchy"

    Examples?

    See, I can make empty statements too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can prove it as no one can answer and prove how patriarchy exists in American society 2011. Me asking the question and not getting a logical answer is all the proof need.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Example A: The Arizona State Legislature. Although the Republicans did kick Senator Scott "She pulled a gun!" Bundgaard out of the Majority position on a 12-9 vote. I suppose that is something.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Examples?

    Name one example where "feminist literature" blames female issues on women and not patriarchy or men?

    Not coming up with an answer proves my point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Name one example where "feminist literature" blames female issues on women and not patriarchy or men?

    I think you'll find that feminists are not big on blaming the victim. But as has been pointed out to you many times before, patriarchy as an institution is reinforced by men and women both.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Try "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man", by prominent feminist academic Susan Faludi. It's a whole book about how society, and patriarchy, has harmed men. A whole book about it! And by a feminist! And a famous famous feminist at that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Odd you say that Trip-I just read this inane column by a woman who claims that feminism is all about me me me me and not about her "instinctive role as a woman-to be a wife and mother."

    And the ridiculous premise that you do whatever it takes to take care of a child...which would mean that if your kid needs a heart transplant, you better be donating yours. Or you are a bad mother.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Niko, you seem to be confused about whether you want "proof of patriarchy" or "proof that feminists blame women." Since Elizabeth has the first amply covered, http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ for the second.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Elizabeth, that's a breath of fresh air. That said, I am not really sure if Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker are really feminists. If they are, too bad this only makes up not even 1 percent of femimism.

    triplanetary said

    I think you'll find that feminists are not big on blaming the victim

    You're extreme bigotry never ceases to amaze me. You are too dumb to realise that men can be victims too. Not all women nor men as a whole are victims. People are victims, not based on gender.

    "But as has been pointed out to you many times before, patriarchy as an institution is reinforced by men and women both"

    That makes no sense what so ever as if women are reinforcing something, How can this be patriarchy?

    Feminists like you crack me up as you think even if women enforce something, it's still somehow patriarchy. WTF??? ROFL

    A lot of your feminists seem to be borderline retards

    Anyway this is enough for now as I have a life to attend to, unlike the feminists on this blog.

    I shall be back for another laugh

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nick, not sure what exactly you're looking for here, but here's a comment from one feminist:

    "I am aware, as every other human being I've ever meet is aware, that both men and women can do horrible, horrible things. Individual women abuse children, kill people, and screw over men and other women alike. They basically do every bad thing in the world that men do. You want to see how horrible some women can be? Watch the documentary Dear Zachary. It's on Netflix instant watch. It's really depressing."

    Oh yeah, that was me, in my "dumb things to assume about this blog" post. (see sidebar)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nick-those two are such anti-feminists they believe that men *should* support their wives and wives should not have to work. This despite Ms Schlafly having been working for decades outside the home.

    And they are one of the reasons it is so hard to get things to changed to where that is not a requirement for any man or woman.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nick. Patriarchy as a sociological concept does not exclude women. I'm not being paid enough (see: nothing) to provide a lecture on gender and social theory here, so go check out any number of textbooks on the issue. It's a very well settled academic issue, in fact it's practically self evident, that there are women who are part of the intellectual concept of patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That said, I am not really sure if Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker are really feminists.

    They're not. Nobody said they were. Elizabeth was providing you with an example of feminists criticizing women. Schlafly and Venker weren't supposed to be the good guys in this example, though I'm hardly surprised that their arguments appeal to you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh, and here's a book by a feminist friend of mine about "slut shaming" in high school; she deals at great length on girls who engage in it -- more so than boys -- and reinforce backwards sexual double-standards.

    http://www.amazon.com/Slut-Growing-Female-Bad-Reputation/dp/0060957409/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nick, the fact that women are involved in maintaining patriarchy is rather crucial to understanding what feminists mean by patriarchy; many women actually benefit in various ways from patriarchy. If you can't understand this, you probably shouldn't be making pronouncements about patriarchy at all.

    If you are actually interested in learning about patriarchy, read some Gerda Lerney. If you are NOT interested in learning about it, then might I suggest you shut the fuck up about it, as you clearly have no fucking idea of what you are talking about.

    People can support ideological/political systems in which they are not the primary beneficiaries. Lots of people who are not kings or queens support or historically have supported monarchy; some non-kings and non-queens (like palace guards, for example) actually benefit directly from monarchy, others benefit less directly.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Name one example where "feminist literature" blames female issues on women and not patriarchy or men?

    Not coming up with an answer proves my point.


    Waste your time on my non-argument or I will declare victory! I will, of course, not bother to come up with any proof to support my own claims! Research is girl work!

    Pretty much every book on feminism I've read takes women to task for contributing to sexism/patriarchy. Random examples from looking at my bookshelf...

