Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women FemRAs hypocrisy I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA MRA paradox patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:

Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?

As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.

I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.

This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.

Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.

But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:

Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.

Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.

For example, you can just call them sluts:

Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.

You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …

Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.

Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,

I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.

Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.

Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?

Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!

I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!

NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.

This post contained some

367 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

Cooter Bee sounds… angry.

Once again, I really really want to host a Gender Turing test with these guys. Chat-by-text partner, as long a discussion as you need, any topics on the table (except, like, “how would you describe your gender?”), guess the gender of your partner.

How hard can it be to tell a human from a flatworm, right? How hard can it be to tell fuckin’ Socrates from a hysterical Carrie Bradshaw?

I kinda want to make this happen.

abeegoesbuzz
abeegoesbuzz
10 years ago

WHERE do MRAs fight with intellect? Show me the link where some MRA said something intellectual, PLEASE. I’m begging. Like,

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them.

OH what I’d give for an MRA who could cite to a study that was not extracted from his ass! Or who understood what a fallacy was and didn’t base every single argument around them. Or who was more interested in the truth than in hearing himself repeat endless talking points. Jesus h. pants, MRAs: Get your shit together. You’re a mess.

Also, I think I’ve said this before, but Cooter Bee (no relation)? You give Bees a bad name.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
10 years ago

“indignation, outrage and gut level distaste”

This pretty much describes 99% of what passes for discourse in MRA circles. Really, if every article just read “feminists and/or women are icky and gross and for some inexplicable reason they won’t admit it and that pisses me off”.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
10 years ago

continues because I hit post too soon…

Really, if every article just read “feminists and/or women are icky and gross and for some inexplicable reason they won’t admit it and that pisses me off” that would basically sum up their worldview. There does not appear to be much logic involved at all, it’s all about the basic emotional responses to things they don’t like.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Ninja’d by Bee, but I too would love an MRA who could site something other than his feelings, all of which boil down to “bitches ain’t shit.”

cloudiah
10 years ago

And AVfM, they’re supposed to be the “good” MRAs, right? [/sarcasm] I am actually glad when they admit that the contempt they feel is for all women, even if they only truly hate feminists. It just brings a certain honesty to the discussion that is sometimes missing.

Oh hey, Antz is there:

I agree that we should fight to win, but I do not share your definition of “win”.
For me, “win” mean freedom for men.
If women return to their silver cage, how will men be liberated from our golden yoke?
[snip]
The world will have to learn to live without male sweat, male tears, and male blood.

Good thing I have built up a large stockpile of male sweat, male tears, and male blood. (Do NOT ask how I got them.)
Antz’ friend typhonblue replies,

(BTW, you should patent that term, ‘golden yoke’, ‘golden yoking’, ‘doning the golden yoke’, ‘it’s a yoke, disguised as privilege with gold’,etc.)

I looked that term up in Urban Dictionary, sure there would be some suitably rude definition for “golden yoking.” Nope.

Shall we hold a competition to come up with one?

cloudiah
10 years ago

p.s. “Mounting the throne of Peter” also seems ripe for a rude definition. 🙂

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
10 years ago

From the first seven minutes or so of the podcast, I gather that Feminism is a government plot to enslave us all by reducing the value of labor relative to the State’s power and set men and women against each other because women naturally complement men as men’s social inferiors (b/c women like to mate with superior men, because hominid evolution), a natural order which is being upset by affirmative action and VAWA for the State’s ends. How do we know this? Well, you see, Gloria Steinem founded Ms. Magazine while she was married to Henry Kissinger and Second Wave feminism was funded by the government and haven’t you noticed incomes have declined ever since feminism? PS the same governments that fund VAWA and affirmative action also wiretap whole countries and “bomb foreign brown people.”

Ergo wake up sheeple.

That was about all I could stand, and I’ve listened to creationist podcasts for amusement. Good lord, there aren’t enough desks in the world.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Knowing AntZ, he was talking about eggs and simply misspelled “yolk.”

