Basement Dweller

[88chaz88]

Should be an interesting 'discussion'.

Though I would ask which is the bigger 'zing' - that shot at Return of Kings, or the fact that something so supposedly 'unimportant' (according to so many folks around here) is still getting attention.

Er, zing.

Is getting attention as a laughing stock some kind of win?

Well, it's working for the Kardashians.

Nah, money, connections, and power are what's working for the Kardashians. Also the media doesn't exactly portray them as a laughing stock and more as people to look up to.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I don't get it. Is it some kind of political fart?

Throwback to an old Critical Miss strip where the facehugger is giving a lesson in a Dating Seminar.

Spoiler

EDIT: And then there was the cancellation of the 'Return of Kings' rallies in the news.

Oh, it's just do demonize some guy over his opinions. Ok.

I did get the air vents joke, but this one... Facehuggers do not distinguish between men and women and probably don't have gender as they're just larva and not a developed organism.

This is literally a less nuanced version of what you would find in the political editorial section of any newspaper. Or do you get like this whenever a politician is lampooned for saying and/or doing something stupid?

 

[Silverspetz]

CITATION NEEDED

Do you have any proof that those aren't just fringe members? Every movement has crazy people in it. Roosh is a good example of a crazy in the men right's movement (even if he claims he doesn't represent them, apparently), but no one is making that claim that he represents the entire MRA movement. He's a loon with scary views, just as the women you quoted are.

Roosh V. isn't part of the men's rights movement. He hates the MRA and the MRA's don't like him either and is well documented on his site what he thinks of the movement. If he's an advocate of anything is his own perceived right to one night stands. MRA's most probably have crazy people among them, but Roosh V. isn't one of them.

On the feminsts quotes

Robin Morgan
Since the early 1960s she has been a key radical feminist member of the American Women's Movement, and a leader in the international feminist movement. Her 1970 anthology Sisterhood is Powerful has been widely credited with helping to start the contemporary feminist movement in the US, and was cited by the New York Public Library as "One of the 100 Most Influential Books of the 20th Century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Morgan]

Andrea Dworkin
Dworkin authored ten books of radical feminist theory and numerous speeches and articles, each designed to assert the presence of and denounce institutionalized and normalized harm against women. She became one of the most influential writers and spokeswomen of American radical feminism during the late 1970s and the 1980s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Legacy_and_controversy]

Sally Miller Gearhart
Sally Miller Gearhart (born April 15, 1931) is an American teacher, feminist, science fiction writer, and political activist.[1] In 1973 she became the first open lesbian to obtain a tenure-track faculty position when she was hired by San Francisco State University, where she helped establish one of the first women and gender study programs in the country.[2] She later became a nationally known gay rights activist. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart]

I will say that these 3 women aren't just fringe members and are recognized on academic circles.

On Catherine Comins I couldn't find a wikipedia page, which is the easy way to show this info, but found one Time article that shows that quote and it says Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar [http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,157165,00.html]. So while maybe not as influential as the previous women, she held (holds?) a significant position at a College.

Sharon Stone is hard to say as her acting career gives her influence but it might not really give her the same reach.

Also, those are just some examples, there's a lot of main stream feminists who have said things in the same vein against men and some of them even are part of the curriculum for Women's Studies courses in the U.S.

None of that really proves that they are the "core" of feminism. At best they were highly influential in its infancy and original conception, but most of them were Active decades ago and feminism has evolved far beyond that. There are certainly parts of feminism that still follows these ideas, but a pretty simple google search will reveal that these "radfems" are pretty much reviled by many other feminists for being transphobic and anti-sex workers. Pretending that they are exactly what feminism as a whole is about is very dishonest. Show me proof that CURRENT feminists still cte and use these people as sources and you MIGHT have a Point.

Of course, none of that Changes the fact that demanding people to make fun of feminists every time they make fun of douchebro "neomasculists" is a cowardly derailing tactic. Whether or not feminism has flaws it doesn't change the fact that this guy is a pathetic neanderthal that deserves every single finger pointed at him.

