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.
![jabberwockysuperfly 60 points 7 days ago (93|33) We appreciate your solidarity. However, please refrain from making statements like "women are all crazy bitches" regardless of how true it might be; feminists mine this subreddit in the hope of finding this kind of statement so they can use it to discredit this movement. permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]lolyesok [S] 30 points 7 days ago (33|3) Woops, I'll edit that out when I get to a computer. permalink source save parent give gold [–]theskepticalidealist 15 points 6 days ago (19|4) They'll quote that too.](../../../../2013/11/crazybitches_w-604.png)
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?
![dejour 13 points 7 days ago (29|16) It's not true though that all women are crazy bitches. So she shouldn't be saying that. For me the point though is that some women are and the legal system and public shouldn't assume that women=good, man=bad. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]Pecanpig 5 points 6 days ago (8|3) Depends on individual circumstances, if you eat 10 oranges and they are all bad then for all intents and purposes oranges are bad, that can be true despite contradicting your own experiences with oranges or whatever.](../../../../2013/11/badoranges_w-604.png)
Orange you a strange one, Pecanpig.
Posted on November 12, 2013, in antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, evil women, internal debate, ladies against women, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, NAWALT, reddit and tagged anti-feminism, antifeminism, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 246 Comments.
Is the constant repetition of the word “feminine” meant to be marketing? Because I keep wanting to smack her over the head with a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
Twinky gay gays (sans ‘stache): PURTY.
Industry-generated unrealistic piston boinking of any kind: BORING. And HORRID. Because rapey.
Why yes, I *am* a visual creature. I’m also a very picky one.
CassandraSays - I think the author needed to remind/convince zieself that zie’s writing about feeemale femininity. Hence the constant references.
I’ve been trying to think of anything that would fit the criteria that kittehs laid out and I keep running into the stache as the problem. Sans stache, tons of imagery featuring skinny pretty boys, but with stache I’m drawing a blank.
(And since skinny, pretty, and a bit feminine is my preference too it’s not like I don’t know where to look.)
@ Alice
The constant “masculine man” stuff doesn’t read well either. I would get it if she was trying to make a distinction between men who’re masculine and men who’re not particularly so, but she doesn’t seem to even be aware that women who might prefer men who’re not all that macho are a thing that exists.
“If it wasn’t for the mustache thing that wouldn’t be all that hard to find, actually.”
I don’t watch porn and I can think of a couple…wait, it’s movember. My ex-FWB currently fits that.
Dear blockquote monster - please release Kittehs from your diabolical clutches.
AAKKKK
I’m covered in blockquote monster spit
Okay, try this again, so people other than blockquote monsters can read it:
HELL YEAH. That “women aren’t visual” thing irks me no end.
::snickers again::
Ditto. Love that book.
NO NO must have moustache! (Small, neat, not like he’s trying to swallow a porcupine.)
Or that there are women actively turned off by macho men.
I just googled “pretty man long hair moustache” and while a few of the results were, yeah, okay, I wouldn’t want to see any of them minus clothes, let along getting all hot’n'heavy with anyone.
I think I’m going to have to stick to photoshopping pics, and goodness knows that’s challenging enough.
Duty calls: we have telly to watch, which means I have to provide a lap for Fribs. Niters, all!
I’m pretty sure it’s an SEO trick. She wants to pop up high (and so be seen as, “authoritative”) so people will plunk down $60US for her e-books.
If it is, she’a wrong. Newer algorithms account for that sort of word vomit. Now, I’m no SEO expert, but it is what I’ve been working on for the Borg so I’m inclined to guess my research is newer than hers!
$60 for an e-book on how to be a walking relic of the past? No thanks, I can pick up a dozen old copies of <emThe Total Woman (and other shit like it) for $1/lb.
Ecch, Italic Monster, do YOU need a burnt offering too? Here, have my ass.
On a forum I used to go to, the same types of questions would come up with discouraging frequency about breasts; someone once posted a link similar in purpose to the labia library (I haven’t actually looked at the latter, yet) but with a gallery of a variety of women’s breasts.
And I was like: Neat! A site to assure them that nothing is wrong! People can only benefit from seeing this site!
Cue the first response: “I can’t help but think this site wants me to feel guilty for liking to look at breasts.” And I despaired.
gelar, that’s … weird, and sad. Was that person feeling bad about even being curious about other people’s bodies?
Probably a whine about the site having a disclaimer that it’s not intended as porn?
I hope this sentence makes sense: If I remember correctly (and there’s a very good chance I don’t) it was more like the commenter felt guilty being confronted with just how prevalent that level of insecurity was (ex.: that people could honestly think they were hideous if one breast was larger than the other) when they liked to look at what everyone was judging themselves against.
Gelar, I can’t stand that argument. When people whine about their desires being insulted by different bodies, they’re missing the point. It’s like they think that the only reason to show a woman’s body is to please men, so when a woman doesn’t do that job and doesn’t think that it’s her job in the first place, it’s an insult to male sexuality.
Wah, the fact that I objectify women makes them feel bad, which makes me feel bad, so they should stop talking about how bad they feel because my feelings are more important.
That’s actually the only reason I remember the thread at all, that the point of such a site was so spectacularly missed.
Though since then, I’ve never given much thought to whether there were other sites like it, but it’s reassuring to know there are!
Boob-gawker shaming is MISANDRY!!!
Thing is, I like looking at breasts too, but I can still tell the difference between situations where boobs are being presented for me to look at in a sexual way and a situation where boobs are just, you know, a thing that exists. When dudes start waaah-ing about how guilty women are making them feel by not wanting to present their boobs in a sexual way 24/7 I just want to tell them to grow up. If a person has guilt about their own sexual feelings that’s their shit to deal with, and limiting one’s expressions of appreciation for someone else’s appearance to those situations where they will be welcomed is just good manners.
Oh, wow, I had a massive brain fart over that comment! I thought it was a woman feeling bad ‘cos she was enjoying looking at the pics.
So, just another man whining. If he likes breasts, FINE, just don’t treat women as nothing but breast-and-vagina support systems, or like we’re failures if we don’t look like porn stars. Oh and BTW don’t keep looking at our breasts, especially when you’re talking to us, mkay?
“women aren’t visual”
The fact that women don’t enjoy looking at stuff that doesn’t cater to their visual tastes is proof that they don’t enjoy looking at ANYTHING. QED.
…
Except kittens!
vaiyt - MEN LOGIC! QED. *nod*
Also, wtf happened with the blockquote monster in kitteh’s comment? I thought you guys were practicing the alphabet for a second.
auggziliary - Blockquote monster went on an acid trip. *nod*
LOL acid trip is right. I’ve no idea how that happened!
That’s what I thought, too. Why would a guy who likes looking at breasts feel bad because of a site with pictures of breasts?
Of course we’re not visual creatures, that’s why Kittehs’ encounter with Stoned Blockquote Monster didn’t make any of our eyes hurt. Amirite? MISANDRY!
Stoned Blockquote Monster is my band name.
I’m gonna call mine Ms. Andry and Her Evul Feminazis.
Women aren’t visual. Which is why the comments at the romance book review site that posted the http://deshommesetdeschatons.tumblr.com/ wasn’t filled with comments like, “It’s a cat tumblr? I didn’t see any cats.” And why none of the male-attracted women on this board browsed the whole damn thing, and not (just) for the kitties.
I think I found a pic I used for Mr Kittehs sitting in the tub on that tumblr.
(It goes without saying that my version’s a great improvement on the original.)