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
10 years ago

Can “throne” just mean “penis”? It would make as much sense as anything else in the space you’re quoting from.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
10 years ago

I suppose it doesn’t need to be said to this crowd, but I really do love the delectable irony in the fact that people who arrogate rationality to their gender, and who insist that historically marginalized people really actually like being on the bottom end of social stratification, also call themselves a human rights movement.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It’s also rich in vitamin C.

cloudiah
10 years ago

Well, isn’t peter also slang for a penis? Should their penises have thrones? Or golden yokes? Or (props to hellkell) golden yolks? Or silver cages? So many questions…

speedlines
speedlines
10 years ago

Well, you see, Gloria Steinem founded Ms. Magazine while she was married to Henry Kissinger

Sounds like the worst fanfic ever.

abeegoesbuzz
abeegoesbuzz
10 years ago

I looked that term up in Urban Dictionary, sure there would be some suitably rude definition for “golden yoking.” Nope.

TyphonBlue posted a little allegory for children recently, about a workhorse that kept building things to help out his princess-owner because she had given him a beautiful pearl and gold bridle. Then greedy bitch got jealous (like ya do) of all the attention Mr. Horsey was getting, and she decided to take the bridle back for herself. WHOOOOPS! It was only made of old leather and rust, and anyway Mr. Horsey trampled it in his rush to escape the barn. JUST LIKE MEN ARE ESCAPING UM MARRIAGE AND STUFF.

I dunno if that has anything to do with the golden yoke. Mebbe.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
10 years ago

Golden yoke = gold-plated cock ring with a string attached.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Didn’t Typhonblue also write one about an ungrateful princess and a golden cage or some such nonsense?

Cassandra, I was going to say golden yoke and throne of Peter sound like toys in the worst. dungeon. EVER.

cloudiah
10 years ago

I suddenly find this image making me blush. And OMG, there is (SNSFW)a golden yoke!

Off to dinner, now with some new funny stories to tell my friends! 🙂

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
10 years ago

I may be misremembering what he said about Steinem and Kissinger. I am definitely not re-listening to find out, though. I see from this site that she apparently dated Kissinger:

http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm

Lauren
10 years ago

Wow.

WOW.

COOTER BEE?

Maya Lovelace
Maya Lovelace
10 years ago

Patch Adams: sycophant with a red clown nose

Patch Adams is a doctor who loves to help his fellow man. But wait, it appears he hates his fellow man, but loves his fellow woman. Gosh, it’s all confusing, all this loving hate. JTO sorts it out.

Demonizing Patch Adams? That’s a new low.

A derail, but I had to mention this.

P.S. Way to go manosphere. Comparing people to flat worms is totally what human rights movements do.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

“Endless Citations” is kind of true, for a certain value of citation. They’re really good at hauling up the few statistics that kind of sort of support their position, they just forget about, you know, EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes, it’s all well and good that women disproportionately survived on the Titanic, that men make up a higher proportion of successful suicides in the USA, and that men in the USA make up the majority of homeless single people, but that’s ignoring taht women disproportionately died in disasters at sea, in toto, that women attempt suicide far more often and merely choose less lethal methods on average, and that homeless statistics are a fucking mess for 200 different reasons, along with countless other facts. But pretending they’re good at ‘rational argument’…

http://www.endlessvideo.com/watch?v=gFmGNqji4u0&start=0m10s&end=0m12s

TyphonBlue posted a little allegory for children recently, about a workhorse

Because she doesn’t have any facts that any of this is true, she resorts to allegory. Amuse XD

Magnesium
Magnesium
10 years ago

The MRA definition of Logic:
Logic [loj-ik] (noun)
1. Whatever my opinion happens to be. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are being illogical.

indifferentsky
10 years ago

Another fatiguing pile of shit. I’m exhausted.
This post invokes just two words today.

Religious Nuts.

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

My two words are:

Asshole atheists who think everything’s about their pet cause even though misogyny is actually well established a a secular phenomenon and there’s a shitload of sexist atheists out there and condescending, “lol invisible sky man” attacks on religion have spectacularly failed to produce major social progress lately thanks.

Aw darn, that was a few too many words.

1 2 3 15
%d bloggers like this: