Categories
all about the menz antifeminism dawgies FemRAs misandry misogyny MRA YouTube

War Declared on Misandric Pants

Puppy battling the evil of Misandric Pants
Puppy battling the evil of Misandric Pants

One effect of living within the ideological bubble of the Men’s Rights movement is what you might call ideological inflation: MRAs start off believing, for example, that women don’t face discrimination today, in the developed world — an idea that’s wrong enough to start with. But then, surrounded by other delusional MRAs who reinforce their every wrong notion, the denizens of the Men’s Rights bubble come to believe that women haven’t ever been discriminated against anywhere and at any time in the history of the world. (You may recall those evil cavewomen who sat around eating prehistoric bon bons while the men hunted the mammoth to feed them.)

And that leads to things like the following video, in which the FeMRA video maker who calls herself The Wooly Bumblebee declares war on a pair of “Misandric Pants” she bought for her daughter by accident.

Yep, that’s right, she’s furious because one fucking percent of the proceeds made from selling these pants goes to a charity fighting against the very real discrimination and oppression that girls face all over the globe. You know, like being denied educations because they’re girls. Like being forced into child marriages with adult men. Like being forced into prostitution as children. That sort of thing.

Apparently girls don’t suffer from being repeatedly raped as children. But boys are totally oppressed because a tiny portion of the profits from a pair of pants goes to a charity that talks about, and tries to do something about, the shit girls have to endure because they are girls.

457 replies on “War Declared on Misandric Pants”

@ heathenbee

And to tie this in with the other thread (and an issue that’s disturbing to me as I watch it unfold), the Savile investigation in the UK – as much as obviously there’s a lot of blame to be directed at Savile and it’s only fair that his victims now be given an opportunity to seek justice, Savile himself was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the fact that so many institutions – hospitals, child-focused charities, schools, the BBC – colluded with him and enabled him to abuse kids. This is why it bothers me so much to see people (mostly men offended that people are speaking ill of Savile after his death) trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug, because the fact that, say, Barnardos colluded in giving a person known to be dodgy access to kids just because he was famous is about as clear an example of “we are the real monsters” as it gets.

Same thing with the rape case in India. Yes, there are specific elements going on in India that make crimes like that very common there, but all the people trying to say “well it’s just India, stuff like that doesn’t happen here so let’s not talk about it”? Bullshit. No society is exempt from misogyny, so let’s not pat ourselves on the back too much.

you’ll want a swift and ball-winder first

you can use a swift to wind skeins though a niddy-noddy is generally cheaper.

wind your singles into center-pull balls and use those to ply and you don’t have to worry about how many bobbins you have.

I’d like to have more spinning bobbins (as opposed to plying bobbins)

I somehow feel like I’m in a Doctor Seuss book.

Yeah, I want to get into spinning but I worry it will become another obbsessive pastime where I’ll never have enough hours in the day to complete all the projects I want to.

Ideally, if I take up spinning, it will be to spin my own flosses for embroidery and crewel work.

lightcastle: KittySnide – Maison du Futaille (who makes Sortilege) will ship to the US in certain areas. They used to ship to Chicago, for instance, but only by the case for restaurant ordering, so you had to get friends together to buy in bulk. They may have eased up on this since.

I can get it (in New Jersey) over the counter, though only in 375ml bottles.

Pillow in hell: Have a Turkish. The plying issue with spindles isn’t so much getting the yarn off (though a Turkish gives a nice center pull package, not really a ball, more a flattened diamond), as much as it is a case of being able to easily get the yarns onto something.

Since the cop is usually large enough that doubling the mass is impractical, plying onto a spindle requires having larger spindles for plying (and the tension is hard to maintain). That’s why andean, and navajo play are basically a sort of finger crochet.

But a schact, or a louet (I’m partial to schact, though I recommend taking a needle file and adding at least one, [I like two] extra notch to the whorl), of light weight, is the way to go. You don’t want a spindle that was mounted on a dowel, because they warp. You want one which was turned on a lathe.

I don’t think one needs a top/bottom whorl spindle (and the level of debate on that can get into religious territory), just one you like working with. If you want to spin lightweight yarns (e.g. floss) you are better off with a spindle, and a very light (rim-weighted) one, or a chakra, or takhti.

How does one blockquote here?

The bigger problem was the fact that so many institutions – hospitals, child-focused charities, schools, the BBC – colluded with him and enabled him to abuse kids.

This is the case far too often, sadly.

@pecunium – The 375 bottle is the default, although you can get it at 750 now. I’m not surprised it has gradually become more available, it has always been popular. I do like some of their other liqueurs.