    Susan Faludi's Backlash spends a lot of time on Beverly LaHaye and Phyllis Schlafly. Faludi criticizes women who buy into harmful beauty standards, including the bizarre story of a woman who got a heavily-publicized full-body plastic surgery makeover to attract a husband. (P.S. It didn't work.) Her section on "The Backlash Brain Trust" covers five men and four women, including two self-identified feminists. Faludi's next book, incidentally, was Stiffed, about the burdens American society places on men, but I must be making that up because feminists never talk about men's problems.

    In Lynn Peril's awesome Pink Think and College Girls, sexist women come in for plenty of ribbing. There's a good section in Pink Think on the "pleasing your man" books Fascinating Womanhood and The Total Woman, both written by women. There's also a section questioning the wisdom of the advice dispensed by Sex and the Single Girl author Helen Gurley Brown, who wasn't really feminist or anti-feminist, more of a kind of apolitical champion of casual sex. (Casual sex is cool, but Brown's idea that married men make great boyfriends...not so much.) Peril includes a chapter on "blue think" sexism aimed at boys and men, but, again, I must have hallucinated that part.

    Cynthia Heimel used to write a column for Playboy. She did some pieces on the modern (circa the '90s) battle of the sexes that I'm constantly tempted to just post here in their entirety.

    Really, though, this is a weird argument to get into, because social justice movements aren't about "blame." They're about changing the system. And laughing at the haters, but you've probably noticed that by now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Total Woman is one of my favorite insane books ever.

    Seriously, people, if you ever see it in a thrift store, buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If you are actually interested in learning about patriarchy, read some Gerda Lerney. If you are NOT interested in learning about it, then might I suggest you shut the fuck up about it, as you clearly have no fucking idea of what you are talking about.

    I can say with some confidence that a person who isn't sure whether or not Phyllis Schlafly is a feminist has no fucking idea what feminism is.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Phyllis Schlafly is in her pink office right now crying a single pink tear.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scott Adams manages to bring together MRAs and feminists in the shared belief that he's an idiot. Impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  37. There is no "patriarchy" or "rape culture" in Western Society. It is a ridiculous argument, because, it isn't - an argument. It is a belief system conjured up by ideologues who believe their in their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Scott Adams frequently says things that show he is an insufferable douchecanoe...He has also said that women hitting men is funny(hence the character of Alice)but of course men hitting women is never funny.....of course this sentiment which is usually said by men is attributed to feminists which makes me stabby as hell!


    And comparing women to children.....why, I have never seen that before!

    ReplyDelete
  39. And we're supposed to take magdelyn's word over the general consensus of research conducted by those who study Western society because...?

    In other news, as someone who has experienced weather, I declare myself more competent to discuss global warming than any mere geologist.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I also recall Scott Adam's flirtations with intelligent design.

    I am odd in that I've never found Dilbert funny. Actually, I'm odd in that I don't find any currently running newspaper comics funny. They stopped being good when Bill Watterson retired. It doesn't help that I've been spoiled by webcomics.

    ReplyDelete
  41. May I humbly suggest that David construct a small section on this blog wherein the arguments that always come up (for example, "feminists never blame women") are dealt with succinctly, so we can just refer these guys there when they inevitably bring up an argument that they think we must have never heard before because it didn't come out of their genius brains yet? Or, to shorten it even more, we could have a list of the usual MRA arguments and David could just replace their repetitive comments with the relevant number?

    Then we can continue on with the mockery of misogyny, which is way more fun.

    ReplyDelete
  42. rachel-swirsky: "...general consensus of research conducted by those who study Western society because..."

    HahahahahahHahahahahha.... You kill me. A "general consesus" among who? Ideologues? Women's studies professors, and the "sanctimonious women's studies set?"

    silly.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @thewhatifgirl "...we could have a list of the usual MRA arguments..."

    For that, feel free to browse http://goodwomynproject.com

    I'll be making MRA arguments over there all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @thewhatifgirl:

    We could always make bingo cards!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Magdelyn, I believe it was right there in the OP: a general consensus among those who study Western society. You know, for a living. I.e., sociologists. You've heard of them, right? Also anthropologists and the like. Sometimes they overlap with feminists. Of course, studying social relationships is one of those fields not regarded as particularly "manly." So it's underpaid and not well-regarded. And that's because there's no patriarchy, no sir. None at all.

    ReplyDelete
  46. *blink blink*

    For some reason I had hoped that Scott Adams would actually be less of an asshole than the Pointy Haired Boss. How disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pink Think is the shiznit.

    Also: Phyllis Chesler's "Woman's Inhumanity To Woman," which granted is rather slanted toward "my experience as a very important type academic celebrity" and then later she became an insufferable neocon douchecanoe, but anyway.

