Full STEM ahead with some TOTALLY LOGICAL Men’s RIghts memes

You may soon be asking this question yourself
You may soon be asking this question yourself

We’re still running a meme surplus in the We Hunted the Mammoth offices, so I’m going to drop a few more on you today. Enjoy the FLAWLESS STEM LOGIC and KEEN GRASP OF REALITY displayed in the following memes, gathered from A Voice for Men’s Facebook page. I’ve lightly censored a couple of them.

Err, what? You do realize that ... oh never mind.


Ha Ha! Girls are stupid amirite fellas high five!
Ha Ha! Girls are stupid and can’t do math amirite fellas high five!


Damn you gals for keeping men out of this low-paying profession that men could actually enter if they wanted to!
Damn you gals for keeping men out of this low-paying profession that men could easily enter if they wanted to because it’s not actually a “hiring scheme” that keeps them out!



349 replies on “Full STEM ahead with some TOTALLY LOGICAL Men’s RIghts memes”

Others have answered the now-banned troll’s tantrum more aptly, but…
…but…but this:

A) Women get preference on the birth cert,

A woman (or, tbf, someone with a uterus) just grew a person and then either pushed that person or had that person cut out of their body…and it’s unnnfaiiiiir that they’re listed first on a birth certificate.

Never mind that fact that that just makes record keeping easier – so far, most babies (excepting those abandoned 🙁 ) have someone who can be immediately be pointed to as having gestated them, not all have someone who can immediately be pointed to as having contributed the other bit. Consistently putting one of those people in the first available slot is simply consistent.

I mean, what the actual fuck?
This of aaaaallllll the things on the great green earth is one of your banners?

Honestly, this isn’t something that I’ve ever noticed.
It’s never been pointed out to me, perhaps because my husband isn’t a whinging little asshole.

Sigh, late to the party. I see you won without me.

Then again, with a commentariat this full of funny and insightful people, it was bound to happen.

Wow, that a trip.

I just want to point out that “you made me angry, so now I hate everybody like you, and if I’m violent towards them it’s your fault” is a lie that controlling abusers like to tell. If one person gets angry at another and punches a wall, the puncher, not the person they’re mad at, is responsible for the hole. No matter how much they insist it’s the opposite.

Jamie, I’m guessing you’re not reading anymore, but if you are: if you choose to actually follow through on your threats against feminists, you can’t foist the responsibility off on us because we argued with you on the internet that one time. We’re not, in fact, an “angry anti-feminist factory,” turning regular men into ragemonsters who can’t control their own actions. You are still in control of your own choices, even when you’re mad.

That was interesting. I have deep respect for everyone who had the patience to try.

I think I like this line from Jamie the best:

I was 95% in a logic test

That needs to go on a t-shirt, I think.

Funny how a guy who “was 95% in a logic test” thinks that spamming the same mindless assertions over and over, getting angrier and angrier when people start refuting his assertions point by point, and finally blowing up with death threats of the “you’re all going to f***ing burn” variety; will win him converts and turn people away from feminism.

Full STEM ahead, indeed.

I read that Jamie debacle, and just…wow. You know, I’ve been meaning to tell all you guys how intelligent and witty I think you all are, and this seems like a good time to say it. All of you, even the Mammotheers who missed out on the drama. I mean it, I’m seriously impressed by the brains and maturity I see on display in this blog, especially when a troll rolls up. Never underestimate yourselves! 🙂

I think this line was my favorite:

We are still early days. Feminist radical, LGBT radical early. We still haven’t organised. So early.

For fucks sake. The MRM has been around since the early 70’s. That’s almost 50 years now. Compare what they’ve got to show for it to what feminism and the LGBT movement has managed to accomplish in that time. If they were going to do any real world positive activism, they would have done something by now besides churning out youtube videos and MGTOW lifestyle blogs.

