By David Futrelle
I suppose I’m a day late with this one, but I thought I’d take a look back at some of the most popular posts on We Hunted the Mammoth over the last year. SO let’s take a little trip down memory lane and remember 2019: The Year of the Vulva.
The top post of the last year? This one, about the epic mansplainer who decided he needed to “correct” what he saw as the incorrect use of the word “vulva” and who somehow ignited a weird internet firestorm that didn’t end even after a world-famous vagina expert and the dictionary itself told him he was wrong.
Vulvagate: When mansplaining goes so wrong the dictionary itself has to step in
Amazingly, he soon decided to reignite the flames of his wrongness with a little man(splain)ifesto. Here’s my post on the mess that ensued:
Mansplainin’ 2: Electric Vulvaloo! The dude who had a Twitter meltdown over the word “vulva” is back
Speaking of meltdowns, do you remember the him-steria that erupted after Gillette made an ad suggesting that toxic masculinity was, er, toxic? We Hunted the Mammoth does.
And then there was that whole kerfuffle over Lady Captain Marvel:
Internet babies want Lady Captain Marvel arrested for stealing a motorcycle
And Lady Thor made some guys even madder:
It’s like a hammer to the gut: One Angry Gamer reacts to Lady Thor
Some epic Bad Anatomy going on here:
And even more bad anatomy here!
Lips Dick: Angry knobhead mansplains labial anatomy at Jezebel writer
Clearly we need better sex ed. And some remedial courses for more than a few adult men.
Faux lefty skidmarxist Aimee Terese made her WHTM debut in this post:
Lefty podcaster attacks a journalist who reported a creepy DM with an EVEN CREEPIER tweet
A look back at GamerGate and its hateful legacy:
So there are ten of my (and your) favorite posts from the last year. But I had to leave out a bunch to keep this post manageable. So stay tuned for WHTM’s Greatest Hits of 2019: Part Deux.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Naglfar
Nay, you’re thinking of the Volga. Vulva is the next planet sunwards of us.
@Shadowplay
You’re thinking of Venus. Vulva is an alien species who write terrible poetry.
@kupo, no no, that’s Vogons. Vulva is the name of a bald scavenger bird.
@Mish
I believe you’re thinking of a vulture. Vulva wrote Candide.
@Buttercup
I think that’s Voltaire. Vulva is that dangly thing at the back of the throat.
@Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
Is it not a vulture ? Easily mistakable with Vulva, this fox like pokemon of the first generation.
Edit : Damn latence.
@Nagflar
Do you mean glottis ? “bis repetita my previous sentence”
No, Vulva is Zorro’s civilian identity.
No, that’s völva. Vulva is the name of a Finnish feminist magazine.
(For the sake of obscurity, it’s actually Tulva, meaning ostensibly “flood”)
@Hippodameia
Seidr?
OT: which religion in your opinion is more accepting of LGBT+ folk? Also, would it be wrong to go to a place of worship if I don’t believe everything in said religion? For example, I personally believe a bit of everything so I’m not into just one religion or set of beliefs.
@Universal Kami
I’m not an expert on all religions, but in my experience Reform Judaism (and to some degree Maseritic/Conservative Judaism) are pretty accepting nowadays. The orthodox are not, but that seems to be the case for any religion that fundamentalist groups are intolerant.
I’m a member of a synagogue that is very accepting of LGBT+ people. The rabbi marries same sex couples and there are numerous LGBT+ congregants, including myself (though I’m still not publicly out).
With regards to Christian denominations, I don’t know too much b/c I’m not Christian, but I’ve heard good things about Unitarian Universalists and Quakers (Allandrel can say more about Quakers).
I don’t think it would be wrong. I think most people of a religion don’t necessarily believe everything in it. And lots of people check out different religions to find one they like.
I love this community for the phenomenal people in it, great sources of information I didn’t know, epic troll smack downs, and whimsical afternoon-eating threads like the one above. Well done all, and a happy new year!