    Andrea Dworkin's "Right Wing Women"

    not to mention any number of critiques of mainstream white feminism/ists (yes, that means mainly other women) by queer women, women of color, feminists with disabilities ...

    ReplyDelete
  48. nicko81m said... That makes no sense what so ever as if women are reinforcing something, How can this be patriarchy?


    Well, then I guess there are no feminist laws as the MRA's claim since men are the majority of congress,police and judges that enforce them.

    I like using nicko logic, it's fun

    ReplyDelete
  49. j. kaje, I have found Dilbert to be sometimes funny, though I haven't read it for years. But newspaper comics in general? They are beyond terrible. But really, it's basically been all downhill for newspaper comics since, oh, the 1920s. You ever looked at early 20th century newspaper comics? They were fucking amazing works of art. They really were.

    whatifgirl, on standard MRA "arguments," I've got a few of those addressed in my "dumb things"faq and in some of the "further reading" posts, linked in the sidebar, but I think I will do another post on "brilliant MRA arguments and insults we've never ever heard a bazillion times before."

    If you (or anyone) have any specific thoughts on some we should include in that, post them below.

    ReplyDelete
  50. David Futrelle said...
    "Nick, the fact that women are involved in maintaining patriarchy is rather crucial to understanding what feminists mean by patriarchy; many women actually benefit in various ways from patriarchy."

    So then why are other women opposed to this 'patriarchy'?

    Because they're ugly?
    Because they're fat?
    Because they think it's oppression having to sexually compete with magazine models? (Oh, the humanity!)
    Because they think it's mens fault that they become bullimics trying to do so? (Jeeez! You folks can't have ANY accountability!?)
    Because they think that businesses would keep right on paying men more money for the same work when they could just fire all the dudes and save millions?

    And let's not forget the big one:

    Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex? (Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom. But somehow it's not natural just because a bunch of peach fuzzed sea world attractions with worthless college degrees in humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees, etc. say so?)

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Well, then I guess there are no feminist laws as the MRA's claim since men are the majority of congress,police and judges that enforce them."


    Men like Scott Adams are the majority of congress, police and judges that enforce them.
    And they only do it because they're afraid of loosing their jobs if they don't. So they go along with whatever bullshit speweth forth from female mouth.
    There ARE feminist laws.
    Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

    ReplyDelete
  52. So what you're implying, EvilWhiteMaleEmpire, is that if a woman is unattractive and overweight, her thoughts and desires can be readily dismissed? That she's unworthy of attention or respect? That no idea or argument put forth by an ugly, fat woman could ever have any value because of how she looks?

    Dude, that's patriarchy right there, staring you in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Keep typing, evil. Maybe eventually you'll make some sort of sense.

    Also, where exactly did you (and so many other tiresome internet arguers) get the notion that adding letters to words (humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees) is somehow a stinging insult?

    ReplyDelete
  54. David, Johnnykaje: The only thing the least bit good about the comics is Ziggy Circus; you know--switching the "punchlines" of the day's Ziggy and the Family Circus. (Assuming your paper carries those abominations.) It usually results in some stranger (or a parrot) calling Ziggy "Mommy" and one of the melon-headed children spouting off about how much it sucks to be them.

    Absent that, there's always those serial comics that are not actually supposed to be funny but always are: The Phantom, Apartment 3-G, Judge Parker, Mary Worth ... Then again, I find MRA arguments hilarious, so perhaps my sense of humor is "off."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lady Victoria von Syrus said...
    "So what you're implying, EvilWhiteMaleEmpire, is that if a woman is unattractive and overweight, her thoughts and desires can be readily dismissed?"

    If your thoughts and desires are a bunch of selfish entitlement nonsense they most certainly can and should be. I might point out that attractive women have loads of thoughts and desires that should most certainly should be dismissed. (even if it seldom happens)

    "That she's unworthy of attention or respect?"

    Your not entitled to attention and respect is earned not learned.

    "That no idea or argument put forth by an ugly, fat woman could ever have any value because of how she looks?"

    Correct. No idea or argument should be judged by the appearance of the presenter. But that isn't really your point. You point is to say that it's wrong that you should have more difficulty getting folks to agree with your B.S. than an attractive woman does in getting folks to agree with her B.S.

    "Dude, that's patriarchy right there, staring you in the face."

    No that's EQUALITY.

    Patriarchal oppression: Ugly women not being unfairly treated the way attractive women are unfairly treated.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I was watching the awesome movie "American Psycho" the other night and it kept reminding me of this blog. There's a scene where a bunch of stockbrokers are sitting around making somewhat piggish comments about women, and sociopath protagonist Patrick Bateman, trying to join in on the guy talk, puts a big grin on his face and cheerfully repeats a quote from Ed Gein about wanting to see a pretty girl's head on a stick. The point is that the whole conversation is threaded with a certain hostility toward women, but everyone except Bateman understands the socially acceptable level: bragging about lovin' and leavin' bimbos is okay, fantasizing about murdering them is not.