The MRM spent the 80’s and 90’s doing teaming up with the religious right, arguing for traditional gender roles of male authority in the home and workplace and attempting to achieve their goal of returning to traditionalism by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put in place to protect abused women and children. If only they applied even half that effort to creating services that actually helped men.

All the other points about family court bias myth, feminists historically opposing the draft and dangerous occupations was discussed in the last thread with the JustAsking troll. Maybe David could create a page where retorts to all common talking points are compiled with the arguments and links we’ve already supplied so that we could simply redirect them to that so these threads don’t get so repetitive? Maybe some of the links and more well-phrased explanations we’ve already composed in the threads could be used with permission to take some of the work out of it for him? Just a suggestion.

@GenJones – An “FAQ for MRAS & Trolls” page. Love it.

*reads own earlier comment*

In hindsight, taking several short breaks (coffee, coffee cake, letting cats out, morning convo w/ spouse, letting dog out, letting cats in again, letting dog in) while writing a shortish response may not have been the best method for maintaining coherence.

Maybe David could create a page where retorts to all common talking points are compiled with the arguments and links we’ve already supplied so that we could simply redirect them to that so these threads don’t get so repetitive?

It wouldn’t change any minds, but it certainly would make dealing with trolls more straightforward.

I endorse!

At the very least, it might help to drive home that they’re not the first to DROP A TRUTH BOMB on this site and/or that the commentariat’s not accepting their assertions for reasons other than that HARSH REALITY IS TOO MUCH FOR WEAK MINDS!!!1!

I think that was the fastest I’ve ever gotten through seven (count ’em) SEVEN pages of comments! Thanks to Jamie, whose comments I was able to scroll through whilst nimbly dancing to avoid all the teal deer and troll poop. I’m really good at it now!

Gen Jones – That is really an awesome idea that will no doubt become an MRM talking point about how lazy and bad-at-arguing we are. How ironic that MRM talking points come about because of how lazy and bad-at-arguing they are!


That’s what I was thinking too. So many trolls seem to think we just haven’t heard of their favorite MRA youtuber, and if we would just listen to their unbeatable arguments we’d change our minds. Sort of like a Christian who thinks atheists just aren’t aware of the “good news”. I think it’s a great idea to be able to prove to them that we’ve heard their talking points before.

I can’t believe I read the whole thing…

Anyway, I do appreciate Jamie posting that link to the study on sentencing discrepancies, which makes it clear once and for all that forging an actual gynocracy would actually help with men’s issues better than anything the manuropsphere has come up with.

Man, you guys checking the sources are CHAMPS! I disengaged when he said the gender disparity in homicide statistics was caused by victim reporting bias. I mean…geeeeez

Well if we contributed to the FAQ then they are our arguments, so if we’re so bad at arguing they can debunk our FAQ. Besides, I’m sure several MRM sites have their own FAQ sections.They emulate the same behaviors they criticize and denounce anyway, so what else is new? Shit, I’ve seen them relying on bingo boards, except they don’t refute the point and just go “look, it’s on this graphic! Code blue I win!”

Well, that was one hell of a self-destructive troll tantrum. Bet it’s the quickest on this entire website.

None of this would have happened if we’d just allowed Jamie to have a voice.

I like the idea of having a page with links and rebuttals that trolls can be automatically directed to. The best defense against a Gish Gallop isn’t a wide open pasture, it’s a boring, narrow, repetitive chute.

I am 1,000% on board with a FAQ for trolls/manospherians. Especially for the tedious as hell ones like little snowflake Jamie, who act like we have never, ever heard their oh-so-wise-and-truthful talking points.

But you guyz, you just need to examine the evidence!

Jamie’s little meltdown was kinda funny though, after he got through teal deering til he was blue in the face. It’s hilarious how he supposedly got 95% on a logic test then started with the extreme emotional outbursts and doomsday-level melodramatic threats. I thought it was us females who were the overly emotional ones, and yet everyone here refuted his points perfectly. You know, using ACTUAL LOGIC. Something Jamie has obviously never heard of.

