Men’s Rights Activist: “If women sucked d*** half as well as they suck at sports there would be no more divorces.”
The anonymous fellow (or fellows) behind the sites, or group, or whatever it is, has apparently decided that the best way to fight the alleged misandry of feminism is with raging misogyny.
I would call it fighting fire with fire, but it’s more like fighting an imaginary campfire with the flaming pits of hell.
The latest post on the Men Against Misandry blog takes on the issue of women athletes, and why they get less attention and money than their male equivalents. Mr. MAM has a fairly simple explanation:
Why are there no truly famous women in sports?
It’s because women suck at sports. Period. We all know there’s only one real professional sports team that anybody actually cares about – the men’s team. Men just let women have their own sports teams to feel better about themselves. That’s just the truth.
I didn’t put that bit in bold. He did. He wanted to make sure we understood just how much he thinks women really suck at sports.
And in case we haven’t gotten the message yet, he continues:
You know that old saying? you throw like a girl!
Well, it’s a saying for a reason. Women just plain suck at sports. If women sucked dick half as well as they suck at sports there would be no more divorces in the great US of A.
Yep, he’s the one that put that last bit in bold, too. Indeed, he was so proud of that last sentence he posted it — just that one sentence — as a separate post on his Facebook page.
It’s all in a day’s work for this noble fighter against misandry.
Thanks to the folks in AgainstMensRights for pointing me to this blog post.
Manosphere blogger: “Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.”
Does anyone read newspaper comics any more? Does anyone even remember reading newspaper comics? One of the worst of the bunch is a mawkish little one-panel strip called “Love is …,” with a simple formula: a little drawing of a plump, happy, naked couple (minus sex organs), with a caption starting off with the words “love is.” The more popular strips were turned into greeting cards. I actually have an oil painting someone made of the Love is couple that I found in a thrift store for $1.47. The caption: “Love is … letting him win once in a while.”
The strip began in 1970, and the creator turned it over to the current writer and artist in 1975. I have no fucking idea how on earth he can come up with a new “love is” caption every day. His life must be some kind of existential hell. He must spend hours just staring out the window looking for inspiration. Love is … a dog taking a shit, no. Love is … a fat guy waiting for a bus … no. Love is … sitting alone in my underwear wondering what has gone wrong with my life.
Anyway, the reactionary Manosphere blogger Dicipres has decided to do a similar thing with the phrase “feminism is.” Only without the little naked couple. Here are some of his captions-without-pictures.
Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.
Feminism is a family which hates itself.
Feminism is a line drawn inside your home between you and your wife.
Feminism is a woman furious over ‘rape culture’ and who masturbates while fantasizing being beaten and raped. …
Feminism is a woman who cannot be loved anymore since she hates the domineering man she lusts and sexually despises the submissive man she likes.
Feminism is alimony and every other weekend
Feminism is a son hating his father
Feminism is equality as the only measure for progress of a society …
Feminism is a demographic annihilation due to low birth rates
Yeah. I don’t think any of those are going to work as greeting cards.
And what do these guys have against women with short hair?
What do women want? According to one of our favorite female feminism-haters, Laura Grace Robins, it’s sort of a a tossup between the vote and designer purses. But that’s not what women really need — which is a husband. Oh, and milk. Can you remember to get milk?
At least that’s what I think she’s saying. See if you can figure it out from this quote from her post “Remove the Needs.” I have taken the liberty of bolding my favorite bits. Anyway, here’s Ms. Robins’ vision of the modern postfeminist woman:
She may have everything she wants, but not everything she needs. She wants independence, the vote, her own income, etc., but she wants all these things like she wants a designer purse. Underneath it all, it is just for show and what she really needs are the basics; like food, shelter, and a husband. She may have fancy clothes and independence, but it is the needs that nourish. She can deny the needs and focus on wants, but a life purely filled of wants is typically shallow and empty. Feminists have been the advertisers that make us buy into wants instead of our needs. If we know what our needs are then we can walk down the aisle of feminism and not be allured by the glossy packaging of independence and income. I’m not here for the “Starbuck Frappuccino”, but for a gallon of milk.
But what if the woman in question is lactose intolerant? IN YOUR FACE, LAURA GRACE!
Also, I’m wondering what exactly a “Starbuck Frappuccino” is. I would love to have a Frappuccino with Starbuck. Either one, actually.
Ms. Robins concludes:
Now most women live hollow lives filled with closets full of shoes and purses, while homes are empty of husbands and children.
I think that, like a lot of the people I write about on this blog, Laura Grace Robins has confused reality with Sex and the City.
The show ended nearly a decade ago! At least get a current TV show to confuse reality with!
Let’s say you wake up one morning and you decide, for some reason, that you’d like to make it your goal for the day to get yourself banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit.
If you’re a feminist, it’s not hard. I managed to get myself banned there some time ago and all I had to do was … well, I’m not exactly sure what it was I did. Actually, I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, Reddit-wise, other than argue with the regulars there. It’s possible I may have engaged in some light sarcasm. So maybe try that.