So many comments! 😀 First, ithiliana: congratulations on puppies! You are awesome for rescueing them! I concur on the probably-has-some-chi assessment, as they both have the typical protruding forehead and very pronounced stop of chihuahuas. But with much less googly eyes, phew. ^_^

polliwog: my sympathies! I would like more accurate ratings on movies too, kthx. I don’t know what differences there are between ratings in NZ and the US but there is a “sadistic violence” label here which I think can be useful. Personally I am deeply angry there isn’t a “sexual violence” label. They label sex, they label violence – I am quite fine with both these things! Can I watch sexual assault scenes with consequences? Fuck no, and I am learning to believe myself that I shouldn’t try.

I loved Pan’s Labyrinth because of the realistic violence personally. I get so fucking sick of fake violence, that guy was an amazing sadist. I somehow find realistic violence cathartic where sexual violence leaves me a wreck. *shrug*

Kiwi girl

The movie that had the biggest emotion effect on me for it’s realistic portrayal of (domestic) violence was Once Were Warriors. I almost had to walk out, it was such a powerful effect. The sequel is the redemption movie.

TRIGGER WARNING: talking about rape
Yeah, I watched that when I was about 13 or 14. Not cool. I could handle the domestic violence but the child rape was horrific. At the end I couldn’t stop laughing when he got the shit beaten out of him. I was too young. Now I’m older I find the post-drunk fight rape almost more disturbing because I didn’t necessarily identify it when I first watched it.

Once Were Warriors gives me really weird feelings because I’m Maori but appear white, was raised pretty white though some of my extended family isn’t. My heritage is important to me but I can’t see myself getting involved for lots of reasons. I also have a deep abiding hatred of gang members though I can understand fully how you end up in that situation. So yeah, quite intense for me.

Re: Doctor Who episode Blink (to jump back to something WAY earlier in the thread) I don’t get why Moffatt have him saying this stuff about time being so complicated and hard to understand (it’s this timey-whimey wiggly stuff or whatever he says). I mean, that’s the ONE Who episode where time travelling makes SENSE. The time-line is one-dimensional, it is what it is, and there’s backwards causation as well as forwards. Easy-peasy! In all other Who stories there’s “the past” which you sometimes mustn’t “change” by your actions, and then there’s “the present” where you can always do what you want, and “the future”, and seriously, if you can travel back and forth, by what measure do you even decide what counts as what? And it’s completely illogical to talk about changing the past, as if the past was FIRST this way and THEN that way, since that would mean that the past in the past was one way and the past in the present is another way…

This whole mess doesn’t bother me at all btw, I think it’s one the things you just have to accept to watch Doctor Who. But it was funny that the ONE time they make a script where time-travelling is all logical, they point out how weird it is.

@Cassandra, yes, I know what you mean exactly. The Savile case has gotten little coverage here, but my insomnia means I usually listen to the BBC overnight so I’m familiar. But we’ve had the similarly ghastly Sandusky case, with the same shitty under-the-carpet and buck-passing BS, and all the sports glorifying “he’s a hero it would wreck the institution” sickness that can only happen in the US : / And the Waste of Flesh himself is sitting in jail, still claiming to be the innocent victim. I’m glad I didn’t know about reddit and the MRA movement back when it broke (and I happened to be living in central PA at the time, so I was well aware of how idolized both he and the program are, it’s really scary), because I would have been an obsessed ball of internet fury getting nothing done but ranting back…

Oh, Once Were Warriors . That was difficult to watch. I remember telling someone I thought it was worth seeing, but I couldn’t say I *enjoyed* the film.

@Dvärghundspossen – Moffat actually really likes to tie up his casuality in pretty closed knots like that. I do think he felt he had to explain why it isn’t always like that in all the stories, though, hence the Timey Wimey ball bit.

@Kitteh’s Unpaid Help – The River thing is one of those unforunate bits where he got over clever. It is clear they are not in exact reverse order, they are just generally snarled. The only absolute is that his first encounter with her is her last. Everything else is not in reverse order. But he put that line in, and now kind of seems to feel beholden to it for no good reason.

Re: US movie ratings — the weirdest part might be that video games do have labels for sexual violence versus language versus nudity. Got bored waiting for my brother to pick a game, we’ve even got a partial nudity label that implied that full nudity, briefly, was partial nudity. As hilarious as that was, I spawns pleased to see useful ratings of wtf sort of “rated for adults” they meant.

Because yeah, I play BloodRayne for fucks sake, clearly realistic violence doesn’t bother me much. Had to pass on a game of nearly 8 bit simplicity that the not-an-ex recommended because the premise of an abused, kid hiding in the wall (and near as ze or wiki could guess, dying in there) was Too Fucking Much.

Useful ratings are useful, and I clearly need coffee >.<

Re: Blink — “timey whimey wibbley wobbly stuff” is at least a great quote for those times it barely makes sense *cough* Pandorica *cough*

Anti-Moffat fist bump!

…can’t save things cuz he doesn’t have a uterus that’s been used for making babies… What. The. Fuck?!

Still can’t decide if I don’t like 11 or if it’s just Moffat.

What.

Are you guys watching the same show I’m watching?

For what it’s worth, I have actually enjoyed most of the episodes with 11 in them.

I’m a Yank, and I’ve seen more than NuWho. Hell, I was watching Classic Who before it became popular, when the only channel that would run it was PBS. If I could come up with a clever play on “hipster” referencing the show, I would. So there.

Also, it frustrates me sometimes how bad a job movie ratings do at communicating anything meaningful. I feel like almost anyone can viscerally understand the difference between a scene like the one that triggered me so badly and a scene of, like, a B-movie hero chopping off zombie limbs with a chainsaw while spurts of red corn syrup shoot out of the wounds, but both of them will generally simply be listed as being rated R because of violence.

The British Board of Film Classification – the MPAA’s equivalent in the UK – has recently taken to posting very detailed reasons for their ratings on its website, though this postdated the release of Pan’s Labyrinth.

Here, for instance, is their explanation as to why they passed The Dark Knight Rises with a 12A (broadly the equivalent of ‘PG-13’, in that it allows children under twelve to see the film if they’re accompanied by responsible adults).

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a fantasy action film in which Batman returns to Gotham City when it is threatened by a new enemy. The film was classified ’12A’ for moderate violence.

There are a number of scenes of moderate violence and these generally occur during fast-paced fights between characters who are clearly defined as good or bad. Although there are heavy blows and impacts, little is shown in terms of injury detail, with the emphasis firmly placed on the abilities of the characters involved. One sequence sees the sustained beating of one character by another but the scene serves to emphasise the powerful and ruthless nature of the attacker rather than presenting sadism for its own sake. A stabbing carries little visual detail and the focus is on the treachery of the character using the knife rather than on any sense of relish in violence. The Guidelines at ’12A’/’12’ state ‘Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by the context’.

The film also contains a single use of moderate language when a woman is referred to as a ‘dumb bitch’, as well as some milder bad language, including uses of ‘Jesus’, ‘hell’, ‘peeing’, ‘son of a bitch’, ‘balls’ and ‘bastard’. There are also infrequent mild sex references.

With really contentious films, this section can be a fair bit longer.

“@Argenti — ‘I know!'”

I was loving that episode for that, which might make the ending seem all the more stupid. Who wouldn’t love lemonade on tap and the sort of maybe possible but probably not tech he outfitted the house with? Hammocks as the kids’ beds!?

And then it goes all “we need a mother ship!” (And her daughter? Not “done” because motherhood makes a woman a grow up, dontcha know! *eyes roll right out of head*)

The goofy, the humans as the big bad, everything right up to that bullshit…and then they spring all that bull and it’s just “no, no >.< ”

Which isn’t touching how she basically married a “I won’t ever stop following you” stalker.

Which isn’t touching how she basically married a “I won’t ever stop following you” stalker.

Don’t even get me started on that.

On movies: When I grew up, Statens biografbyrå (the governmental bureau of movie theatres, roughly translated) was very strict when it came to violence. Full frontal nudity you could have in children’s movies (which I think makes perfect sense – everyone has genitals, there’s nothing strange about that) but violence was a big no-no. American action movies with Stallone and Scharzenegger were always adults-only. Some American action movies as well as horror movies were completely banned from theatres, which of course created a huge hype around them.

They’ve loosened up since, but I think Sweden is still stricter when it comes to violence than many other countries. Nolan’s Batman movies were adults-only for instance. Although the bureau was more or less forced by angry movie companies and politicians who were pushed by lobbyists from said companies to allow the X-men movies and LOTR from age eleven (and kids from seven in the company of an adult).

I get that it’s problematic to ban movies from theatres from a freedom-of-speech point of view (even if one can still watch them through other channels), and I get that age limits are largely ineffectual anyway. I still sympathise with the basic morals of the movie bureau… Violence is bad, so children shouldn’t watch violent behaviour.

There are also more male feminists with children than MRAs, because feminism is currently an it movement for society.