I think another good FAQ might list at least some of the problems that disproportionately affect men and are real problems, with links to groups that are working on those problems. One of the dipshit talking points is that feminists deny that men have any problems whatsoever, which is demonstrably not true. I, for one, would really welcome a quick and easy link to a list of men’s issues with resources.

Freemage also put together a great list of feminist anti war activist groups in the last thread. We could also include links showing associations for women in blue collar jobs.
These are some great ideas, I hope David considers it. It would sure beat going in perpetual circles.

I looked more closely at Martin Fiebert’s Web page and his CV:

Most of his published research on the “gender symmetry” in IPV issue seems focused on physical aggression perpetrated by women against men and perceptions of male victims and female perpetrators. The studies in his CV and the annotated bibliography seem to have the same problems other people already brought up. The focus seems to be largely on the statistical frequency of violent or verbally abusive acts and not on coercive control, the motivation for the behavior, or the level of danger to the victim (a study Fiebert cites even says men are more likely to choke women).

Many of the studies use the Conflict Tactics Survey, which is controversial because it doesn’t measure stuff like coercion and control, who initiated the violence, or the perpetrator’s motives.

I’ll agree that those are admirable FAQs to have, but not necessarily David’s job?

If I wasn’t so overbooked with work/class/choir junk, I’d start trying to throw those together… If anyone in the commentariat has the time, they’d be excellent FAQ posts to link in the sidebar!

As for the sad logic of the logic trolls:

It seems that the more logical the troll claims to be, the faster they start using lots of logical fallacies and TrueFax from the University of Their Colon.

Or maybe their mistakes just irk me more than when people who haven’t claimed to be SupremeLogicUsers start using terrible logic, because then the MostLogicalTroll’s sad logic is compounded with ClevererThanThou hypocrisy?

It’s hilarious how he supposedly got 95% on a logic test

Actually, he said he was 95% on a logic test, which is much more believable.

No, it isn’t David’s job. I think we have a lot of the legwork done already scattered through comments. I just meant I thought he’s the only one with the administrion authority to add it as an internal feature or to the sidebar of links.



Glancing over the page before this one, I note that Jamie melted down right when he realized that nobody here was going to do all his emotional labor for him. Let’s face it, feminist = female in the minds of people like him, and he seems to be conditioned to expect women to jump in and soothe him the moment he expresses some kind of negative emotion. Self-soothing doesn’t seem to be a skill he’s ever had to develop. His unhandled emotions eventually became too much for him.

Of course, all of that could have been an act, but if it was, it was drawing on the same presumption that women are the world’s unpaid emotional laborers and they are falling down if a man’s emotions ever go unhandled. The idea of men being responsible for their own emotions does not lie within this conception of emotional labor. Ultimately the difference between a faked and a genuine breakdown is negligible, because both rely upon and reinforce that narrative.

eta: I’m also noting how often his complaint, mid-meltdown, was literally that this comment board wasn’t performing emotional labor for him.

It’s funny how damn proud anti-feminists are to be against political correctness and safe spaces because they, unlike those silly SJWs are rational and tough. Yet, it’s they who fly off the handle if someone on the internet isn’t being nice to them.

On the FAQ for trolls; we could do it as a group project. Anyone interested in participating could take a topic and someone could compile everything on a page offsite somewhere and then send the link to David. The only work he would have to do is put a link on the sidebar somewhere.


That’s not all of it. It’s a rewording of Anita Sarkeesian’s fundraiser. Hers is a drive for the video series “Ordinary Women: Daring to defy history.” So he made “Extraordinary People: Daring to actually help women.”

It’s, like, when he’s hit one low point – he strives to go even further down!


It’s funny how damn proud anti-feminists are to be against political correctness and safe spaces because they, unlike those silly SJWs are rational and tough. Yet, it’s they who fly off the handle if someone on the internet isn’t being nice to them.

It also shows how hypocritical they are – given they’re fond of having their own “echo chambers” even as they admonish others for it. It’s also weird, given many of them are also Libertarians, they dismiss the notion of “freedom of association” when demanding an audience listen to their rants.

I thought like-minded people organizing into a group in order to interact with one another is human nature – but now it’s a personality flaw, according to these assholes, to not indulge and humor every person who gets on your nerves or offends you.

If someone asked me to have a pleasant conversation with a Neo-Nazi, despite being a Jew, because that’d be the “considerate” thing to do – I’d tell them to fuck off and never speak to me again, if I didn’t spit in their face and then deliver a balled fist to their jaw.

I also agree with an FAQ for trolls. Jamie’s numerous wall-o’-text responses, all talking points copy-pasted, was absolutely obnoxious and I’d rather stop having these people derailing conversations for shits and giggles.

Thanks, all, for the answers about the troll sock(s). For some reason I guess I was expecting all those socks to explode the threads they were in to 100+ pages like this one became. Not sure why, though.

On the other hand, this thread was the first time I’ve ever seen the Apex Fallacy out in the wild and knew it for what it was. Though what that should mean, I have no clue.

OK, i finally went back and read through the thread and wow, now I feel especially bad for wasting my time typing up that long assed, numbered, teal deer. His meltdown seemed especially out of proportion to everybody’s treatment. You guys were practically indulgent through most of that.

Anyway I am curious when anybody was “casually bigoted.” But the one thing that stuck out to me was when he decided finally post sources after what he admitted was a 5 minute google search (and surprise, it was exactly as helpful as a typical 5 minute google search), he stated: “Well you love your sources, as if you are not going to pick them apart to either criticize them, dismiss them, post counter studies or generally maintain your point of view no matter the evidence”

First he acts as if wanting sources is silly. Second, he seems to think examining sources and countering them with other studies is bad. “Oh no, you are going to have a sourced discussion, how horrible. Why can’t you just take my word for it?”

Last thing:

I was 95% in a logic test, which was the highest ever result, so I am pretty focused on reason.

I’m totally going to steal this! “the highest ever result!”

Thanks, PI and David. I’m kinda bummed now that I didn’t do as much leg work as I could have with those sources. I sort of skimmed over the first and third linked sources because the claim associated with them was so silly. I’m sure I missed a lot of problems with methods and choice of focus, but life got in the way. Anyway, I think I got the gist of it.

@History Nerd

Thanks for that comment. I had actually compiled a sort-of post on the issue of how many of the studies speaking in favour of there being equal violence between sexes rely on Murray A. Straus’s CTS-model. Since a lot of MRA and other anti-feminist rhetoric is based on so-called “gender symmetry” in intimate partner violence, it is imperative that they reference studies that support that view.

I looked up some of Straus’s writings, and was struck with how much his more current work seems to reflect Jamie’s silly beliefs in that studies supporting IPV gender symmetry have been “ignored” by the larger scientific community. Of course, no mention of the possibility that the Conflict Tactics Scale may be lacking. I’ll have to look into the “independent studies” that allegedly support his view, and whether or not they use his method of gathering information.

That was a messy little come apart, wasn’t it?

I like the idea of a FAQ page so we don’t have to re-adress the same fallacies again and again.

I like the idea of an FAQ page but I’m not certain how useful it’ll be; entitled people often tend to cope poorly with the idea that they should be reading what other people wrote rather than having other people read what they wrote.

I’d be happy to contribute to the creation of one though.

Yes, various groupings in the Men’s Movement have been around since at least the early 1970’s. They all focus on what they see as problems involving cultural norms of masculinity. Roughly speaking, some parts of the Men’s Movement are pro-feminist and generally leftist, some don’t take a specific stance on feminism, and some are anti-feminist. The anti-feminist wing took off during the cultural backlash against feminism in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The anti-feminist ideas also seeped into a lot of self-help fluff.

On the other hand, the term “toxic masculinity” was coined in the early 1990’s by people in men’s groups that didn’t focus on feminism or anti-feminism. They were trying to encourage men to be more responsible in their communities and wanted to create a more positive form of masculinity in contrast to the “toxic” variety.