 

[the December King]

Of course, none of that Changes the fact that demanding people to make fun of feminists every time they make fun of douchebro "neomasculists" is a cowardly derailing tactic. Whether or not feminism has flaws it doesn't change the fact that this guy is a pathetic neanderthal that deserves every single finger pointed at him.

While I agree with you, and don't feel that a balance would be making fun of average feminists every time they draw a comic that attacks such an extreme misogynist, I don't think your view is entirely fair, either. I wouldn't demand anything, but...do they ever mock radfems at all? It's simply a question of whether the content that these guys like to regularly make/draw is polarized to discriminate/mock solely against men or not. If all they draw is always the worst of men and the dialogue is "see? men are the worst", then it will only take me a couple of readings/viewings to conclude this, and walk away- this content would not be for me.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

None of that really proves that they are the "core" of feminism. At best they were highly influential in its infancy and original conception, but most of them were Active decades ago and feminism has evolved far beyond that. There are certainly parts of feminism that still follows these ideas, but a pretty simple google search will reveal that these "radfems" are pretty much reviled by many other feminists for being transphobic and anti-sex workers. Pretending that they are exactly what feminism as a whole is about is very dishonest. Show me proof that CURRENT feminists still cte and use these people as sources and you MIGHT have a Point.

They do seem to be active [http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament] in the European parliament as recently as 2014. For an ideological faction of feminists whose influence you seem to wish to downplay as largely irrelevant to the modern context. Now i'd normally applaud efforts to stamp out human trafficking in the sex industry. Yet in this case I can't help but wonder why these politicians didn't just pass a resolution to criminalise the purchase of sex from victims of human trafficking rather then endorsing the complete criminalisation of purchasing sex. Receiving a service under duress is akin to receiving stolen goods, an offense that already exists and carries a maximum sentence of ten years in jail in my neck of the woods.

It sure seems odd to me.

But I'm sure they have the best interests of ordinary sex workers in mind, after all they're not criminalising selling sex only buying sex. I mean just because someone wishes to see smoking criminalized doesn't mean they necessarily hold anything against companies that produce cigarettes, right?

 

[Blazing Hero]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

 

[88chaz88]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Can't we all just agree that men *and* women are equally inferior to Xenomorphs?

Also Housewife Xenomorph is totes adorable.

 

[Schadrach]

This strip is funny on several levels, especially with the supposed revelation that Rooshy-V lives in mommy's basement. I'm one to usually defend folks who have their views turned into hyperbolic nonsense for cheap laughs but this isn't that. Roosh is a jackass of the highest order and his views make a mockery of the man more than any satire could. I mentioned this before but I can't get past it, Roosh is one of the very few people I've ever heard about that I'd rather punch than have a conversation with.

No fan of Roosh V either, but I'm even less a fan of dishonest reporting, so here goes:

Roosh V is originally from, but does not currently live in the US (they show his apartment in that BBC documentary where they try to use him as their archetypal MRA, despite expressly claiming not to be one). When he comes to the US, he stays with his mom. Staying with family/friends when traveling is a pretty common tactic to reduce travel costs, with a bonus since those are probably people you want to spend time with while there anyways.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Oh Christ. They made the meme into a face-sucker.

Spoiler: image

It was funny to me, the 'Scree" punchline was pretty good.

 

[Erttheking]

Of course, none of that Changes the fact that demanding people to make fun of feminists every time they make fun of douchebro "neomasculists" is a cowardly derailing tactic. Whether or not feminism has flaws it doesn't change the fact that this guy is a pathetic neanderthal that deserves every single finger pointed at him.

While I agree with you, and don't feel that a balance would be making fun of average feminists every time they draw a comic that attacks such an extreme misogynist, I don't think your view is entirely fair, either. I wouldn't demand anything, but...do they ever mock radfems at all? It's simply a question of whether the content that these guys like to regularly make/draw is polarized to discriminate/mock solely against men or not. If all they draw is always the worst of men and the dialogue is "see? men are the worst", then it will only take me a couple of readings/viewings to conclude this, and walk away- this content would not be for me.