One of the things to make clear… the MPAA is a non-binding rating, set by a small group of people; drawn from a very limited pool.

If a theater wants, they can ignore the rating, and let anyone in to see the show.

The group which does the rating is all volunteer, selected by a single person/small group, and has to be free to watch movies mid-day, mid-week, for months at a stretch. It is largely made up of suburban women, in their mid-60s; who have the means to have the free time. Those who have the interest tend to be a bit moralising/socially controlling. The selection process further filters for this.

They are anonymous, and unaccountable.

I just listened to a short video from this same person talking about how feminists are misrepresenting the MRA and that is what people are listening to. I got my impression of the MRA/MRM by reading their stuff. Some of it didn’t sound right so I went looking for different opinions. This video blogger says they are about one thing but the articles and especially the comments tell a different story.

So where have I been missing all the nasty stuff about men and the “women are innocent victims” idea that fems have supposedly been pushing?

Has anyone seen ‘This Film is Not Yet Rated’? FASCINATING look at the USA movie ratings process.

I actually tend to ask friends regarding movies. Though I’ve gotten better over the years, I prefer to avoid rapeyness, and a LOT of that passes under the radar. So does a lot of the emotional creepiness that bugs me. Ratings aren’t much help on that end.

Funny thing. My sibling Sneak can’t handle even cheesy unbelievable violence… but zie actually really seems to enjoy really disturbing shit about child abuse. LOVED Coraline, finds ‘the Binding of Isaac’ (a video game) really entrancing. Zie’s such a happy funtime kid, it sometimes surprises me when zie shows an interest in that.

Also, godDAMN Pan’s Labyrinth. Beautiful music, beautiful art, I’m a Doug Jones fan… but it is one of the SADDEST MOVIES to me, beaten only by Grave of the Fireflies thus far. (Since I interpreted the fantasy land to be pure fantasy–yes, funny, considering me.)

“There are also more male feminists with children than MRAs, because feminism is currently an it movement for society.”

Not quite following the point there…

“which I think makes perfect sense – everyone has genitals, there’s nothing strange about that”

Can we teach America that?

Wetherby
The British Board of Film Classification – the MPAA’s equivalent in the UK – has recently taken to posting very detailed reasons for their ratings on its website, though this postdated the release of Pan’s Labyrinth.

I approve! I’d personally like to have a list of specific things that you tick off, from full frontal nudity, to explicitly described rape to almost fatal beating from more than two people. More eloquent than that, but so as to avoid spoilers but make sure that you *know* if something as important but subtle as implied sexual threats are included.

Dvärghundspossen | January 13, 2013 at 3:29 pm
On movies: When I grew up, Statens biografbyrå (the governmental bureau of movie theatres, roughly translated) was very strict when it came to violence. Full frontal nudity you could have in children’s movies (which I think makes perfect sense – everyone has genitals, there’s nothing strange about that) but violence was a big no-no…

I get that it’s problematic to ban movies from theatres from a freedom-of-speech point of view (even if one can still watch them through other channels), and I get that age limits are largely ineffectual anyway. I still sympathise with the basic morals of the movie bureau… Violence is bad, so children shouldn’t watch violent behaviour.

This makes so much sense. NZ isn’t nearly as puritanical as the US but we still are excessively hung up on *gasp* nudity and sex. It’s ridiculous!

Hi again all, sorry sleeping and work intervened. I really really don’t like war movies. As a genre generally I find them violent and, in particular, they tend to have scenes relating to sexual assault and worse. I watch movies for entertainment, to forget reality, and because wars really happen, and people really get hurt and killed, I can’t personally locate entertainment value in that. Apart from Blackadder Goes Forth.

A genre I do really like is Star Trek (not TNG and especially not DS9). One thing that I have always wondered about Star Trek is, is it naval? I get a bit lost with all the American rank terms, but I’m not aware of ensign or admiral being air or army terms. Also applies to Battlestar Galatica.

Did the American Navy win the future and the other services are gone? Or could this be a marines thing (really unsure of marines ranks).

@Hrovitnir: re NZ prudity (is that a word?) we had that nun in the 1970s/early 80s who seemed to be the sole arbiter of what “should” be considered vice. It always made me laugh about how she “forced herself” to look at objectionable material so the rest of us could be saved from it. And there’s a page on her on Wikipedia /faints in shock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Bartlett

The other thing I found really amusing was that, in the late 1980s, it appeared that Wellington had a vice squad that consisted of one double-crewed squad car. Clearly there were only ever vice issues in Wellington for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week. 🙂

@Tina

“I just listened to a short video from this same person talking about how feminists are misrepresenting the MRA and that is what people are listening to.”