I like the idea of an FAQ page but I’m not certain how useful it’ll be; entitled people often tend to cope poorly with the idea that they should be reading what other people wrote rather than having other people read what they wrote.

It’s cute when the Doctor admits that he gets bored waiting for other people to stop speaking. Not so cute when it’s real-life.

Most of the “gender symmetry” people appear to think there’s a radfem conspiracy to prevent their work from being recognized. I suppose that’s possible (research has been intentionally suppressed for ideplogical purposes in other fields), but it’s more likely their methodology has serious issues. Papers can get past peer review if someone thinks at least some aspect of the resrarch is worthwhile.

@History Nerd –

On the other hand, the term “toxic masculinity” was coined in the early 1990’s by people in men’s groups that didn’t focus on feminism or anti-feminism. They were trying to encourage men to be more responsible in their communities and wanted to create a more positive form of masculinity in contrast to the “toxic” variety.

Do you have a link or two handy?

I’d like something to point to when people lay this on ESJAYDUBYAs.

(No worries if you don’t have something handy. I can poke around, just wanted to save the effort if you knew off hand.)

I don’t have anything off hand. But I’m pretty certain that the people who came up with the term are not particularly feminist/leftist/SJW.

I found references to it on a traditionalist conservative site. Ironically she uses it as an opportunity to take jabs at feminism

Feminists are now in love with the term “toxic masculinity,” but interestingly, it doesn’t seem to have originated with them. It was coined in the 90s by men’s advocates (such as the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement) who were looking to contrast a normal, healthy masculinity with more negative manifestations of manliness. As more and more boys grew up without fathers, and as their struggles were continually overlooked by a world anxious to promote the welfare of women, the stereotypical hyper-aggressive and sex-crazed man became more common and more feared.

She goes on to call feminists “misandrist” and make a number of other absurd claims:

It’s ironic that she repeats what feminists have been saying about sex and violence in society and switches over to “take that feminists!” (not a quote from her).


I went back to read the Jamie debacle and found your comment on teaching. I could not agree with you more. I don’t know about US schools, but in the UK male teachers tend to be fast tracked into management, even though there are significantly fewer of them. There is a complete disproportion at the top with men filling most of the positions. So much for feminists being responsible for the ‘hiring scheme.’ Of the women who do get the dizzy heights of promotion, it takes them much longer than their male counterparts.

I have a friend who is a 37 year old French teacher. He started teaching at around the age of 24 and within 5 years, not only was he head of year, but head of the entire lower school. He was promoted again and is now deputy head teacher. I’m not saying he’s not a gifted teacher and he didn’t deserve it because he is and he did.

The problem is that there are equally talented women teachers. They don’t stand out from the crowd though and most women deputy heads are much older. In my daughter’s school the (male) head teacher was 41 and the (female), recently promoted deputy head was 57. This wasn’t the result of taking career breaks to have children either as she didn’t have any. So their usual defense to explain the age discrepancy falls flat.

I know this is anecdotal and I personally think that men aren’t fast-tracked men deliberately. Far from women shutting men out, I think teaching is seen as a female profession like nursing, which can put off some male applicants. So those who do apply get the equivalent of a standing ovation. We all bring our own values whether we mean to or not.

One of my best friends is a social worker and when she was self-evaluating how her values impact her practice, she said something very interesting. She found herself giving more praise, admiration and validation to male lone parents for doing the same tasks she EXPECTED of mothers. She made no comment at all to women carrying out these tasks unless they were below par.

Maybe teaching is similar. Perhaps the hirers and firers find it amazing that male teachers carry out tasks that go unnoticed when it’s female teachers that are carrying them out. And even knowing all this, I still want to become a teacher. If it’s a Misandrist conspiracy then why aren’t we (I use this loosely because I’m non-binary, but read as a woman) giving ourselves all the well-paid, cushy positions?

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.