@Universal Kami : while it might be only me, I believe getting in a monotheist consecrated temple without believing that their titular god exist is rude. (and yes, I do strongly oppose using churchs as touristic spots) Even ruder would be to perform any rites or prayers without believing in the reason to do them.
For polytheists, I feel it depend on how central to their belief the titular entity is. Like, in Greek mythology I suspect you are perfectly allowed to not believe, or even be aware of, the orphic mysteries, but it’s probably not kosher to burn offerings to the Olympus god without thinking you still have to follow the tricky pact made between men and god by that scamp Prometheus. (note : I am not sure there are still any greek god believers around, but who know ?)
Not believing in everything is rather relative. I know catholic priests who are adamant that the whole of Genesis is actually a parable, most notably because humans supposedly cannot understand how their God can do stuff, so the account cannot be accurate.
In all case, it probably don’t hurt to ask beforehand if it’s possible.
@whomever
I believe you’re thinking of…
Okay, to be honest, I am still thinking about Wilma and Betty.
@ all Mammothers who just took part in that awesome round robin of sorts…
…that was totally epic!!!
??? all around ???
And many thanks to kupo for starting it.
@moregeekthan:
A Red Dwarf fan?
“I would go with Betty, but I’d be thinking of Wilma”
@Naglfar
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.
@Ohlmann
I do believe in their deities and reasons for their rites and prayers.
I’m also not going to be going there to use them as touristic spots.
I’m just looking for a place I can go regularly and not face discrimination.
@Universal Kami : so it probably should be fine on that part, and the only thing to double check is their tolerancy.
*blushes* ? You’re welcome! It was fun!
Brilliant work, peoples!
@Moggie
Actually, just watched a lot of Flinstones as a kid. Mainly for the dinosaurs. But even at that age it was obvious Betty and Wilma put up with way too much crap.
I got to admit the vulva manifesto guy was an extraordinary example of a man destroying himself on internet because he can’t live with the fact that he isn’t as brilliant as he thinks he is. To me this wins the palm for “most stupid tweet of the year”.
They gone… left right before th’ ball drop
@Universal Kami
I’m Quaker, specifically Friends General Conference, and most FGC Meetings are VERY LGBT-affirming. We believe in “that of God in all of us,” and that means ALL of us, dagnabbit. God loves you just the way you are.
Though we have certainly not always been perfect on that front. (John Woolman basically traveled the country on foot turning Quaker enslavers into abolitionists one by one.) And since we are explicitly anti-hierarchical and anti-doctrinal, there’s nothing to stop a given meeting from practices that are at odds with our common beliefs.
Personally (coming from a straight cis man), I think sexual orientation and gender identity are just how people are. Different people are different, and being gay or trans* is no more moral or immoral than being straight or cis. But treating people differently because of such traits? Oh, now THAT is immoral. It is sin, in the Esme Weatherwax sense of “treating people as things.”
@Allandrel:
I know very little about quakers except for 2 things.
First, I did some academic research about how the law treated “rebellious” marriages in the past (this was around the years 1997-9, somewhere in there). One of the earliest categories of marriage that was legislated against was Quaker marriages in 17th century England. Drawing from the commons and not the nobles, Quakers had the reputation of being dirty, sometimes even diseased, and drinking overly-strong beer (and not good wine, like proper gentlefolk). Since a lot of conversions happened when one person fell in love with someone who was already a Quaker, they were stereotyped as sex-addled. Since Quakerism was a different religion, they were considered anti-God/Yahweh/Jesus. Since parents would get pissed off at children who converted, they obviously had no respect for the value of family.
So the government of England refused to recognize Quaker marriages because they were filthy drug addicts, obsessed with sex to the point of making bad decisions, anti-God, and anti-Family.
Sound familiar? (This same pattern, btw, repeated itself with other marriage-outcasts.)
And, second…
…not too much later than when I was doing that research, I went to a national conference of NGTLF where some queer Quakers were handing out stickers from the “Americans for Servicing Their Friends Committee”. That one has kept me laughing for 2 decades now.