Spoiler

http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/685/685147.jpg

http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/911/911161.png

Plus the fact that Eren is usually treated as a jackass. Also I fail to see "men are the worst" especially considering both of the creators for this comic are established Y chromosome owners.

Also, I like you so don't take this personally, but I really don't get this demand (Not you) that comedians have to make fun of everyone. It's like a joke the Nostalgia Critic made. To badly paraphrase it "Hey, that joke about Republicans was offensive, make a joke about Democrats immediately." Why does there have to be an even split? I mean so many people who say this (Again not you) are against the concept that comedy should only punch up, so why the hell are they now making demands on what comedy should be able to do.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Andrea Dworkin
Dworkin authored ten books of radical feminist theory and numerous speeches and articles, each designed to assert the presence of and denounce institutionalized and normalized harm against women. She became one of the most influential writers and spokeswomen of American radical feminism during the late 1970s and the 1980s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Legacy_and_controversy]

Dworkin, every anti-feminists go to feminist for proving how horrible feminists are (along side Valerie 'not actually a feminist' Solanas). Here's the thing: Dworkin is no longer influential, she hasn't been since she spearheaded the sex negative side in the Feminist Sex Wars in the 90's and the sex negative side came out as the losing side, being relegated to the fringes of feminism. Sure she was influential some 30-40 years ago, but in contemporary third wave feminism she has no traction, since she is explicitly sex negative and modern feminism is overwhelmingly sex positive.

If you want to prove how modern feminism has gone too far, you'd do well to pick out examples of contemporary feminist icons. The problem then becomes that modern mainstream feminism isn't as extreme as many branches of feminism were in the 70's and 80's and that modern feminist icons are either quite academical (ie. Judith Butler, Rebecca Solnit) or actually quite, you know, average (ie. Emma Watson).

EDIT: for totally quoting the wrong person, sorry!

 

[BastiVC]

Oh boy.

Looked into Return of Kings due to this comic, wtf is wrong with that roosh or whatever guy?

Granted, his "legalize rape to stop rape" logic does actually make sense (people would indeed be super careful who they hang out with/go home to), but the side effects of such a law would be insane.

Besides, what would happen if I just drag a random girl into my house? Wont be rape then anymore, due to private property, but I still dragged her into my house against her will. Kidnapping then?


So, the dude is an idiot with a very screwed world view. Plenty of people like that around, so nothing special.

However, what is special, and a real problem, is this: "Australia's top immigration official called an emergency meeting earlier this week to decide whether to allow Valizadeh into the country."

From here: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Return-of-Kings-cancels-International-Meet-Up-6805343.php#item-38489

If this is indeed correct, and it seems it is, then said Australia's official crossed a line that any goverment official should never cross. After all, denying someone entry to your country because of their opinion, regardless of stupid you may think it is, is a direct attack on free speech.

 

[the December King]

Plus the fact that Eren is usually treated as a jackass. Also I fail to see "men are the worst" especially considering both of the creators for this comic are established Y chromosome owners.

I think you're right, Ertheking- I don't really get that vibe from them either. As I was implying before, I maybe should have gotten in on the ground floor with Critical Miss, and then I'd have a better grasp of the overall humour, if not feel like I was, I dunno, more a part of it- it's a correctable situation, I just need a window of time to go back and check them out... I'm digging Erin Dies Alone so far.

Also, I like you so don't take this personally, but I really don't get this demand (Not you) that comedians have to make fun of everyone. It's like a joke the Nostalgia Critic made. To badly paraphrase it "Hey, that joke about Republicans was offensive, make a joke about Democrats immediately." Why does there have to be an even split? I mean so many people who say this (Again not you) are against the concept that comedy should only punch up, so why the hell are they now making demands on what comedy should be able to do.

This is also totally a fair point. And in that same spirit, even if they did only make fun of men (or just women, or married people or pet owners, etc.), they should still be allowed to do it, and they would have a following besides (you know, if they're actually good). Personally, I like my comedians to make fun of everything, no one is safe and nothing is off limits, and I expect a lot of folks feel the same (maybe?).

