The Rite Of Faghood And Fagly Feminists

Posted: March 22, 2011 in Fag Up!, Feminism, Masculinities, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

I recently had one of my blogposts reposted on an ‘MRA’ website:

Men’s Rights Activists are, in many ways, feminism’s alter-ego. The other side of the coin. The Dr Jekyll to feminism’s Mr Hyde. Where feminists prioritise the rights and troubles of women, MRAs focus all their attention on the terrible lot of men in society.

MRAs do bring to the fore many examples of discrimination against men that I think are relevant, such as the lack of rights of fathers, the demonisation of men’s sexualities (by feminists in particular), and the inequalities in the legal system, in particular for men accused of sexual crimes against women.

But overall, ideologically and emotionally, I dislike both dogmas equally. So I was a little bit amused when I saw that a very vociferous young feminist blogger had been in contact with a MRA group, called, hilariously, Rite Of Manhood. I thought I would share her response to them with you:

At the end of her post she writes, beseechingly:

‘I would also like to encourage everyone, especially Rite Of Manhood to read this excellent post from The Good Men Project, which explains why the solution to most MRA problems is actually more feminism.’

That’s it! The solution to most MRA problems, in fact to MOST PROBLEMS full stop, is MORE FEMINISM!

If that is the solution, I think we are in big trouble folks.

The way in which I think MRAs and feminists are the most similar, is how they are both so into the power of the COCK. Yes. I truly believe that feminists’ obsession with ‘patriarchy’, and the evils that men do unto women, especially as sexual predators, and  MRAs’ belief in the need for men to ‘build men, with men, for men’, is just really rather faggy.

Maybe one way to sort this whole thing out would be for the feminists and the MRAs to take it in turns at a bit of manly sodomy. The feminists can strap one on, and do the MRAs up the arse, and then they can get down on their feminist knees and suck some MRA cock. And then they can bend over and take it like… a man.

And then. And then we might get somewhere with all this ‘gender war’ crap.

OK. Who’s first?

POST SCRIPT: thanks for reading, feminists! I hope you enjoy your weekends bending over!

  1. Loz says:

    I would love it if both sides were a little less militant. Most men arent sexual preditors and Women are doing pretty well today. This has in no way eroded any rights of man, and anyone who get’s prosecuted for sexual harrasment probably deserves it. Regardless of the law, you have to go pretty far beyond normal social conduct to get reported.

    I think a shot in the arse would do us all some good.

    • Tim says:

      Loz, I firmly believe that both sides have quite a few things in common, or would have, if they would talk to each other without claiming victimhood themselves and accusing the opposing side of being oppressive/discriminatory.

      Their main problem with each other seems to be that they always, ALWAYS have to disagree on small things.

      I have sometimes seen how whole flamewars and lots and lots of mockposts started out of tiny bits of things. For example “… and anyone who get’s prosecuted for sexual harrasment probably deserves it.” would be something the MRA side would vehemently disagree with.

      And that writers and bloggers that write one snarky and overly mocking but otherwise contentless post after another are cheered on by large crowds on both sides doesn’t really help either.

      • arctic_jay says:

        They don’t disagree on the small things. Whether or not women are the vast bulk of rape victims is not a small thing. There are dozens of other issues of equal magnitude.

  2. ElFlojo84 says:

    Hey QRG, gravatar not working so I’m guesting, how’s sex-positive tricks? I missed out on the rape fantasy thread t’other day, gutting!

    Tend to agree with you on the feminism / men’s rights groups being both damaging and counter-productive in equal but different measure. In this instance, though, I have to side with MRA – although the founders descriptions and stuff on the website sounds pretty nauseating and shitty, they are the ones in this instance trying to cross the divide and start discussion, and it’s the feminist putting her fingers in her ears and shouting “La La La PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!!!”

    I don’t like either side in principal because I don’t think political association should be based around lots of sub-groups of humanity all fighting for whatever they can gain for themselves. Unfortunately, feminism (once it passed the point of having legitimate grievances) did this first and it was inevitable that men’s groups would form in response, and nfortunately this dumb “real man” bullshit is a side-effect of that. With that in mind, this particular group, while divisive, at least seems to have an ethos that the two groups can work together to understand each other. And, to be fair, they have a point – men and women ARE different (and at no point do they claim biological determinism like the fem claims, there’s a huge gulf of in-betweenness separating determinism from blank slate-ism). Their approach here seems to be that if they communicate with feminists, maybe the men and the women can help each other understand each other’s points of view.

    As I say, I fundamentally disagree with the divisiveness of gender politics, but at least by being willing to talk MRA hold the moral high ground over 99% of the Guardian Women section.

    Talking of which, will you be updatign Graunwatch any time soon? In its absence I’ve bee ndrawn back into arguing with the nutters over on CiF, I need salvation Q…!

    • hi elf–

      i haven’t updated Graunwatch recently due to all the events in Japan, Libya etc. It is quite overwhelming and feels a bit inappropriate just critiquing crap articles by feminists. But I will soon!

  3. arctic_jay says:

    The difference between them is partially revealed by this post. You are able to quote actual problems faced by men that are regularly cited by MRAs. Can you do this with feminists? Doesn’t seem likely.

  4. Interestingly enough, the post suggesting more feminism was written by Amanda Marcotte….

    Well, I’ve heard of something called the Feminist Critique, now there is Feminist Critics….

    Check this out:

  5. elissa says:

    Trigger warning for trigger warnings

    Funny that those sorts of threads generate the most traffic. Rubber neckers!!

    I’ve read some from Amanda’s blog – she seems to have only one gear, or so it seems to me, and it’s really too bad. She could use some “openness”

  6. I posted this link on Feminist Critics, but I think this’ll give you a laugh-

  7. elissa says:

    This one should take the prize:

    “Stabbing” is banned, and then some agitator comes in and emotes a simialr banality with “trigger”, as it relates to guns…but little sympathy flows forth from the Board Moberators

    It’s like watching a Monty Python movie I tell you!

  8. elissa says:

    Oh absolutely. It’s most definitely a plant – and I swear it was not me.

    That form of insularity breeds caricatures that are indistinguishable from non-caricatures, but for the timing and placement of the “piss”

  9. McDuff says:

    If you interpret “feminism” to mean “attacking men for being mean and lauding women for being awesome” then the objection holds, since that obviously would cause problems.

    If you interpret “feminism” to mean “attempting to undermine or remove destructive and restrictive traditional normative gender roles” then it almost stands to reason that the answer is “more feminism”, since the problems faced by MRAs are problems caused by a destructively gendered society and won’t be solved by a return to a quaint 1950s mythological land where women are good wives and any non-manly-men are invisible or in prison.

    In any event, “hurr hurr u take it in teh bum” doesn’t actually strike me as the 100% most helpful/least bitter approach to these two divergent faces of feminism.

  10. McDuff says:

    Did you anticipate that it would become known for its particularly incisive deconstruction of gender politics?

  11. that was the whole point! And what a lovely bottom it is too.

    As if we have to talk about sex and gender without actually talking about sex. and gender.

  12. Elise says:

    The ass seems to upset people! It’s long comedic history is not for nothing. QRG’s suggestion was, of course, originally made by Aristophanes in “Lysistrata.” A very incisive deconstruction of gender politics. You should all check out the Beardsley illustrations.

    Down with the cock! Up with bottoms!

  13. Elise says:

    Which is, I guess, why he could be so ribald in the first place. Today, Aristophanes would just be another Howard Stern.

  14. SS says:

    Ergh, you are a disgrace not just to your gender but to humanity as a whole! You really shouldn’t be allowed to blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s