    I see that problem in a lot of MRA talk: it's not that their attitudes are fundamentally different than the sexism in mainstream society, it's that they don't have any sense of perspective, context, or tone. Scott Adams seems to be having the same trouble here. Lots of guys joke about letting the little woman have her way, you know how chicks are, ha ha. Only a special few will take it to the logical conclusion of, "Yeah, women are basically retarded children you can have sex with! Amirite, guys?"

    Oh, Scott Adams. What the hell.

    ReplyDelete
  57. whatifgirl, on standard MRA "arguments," I've got a few of those addressed in my "dumb things"faq and in some of the "further reading" posts, linked in the sidebar, but I think I will do another post on "brilliant MRA arguments and insults we've never ever heard a bazillion times before."

    If you (or anyone) have any specific thoughts on some we should include in that, post them below.


    Although not an argument or insult that we've never ever heard a bazillion times before, I thought that AntZ' screed and "proofs" (including his reponses to rebuttals) about the feminist hate conspiracy regarding use of Ritalin to perform genocide on boys, which appeared in the comments section of David's post on Good Men Project, was quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex? (Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom. But somehow it's not natural just because a bunch of peach fuzzed sea world attractions with worthless college degrees in humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees, etc. say so?)

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call rape culture.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You know, I hold open doors for men all the time. Only when I do it, I don't call it chivalry, I call it having the decency to not let the door slam in the face of the person behind me. Why is it such a big deal when men hold doors open for women?

    So, when men aren't getting the majority of degrees, it's a problem with society and the education system, but when women are paid 80 cents to every man's dollar and make up a minority of most higher paying jobs, it's because women just aren't assertive enough? Obvious double standards are obvious.

    Especially since Scott also makes the case that men can't win an argument with a women. Let me see if I can map this logic out:
    Women always win arguments against men.
    Meaning if a woman argued for a pay raise against a male boss, she would win.
    Women make less money on average than men.
    Meaning a woman who makes less than a man must not be arguing for it, even though she would win.
    Because... That would be cheating?

    @Pam
    Ah, yes, AntZ. As a feminist with ADD that takes medication, I found his comments particularly obnoxious and misinformed. I mean, even more misinformed than the usual douchebag that tells me the condition I struggle with daily doesn't exist, and then gets upset when I take offense.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex?

    EvilWhiteMaleEmpire: endorsing and justifying rape. And trying to justify it with the naturalistic fallacy, too. Blergh, I'm not feeling too well.

    ReplyDelete
  61. So, EWME, here's another question for you:

    How can a woman (personal attractiveness aside) earn your respect?

    Do be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom."

    Are we now ordering our sex lives based on how *some* animals fuck? If so, I'll take bonobo. And also the retirement plan of leaf-cutter ants. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I agree Hide, bonobos have a cool society and we should be more like them.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ooh! Ooh! Can I be a hyena? I always wanted to be a hyena! I want an oversize clitoris I can penetrate men with, that would be awesome.

    Also, hyenas are basically walking disprovals of EWME's "male dominance in sex" theory, which is surprisingly close to Ms. Dworkin's theory on the matter for a supposed anti-feminist. Plagiarism...?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why would a person want to have control during sex anyway? It's a collaborative effort. When I'm dancing with someone I'm not in control of them, even if I'm leading. Ditto for sex. I find the sex/dancing metaphor to be extremely informative.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom" EWME-clearly not a biologist. 75% of the animal kingdom species are arthropods (which includes insects and spiders) which do not have a pattern of "sexually dominant males". The next biggest phyllas are, you guessed it-worms and mollusks. Of the about 1,000,000 known animal species, mammals are only about 4,500. And, of the mammals, slightly less than a third are rodents (male rodents are not sexually or socially dominant for most species either). Even the remaining 2,300 or so non-rodent mammals, not all of those have "sexually dominant" males either.

    Beetles (a subset of arthropods) have the most species at 350,000. Bow down before the power of beetle society fools!

    ReplyDelete
  67. $50 says facts don"t get in the way of Evil's conclusion.

    Also, now I can't stop thinking of beetle sex.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I've seen pictures of a snake sexball. Apparently, when it's mating season, some species of snake all curl up into a giant snake orgy.

    That might be kind of cool, if only our spines were as bendy as snake spines!

    ReplyDelete
  69. @ Lady Vic

    I've personally witnessed the annual spring orgy of yellow-spotted salamanders. Literally thousands of them, wrapped around each other in balls of salamanders 2-3 across, thrashing in the swamp water so much that the water actually roils.

    It does sound like fun, minus the being in a swamp part.