If, on the other hand, you hate women, all you have to do is … well, again, I’m not sure. Because earlier today, as one friend of Man Boobz pointed out on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit, a dislikeable fellow who calls himself sciencegod posted an elaborate, graphic torture fantasy to the Men’s Rights subreddit. I’m posting it below as a thumbnail; click to see it full size, but TRIGGER WARNING because it’s very graphic.
It got some downvotes, and the mods deleted the comment. But it didn’t occur to any of the mods, evidently, to actually ban this user from the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Because obviously anything he might ever have to say on the subject of Men’s Rights is much more worthwhile than anything I might ever have to say on the subject.
I asked the mods why they felt it necessary to ban me when they wouldn’t ban someone like sciencegod, and here’s the response I got back:
This is pretty much the answer I get whenever I ask them anything. I could ask them if they thought the sky was blue and they’d send me the same response and probably put something in the sidebar saying the sky was red.
Ironically, elsewhere in the Men’s Rights subreddit today I learned this:
Huh. Where on earth might I have gotten the impression that there are MRAs who hate women?
Oops. There’s that sarcasm again. When will I ever learn?
A Voice for Men’s so-called “Honey Badgers” — its little super-team of female MRAs, led by blabby Canadian videoblogger Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan — have a new theory about Anita Sarkeesian. And it’s a doozy.
Sarkeesian, you may recall, is a feminist cultural critic who’s faced pretty much nonstop harassment from misogynistic internet assholes since she launched a project to dissect sexist tropes in video games. AVFM has contributed, in its own special way, to this wave of harassment, with articles describing Sarkeesian as, among other things, a “moneygrubbing liar” and a “queen bee … girl interloper” in the world of video games; AVFM’s Dean Esmay also held her partially responsible, along with an assortment of other internet feminists, for the suicide of one Canadian Men’s Rights Activist.
The principals at AVFM have blamed her for — either inadvertently or deliberately – bringing this harassment on herself by going to 4chan and posting about her project. (As I noted in a previous post, there’s no actual evidence she ever did this.)
The Honey Badgers, for their part, are certain that getting harassed by 4chaners was part of her devious plan all along.
In a teaser for their internet “radio” show tonight, the “Honey Badger” known as TyphonBlue writes:
Like all professional damsels in distress, Anita Sarkeesian had to choose a good dragon. Just the right looming shadow to fall over her delicate and fragile sensibilities; just the right cackling stage-villain to inspire her cries of helpless horror.
She chose 4-chan. An internet forum known for it’s underbelly of foul-tempered and hair-triggered trolls.
Then, after accusing Sarkeesian of inviting countless rape and death threats upon herself (and only a portion of it from 4channers, I should add), the Badgers take their weird conspiracy theory one step further:
But we at Honey Badger Radio have noticed something… odd. The wave of so-called hate that Anita received from her carefully chosen dragon, wasn’t really all that bad.
Yeah. A year and a half (so far) of pretty much unending harassment and baseless criticism, complete with violent threats directed not only at her but at other women who have defended her — that’s nothing.
Compared to 4-chan’s usual scorched earth strategy–raizing [sic] everything to the ground and pissing on the ashes, Anita got a little singed, like she sat too close to a campfire.
So we have to ask… Did 4-chan white knight Anita? I mean, come on. Was that the best 4 chan could do?
Yes, that’s right. The Honey Badgers are accusing those who sent rape and death threats to Anita Sarkeesian … of “white knighting” her.
I can’t even.
One of the issues that many Men’s Rights activists profess to be Very Concerned About is prison rape. This alleged concern translates into essentially zero actual activism beyond the occasional indignant reaction to someone making a terrible rape joke about men in prison. But then they’ll turn around and make similar rape jokes themselves.
That’s right: MRAs don’t only joke about rapes in which women are the victims. Like many Americans, sadly, quite a few MRAs seem to think that rape is an appropriate — and even sort of hilarious — punishment for men they don’t like.
For evidence of this, one needs look no further than a recent discussion on The Spearhead, in which WF Price’s followers fantasize about disgraced “feminist” and confessed almost-murderer Hugo Schwyzer being raped in prison.
Men’s Rights Public Relations: Don’t call all women crazy bitches, even if they totally are, because feminists might catch you.
This quote from the Men’s Rights subreddit was featured on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit a week ago, but I can’t resist reposting it here, since it’s such a marvellous distillation of Men’s Rights LOGICS at work.
That’s right: while we of course agree that women are all crazy bitches, we generally don’t like to say that sort of thing out loud, at least here in this subreddit, because our actual opinions are so foul they discredit us every time we say them out loud in public and the evil feminists cherry-pick our statements and reveal to the world WHAT WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
And jabberwockeysuperfly won himself 60 upvotes for that wondrous bit of SUPER STEM MANLOGICS.
Later in the discussion, our dear old friend Pecanpig clarified that even if there are some women who aren’t crazy bitches, they’re definitely a bunch of bad … oranges?
Orange you a strange one, Pecanpig.
If you’re starting up a political movement and want to get the asses into the seats — and then out into the streets — it’s helpful to have a stirring manifesto.
So some Swedish movie theaters have decided to institute a new rating system to let viewers know whether or not the films they show pass the Bechdel Test — that is, if at any point in the film two female characters have a conversation about something other than a man.
Wait. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TALKING ABOUT KITTENS?
Thanks, AgainstMensRights subreddit!