Men’s Rights Redditor: “By giving women the right to vote without being subject to conscription, feminism has brought on wars, killing, concentration camps, starvations and endless cruelties.”
Evil womens voting for starvations.
So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the regulars are engaging in a bit of self-reflection. Well, that may be a bit of a generous description on my part. They’re discussing the question “Are we fanatics?” Not surprisingly, they conclude that they aren’t.
Yet this is the most upvoted comment in the thread:
Those of you who have studied twentieth century history may have remembered Lady Hitler’s war on the Jews, the Romani people, and homosexuals; the Great Feminist Purges of Lady Stalin; the Cultural Revolution of Lady Mao. (Oh, wait, there actually was a Madame Mao, and she was a pretty evil gal, though she owed her power largely to her husband and was ousted shortly after his death.)
Moving on from all that war and starvation stuff, let’s return to that first sentence, since MRAs are so fond of blaming eeevil feminists for the draft.
The link in that sentence goes to a discussion of an organization called The Order of the White Feather. Take it away, Wikipedia:
In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.
It’s worth pointing out that at the start of WWI, people of all political stripes and in all the countries involved were pretty gung-ho for the war. Even the big socialist parties of the day quickly forgot their pledges of international solidarity in favor of supporting their national war efforts.
So where do the evil feminists come in? Well, a couple of the most famous British suffragettes signed onto the White Feather crusade: Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst. And yes, they supported compulsory national service — though they supported it for both men and women: men would go to war, while women would be required to work in factories.
Of course, the Order of the White Feather didn’t represent all feminists at the time. Indeed, it didn’t even represent all the Pankhursts: Christabel’s sisters Sylvia and Adela were pacifists.
Even aside from all that blather about feminists being responsible for wars and concentration camps, it’s highly misleading to present the story of the Order of the White Feather as “proof” that feminists are warmongering all-male-draft-lovers. As a quick visit to Google will demonstrate, feminism has a long history of antiwar activism, dating back to the 19th century — when feminists first organized Mother’s Day as a protest of war.
But, hey, MRAs, if you want to invent your own mythological version of history, knock yourself out. You only make yourselves look like the fanatics you are.
Thanks to this thread in the AgainstMensRights Subreddit for pointing me to this most edifying discussion.
Posted on June 13, 2013, in a woman is always to blame, dozens of upvotes, evil women, facepalm, grandiosity, imaginary oppression, literal nazis, matriarchy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, playing the victim, reddit, shit that never happened, straw feminists, whaaaaa?, woman's suffrage and tagged antifeminism, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 253 Comments.
@anadiomene122
No one care about your pseudo-science. Women go through menopause for having the audacity to age and therefore displease certain boners, That is one of the highest crimes imaginable. Men stay fertile forever because of science. FACT.
Thats whats so insidious about the ‘mens rights’ movement, that there are of course many issues that specifically affect men, but the mrm are interested in none of them!
Once we finish our history textbook, I think we need to write a science textbook.
Hi manboobz people
Finally back from taking a break. So…hello! 
*goes back to read comments*
*Waves to Marie* missed ya.
@Viscaria
*Waves back*
@Cloudiah
XD holy shit so glad I wasn’t drinking anything XD … I wonder if this would’ve made more sense if I hadn’t been skimming.
::will be back, gonna to go hang out w/ family::
BUT I WILL BE BACK MUCH SOONER THIS TIME, I PROMISES!!!!ELEVEN
Menopause caused by mens completely unalterable attraction to sixteen year olds…sounds legit!/end snark.
Um…50 years of age is the average onset of menopause and well, imma guess that 50 was a good long life for huge segments of the human population for a significant time period. And why is it that baby making is the pre eminent problem to aging? How many people suffer physical impairments or discomfort after years of hard work, stress or whatever? Shouldn’t we really focus on making what is now middle age one where people aren’t suffering damaged backs, arthritis or heart problems?
Nope, definately a womans baby making capacity and her wrinkles and sagginess is what’s really the problem.
@pillowinhell
O_o something tells me I missed a really weird troll.
Marie, as near as I can tell, mens predillection for young mates is a dog whistle for “get a girl just as she hits puberty”. I’m being generous by citing sixteen as the age.