    I'd just as soon not be a duck or a rat though. Male rats have pointy barbed penises. Male ducks have giant spiral penises, and female ducks have bizarre labyrinthine vaginas with multiple dead ends. They can literally choose to close off their uterus and send the sperm up a dead end if they don't like their suitor/rapist.

    I think the existence of the clitoris is evidence enough that rape is not an adaptive behavior for humans, at least not AS adaptive as mutually pleasurable sexual behavior. Even if it were (adaptive), once upon a time, who's to say it is now? And just because it was once an adaptive behavior doesn't mean we should tolerate it or encourage it. Murdering people is also an adaptive behavior in certain circumstances.

    Naturalistic fallacy, how I love deconstructing thee. It's always an excellent opportunity to discuss some more interesting aspects of animal behavior. Folks who are interested in more bizarre animal sex practices should check out Isabella Rossellini's Green Porno series she did for the Sundance Channel. It's hilarious. She dresses up as various kinds of animals (bee, snail, barnacle, worm, dolphin, deer, etc.) and acts out their mating behaviors, with a puppet versions of said animal as her mating partner. "Ah! My penis breaks off! I fall to the ground, bleeding to death. But my sperm will fertilize a new generation of bees!"

    http://www.sundancechannel.com/greenporno/

    ReplyDelete
  70. I just watched a couple of Rossellini's shorts - those are awesome!

    And yeah, I find it curious when men suggest that rape is the 'natural order of things,' but then are at a complete loss to explain why women evolved the clitoris - the only organ whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure (everything else serves double duty). Gee, maybe evolution figured out that more babies happen when women enjoy/want to have sex, too?

    ReplyDelete
  71. > the clitoris - the only organ whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure (everything else serves double duty)

    Not quite. There's the male nipple.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ Joe:

    The male nipple is a holdover, not an evolutionary adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "thewhatifgirl said...

    May I humbly suggest that David construct a small section on this blog wherein the arguments that always come up (for example, "feminists never blame women") are dealt with succinctly, so we can just refer these guys there when they inevitably bring up an argument that they think we must have never heard before because it didn't come out of their genius brains yet? "

    I like this idea. Maybe give them numbers so we can just say, "that's number 14".

    Which reminds me of the joke about the newly convicted prisoner going to the mess hall the very first time. Signs on the wall say "no talking," but he hears the old timers one by one call out numbers. "142." Laughter. "85." More laughter. "239." Chuckles. "177." Guffaws.

    He gets back to his cell and asks his cellmate what that was all about. "As you know, we're not allowed to converse in the mess hall, but we've all memorized these jokes from this here joke book, so we just call out the number and laugh. The guards are okay with it and everyone's happy."

    The new guy reads and reads the joke book and starts to get it, he laughs when he recognizes a number and starts to see the fun in it.

    A month or so into his sentence, he has the jokebook memorized. He decides to take a chance, and, at a lull in the number-calling, "91!" he calls out.

    Silence.

    Someone else quickly jumps in with "317," and the laughs resume.

    When he gets back to the cell he dejectedly asks his cellmate, "what happened? that was one of the funniest jokes in the book."

    "Son," the cellmate replies sympathetically, "some folks just don't know how to tell a joke."

    ReplyDelete
  74. Men can lactate too, given enough stimulation.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I skimmed through this, and here's the gist of what I got:
    I disagree with this man and he compared the treatment of a sex to that of other groups, so I'll fixate on that and call misogyny again. Also, the commenter above me is talking about men lactating for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Feminists seem to pull things out of their ass and call it “patriarchy”. They call anything "patriarchy" even that it makes no connection or sense regarding that it truly is patriarchy.

    I am holding my dick in my hand, oh, that's patriarchy ROFL

    For example, regarding evilwhitemale’s post, in response Lady Vic said:

    "So what you're implying, EvilWhiteMaleEmpire, is that if a woman is unattractive and overweight, her thoughts and desires can be readily dismissed? That she's unworthy of attention or respect? That no idea or argument put forth by an ugly, fat woman could ever have any value because of how she looks?"

    "Dude, that's patriarchy right there, staring you in the face."

    WTF? How is this patriarchy?

    What is seriously wrong with feminists? Come on, this is ridiculous.

    It's like me saying that just because some women don't like wealthy men, this is "matriarchy"

    Just because women have standards, this is matriarchy.

    Anyway, here is another ridiculous post that's so easy to ridicule.

    Xtra said

    "Well, then I guess there are no feminist laws as the MRA's claim since men are the majority of congress,police and judges that enforce them."

    "I like using nicko logic, it's fun"

    So that would mean just because the prime minister of Australia is a woman and the premier of Queensland is a woman, that means I live in a matriarchal society as the two most powerful people who pull the strings in the society I live in are women.

    Does this mean I can start cracking a mental fit and shout in women's faces while telling them that I am oppressed because now I live in a matriarchal society?

