Continuing with the theme of diseased bodily fluids, Licking Chicks!
Posted by Richie on September 10, 2007
Damn woman-firsters, putting women’s right not to be licked by strangers ahead of men’s right to do whatever the fuck they feel like with absolutely no ramifications. The harassment in the video is, of course, “fun”, but whoever he (or she, since not all women are lesbians… yet O_o) is replying to was “promoting the use of lethal weaponry” and is “clearly a freak”. There’s an attempt to score pedantry points with the correct definition of “Chauvinism”, although I’m not sure what, precisely, he’s referring to: Either he means that “Chauvinism” doesn’t necessarily refer to sexism and can be applied to any ideology (it was originally specific to nationalism), or that there was no (male) chauvinism present in the video in the first place. Either explanation redefines “clutching at straws”.
On a related note, the Wikipedia article on “Chauvinism” has more on “Female Chauvinism” than any other form, and that section has all the citations. Remove the stuff on Ariel Levy and it’s still the longest section. I’d also draw your attention to this, which was later deleted by a woman-firster. Proof, if proof need be, that Wikipedia is the latest casualty of our culture’s pervasive misandry.
And while we’re taking screenshots of eBaum’s world:
Classy.
Thal said
Ooh, look what I found on Wiki: “The slur “chauvinist pig” has been reclaimed by some men as a jocular personal rebuttal or tolerance of such accusations.”
Alas! Irony! My powers are useless! (On a related note, Richie, you rock.)
Richie said
Should I try reclaiming “Mangina”?
polyestergirl said
The best bit was near the beggining when the woman at the bar punched him in the face. How come non of the other women did that? If a guy did that to me, the only thing he’d be licking afterwoods is the dirt. The comment defending the video only strengthens my feminist bias that Antimisandry is a load of shit.
Richie said
“Misandry” isn’t even a proper word to begin with, so he really shouldn’t be picking a fight over the correct definition of “Chauvinism”.
polyestergirl said
The picture below reminds me of all the smutty advertisements for condoms in lads mags. The fact that it doesn’t even show her face is reaaly telling.
polly styrene said
Ah Wikipedia, the worlds most reliable source on the – kind of people who are desperate to air opinions they could never get away with airing elsewhere. Does anyone take it seriously?
Richie said
Seriously enough for a 12,000 word argument about hot dogs.
Laura said
Actually, the hot-dog commentators do perform the valuable function of making me feel a comparatively well-rounded and successful human being. Maybe that should be the point of Wikipedia.
Richie said
And Men’s Rights Activists. Actually, I get most of my “At least you’re not THIS guy” reassurance from the independent video game community. My present favourite is a game about a this incredibly obvious author-insert who’s a wandering samurai and writes down his deep, philosophical thoughts in his diary. His love interest – a physically weak teenage girl with the power of healing, amazingly – keeps asking him to get his diary published, because it’s so well-written and demonstrates a deep understanding of philosophy and psychology. Then there’s some shit about a parallel universe that I couldn’t follow properly because
it was so convoluted and embarrassing that I had to play it through the gaps between my fingersMY MIND HAD BEEN BLOWN.Amy said
Dayum! And I thought I was bad with social boundaries!
Surely that kind of harassment should be dealt with in court?!
Richie said
And shouldn’t Antimisandry be against this video, because it depicts men as immature sociopaths? If a woman had been responsible for depicting men like this, they’d be whining about how Youtube is naught but the feminist agenda given cyber-form.
Richie said
Both strands of this conversation dovetail beautifully in the Men’s Activism Wiki. M’favourite part is that they complain that tertiary education favours female students, and then complain that men deserve more money because they have better tertiary qualifications than women IN THE SAME FUCKING ARTICLE.
Also:
This problem can be solved by voting.
cellycel said
“FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.”
Wait, are they saying the weight of a persons income tax should give their vote a higher weighting? Wouldn’t that fuck things up for the majority of men (and women) who y’know, aren’t rich? How does that help men again?
They honestly want to take the vote away from women in some regards. They say that women don’t pay as high income taxes, which signifies to me that women DON’T HAVE NEARLY AS HIGH AN INCOME AS MEN MUST DO. Women are often forced to make the choice between work and family, where men are not forced to make this choice. (They can have both.) So, women should be punished for this unfree choice, by taking the vote away from them, because they’re not paying as high income taxes.
(The fact then men must have a higher income then women is ignored.)
