Seen one feminist, seen them all.
Feminists are all exactly the same.
So our dear friend Fidelbogen, self-declared Counter-Feminist Agent of Change and the wannabe philosopher-king of the Men’s Rights movement, has written an exceedingly dull and verbose post for A Voice for Men rehashing the whole Agent-Orange-RadFemHub-thing. Now, it’s a lovely, slightly too-hot Sunday afternoon here at Man Boobz headquarters, so naturally I didn’t do much more than lightly skim the whole thing. But I did notice this interesting little “argument” part way through.
Apparently Fidelbogen has concluded that it’s perfectly fine for critics of feminism to completely ignore the ideas of most feminists and focus only on the dogmas of the most radical of RadFems:
We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only “fringe radicals” or “extremists”, and that we mustn’t judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn’t we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the moderate feminists really add up to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by mellowness and grooviness — by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?
That weird choice of alternatives at the end is pretty much a textbook example of a “false dichotomy.” You would think that someone with a brain as big as Fidelbogen’s would be able to recognize and avoid such an elementary logical fallacy.
Fidelbogen continues:
Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don’t make history. And which is more, I’ve got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: “Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem.”
Dude, “projection” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Posted on May 20, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, grandiosity, hypocrisy, misandry, misogyny, MRA, radfems oh my. Bookmark the permalink. 107 Comments.
Off topic, but interesting (maybe only to me) on how debt collectors — not feminists — are screwing poor men and women in ways that do sometimes land them in jail for debt.
NYT article on the “sewer service” practice mentioned in the LA Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/nyregion/31debt.html
and
@Lady Zombie, IKR? Like, that’s just feminists being sneaky. Or something.
@Naria, yeah, I suppose maybe it IS harsh if, like, you’re still a kid who hasn’t grown out of the “everything revolves around me phase” but learning that usually, you’re not that damn important IMHO is kind of part of growing up. That’s not even a gendered thing, that’s a maturity thing. I also think though the part where most people have lives to attend to that don’t involve making each one of their actions about total strangers who might be rage-bonering at them is another thing they have a hard time comprehending. Women have lives? Women have jobs, friends to hang out with and dogs of their own to walk? Preposterous! Everyone knows women’s lives consist solely of plotting and scheming on how to most effectively make men’s lives a living hell. /sarcasm
I don’t know about the rest of you all, but oh lord and lady was it a relief when I realized the vast majority of people around me didn’t care what I did (as long as I wasn’t visibly breaking the laws), and I could do a whole buncha stuff I wanted to (again, I drive the speed limit in Texas so I ain’t into breaking laws). WHEW.
Ithiliana, you must be the ONLY oerson in this state doing the speed limit. The rest are trying to annihilate it.
Friend of mine was pulled over in Texas, back when 55 was still the limit.
The cop (who had appeared out of nowhere) said, “Son, did you know you were doing 85 miles an hour?
“You ain’t never gonna get nowhere driving like that.”
Got back in the patrol car and disappeared.
Viscaria
I suppose if you think women having equal rights is a terrible thing, then yes, every feminist will be repulsive to you.
Do you really believe MRA’s are against equal rights or are you attacking a strawman?
Dude E have you seen some of the terrible things mras have said about women? I mean forcing them all to be sex slaves, having their voice box removed, and removing their right to vote sounds pretty much anti equal rights to me.
It seems to me mras care far more about removing women’s rights than actually helping men. As a man I don’t feel at all comfortable with mras helping me if I was raped, or sexually assaulted as a child,or falsely accused of rape.
Because:
A.) They seem to consider any man who is not an mra something less of human; a mangina, lapdog, ect
b.) they imply that some people “deserved rape”
c.)I would be less of a person with an issue and more of some object to use for thier cause
d.) I don’t align myself with people who hate women, or groups who rely solely on hating people rather than doing good.
e.) I am queer and mras are mostly right wing therefore do not have a good reception to queer people
And I mean thats just off the top of my head, there are so many reasons the mrm would not appeal to the people they are supposedly helping. I have yet to see a moderate mra who does not spout such hate or actively does work to help men. If they aren’t helping men and rely solely on hating women where does that leave them? They are a hate group who is anti equal rights disguised as a equal rights movement.
that sounds basically accurate, yes
No sharculeseeee there is the moderate men’s rights people who shall not be nameddd everrr!! They exist!! David only cheery picks quotes!
Dude, we don’t need straw MRAs. There are enough real ones opining that women got the vote, for starters.
E: Do you really believe MRA’s are against equal rights or are you attacking a strawman?
I believe that the things they say show they are plainly against women having equal rights.
More to the point, it’s not what we believe; if they are for equal rights (so far not in evidence), then we could believe all we liked, and still be wrong.
As it is, they claim to be for equal rights, but the evidence on the grounds makes this hard to credit.
They have said women should be stripped of the vote. That they need to be subjected to a specifically punitive criminal code; in ways which don’t apply to men (i.e. female claims of rape are to be presumed false until proven otherwise). They have said men who are plainly guilty of rape should be acquitted; until rape laws are made, “fair”, in the manner described above.
They have said women need to be, “put in their place”, and made aware they are inferior to men in intellect.
That isn’t a group which believes in equality.
We’ve LOOKED for the moderate MRAs. Perhaps they are hiding?
Maybe they’ve gone their own way?
I should probably stop posting these links, because it just encourages him, but here’s anti-man boobz’ latest:
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/the-hypocrisy-of-futrelle/
This may be his least substantive post ever!