    Seriously, you feminists are raven loons. You truly are fucking demented. You just pull anything out of your ass and call it patriarchy.

    This behaviour from a person is seriously disturbing

    I suggest to see a shrink and tell them all about this. They would be amazed.

    GET HELP!

    ReplyDelete
  77. "May I humbly suggest that David construct a small section on this blog wherein the arguments that always come up (for example, "feminists never blame women") are dealt with succinctly, so we can just refer these guys there when they inevitably bring up an argument that they think we must have never heard before because it didn't come out of their genius brains yet?"

    Probably only 1 percent of feminism blames women for an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well, I am off to get something to eat. I guess that's an act of patriarchy too as feminists just pull anything out of their arse and call it patriarchy

    ReplyDelete
  79. Wow Stringer, I guess you're too dumb to relate my post on lactation to the three or four posts above it talking about the evolutionary function of male nipples. What's the matter, can't read more than a few sentences in one sitting? Poor short-term memory?

    I'd like to know how feminism is broken down into percentages. Is that a percent of the types of feminisms? Like, eco-feminism, womanism, first wave, second wave, third wave, sex-positive, lesbian separatist?

    Or perhaps it's 1% of feminISTS, that is, people who self-identify as feminists.

    Of course then you'd have to wonder what "an issue" is. Generic issues. Yup. I blame men for generic issues. It's all men's fault, whatever it is. I guess this really is how boringly simplistic the whole MRA ethos really is. Projection and stupidity.

    Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort.

    Or try pinching your waitress' butt. Suss out her boss first, if it's a guy she might not say anything to him, in which case, there's nothing stopping you, you force of nature, you!

    Also, if you see a gay couple while you're eating, make sure to wrinkle your nose and shoot dirty looks at them whenever possible. Try to make sure they notice.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Gee, maybe evolution figured out that more babies happen when women enjoy/want to have sex, too?

    I think, in a species like ours, where pregnancy and giving birth is so goddamn problematic, thanks to our oversized brains, having sex be extremely desirable for females must be a necessary adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I just got hot chips, a woman cooked it. Again, I will pull something out of my ass and call it patriarchy. Why not? Feminists do it all the time because they are a bit....ummm demented

    ReplyDelete
  82. Well, I am off to get something to eat. I guess that's an act of patriarchy too as feminists just pull anything out of their arse and call it patriarchy

    I'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding the fundamental premises that you've elected to argue about, but let me remind you that nobody forced you to come sit at the grown-ups' table.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh, I just farted. Is that patriarchy too?

    It came from a man so it must be

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort."

    I guess if the roles were reversed, this would be matriarchy, right?

    Oh damn, I am forgetting, there is a foolish feminist double standard. I would be deemed as an idiot if I called it matriarchy.

    Just as I would be deemed as an idiot if I said it was “matriarchy” because the prime minister of Australia is a woman and the premier of Queensland is a woman. So the two most powerful people in the society I live in are women. This must be matriarchy once again!

    I am entitled to call it this, right? When the prime minister and premier is a man, it’s not foolish in a feminist world to call it patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort."

    I guess if the roles were reversed, this would be matriarchy, right?


    Oh, definitely.

    If men had been systematically and sometimes forcefully prevented from fully participating in civil society for thousands of years, and if men had only recently persuaded the ruling class of women to grant you the right to own property, attend secondary education, get jobs that involved doing things besides fixing plumbing, mowing the lawn, and looking after the children, vote, and hold office, and if you, a man, were working a minimum wage type job just to hold it together, and a woman (who, being a member of the ruling class, has come to expect automatic deference and respect from any man) came in and made a suggestion to which you were not amenable, yet refused to take no for an answer, then yes.

    That would be matriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "If men had been systematically and sometimes forcefully prevented from fully participating in civil society for thousands of years, and if men had only recently persuaded the ruling class of women to grant you the right to own property, attend secondary education, get jobs that involved doing things besides fixing plumbing, mowing the lawn, and looking after the children, vote, and hold office, and if you, a man, were working a minimum wage type job just to hold it together, and a woman (who, being a member of the ruling class, has come to expect automatic deference and respect from any man) came in and made a suggestion to which you were not amenable, yet refused to take no for an answer, then yes."

    Do women have these burdens in America 2011? NO. So that means there is no patriarchy.

    In fact, MEN WERE FORCED TO BE THE FINANCIAL SLAVES OF WOMEN IN THE PAST. But feminists never mention any of this as they have no consideration for men.

    Anyway, just because patriarchy may existed generations ago...well a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away in a time before I was even born, this doesn't mean it's existing in 2011.

    Just because you are angry about what happened in the past, this doesn't mean you should pull anything out of your ass in 2011 and call it "patriarchy".