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Also: If men are paying such high amounts o
Laura said
Ah, MRAs, always effortlessly funny. My favourite so far: ‘The question is: will you allow yourself to be enslaved for the faint promise of occasional sex?’ Who among us can honestly say they haven’t asked themselves that very question? Also, they appear to have a page devoted to how feminists are TURNING INTO MEN. Apparently doing manly things like voting and receiving minimum wage increases the level of ‘manly hormones’ in the body, causing increased hairiness, and, eventually, moustaches. The author (using the term in its loosest possible sense) concludes triumphantly that ‘much to their dismay they are discovering that they cannot beat Nature’s scheme of things.’ To be honest, if changing your sex at will isn’t gleefully flying in the face of nature’s scheme of things, I don’t know what the fuck is. And I’m aware logical consistency was abandoned some while back, but positing that biology can be altered by social behaviour is surely a poor debating tactic for a side whose entire argument is based on biological determinism. I am looking forward to the moustache, though. Am thinking supervillian, with a hint of Dali.
Richie said
A Hitler one would, of course, give the game away too easily.
Other great statistics include “Women control 86% of personal finances”. There’s no citation, but I’m willing to bet this is a fancy way of saying “Women do 86% of the shopping”.
Laura said
So, women control 86% of finances while men pay 115% of income tax? Hey, that all-pervading matriarchal conspiracy is really working out for us.
nightgigjo said
“FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.”
Trying to work out how anyone can pay more than 100% of income taxes… Guess I know how reliable those numbers are…
(and Amen, Cellycel. AMEN.)
Richie said
I keep thinking I should invent a fictitious study that proves women are five times more likely than men to become cannibals and see how many MRA sites I can get to reproduce it.
cellycel said
How are those listed qualities specifically feminine? What, only women can be nurturing, supportive, responsible, respectful and honest? Meanwhile, they demand that men be respected, and that men should be able to live independent lives, but don’t say women should be respected, or be able to lead independent lives? No, instead they have a section on women currently being dependent on the (distant) government and not (loving) husbands. Then – they complain about single mother homes! No independence for women is promoted, and yet they say they’e just _feminist_ hating and not _woman_ hating.
I call bullshit!
Also they say men should use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves and support other men, whilst demonizing feminists who support the women in rape trials.
Rarghrarghrargh.
Richie said
Men can’t be honest, respectful or supportive. But it’s not misandry because they said it.
polly styrene said
I think that hot dog article is invaluable Richie. I mean who would have guessed it was unsafe to eat uncooked meat otherwise?
Richie said
I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER!
L.M. said
“Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.”
Well, funny because most politicians who draft bills and then vote on them are men.
Richie said
I think you’ll find that women make the rules!
polly styrene said
Actually none of the above is quite as alarming as the wikipedia entry on ‘rape fantasy’. Which has a link to a ‘messageboard for people who wish to roleplay and dicuss rape fantasies’ at the bottom. What’s wrong with dungeons and dragons? Or getting a life?
polly styrene said
Q – “You keep hearing that “It’s a man’s world” and “Men have all the power,” but it certainly doesn’t seem that way to you.
In fact, you have the uneasy feeling that because you’re male you’re a sort of second-class human being in certain important ways.
Is something wrong with you?
Are you going crazy?”
A – Yes there is something wrong with you but you’re not going crazy, you already are.
Richie said
I just downloaded the book for free. I’m on page 37 at the moment, leaving him with 186 pages to convince me he isn’t full of shit.
Men would die for their country, but women wouldn’t wear flowers! Yyyyyeah, I think if women were legally required to wear flowers and it was enforced by the government – y’know, like drafting – they might actually do it. Aaaaand I can’t help but notice that quite a lot of men dodged the draft anyway. Although that happened in reality, rather than a parallel universe where the President is powerless to stop war unless women wear flowers in their hair. Other things that happen in reality include women joining the army without being drafted.
186 pages to go, Jack! Shape up!
Richie said
Update, page 60: Women who look too attractive are sexually harassing men.
cellycel said
@Richie:
I wrote a blog entry about my impressions of the first 30 or so pages of that book. If I get bored I might end up writing more about it another time. If anyone is interested, I’m hoping that in the comments section of that entry more people might say why parts of those chapters are crap that I didn’t write about.
‘Cause there was a lot of crap, haha. ^^
Richie said
I should write a book about the awesome power of the homeless. They don’t have to deal with mortgages or cleaning, and people will just GIVE them money.
polly styrene said
Yes, I can imagine that Jack has the problem of too attractive women sexually harassing him all the time, it’s a common problem I’ve heard a lot of men complain about. Particularly if the women does something especially harassing like saying ‘good morning’ to a work colleague. The men will immediately draw the inescapable conclusion and cry ‘she fancies me!’
cellycel said
OMG! You’re right! The homeless don’t have to do a lot of things that us oppressed home-liver-rer-ers have to do! Woah, I never thought about how much power and influence they have in society before, but now that you mention that….
My eyes are open to the oppression we homed face.
Mean Steve said
Gerry Spence, in his book From Freedom To Slavery argues that “only the homeless are truly free.” His argument posits that we’re all slaves to our mortgages and lease agreements and families and THAT BULLSHIT.
Part of me wishes I were homeless. But there’s a problem with that. Home is where I keep my stuff. Oh my idealism is once again crushed by the overwhelming weight of reality.