And thanks for the samples, too.

 

[Gorrath]

This strip is funny on several levels, especially with the supposed revelation that Rooshy-V lives in mommy's basement. I'm one to usually defend folks who have their views turned into hyperbolic nonsense for cheap laughs but this isn't that. Roosh is a jackass of the highest order and his views make a mockery of the man more than any satire could. I mentioned this before but I can't get past it, Roosh is one of the very few people I've ever heard about that I'd rather punch than have a conversation with.

No fan of Roosh V either, but I'm even less a fan of dishonest reporting, so here goes:

Roosh V is originally from, but does not currently live in the US (they show his apartment in that BBC documentary where they try to use him as their archetypal MRA, despite expressly claiming not to be one). When he comes to the US, he stays with his mom. Staying with family/friends when traveling is a pretty common tactic to reduce travel costs, with a bonus since those are probably people you want to spend time with while there anyways.

Well that is why I called it a, "supposed revelation." To what extent he stays with his mother and for what reasons is really not a big point of interest for me. I'm not sure what reporting you're on about here though, given that this is a comic strip and not a news article. You may be referencing the original, unconfirmed report but I don't see what bearing that has on any of this.

 

[Silverspetz]

None of that really proves that they are the "core" of feminism. At best they were highly influential in its infancy and original conception, but most of them were Active decades ago and feminism has evolved far beyond that. There are certainly parts of feminism that still follows these ideas, but a pretty simple google search will reveal that these "radfems" are pretty much reviled by many other feminists for being transphobic and anti-sex workers. Pretending that they are exactly what feminism as a whole is about is very dishonest. Show me proof that CURRENT feminists still cte and use these people as sources and you MIGHT have a Point.

They do seem to be active [http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament] in the European parliament as recently as 2014. For an ideological faction of feminists whose influence you seem to wish to downplay as largely irrelevant to the modern context. Now i'd normally applaud efforts to stamp out human trafficking in the sex industry. Yet in this case I can't help but wonder why these politicians didn't just pass a resolution to criminalise the purchase of sex from victims of human trafficking rather then endorsing the complete criminalisation of purchasing sex. Receiving a service under duress is akin to receiving stolen goods, an offense that already exists and carries a maximum sentence of ten years in jail in my neck of the woods.

It sure seems odd to me.

But I'm sure they have the best interests of ordinary sex workers in mind, after all they're not criminalising selling sex only buying sex. I mean just because someone wishes to see smoking criminalized doesn't mean they necessarily hold anything against companies that produce cigarettes, right?

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

 

[BastiVC]

If this is indeed correct, and it seems it is, then said Australia's official crossed a line that any goverment official should never cross. After all, denying someone entry to your country because of their opinion, regardless of stupid you may think it is, is a direct attack on free speech.

Ignoring the fact that "a direct attack on free speech" is not an inherently bad thing no matter what certain segments of the internet community scream about, there are two things you need to be aware of. The first, is that a person is not entitled to enter another country and, in fact, can be refused for numerous reasons. For Australia, someone has to pass their character test [http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4353/visa-applications-into-australia-the-character-tes.aspx]. The second, is that Roosh is an admitted rapist, advocates making rape legal, makes his income lecturing men on how best to prey upon women, and engages in plenty of fun harassment on the internet. So, you know, a couple things that lead to one failing a character test since it means he is likely to engage in criminal activity, harass/molest someone, cause discord in the community, and pose a danger to the community.

Fair points. I dont know anything about the dudes history. And yes, nobody is entitled to enter some country. The line I quoted however comes off as a direct attack on the dude due to his opinions. But with such a shady history, its no wonder Australia doesnt want to let him in.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

 

[CaitSeith]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

LOL You can't argue with that statement. Seriously, that argument sounds like it comes directly from a bad episode of Family Guy. If there was anything I needed to no longer care about that guy, that quote did the trick. Thank you.