Victor Zen, another droll uninformed voice from planet MRA who looks like Ronald McDonald’s brother posted the most outrageously sexist and racist shit I’ve seen in a while on AVFM. His post is titled ‘7 Staple MHRA Arguments.’ These seven points are what MRA’s call ‘bricks of logic’ to throw at feminists. Nice violent imagery eh? So let’s begin at number 1.
The first ‘brick’ is ‘Criticizing Women is Not Misogyny.’ He justifies this by saying that it would be just like criticizing people from Singapore, fans of a football team, and of course men. This is racism and sexism all wrapped into one nice first impression. You see Victor, criticizing someone based on things like sex and race is sexism and racism. Do you comprehend that? According to you it would be just like criticizing blacks or Hispanics. That’s racism.
Number 2 is ‘Anger Can Be Healthy.’ Yes, I agree. Sometimes anger is very healthy. The problem with your human rights movement is that your anger is actually misogyny. You’re not angry at one particular woman who you don’t like. You’re angry at all women and all feminists and you’re also angry at men who don’t tow you’re precise party line. You see, the problem Victor is that your group idolizes people like Thomas Ball and George Sodini. Those men expressed their anger in an unhealthy way and one of them killed women. Regularly on your hate site a person can read the violent threatening language, especially in the readership.
Third is ‘Specialization is not Gender Centrism’. This, to him, means that by focusing on one social issue doesn’t mean it excludes all others. Well that’s really nice Victor now why don’t you apply that to feminism? You see, this is why your little movement makes people laugh. You MRA’s contradict yourselves sometimes within sentences of each other. If you expect people to take you seriously you should really take your own advice and start thinking logically before you make lists like these.
Fourth is ‘Dictionaries do not reliably define ideologies, including “feminism”.’ There’s no reason to put feminism in quotes Victor. Everyone knows what it means because its definition has remained the same since day one. It’s all well and nice for you to whine about how dictionaries are run by the Gynocracy but it’s ridiculous so stop it. You write:
‘Ideologies, being normative and malleable, take work to define. If you have ever argued semantics with an ideologue, you may have noticed that your opponent equivocates to avoid committing to any part of his or her ideology that you criticized. This is what’s called being a chicken shit.’
That would work if feminism was an ideology Victor. I think you should repeat this paragraph and look in the mirror while doing so.
Number 5 is ‘MHRAs are not the mirror image of feminists.’ Yes, on this one point I will agree. You guys aren’t even a human rights movement. You’re just a bunch of guys on the internet who think women are inferior beings who don’t deserve equality because biology. Feminists, because we ARE for equality, don’t think that way about the opposite sex. We see all humans as deserving of equality and we use terminology like ‘patriarchy’ to distinguish the male being from the social system and culture we live in.
Number six is ‘Suffering is not a competition.’ Well you coulda fooled me Victor. MRA’s put forth all this talk about how you’re a human rights movement and yet all you guys spend your time doing is getting angry that women are gaining socioeconomic power. Remember what you guys did to Anita Sarkeeisan? Rebecca Watson? Some of you sent them death and rape threats. In fact your leader wrote and entire article calling Rebecca a whore at least 30 times. AVFM has written several articles condemning Anita for being successful in raising her funds for her project. I’ve not heard much about whatever the hell you’re supposed to be doing for men and boys. In fact, the moniker of your hate site changed from ‘Compassion for Men and Boys’ to ‘Humanist Counter Theory.’ Well, you aren’t humanists and you provide no theory for why you call women children. Unless of course you mean biological determinist explanations like the one Karen Straugn gave about why we shouldn’t help women get into STEM fields. She actually made the most absurd conclusion that because infant girls don’t look at mechanical objects as long as boys means that women don’t like physics and such. It’s blabber like that that gets you all laughed at. You write:
‘The reality is that life is not fair, and people suffer. Justice is not about adopting idealistic principles defined subjectively by the perpetually unsatisfied, justice is about (attempting to) resolve unfairness in a context-centric and reasonablyproportional manner.’
Life isn’t fair. Doesn’t mean women have to accept the lack of reproductive freedom, the pay gap, being forced out of a job because they choose to have children, male violence against them, objectification etc. Once again, this screeching misogynist group that you belong to isn’t reasonable and none of you understand context. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen you write out false feminist quotes or quotes that you don’t even understand and then claim man hatred. It’s comical. Oh and this kinda eliminates the claim you guys make about men’s jail sentences, child custody and other instances where you think women have it better. Context Victor. Hope that helps.
Last but not least, item 7 ‘Where’s the Motherfucking Patriarchy.’ Now before I read your paragraph on this I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t even know what is meant by it. You say:
‘As a white, good-looking, cisgendered, soulless ginger (“cisginger,” according to Alison Tieman and Hannah Wallen) male business owner, I never got a memo from the Patriarchy asking me to bring donuts to the next good-ol’-boy rape orgy.’
As predicted, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I haven’t quite figured out if MRA’s like you are completely ignorant or you know what Patriarchy is and just refuse to accept it. Ah yes, there it is. You claim that women were GIVEN rights by men. We shouldn’t let Patriarchy get in the way of a Patriarchal statement! Women fought for the right to vote, to not be property, to be able to get an education, and to work outside the home. Men didn’t GIVE us anything. You’re assuming ownership. You see how that works? You just denied Patriarchy and yet in the next paragraph you’re exhibiting it. The fact that women consume doesn’t mean we have real economic power. Just because women vote doesn’t mean our politicians aren’t mostly male (US senate) and we STILL haven’t had a female president. Oh I see what you did there. You made a claim about women voting and placed a link to a 92 page report on voting in WESTERN EUROPE. Are you really that dense? Some of those countries didn’t give suffrage until after WWII. Not really a good source on North America dude. Jeesh, you guys are so DENSE. You also didn’t read the report. It quite clearly states that there are several researchers who see NO GENDER DIFFERENCE in voter turnout. Please Victor, use sources that actually back up your drivel.
So not only are you a sexist but you’re also a racist. You’re totally uneducated about feminism. You can’t even cite a proper source for your outrageous claims. Don’t take this too hard but you neither belong to or are a human rights movement. You’re just a collection of angry men who think women owe you something. You think that women’s access to things they previously were barred from means that men suffer for it. You’re so ignorant that you don’t understand that every socioeconomic gain towards equality that women make it improves everyone’s lives. It’s not a zero-sum game.