LOL at “noted MRA Fidelbogen.” He’s noted, allright.
Well, better than being a lickspittle toadie.
There once was a bloke called Mikhael;
catching on sure takes him a while.
There’s no need to read,
he knows all he needs—
he just knows, he’s got faith (that’s his style).
He was upset there was no winning;
triumphant, he caught us all sinning.
He summoned Solanas
and got the jump on us—
by finding strawmen to use for his pinning.
I feel no obligation to read antimanboobz. Rather, I do it for the lulz.
Wow… this is an entirely new field of critique… no need to read the people to whom one responds. All one need do is make up shit about what they might have said, or what someone, somewhen, said they said; pretend it’s both true and the accepted opinion of a large group and then one has a devastating response.
Shit… that’s what they do anyway.
I wish I was morally bankrupt enough to do the same to them. Instead I read what they say, and pretend it’s in good faith.
Do I believe it? Short answer: absolutely. Slightly longer answer: abso-fucking-lutely. And they’re not just against rights for women, either, but for pretty much anyone Not Like Them.
Considering all the comments over yonder about how women should not have the right to vote and own property, and how ony men should run things, I’d say that the notion that MRAs generally oppose equal rights would be a good guess. Just going by the documented evidence, that is. And the upvotes.
There shall be no hem hawing about moderate MRAs. If there were any, they would have made notable commentary after the SPLC Intelligence Report release.
Who did not circle the wagons after that? Was there anyone doing a comprehensive write up, a who’s who, delineating differences within the group? I mean if someone asked me to tease out who does what I would have done a better job separating them than they do themselves. Look, they want to circle wagons, fine, I will no longer worry about “some” MRAs this, and “some” MRAs that. I was floored when Pinegrove33 took the SPLC write up, not as an opportunity to offer clarity and have a defining moment, but instead to do a big sloppy group MRA hug drawing all them together.
I mean fuck it , if Pinegrove33 embraces barbarossaaa, I don’t feel obliged to constantly imply they might not all think alike. .
You know, this antimanboobz thing just reinforces my theory that some MRAs think that Manboobz IS feminism. Not feminist, feminism itself.
@hellkell: well, no, there is my partner who is even better than I-and yeah, we are passed continually. In the rain. In fog. Uphill against a double solid yellow line. By little old ladies in chevvies. Etc.
I also have the terrible compulsion to tell the truth and never never tell a lie.
I have told my mum that she clearly did raise me to be able to survive in the modern world….
@David: we’re all encouraging him. He posts. We comment (he hasn’t replied to my posts yet, omg what am I doing wrong, my entire self worth depends on getting his male attention le sigh).
it’s rather hilariously meta in that apparently he doesn’t comment over here because we will pick on him, but then we go pick on him in his blog.
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/ironic-feminist-comment-of-the-day/#comment-47
Oh god he so does not deserve attention but this is so funny. XD
Maginas is not an attempt to shame men for not being masculine enough! Plenty of manginas are masculine!!
…You know, I believe MRAism is stupid, but I read a LOT of MRA blogs and at least one book before I came to this conclusion. I think it’d be nice of AntiManboobz to do the same for feminism.
Also Dworkin’s point in Intercourse is fairly subtle and often mis-summarized. Not “all intercourse is rape,” but “under conditions of patriarchy even consensual intercourse is conceived of as taking the form of rape, dominance, and violation.”
And, yes, it is necessary not only to read Dworkin but also to understand her in order for me to respect you for reading her.
jumbofish — I commented on his Hugo Schwyzer reference, the whole *attempted murder* thing pisses me off to no end.
“it’s rather hilariously meta in that apparently he doesn’t comment over here because we will pick on him, but then we go pick on him in his blog.” — it really is, is anti-anti manboobz tracking this?
The best part… he has to read what we say about him, or his schtick fails. He disdains to comment, but he comments (just not here).
He’s damned himself to mockery in two fora. He won’t come here (I presume he is afraid he would be bested) and he can’t even get the respect there he would get here (it’s not as if no one here responds to the Mellers, the Brandons, the NWOs, the Antz, the Marcs, the Toysoldiers (when he was allowed to comment here), etc..
But the inanity of his pretense of “debunking” us, and holding us up to obloquy… who is reading him? Who would be reading him who didn’t already despise us?
It’s public wanking, but in the dark corner of the room.
Henh: Rather, it is a term used to refer to a man who prostrates himself at the feet of women and, more specifically, feminism.
By which he means, “doesn’t think all women are lying, conniving, idiots who rule the world and oppress men, even though they aren’t smarter than a nine-year old”.
I’m sure he thinks I’m a mangina. He will pretend I “prostrate” myself at the feet of feminism. He can’t really pretend I’m not “manly” (whatever the fuck “manly” is), even if I do spin yarn, and cuddle puppies and dandle babies on my knee.
Wait, now he’s going after PEOPLE I FOLLOW ON TWITTER?
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/ironic-feminist-comment-of-the-day/
Is that where that came from? I was wondering…that’s a new level of low even for the MRM. Though, if they’re going guilt by association, then Elam basically does them all in doesn’t he?
Looking at the numbers, Rationalisation Hamster has about 70 people who look at it; based on the upvotes for the most popular ones.
A bastion of the MRA it is.
@pecunium And judging by what’s popular, I think most of the 70 are us.
I’m assuming about the same number of us, as MRAs, since upvotes = 2 and downvotes = 1