Men’s Rights Posters Now Officially Sillier Than Their Parodies
It’s hard to parody Men’s Rights Activists, because no matter how ridiculous your parody is, there’s a good chance that some MRA out there has already said, or written, or sung, something even more ridiculous already.
Not that long ago, a bunch of Man Boobz regulars set out to parody the bizarre, and often inadvertently surrealistic, posters that have been popping up on MRA sites like A Voice for Men and Artistry Against Misandry. It was hard, but I think some of us managed to come up with posters that were even uglier and less coherent than the originals. I especially liked these two, from (respectively) Cliff Pervocracy and Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III.
But alas, we have been outmaneuvered by the all-too-serious poster-makers on A Voice for Men, who have managed to produce posters that make even less sense than our silliest parodies. Take a look at this one, which I believe is the work of an Australian MRA by the name of Roger O. Thornhill.
I mean, really. How can we compete with that?
This is an actual poster that some MRAs think will actually win people over to their cause. How, I’m not exactly sure. What exactly about a cupcake with a tiara is supposed to scream “men’s rights” to random pedestrians who might catch a glimpse of this poster wheatpasted to a hoarding while on their way to work?
For more of Roger’s fine work, see here and here.
Man Boobzers, can you do better?
Or, if you’re not up to that Herculean task, could you at least try to explain just what exactly you think Mr. Thornhill was trying to say with that poster of his?
EDITED TO ADD: I have been asked to contribute a poster myself. So here one is. You can find many more hilarious and incredibly ugly posters at ArtistryForFeminismAndKittens and, of course, in the comments below!
Posted on November 27, 2012, in misogyny, MRA, men who should not ever be with women ever, antifeminism, cupcake, a voice for men, artistry, the poster revolution has begun and tagged men's rights, a voice for men, misogyny, MRA, anti-feminism. Bookmark the permalink. 713 Comments.
Joe, I suggest you google “differently abled”. Then you can find out what actual disabled people think about the term. Protip: not generally positive. It’s an infantilizing piece of bullshit primarily designed to make able-bodied, neurotypical people feel better.
This is the fifth result and the first one written by a disabled person.
Ahoy - Says? Piece of advice - just a titch - the word “mansplain” is meaningness. It is a misandrist term invented by disgusting, vile, internet feminist assholes; it is a meaningless shaming term with no purpose other than to shame and silence male voices that the vile disgusting evil, feminists deem unworthy. I’d avoid the term, unless you want to participate in vacuous, misandrist contentless invective.
Vile bigots.
And this, right here, is why the “take a shot every time Steele says ‘vile’ game will kill you.”
(It’s also why I’m increasingly convinced that Steele is a very, very dedicated Poe. Things like using “disgusting, vile” and “vile, disgusting” in the same sentence, writing clauses so hilariously redundant as “shaming term with no purpose other than to shame,” and doing all of this in a comment ostensibly complaining about other people’s “contentless invective” - it’s too much. It CANNOT be real.)
I really think we should put him in moderation and only let through comments that don’t use the word “vile.”
The word doesn’t bother me; I just think it would be funny.
I just put the word “vile” in the moderation filter. Let’s see what happens.
Actually the word “mansplain” is overwhelmingly recognized in social justice circles, and it is relatively well understood within those circles to mean “a dude explaining something to a woman because he assumes she doesn’t know it”. It’s not inherent to you being a man, it’s just something dudes do sometimes.
While it was invented by feminists, it really doesn’t carry any moral value assignment. If someone says you’re mansplaining they mean you’re annoying them. That’s it. There’s no shame in that, unless annoying people makes you ashamed.
It’s also not about silencing you, but asking you to engage in active listening when you’re a part of a conversation instead of just talking AT people.
TL;DR: If a woman says you’re mansplaining, it means she’s on the ball when you think she’s not.
I have been inspired today http://i.imgur.com/cqAQX.jpg
and another http://i.imgur.com/WIOB4.jpg
Yay! These will all be memorialized on my blog when I have the time, I promise. I like having one place I can go to see them all. XD
Joe… if this is where you refine your ideas… the MRM is in need of lots of work.
As to the issue of diapers/killing people, they aren’t directly related. I don’t think killing people elevates my moral standing.
What I said was I don’t have a problem with killing people, per se. As such saying I am being a hypocrite fails.
Also, you might have noticed that, before your attempt to take me to school, I acknowledged the presence of different types of FGM. I also didn’t say I was in favor of male circumcision. I said the effect of the two was different; and that there are cases in which male circumcision goes wrong doesn’t change that.
But if you want to pretend that I was all gung-ho rah-rah-rah for it, go to town. It doesn’t speak well for your ability to actually refine an argument though, any more than this nonsense:
By the way – it is nonsense to argue that giving the man a CHOICE, somehow forces the woman to care for the child.
NO! it doesn’t! – because if she chooses to give birth to the child she can give it up to state care / fostering / adoption. Another CHOICE that men do not have unless the mother so chooses FIRST.
So her choice is.. abort, give up to adoption, pay for all by; herself.
His choice… walk away scot-free if he feels like it.
And you think he ought to be able to pretend, at some future time, that he didn’t abandon the child.
Or this bit of redefining the argument (that is, you lied about the position) @Cloudiah – re. your argument about what is done with foreskins post excsion. It’s utterly irrelevant. Another red herring. You don’t somehow whitewash an evil deed by doing good deeds with the profits.
That’s not what was said. Cloudiah didn’t justify circumcision by saying, “oh, it’s ok because it was used to help others”. She said the claim that circumcision was being driven by a desire to make face cream was bullshit; because it wasn’t the reason, it was the side effect. Medical waste was recycled, rather than just destroyed.
Honesty doesn’t seem to be much more prevalent with you than reasoned argument.
4) Your argument boils down to two defining points for “personhood”:
Actually, no. Mine has to do with the law. A fetus isn’t a person. As such it has no rights. Even if it were a person, it’s rights don’t trump anyone else’s.
It’s also funny that you rail against us having this belief, when it’s exactly the justification you give for being pro-choice. Double standard much?
The problem for you (and where your logical argument fails) is that once a child is born, it becomes a person, and you would be willing to make it suffer, so that you exercise your fiscal autonomy (not bodily). That’s the difference.
And you would impinge on the woman’s autonomy to do it.
I at least acknowledge that may mean (especially late term) abortions are actually killing unborn babies.
But when I say that killing people is something I am (with caveats) fine with, and that one of those caveats is if a fetus is a sentient; even sapient, being, you get all sniffy that it means I am somehow less refined, or socially developed than you are. Double standards are your stock in trade; you just call them “choice” and pretend things which aren’t the same are actually equivalent.
Again, that refinement of argument you think you are making; it’s more polishing of rhetoric to take back to the Manosphere, where you can pretend a carefully polished turd is a valuable gem.
you sure wouldn’t guess this post was about posters from the comments here
Actually, if you 1: read the post, you would, and 2: if you read the comments from the beginning you would.
In other words, lazy fools might not be able to figure it out. The rest of the world does just fine.
Not a poster but a rendering of AVFM with added content to boost views, based on the hoseporn post and thread.
http://i.imgur.com/i3JAr.png