Seems like the other way around. A lot of MRAs are always saying that Feminists are constantly working to criminalize heterosexual sex and that they view men as an “enemy” that needs to be defeated.

Utter horseshit.

@Kiwi girl
How can you not like TNG?!?

“Did the American Navy win the future and the other services are gone? Or could this be a marines thing (really unsure of marines ranks).”

I don’t think it’s so much “the Navy won” in the Trek future, Kiwi Girl. It’s more a metaphor (“sea ship” being the closet equivalent for “star ship” and all the exploration/conquest that implies–think both Darwin’s Beagle and Capt. Cook’s career).

Going back a bit, I wish I knew how to spin. I’ve wanted to learn ever since I first read Circle of Magic years ago, and I’ve been knitting for six years now, so this year when the local fiber arts festival rolled around I decided I was learning to spin, damn it. I got my wool, I got my spindle, and then the woman who gave them to me left me completely to my own devices without any real instruction.

SO I ran home to Youtube and after multiple videos and various spinning websites I sort of got it, except the thread I was spinning kept breaking. Then my cats found the wool and I had to hide it after they utterly decimated it…now the whole thing has gone missing after the holidays, so I’m assuming someone found a bag of what looked to be nothing but wool fluff and threw it out, so I don’t even have the spindle anymore.

Pretty much all Sci Fi ever uses nautical terms for space ships, not just for ranks but for the ship itself.

For example in Battlestar Galactica (the sci fi show/film I’ve watched most recently) they talk about Port and Starboard and Forward and Aft and they have Marines on board.

And again in pretty much all Sci Fi they’ll refer to Hulls and Decks and Helms and various other nautical terms. Since sea going vessels are the closest equivalent that we have to space ships both in terms of their construction and of their internal organisation of personnel and command structure it makes perfect sense that the terms would transfer directly across.

In fact, the naval terminology is so embedded in the way people think about space travel due to it’s ubiquitousness in science fiction that if we ever do some day construct space vessels in the science fiction model then I reckon that these terms will be used.

I’m not sure where this habit first appeared in science fiction but my guess would be that it grew from things like Jules Verne. He and other writers were writing about submarines before they wrote about space ships so obviously would use naval terms and then literature featuring space ships was the next step beyond writing about submarines and the terminology carried across.

Lots of people have TNG as their favourite Trek ever. My reasons for preferring DS9 over TNG are
– DS9 have more long storylines (at least after the show had run for a bit).
– DS9 have no characters I’m really annoyed with, unlike TNG. I think Deanna was really hot, but her personality… Her recurring “Captain, I sense deception” when someone is OBVIOUSLY lying through zir teeth, and her whole advisory style which reminds me of annoying school councellours I’ve had.. no. And WESLEY, the horrible little epitome of perfection. Plus constantly sleazily-grinning Will “fucking ’round the galaxy” Riker.
– DS9 varied more in tone, from pretty dark episodes that dealt with terrorism and war crimes to pure comedy episodes. I liked that.
– I’m a fan of the ferengis! It’s a stroke of genius to place a bunch of neo-liberals, sexists and money-grubbers among the enlightened humans from communist-utopia Earth. And I loved Ishka’s storyline where she eventually managed to instigate various feminist and social-democratic reforms on their planet.
– I like the story-line of Sisko, how he was seen as this religious symbol by the Bajorans despite not believing in it himself… and how he gradually began to believe after all. It’s pretty cool too with the predominantly white Bajorans worshipping a black guy… I mean, we’ve seen the opposite a thousand times.
– Gul Dukat is one of the best villains ever!
– The Dominion are a better enemy than the borg. Sorry, the borg are awesome on paper, but as executed they’re pretty lame…
These are the reasons I could think of right now, maybe there are more. DS9 FTW!

“DS9 have no characters I’m really annoyed with, unlike TNG. I think Deanna was really hot, but her personality… Her recurring “Captain, I sense deception” when someone is OBVIOUSLY lying through zir teeth, and her whole advisory style which reminds me of annoying school councellours I’ve had.. no. And WESLEY, the horrible little epitome of perfection. Plus constantly sleazily-grinning Will “fucking ’round the galaxy” Riker.”

I agree with the points about Deanna. I think she was mostly used as a plot device and never had much in the way of personality.

I disagree with Riker though. I liked that he was so full of himself because in real life you’re going to have those people who think they’re the shit because they’re in a position of power. Also because it made Picard look so much more intelligent and capable by comparison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.