Marcotte really hit the ball out of the park with that one. She’s absolutely right, those “paper abortion” douchebags want the benefits of parenthood without the responsibilities. Otherwise, they should gladly agree to stay away from the mother and child after getting the paper abortion. Instead, they want to disappear when the children are small and need money and care, but then reappear when they grow up. I’ve seen that happen so many times, and it’s so sad.
And you’re right, the comment section is a shitstorm. The pandagon regulars are making good comments, while some whiny MRA’s are there to say how unfair her plan is. Waaaaaahh, child support is slavery! Waaaah, the term deadbeat dad is sexist!
And there is no way in hell those guys would be on board for building a stronger safety net for single mothers and children. They whine “I don’t want my tax money paying for some sluts’ mistakes!” So which option is it, MRA’s? Do you want deadbeat dads to contribute financially for their own children, or do you want to pay higher taxes to ensure that children can have a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs? Because telling children to go without the basic necessities is not an option.
Those “paper abortion” guys make me want to throw up. It does make me realize how lucky I am to have such a great father, though. He always put my brother and my needs first, unlike those selfish pieces of dog poo.
Yeah, the whole ”younger the better’ creep-fest is… well, shades of Tom Martin, Owly, every damn MRA who comes in the door….
(and, Marie! Welcome back!)
And other deep reflections on the universe, by anadiomene.
@chie
>:( Which state? (if you don’t mind saying.)
@pillowinhell
@Howard Bannister
Glad to be back.
@bionicmommy
Land and resources that could be used to make bonbons and scented candles, if we could only coerce men into getting them for us.
@Ostara
I think this argument stems from the claim that women voters “cancel out” men’s votes and/or women are the ones voting for [candidate/party we don't like]. Which still doesn’t explain how women made Lincoln conscript all those soldiers in the Civil War, but I’m sure Mary made him do it.
@Joe
I actually don’t disagree with any of this. But then you veer back into attacking your own straw version of feminism, and I feel a little dirty for having agreed with you about anything.
@BritterSweet I know you were doing an MRA voice for your Little Bighorn bit, but using slurs ironically is still using slurs (or so I’ve heard from the PoC who’ve talked to me about it). Would you mind not using that “I” word in the future?
@Joe again
We do it here, all the time. It’s like you don’t even go here.
Thanks for posting this, David.
Well, to be fair, he doesn’t come here to read.
Actual pix of Lady Hitler, Lady Stalin, etc.
There’s… a lot of panty shots in MRAhistory books.
http://tinyurl.com/cpjbu68
The Viking raids according to MRA’s
In the 800′s, life in jolly old England was great for men. The women were submissive, they were good cooks, and they understood that men and women had complimentary roles. But all good things must come to an end, and for them, it ended when ship loads of alpha assholes from Scandinavia arrived.
The English women swooned for the Vikings, because they looked like Brad Pitt. The women jumped on the Viking cock carousel immediately, and bragged, “Look at us, sleeping with these alphas! From now, we will friendzone all English men. Grrrrl power!” Then they got on the Viking ships, and said “Take us to Denmark! Man up and marry us, because we want babies!” But Vikings were alphas, and they would not man up and marry used up sluts in their 30′s.
The women ran back to the English men. “Why can’t I find nice guys like you?!” they cried. But the English men had wizened up and read The Spearhead, so they laughed at those women and said “I hope you enjoy being ALONE WITH YOUR CATS!” The Vikings went on to start up an NFL franchise in Minneapolis.
Greatest typo ever. “Bitter old men, mad that they can’t force pretty, young women to be attracted to them” sums up so, so, sooo many MRA rants
Ha ha ha, oops! Well, my typo makes it more authentic anyway.
That is the greatest typo ever!
I’m totally going to turn these histories into a blog post, or maybe a whole series of blog posts.
So… I think I’m done with looking for sparks of rationality in the MRM. Seriously, allowing women to vote and not forcing them into the military causes wars?
News flash, MRAs, the UK doesn’t force anybody into the military, not even mens! And yet, the public over here are generally not in favour of wars, not even the womens!!
