So you are claiming there’s nothing emasculating telling a heterosexual man that no woman would have him? I disagree on that point.
Actually, I know feminists who don’t feel the need to throw out gendered insults. I’d even claim that the majority I’ve encountered don’t. However, there is a significant minority that just loves throwing out insults like the one you just did. So I don’t think that you represent all feminists, but with that comment you do share a strong resemblance to the feminists I’ve met who are assholes.
The cocksucker insult doesn’t surprise me too much. For some men, calling another guy “not manly” or “like a woman” is a pretty nasty thing to say. Look at the list of masculine traits in the GD thread.
I guess it’s less about the activity than the subordinate status of the performer of the activity. I don’t really get the appeal of conventional norms of masculinity to men or women.
Suggesting that LinusK and Jack of Words are unlikely to attract much female interest, in contrast, is hardly emasculating. Nor does it even come close to suggesting they are gay. I bet there’s not a single woman on this board that finds their online personas attractive. I don’t think obnoxious women who don’t much like men are likely to attract much male interest either.
Unless of course LinusK is correct in saying that (heterosexual) men are only concerned with a woman’s physical appearance when it comes to attraction. That seems really insulting to men.
ETA: Second two paragraphs are in response to Mithrander, not raventhief.
No, telling a heterosexual man who’s a hateful misogynist asshole that no woman would have him is not emasculating. Just as telling a heterosexual woman who’s a hateful man-hating asshole that no man would have her is not misogynistic.
It is not cruel to sneer at hateful assholes for being unlikeable due to their hateful assholishness.
I think there’s a pretty bright line distinction between “You cocksucker!” and “You’re just sucking X’s dick.” The latter term isn’t about perjoratizing the act of sucking dick, it’s about the relationship between the person being insulted, and the subject he’s defending. It’s not insulting because of something inherently wrong with sucking dick, but instead because of the implication that the subject’s arguments are based primarily on sexual attraction, and thus are intellectually dishonest. Oral sex is used in particular because of the common perception that sucking dick is only pleasurable for the person on the receiving end, and that the person performing the blow job gets nothing out of it, or even actively dislikes the act. Which isn’t a very sex positive view, but that’s not the same as prejudiced.
In particular, I’d note that you can reverse the gender of the insult, and it still works: telling a guy who’s, say, really into Hillary Clinton to “Stop licking her pussy,” works as an insult in a way that calling a woman a cocksucker doesn’t.
I can see the distinction between the two, but I maintain that calling a guy a cocksucker is meant to undercut his identity in a way that calling him a pussy licker or, for that matter, calling a woman a pussylicker, just doesn’t.
I understand that this is a common association but it was neither intended nor stated in my response. Personally I’m of the view that people who worry about their own or others’ “masculinity” or “femininity” are being deeply insecure about a non-issue.
And FTR I don’t view being gay as a bad thing. I’ve certainly been accused of it many, many times and it has yet to bother me personally.
What you inferred and what I implied appear to be two different things.
Why “feminists” in particular? Why not just “assholes”? You seem to be straining to find any excuse to tar feminists in general with that particular brush.
As stated, I was riffing on the “mutual handjob” comment. We certainly get plenty of accusations of “circle jerks” on this board without accusations of “emasculation”, but if it really bothers you I will reiterate the point that it was meant as a reference to their hostile attitude to women preventing them from attracting any. No aspersions were intended to be cast on their masculinity (whatever you interpret that to mean) nor on their sexual orientation. But about them being hateful assholes? Assume all the aspersions you like.
Well, I’ve learned that equality means that, “men should get more stuff, because evil feminists have taken all the things.”
I have learned that you always, always need to read the cites provided by LK and Jack, because they never mean what they think they mean. Or they left out the entire rest of the story, which doesn’t actually support their narrative at all.
I have learned that LK is a true believer in whatever strange concoction of mysticism and pseudo-science he pulls together and puts in his witnessing threads. Jack, on the other hand, just likes to talk a LOT. He never met a thought that can’t be expounded ad infinitum, until it’s no wonder that he can’t keep track of his arguments.
What I apparently haven’t learned is to stay out of that fucking thread.
Yeah, it’s like clicking on links that warn you of really, really gross photos ahead but you just can’t stop yourself and then you swear you’ll never do it again, but you’re weak, and so on and so on. Generic you, not you you.
This is what the ignore function is made for, young padawan.