    ReplyDelete
  87. Aw, how cute, nicko actually thinks he's being smart.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Aw, how cute, nicko actually thinks he's being smart."

    I am as I am pointing out how fucking stupid, delusional, and demented feminists truly are.

    It's truly entertaining to watch feminists constantly pull things out of their arse and call it patriarchy. They think nearly everything is patriarchy.

    As I am typing this message, it must be patriarchy, heh

    ReplyDelete
  89. I'm in bed petting a very, very patriarchal cat. She is a reactionary and her mews are very demeaning to the feminists, and by that I mean all women.
    Oh, wait, my cat is female so that must mean I hate her. Kind of makes me wonder why I'm giving her ear scritchums right now. It couldn't be that these feminists are retarded and wrong, no.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Huh, I didn't know Nick was Australian. Australia has a regressive/conservative element similar to America's, so that's hardly a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  91. String is being less coherent then normal.

    Yep, Nick is a 12 year old Australian male.

    ReplyDelete
  92. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73

    Even when females are giving orders, it's patriarchy as what some retarded feminist was saying earlier in this thread.

    As much as there are things to laugh about towards people in the Men's Rights movement, a very large number of feminists are a total cack session. They are more screwy than anything.

    ReplyDelete
  93. [Two white dudes sitting around laughing about how stupid black people insist that they experience racism every day. "Haha, white supremacy is everywhere. Look, I just farted. I guess it's because I'm racist. My turds come from a white butt. Guess that means my turds are oppressing black people. Hahahaha."]

    ReplyDelete
  94. String likes his female cat hence he doesn't hate human females.

    Logic.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Explain exactly how black people experience racism everyday?

    In fact, explain how white people are privileged.

    You feminuts have a serious chip on your shoulder towards white males. You totally hate our guts as you just whine about us all day every day. Feminists seem have this obsessive need to nitpick white men at any chance they have.

    That right there is discriminatory against a group. A movement called feminism constantly looks for any way to knock the white male down. It’s an obsession in their minds.

    The biggest offenders of discrimination in year 2011 are feminists. It's so ironic that they claim they are against the very thing they are the biggest offenders of.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Feminists would have to be the biggest polluters on the planet. The biggest wasters and consumers of useless junk that contributes to the dying of humanity. Hardly anything gets done about it, even that it’s so damn obvious. Instead, they just buy more and more rubbish that keeps the cycle of hate prevailing that causes gender wars and people to be angry at each other.

    They think their movement is doing good for humanity but instead it just causes hatred and bigotry. They are so blind to see it, it’s very disturbing. Religion is poisonous to humanity as it is but feminism seems to be a more severe case.

    The hatred and anger towards males from the movement is incredibly massive. If you claim to be a feminist, you are a raven idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @nicko

    Yeah, cause I'm totally gonna take somebody who calls me 'fucking stupid, delusional, and demented' seriously. Oh, wait, I have a sense of self worth.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Nicko's surpassed the rage threshold and has gone straight to sublime hilarity.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Nicko said: "You totally hate our guts as you just whine about us all day every day. "


    I don't hate you, in fact I wish the best for you and I'm sorry for you that you are in so much pain. I would give you a man on man hug if given the chance Nick.

    I will however continue to mock your posts on the internet when it is deserving. I have a rather wonderful wife who is neither a gold digger nor subservient. Something that you will never have, but you will have a sex robot and that is o.k. To each their own.

    Now stop whining about not being grieved as a potential mate and get on with your life!

    I’ve spent that last month literally backpacking around Central America, with my wife! Imagine the possibilities that could be open to you as a traveler but instead you’ll sit on the internet and complain about your life or how other people are living their lives or how people should be living their lives if only they lived in Nicko’s world.

    Other people are not living in Nicko’s world. Are they the problem or are you?


    I will however continue to mock your posts on the internet when it is deserving. I have a rather wonderful wife who is neither a gold digger or subserviant. Something that you will never have, but you will have a sex robot and that is o.k.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I take the trip was super awesome Kave? Glad to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. It was quite wonderful Elisabeth, and it got us out of the norm of European vacations. Central America is pretty well amazing, not many times in your life you can wake up to two active volcanoes on each side of you!

    And thank you for asking

    ReplyDelete
  102. Kewl...I am trying to decide on my Birthday trip...I usually take a week off but this year I am not going to do that because I have a conference right before and the month prior I am going on a work related cruise.

    I have a free voucher for two at a place in Mexico but not sure if I want to go there.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Elizabeth

    The tourist trap vacations that are all inclusive are a bit like being in Miami but prefectly safe. Regardless who wants to be safe 100% of the time.

    I'd be more worried about having to sit through a 24 hour sales pitch on time shares then I would getting involved with drug lords.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Earlier in the thread there were raven loons, too. We might just have to do some sort of raven t-shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  105. And this is exactly why so many women don't want men to open the door for them. Because it's never about "gentlemanly manners," it comes with a huge price tag of all the other things you have to do to pay for his "Chivalry."