Still, I’m happy to see girlwriteswhat in that thread. For a while I was under the impression that she was a rational person with some questionable views, but, no. Allowing the vote while not forcing military service is a moral hazard, a huge one no less. So I’m done with giving any of them the benefit of the doubt.
Dear MRAs,
Learn to rational.
Sincerely,
Me.
You know, I tried to think of a ‘legit’ variation on the argument for paper abortion. Instead of comparing it to abortion, I tried to compare it to safe-haven laws. But even then, the comparison fails because of how things play out-a woman is only ‘privileged’ in being able to abandon an infant at a safe haven if the bio-father is already out of the picture. If he’s aware of the kid, then he can either agree to the abandonment, or he can take custody and demand support payments from the mother, just as she could have demanded support payments from him.
So, yeah, still implodes, even after being a ‘better’ argument than the one about abortion.
American History
Queen Isabella of Spain told Cristopher Columbus to go to India to get her perfumes and dresses. She told him to go west because women are dumb and they don’t know geography. But even though Cristopher was abeta mangina willing to take orders from a woman, he was still a man and therefore stronger and smarter than women and so he found America.
Then, the PGTOWs (Puritans Going Their Own Way) decided to go to America to get away from the misandrist European women and teach them a lesson (Europe become dominated by feminist misandrists and that’s why America is so much better than Europe).
Later, the British women, angry that the PGTOWs had managed to evade their sexual power, made all the manginas around get guns and go to America to get revenge. They made them all wear red coats because they hate all men and wanted them to get shot at.
Of course George Washington defeated all the british manginas and everything was great until the feMRAs that had come with the PGTOWs screwed everything up, like women do, and then eventually they got the vote and now white straight men are persecuted in America.
PGTOW
Love it!
Fun facts : In the twenties, France almost granted voting rights to women and finally didn’t because of the opposition of senators of a leftist party (Parti radical) when, in the meantime, the Pope Benedict XV was openly supporting women’s suffrage.
Many leftists were afraid that women’s suffrage would renew the power of the church and that’s exactly what the Pope was aiming by supporting women’s voting rights.
When France finally granted voting rights to women in 1944, the cataclysm so many progressive men have feared for so long didn’t happen, the church didn’t regain the place it had in the French society before the revolution, it’s just that the communist party didn’t have the power it could have had if women weren’t allowed to vote. It’s finally what the influence of women’s suffrage had been during the 20th century, a barrier to communism, because women will always vote for security and stability and never for the revolution. Since 1944, every kind of political extremism has slowly disappeared, there is not anymore such thing as far right (they now advocate for securitarian hedonism : put a cop everywhere to protect the “right” to eat sausages and drink wine in some lounge club peacefully, i.e protected from the Muslims), the far left is now a bunch of early retired civil servants who fight for the small privileges the state has always given to public servants since WWII and, from time to time, organize a barbecue party to advocate for the regularization of illegal immigrants. Women’s suffrage killed political extremism, killed the violence, the meaning and the fun in politics.
Some Men wanted to make the revolution by fighting for women’s voting rights, women transformed society into an immense retirement home. Morality : women are always too boringly conservative, they’ll always spoil all the fun at some point, that’s why men tried to keep them in the kitchen : to prevent women from transforming the world into a woman’s kitchen.
I’m still under moderation because of the Femen video? Lol, you’re such puritans.
Yawn.
Hi Marie!
Brz, I dare you to make less sense.
Ah, but Brz’s hang-ups remain intact.
Brz, was that why I had you on moderation? I’m pretty sure you were also being an enormous asshole. You’re off, for now.
Brz is ALWAYS being an enormous asshole. FauxFrench variety, of course.
Oh wow Brz, I didn’t think you had it in you. That MRA faux-history is really good, nobody could really believe that unless their heads were firmly planted up their own asses.
Oh, right…
@David Futrelle
Yes, it was because I posted a video where one can see some Femen’s tits (and, incidentally, hear them shouting slogans)
http://manboobz.com/wtf-is-a-mgtow-a-glossary/comment-page-13/#comment-310295
I don’t think that I was an enormous asshole at this moment, or maybe I was, I still don’t understand clearly your definition of what constitutes assholery and what’s the difference between casual, benign assholery and enormous assholery.
BRZ, interesting perspective. I’m a man, but even if your theory about women being more moderate is correct, I would say this is a good thing and it’s actually a good reason why women should be able to vote. After all, wars are generally caused by lack of moderation. So do you want peace or not?
I am unsurprised. If you were cognizant of how enormous an asshole you are, you would spend the next five or six days crouched in a corner, rocking.
I think I’ve heard something of a “grandmother theory” for menopause; that women would have more reproductive success by helping care for their grandchildren instead of going through more risky pregnancies.
Hi Kittehs!
brz related, but should I even be bothering to read his comments? They all seem the same and he’s really boring.
Wow, my vow not to read didn’t last long as I saw this:
Shorter brz: What’s the maximum amount of asshole I can be and get away with?
I’ve heard similar ideas about the “grandmother theory” as well. Women developed the menopause because older women are useful to have around as extra childcare and also as midwives/nurses/healers and also maintain and pass on knowledge about these things. They developed the menopause so they would stop having babies and be able to focus on these tasks.
But older men aren’t as useful for these purposes and tended to die earlier so there was no need a develop an equivalent to the menopause.
But like all speculation and theories about humanities ancient past we simply don’t know, so we can develop hypotheses but we will never know if they are actually true.
“But older men aren’t as useful for these purposes and tended to die earlier so there was no need a develop an equivalent to the menopause”
Or maybe they were useful, but didn’t take health risks by being fertile.
Here’s my theory for why menopause exists:
The laws of physics are such that cells can’t divide without error infinitely (there’s a pretty consistent error rate when it comes to genetic mutation in human cells). The longer a cell line exists, the more likely it is to have accumulated errors in its genome. Over time, this results in errors great enough that tissues and organs stop functioning correctly. Then eventually this breakdown becomes significant enough that we die.
There need not be any “evolutionary” explanation for death. Our bodies breakdown and die because the laws of physics mandate it, not because there’s some kind of evolutionary imperative. Menopause is just the pre-death shutdown of an organ system that requires a whole lot of energy to function and a whole lot of cooperation with the endocrine system to run properly. Doesn’t surprise me at all that something as complex as the reproductive system would be one of the first to cave under the weight of years of mutation and environmental stresses on the cellular level.
This is a huuuuge problem with the popularization of the “adaptationist” view of evolution, as espoused by Dawkins, Dennett (at times), and that whole group, at times very sloppily. (The guy from Pharyngula is a lot more careful about making hand wavey evolutionary claims, probably because he’s an evo devo expert…) Not everything that happens to humans is the direct cause of an “adaptation”… Evolutionary psychology, which is neither, works from the basic premise that *everything* humans think, feel, do, can all be directly explained by proximal causes and “adaptations” left over from the earliest ancestral environment. It’s inconceivable to me that a working molecular biologist would find this assumption unproblematic, but unfortunately, there are many quacks out there… and now many armchair quacks who’ve taken up their cause…
@anadiomene
That’s a nice conjecture, but the fact is that we don’t know exactly what causes aging and death. There’s no particular reason that a cell line can’t divide indefinitely. Single celled eukaryotes have been doing it for nigh on a billion years. There are even metazoans which don’t appear to age.
Menopause is also probably not proximally caused by “years of mutation and environmental stresses on the cellular level”. Nor is the reproductive system particularly costly in humans. (If you were talking about Daphnia, I could see your point.) It seems that the leading hypothesis is that human females simply run out of oocytes.
There’s no selective pressure for immortality and the way human oogenesis works constrains our ability to be indefinitely fertile.
@God’s Fool
Ah, no! I don’t want peace! I’m totally pro-negativity, like Camille Paglia :
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/camille_paglia.htm
The problem with peace lovers is that there’s always a tentative of pacification at the end, there isn’t people more peace loving as women, therefore, men must start confronting women, something they’ve never done, something they tried to avoid by confining women to place where mothers, wifes and grandmothers always have the last word but only in this places. It’s the great challenge of women’s suffrage : the world is now threatened by a herd of women who is perpetually plotting to coerce everybody to peace, a threat in front of which men are disarmed because there isn’t something more unnatural for men than confronting women, than having a argument with women.
We should teach men how to not let things go.