    ReplyDelete
  106. @Visp - Girls hold doors for me all the time, and I don't squack about them degrading me with their doors and holding and politeness. Maybe you weren't brought up right, or are just irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  107. "Projection and stupidity."---She Wolf of the SS

    The hallmark of feminists, coupled with hypocrisy, scapegoating men, and female supremacy.

    Hatemonger.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Oh Wytche.

    Yes, projection. Like you just did, right there. Which is also pretty stupid, demonstrating the exact phenomenon that you (collective MRA you) were just criticized for. You don't possess enough intelligence and self-consciousness to realize that it's pretty embarrassing to answer a charge of projection with, "Nuh uh, you project. Neener neener."

    If I hate you, it's because you yourself are rather hateful. Don't denigrate men by thinking they're all like you. I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Elizabeth, I cannot recommend Oaxaca highly enough for a less "touristy" Mexican destination.

    My god, Nick. Have you thought about reading a book? Not even necessarily a book about feminism. Really, anything. Because you're kind of showing your butt here.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oaxaca to me is a Mexican food restaurant on Van Buren. Preferably without prostitutes.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Things I learned from Nicko: if there's anyone who knows about the prevalence of sexism and racism in society, it's white dudes.

    ReplyDelete
  112. "e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said...

    @Visp - Girls hold doors for me all the time, and I don't squack about them degrading me with their doors and holding and politeness. Maybe you weren't brought up right, or are just irrational."

    Probably because they don't go out of their way to show off how chivalrous they are about holding the door for you, then expect you to be all grateful and smiley and simpery and stuff, and then be angry if you don't want to go out with them because of it.

    Chivalry == Extortion. Most women don't want to be in that exchange, but it's chosen for them by the men who participate in it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Probably because they don't go out of their way to show off how chivalrous they are about holding the door for you, then expect you to be all grateful and smiley and simpery and stuff, and then be angry if you don't want to go out with them because of it.

    If men were this distrustful towards women, we all know what the feminist double standard is.

    heh the movement that's supposed to be about equality are a total fail as they have a million sexist double standards

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hey, Nicko, your argument still consists of denying reality and the lived experiences of millions of women.

    Let us know when you stop living in a fantasy world, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hi David
    I think critiquing the MRAs is an interesting project, not least because there are a lot of them and they have a voice in gender politics that is worth listening to. And criticising. But when it comes to language, believe you me, feminists are just as capable as MRAs of using ‘shaming’ language against people who challenge their dogma. On this site itself I have been accused of ‘owning an honorary penis’ of being an ‘Uncle Tom’ and a ‘colluder’ and an ‘asshole’ and a ‘troll’ etc etc.

    If you want to critique gendered/racialised language you are in the right place!

    p.s. I put this comment on your post at Feministe and guess what? They did not publish it!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Oh, Christ, Elly, you can't whine about how you're being oppressed when you're on top of the fucking pyramid.

    David, you know the author of Slut?! I have that book. I love that book. That was absolutely crucial to the formation of what I always call blue-collar feminism, in sharp contrast to whatever's going on at Feministe. I see they're still having a slapfest over the use of genuinely satirical language to, well, satirize the antics of MRAs, who are ever more determined to keep pushing the bar lower and lower. At a certain point, their insistence that oppressing women is exhausting and so why won't those ungrateful bitchez tend their wounds gets to be gobsmacking. "OMG, she hurt me when I shoved her down to her proper position! I'm oppressed!"

    ReplyDelete
  117. ginmar, yeah, I haven't talked to Leora in a long while, but she and I were good friends while she was working on that book, and talked with her a lot about it while she was writing it. You should send her a note! It was a very personal book for her, and I know she'd appreciate it.

    As for the rest of your comment, yeah, more thoughts on that later.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I am not whining ginmar I am pointing out how feminists use language in a similar way to MRAs. I am also interested to hear you assume I am 'on top of the fucking pyramid' when you have no idea if that is true or not.

    ReplyDelete
  119. So I read a bunch of Niko's 'points'. A lot of them make sense to a man and some of them are even worth arguing, but frankly, I don't think these arguments could have come from a worse source or in a less intelligent form. I'm a minority, Indian lived in Australia, victim of racism etc and I can relate, to some degree, to both sides of the argument, but really? If you want to be heard, Niko, you need to be logical and fair. Otherwise you're just a troll. At some point I might even try to write up the parts of your arguments that make sense from a male perspective in a fashion that might even be accessible to the non-bigoted portion of feminists. Yes, I did just say that. SOME feminists I have met are very bigoted and wish that all men should live in cages. I have gathered that for the most part they are not here.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis