Feminism

#misandry and male tears: in defense of mockery

[content note: discussions of online harassment, threats]

A little while ago, me and some friends created a pantheon out of our group, and each of us got to choose what we would demand as tribute. I declared that I desired the hot, red blood of The Nice Guy. I wasn’t entirely sure what I would do with it once I had it– maybe bathe in it?– but I liked the way it sounded. I enjoyed the dark humor of my disciples beginning quests in search of the fabled Nice Guy in order that they may sacrifice him in my temple.

This isn’t the sort of joke I routinely make. It happens almost exclusively in very private settings, among people I trust and who know that I don’t actually want people to find and kill Nice Guys, no matter how odious and frustrating they can be.

But, on occasion, I do make these sorts of jokes in public. For example, if you’re mansplaining to me in my own comment section, chances are I’m going to respond to you with nothing more than this:

you know nothing

The vast majority of the time I ignore assholes and trolls. I roll my eyes, sigh heavily, delete their comment/email, and take whatever steps are necessary to block them– and report them, if need be. I have a somewhat loose “don’t feed the trolls” personal policy, although I disagree with people who try to tell others that’s the only way to deal with them.

But there are days, like last Monday when I read an article where some dude was screaming about how it just sucks that women enjoy watching football these days. It’s absolutely horrible and we women ruined everything. Football used to be sacrosanct to men. Sunday afternoons was one of the few days when Men could be Manly and not be bothered by those supercilious, greedy women. But not anymore. Now, women are jumping on the bandwagon and buying team jerseys and it’s just the most awful thing that’s ever happened in the history of ever. How dare we.

My reaction was to stomp gleefully in the three-inch-deep puddles created by his “male tears.”

The first couple of times I made that particular joke around Handsome it made him uncomfortable, which I understand. Things like “can I get a refill of your male tears, please? thanks” are very much feminist inside jokes, and I can understand that if you’re not a woman writing about feminism on the Internet you might not really understand why we cackle about male tears as we scroll through the #misandry tag. I’ve even cultivated a very nice Morgana-from-The Sword in the Stone-esque cackle for this express purpose.

A friend asked me recently why I thought it’s ok to make jokes like this. Aren’t I just engaging in the same sort of dehumanizing and belittling behavior that I fight against when it happens to women? Why am I ok with mockery when it’s directed at men, but be offended if it happened to a woman?

First of all, when your options are 1) be constantly enraged by everything all the time always, 2) be filled with despair that the world is horrific, devastating place, or 3) laugh at the misogynistic idiots, I think the healthiest option is laughter. It’s not always possible to ignore them, especially when they’re in your inbox or your twitter feed telling you that they’d love to rape you up the ass until your eyes bleed. Sometimes I get angry and do my best to turn that anger into something productive.

But, recently, it’s extremely difficult for me to fight off the despair.

And so, instead, I choose to laugh.

I think it’s important to point out that mockery isn’t always acceptable– it can be used as a bullying tactic, for example, and I don’t think that anyone should be bullied. However, while mockery isn’t nice, or gracious, or kind, and certainly not enjoyable when you’re the target of it, it can be an extremely effective way to communicate.

Mockery, like satire and other comedic tools, has its place.

I don’t think it should be directed primarily at an individual person, or for their identity that are parts of kyriarchal oppression. Mocking someone for being “overweight”? Not ever cool. Mocking a blind person? You deserve to get sucker punched for that. Gender-based mockery, like “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich” should be obviously wrong. Likewise, I’m not going to mock my partner for having freckles, or a friend for having a “small” cup size, or anyone else for not being funny, etc.

However, when mockery is primarily directed at an idea, it can be useful. Mockery is saying “The emperor has no clothes,” and when I laugh at someone for complaining about women enjoying football, I’m not exclusively laughing at the male writer who penned that argument– although I partly am. Mostly I’m mocking the very idea that anyone considers “football is for men, no girls allowed, WAAAAAAHHHH!!1!” to be a legitimate argument.

Mockery says, quite simply, your argument is not even worth a rebuttal.

That, I believe, can be a powerful statement.

Photo by Jason Weemin

Previous Post Next Post

You Might Also Like

  • I also think there are some arguments (a great many of the arguments offered by MRAs, for example) that are by their nature so lacking in merit that they can’t be addressed seriously; it’s mockery or nothing.

  • Crystal

    I have a question. I haven’t been back commenting for a while, but I wonder what your opinion on Fifty Shades of Grey is? I would like to know, especially as there are at least four sequences of rape in the book, and Christian Grey is a terrible misogynist and an abusive partner. The book and movie are coming out and they are ALL THE RAGE where I am in the world. It’s a wildly popular thing – so I was wondering what your opinion of it was. If you don’t want to read much about it I understand but I found this, thinking it might be useful to tell you about it this way: https://50shadesofabuse.wordpress.com/

    • I’m writing an editorial for The Mary Sue after I watch it tonight.

      • Crystal

        Thanks for responding. Please please give me the link. ASSURED YOU SHALL ABHOR IT!!!!!

        • Crystal

          But, if you don’t abhor it, please give me good reasons why you don’t (and quotes to, to back up your opinion). And, also, please give me the link when you have written it. I would certainly appreciate taking a look at that. Thank you.

        • Crystal

          I mean, I request politely to please give me your reasons and quotes if you wouldn’t mind doing so.

    • Tim

      Crystal, I appreciated this link as well as Samantha’s movie review. Thanks.

      • Crystal

        I’m happy to provide the help. How are you finding the info?

        • Tim

          Oh, I thought the 50shadesofabuse site is reasonably well-done and interesting – it’s more detailed of an analysis than I feel like I personally need, but I see the value in identifying the elements of abuse (that aren’t identified as abusive in the books) because of the fact that domestic violence is a significant problem in the larger culture, and is often not recognized by the victims for being what it is initially. I think it’s useful to call it out in a popular book to help people identify it in real life.

          • Crystal

            Thanks for your perspective. There are several websites to the side as well that would also be very helpful. It is detailed, I think, for the young women especially who love the series so they can SEE and UNDERSTAND the abuse behind Christian Grey’s actions.

            Personally I don’t think “Christian” is a good name for the character but that’s my view. I’m ashamed it’s selling and being pushed where I live like hotcakes. I would humbly recommend that you, as a parent, ensure that your daughter is educated in abuse dynamics long before she goes on a first date. You would not want her to be in the same situation as Ana.

            Spoiler: she marries the jerk, and he’s STILL LIKE IT although he “changes” some of his habits to suit her. From what I’ve read, this is NOT a good series. There are so many better books out there that build up people.

            I find this series insulting to men too, because it assumes the worst of them. If they want a woman, all they have to do is be a good rapist. I think men deserve better than to be depicted like this. Irony – reminds me of Biblical Patriarchy ie Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson (particularly), Voddie Baucham, plus any man who says to a woman she must stay in an abusive marriage to fix her husband and please God, and let’s just say many other kinds of people, religious or not, that abuse women. Yet these people that I list (particularly the religious ones, CP etc) would only object to the book because 1. the couple has sex outside of marriage, graphically depicted and 2. LGBTQ people practice BDSM and this book claims to promote it although it falls woefully short of depicting a BDSM relationship accurately at all. But the irony of it is that this Fifty Shades EMBRACES their values – yes it does – just in an odd way that most people wouldn’t pick up on. Twilight does too – ie courtship, and Mormonism (Mormons are loved by conservatives). That woman ruined vampire fiction by inserting theories from a racist religion into her books (ie courtship – I’m not condemning people for courtship if that’s their choice but that would draw people from the purity crowd if Edward Cullen wasn’t a vampire).

            I think being a man is a noble thing. If you’re going to be good to a woman, don’t follow CG’s example. Please don’t.

            Sorry for the long rant, but as a young woman, these things mean a lot to me. I don’t want to be hurt by someone like that. I’m glad I’m aware of abuse dynamics!

          • Crystal

            When I say, embraces their values, I mean it embraces the Biblical Patriarchal values, and the values of people like John Piper and Mark Driscoll, and anyone else who believes in abusing women and that nonconsensual sex is permissible, in case I didn’t make myself clear.

          • Crystal

            It doesn’t seem to embrace the values of LGBTQ/BDSM people however. For instance, at their first meeting, Ana asks Christian if he is an LGBTQ person. This question arouses in Christian a desire to punish and abuse Ana – and he does it too. That’s not the only snide remark made at LGBTQ people either. Also, several times throughout the series, E L James depicts BDSM as a sickness to be cured, and as the dark secret of CG’s soul. Tell me how is that promoting LGBTQ/BDSM people? I don’t think it is. Yet conservatives think it depicts BDSM sympathetically. Sigh. One has to read the book and listen to the complaints and explanations of several BDSM practitioners to KNOW that E L James had something very different in mind.

            All references given to the website https://50shadesofabuse.wordpress.com/ and its accompanying websites on the side of the web-log – that’s where I found all this stuff out about it. Terrible, terrible book

          • Tim

            In terms of what I encourage my daughters to read, while they’re still young enough to ask me to pick stuff for them, I won’t be suggesting 50 Shades. Anne of Green Gables. Not Ana. When they get older, they’ll read what they like. That’s just the way it is.

            I get the criticism of 50 Shades that it’s A) poorly written, B) depicts the dynamics of an abusive relationship (which it doesn’t identify as abusive) as romantic, C) mis-portrays BDSM, and D) inaccurately suggests that the love of a good woman can miraculously cure an abusive man’s mental illness. If taken literally (as, perhaps by an inexperienced female reader in her teens) I can see the potential for harm. For most older female readers who are fans of the series, I imagine they like it in the same way I like Star Trek – I’m keenly aware that the “science” in Star Trek is bogus, but I can set that aside and enjoy the fantasy for what it is.

            I think it’s pretty useful to dissect 50 Shades in order to shed light on the actual dynamics of real-life abusive relationships. It has didactic value. But I don’t think it’s helpful to judge or psychologize what someone else (who may be well aware of what’s realistic or not in a story) finds entertaining or erotic or whatever in a creative work.

          • Crystal

            “I think it’s pretty useful to dissect 50 Shades in order to shed light on the actual dynamics of real-life abusive relationships. It has didactic value. But I don’t think it’s helpful to judge or psychologize what someone else (who may be well aware of what’s realistic or not in a story) finds entertaining or erotic or whatever in a creative work.”

            Agreed. We should not judge – if we judge, how can we know if we are telling the truth, or are wrong or right, but rather, just spouting off our opinions – but listen fairly and educate instead, with the proof (ie quotes etc) before us, in a non-offensive way. It’s still harmful though to those that are ignorant of abuse dynamics because millions will be swallowing these bad messages into their very souls.

            Please answer this: How do you think we can be non-judgmental in our attitudes towards people who like it and are enthusiastic about it? I would like an answer on this so I can know how to help the fans see the light if I get a chance.

            I appreciate your perspective. It means a lot.

          • As long as what they’re saying is just “I enjoy them personally,” I don’t think trying to get them to see the light is a good idea. If they argue that the books depict a nonabusive relationship, or a positive portrayal of BDSM, then point out to them why that’s factually untrue–being careful to speak only about the books, and not say nasty things about people who enjoy them.

          • Crystal

            Thank you. That will be so very helpful for me for any future dialogues I might have to make on the subject.

  • Sylvia

    My fiance and I both laugh about the stereotypical gender roles. He’s likely to tell me to get in the kitchen and cook, and then two minutes later be the one cooking, and telling me that he enjoys “women’s work.” It’s been a thing with us for several years. When he was home for a month and I was working, he ALWAYS had dinner ready for me when I got home, as well as a fresh pot of coffee, and the kitchen and the rest of the house was cleaner than I would have it…
    I am currently not working, and he is, and when he gets home off the road (long haul truck driver), I feel like it’s my job to do the house work. After all, I need to contribute something, even if it can’t be finances right now.
    We still joke about “sammiches” and “women’s work” but we both know it isn’t meant as anything more than joking. And yes, I make jokes about the “sammiches” too.
    I very much dislike the femi-nazi types who are NOT joking about any of it, and tend to either unsubscribe from their pages, or write them scathing letters. I also dislike very much the men who really truly believe it’s women’s work to be in the kitchen, and tell me so at every opportunity, or worse, tell me in graphic detail what they would do to me if they ever met me in person.
    This one was good. I liked what you said.

  • I don’t want to put words in the mouth of the object of your mockery, but I think he might be referring to “comfort spaces.” In other words, he derived relaxation and comfort from (I presume) watching football with his buddies. That in and of itself is perfectly fine, and no one should begrudge him of that.

    Same for women and their traditional comfort spaces. Would we tolerate a group of frat boys watching football and drinking beer and loudly yelling in a college’s women’s resource center? Not that there’s anything legally wrong with that, but still.

    Point being that it seems bigoted to deny anyone their comfort spaces because of our own preconceptions about their gender. I’m might be reading Samantha’s example wrong (or giving him too much credit), but I have no problem with anyone liking whatever they like. If a group of guys want to watch a football game without anyone else, more power to them.

    (If your mockery object is saying all women should be kicked out of Buffalo Wild Wings at game time, that’s obviously silly. But if a girlfriend forces her boyfriend to take her along to his guys’ football soire, that’s obviously bullying.)

    • I tried to find the article so I could link to it, but couldn’t. His argument definitely leaned toward “women shouldn’t be allowed in in Buffalo Wild Wings” and was mostly based on “if girls like football than women will be part of the audience for the NFL and that would make football lame. Also, please shut up about football players and domestic violence.”

  • Great post! So many things are not worth our time. Better to laugh if off.

  • marciepooh

    Many years ago my mother watched pro-football primarily because she wanted to be able to join in “small talk” at work and really like the looks of shock when she knew something about Sunday’s game. Now where she grew up and went to school (and we moved to when I was in HS), college football is practically the state religion so it wasn’t a hard transition to make, although if she never really had a favorite NFL team. (I don’t think I ever saw another car in the DC area with a roll of TP and a Tide box in the back window.)

    Can I tell you a real “football is for men, no girls allowed” story? Mostly just because I love this story. A college student who sang in my church’s choir a while back (7-8 years ago?) had played on her small rural high school’s softball team. One spring day the team was working out in the weight room when a bunch of football players came in and told the girls they had to leave. The girls protested that it was their practice/weight room time and it wasn’t even football season. The boys said something to the effect of “What do girls need with the weight room?” So the girls challenge the boys to a weight lifting contest. If the boys won, they could ask the softball team to leave the weight room any time they wanted to use it. If the girls won, the football players would leave them alone during their team workouts AND let the girls try out for football in the fall (seriously try out, not ‘oh look a girl wants to play, hahaha’ try out). That fall a couple of girls, including my choir chum, were on the football team and not kickers.

    • There were several girls in my high school’s football team during my time there. & they were all bosses. In fact, the first girl to join was also in the marching band, which is more hardcore than any of the boys on the team.

      It makes sense to me that we sometimes resort to mockery in the face of these “but this is sacred man-space!!!” arguments, b/c they run so contrary to reality that the only other option is to, I dunno…stare at them in open-mouthed disbelief??

  • I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with making fun of a person for arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to watch football (because that argument is ridiculous), but I feel like “Male Tears” isn’t a good way to mock it– because it doesn’t specifically target the argument’s misogyny (ie: the thing that makes it worth mocking), and instead targets the writer for being a man oppressing emotions– and critiquing oppressive behavior by making fun of a person for failing to fulfill toxic traditional gender roles seems… counterproductive at best. It would be like criticizing the author of say, a classist article by calling them fat or something– your mockery isn’t hitting the reasons why the piece deserves to be mocked in the first place, and does additional social damage on top of it.
    Does that position seem reasonable, or am I missing something important here?

    • Reasonable, yes.

      In my experience, we’re rarely using “male tears” to mock their use or lack of emotions, but that the fact that they’re weeping over an affront to their privilege. So, for me and the feminists I interact with, “male tears” is directed at the ridiculousness of WHAT they’re complaining about, not really that they’re complaining or how they’re complaining.

      • Bdon

        But that’s what it does… it’s man-checking. It delegitimizes male feelings: it is effectively saying “men have privilege; therefore men may not have legitimate tears” (“may not” as in “aren’t allowed to”). At the same time, it echoes the idea that “real men don’t cry” so if you have “male tears” there must be something “wrong” with/unmanly about the source of them…
        Maybe that’s not how you and your friends use it but that is its origin. Would it be okay if I as a white male bandied the n-word or the c-word about with my friends? “But we don’t mean it racially!” “But we aren’t being offensive to EACH OTHER!” Doesn’t sound legit now, does it?
        If your intention is to repurpose a common form of male mockery, maybe you should make up your own rather than relying on “male tears” which has a problematic history that equates to Oppression Olympics. (I really do think you could come up with something that didn’t have this problem.)

        • Caddy Compson

          I disagree. I’ve never, ever heard the male tears joke in response to a guy’s valid pain–no one’s going to make fun of a guy because his dog died or he lost his job or he just had a rough day. So it’s not at ALL saying that because men have privilege their feelings aren’t valid; it’s saying because men have privilege they sometimes complain over totally stupid petty things in a way that’s quite offensive to actual oppressed people. That joke is pulled out when men are whining about something totally ridiculous–like women enjoying football, or how “hard” it is on guys when women they don’t know don’t trust them, or protestations about ethics in video game journalism.

          Also I don’t think it has anything to do with the “real men don’t cry” thing. Every person I know who uses those kinds of jokes thinks that rule is total bullshit.

          • Bdon

            It relates to “real men don’t cry” because both messages are directed at men. What you’re suggesting is that saying those jokes to men at random on the internet, men with whom you have no prior relationship–you’re suggesting that behavior will never echo every time their own actual real world tears were used to emasculate, hurt, and silence them in the exact same way that the mimetic “male tears” is being used to silence them there.
            And it and #misandry are used by some (I’ve seen it done) to silence men when they are talking about men’s issues up to and including male rape.
            It usually goes something like this:
            Feminist: *heterosexist dialog about rape that implies that all rape is of women by men*
            Man: *brings up male rape*
            Feminist: Male-privilege!!!
            Man: [[it actually almost doesn’t matter at this point, but for the sake of argument,]] *counters that being raped and not recognized because of your gender isn’t a privilege*
            Feminist: *trots out tropic mockery silencing tactic (male tears, misandry isn’t real, etc.) if they even re-engage at all*
            I’ve seen this happen on Twitter, Facebook, and internet comment sections. It’s not always one Feminist responder. Thus why I feel furthering tropic/cliche easy answers/silencing tactics is problematic and not very intersectional.
            You can disagree, but you can’t expect me to let your experiences invalidate what I’ve actually seen.
            Here are some articles of yet more people’s perspective and problematic experiences:
            http://the-unpopular-opinions.tumblr.com/post/84706358255/people-mostly-women-who-think-male-tears-is
            http://time.com/3101429/misandry-misandrist-feminist-womenagainstfeminism/ (leaving aside that there is no logical system in the universe in which “misandry” is the inverse of “misogyny” (b/c that’s not how the operation “inverse” works))
            http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/08/10/me-and-my-maletears-facing-the-consequences-of-ironic-hatred/
            [Notably: “If you use violent imagery and hateful expressions, people will assume you are violent and hate-filled. If you wish to portray yourself as a campaigner for human rights and equality, and you play with the language of violence and oppression, don’t be surprised or complain if others assume you and your movement are violent and oppressive.” cf. “I can’t be a feminist: I don’t hate men.” from every red carpet ever… & from a feminist quoted therein “The men who get annoyed by misandry jokes are in my experience universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes,” b/c “insecure humorless weenie victims” isn’t anti-anybody… certainly not men whose masculinity is measured precisely in not being those very things by the sexist culture that surrounds them too.]
            I’m sure you can argue that these aren’t feminists and that these aren’t your experiences. And the latter is fine, but the former is No True Scotsman, and even though they aren’t your experiences, expecting everyone who interacts with culture to replace their experiences with yours is the height of gaslighting.

          • Used to silence men, you say, and then you post an example where your (female, I presume) feminist said something and your heroic protagonist immediately brought up male rape. Without knowing exactly what her dialogue was, only your *cough* detached and objective analysis of it, I don’t know if what she said* would ping on my radar as “yeah, that’s really bad” or perfectly acceptable. But it’s interesting that you apparently consider it something that doesn’t even need to be asserted that as soon as the man in your example opened his mouth, the subject should have changed to what he wanted to talk about.

            (Most rapes are of women by men. If you believe that’s inaccurate, then please say so.)

            *Assuming that something vaguely similar to the incident you describe took place, rather than it being a purely fabricated illustrative example.

          • Bdon

            [quote](Most rapes are of women by men. If you believe that’s inaccurate, then please say so.)[quote] I don’t. I happen to have actually read the CDC reports: and while if “made to penetrate” were treated as an identical category to “rape”, there would be more cases of male rape (in comparison only to the current figure for same), female rape would still outweigh the new total.

            [quote]Used to silence men, you say, and then you post an example where your (female, I presume) feminist said something and your heroic protagonist immediately brought up male rape. Without knowing exactly what her dialogue was, only your *cough* detached and objective analysis of it, I don’t know if what she said* would ping on my radar as “yeah, that’s really bad” or perfectly acceptable. [/quote]
            No. I said: “This is how the conversation usually reaches the use of misandry and/or male tears as a silencing tactic.” [verbatim: “It usually goes something like this”, sorry if you got lost in the deixis] I used male rape as an example because I had a specific instance in mind. While I can link you to that conversation, it’s worth noting (see below) that I came across it in the two month period in which NO ONE saw fit to respond to the victim of male rape AND later a male feminist APOLOGIZED FOR HIM AND THE ENTIRE MALE GENDER. Rather than responding to him or his victimhood, he was ignored as if his experience didn’t matter (for two months anyway, it seems). Why should someone treated like that believe that “Feminism is an equality movement for everyone”?

            [quote]But it’s interesting that you apparently consider it something that doesn’t even need to be asserted that as soon as the man in your example opened his mouth, the subject should have changed to what he wanted to talk about.[/quote]
            Please point to where I said the conversation should immediately have then shifted to his topic. Yes, I think it doesn’t need to be asserted: CHIEFLY BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IT. Incidentally, I think conversations about rape should be open to the inclusion of ANYONE’s experiences of rape, but that doesn’t mean giving one person who pipes up about their rape center stage which is problematic in a lot of other ways (not least of which are the fetishization of their experiences and the simple fact they might not want to be there).

            Please point out where [i]I[/i] described him as heroic or a protagonist: things I absolutely would not do as I was making a reference to a real conversation BUT as a hypothetical example. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

            Truly your powers of “objective analysis” are stunning, staggering even! Holmesian! Why you could deduce my intersectional synopsis, my will, my intentions, AND–I BET–MY BREAKFAST from my use of punctuation alone! All it takes is starting from P=!P, OF COURSE! How could we not see it before!

            [quote]*Assuming that something vaguely similar to the incident you describe took place, rather than it being a purely fabricated illustrative example.[/quote] I can link you to the case-and-point from which I drew for the illustration; however, I did point out WHEN I SAID IT (if you weren’t so busy reading between my words, you could perhaps read them), that it was a formula of the context in which I have seen “ironic misandry” and male tears used to silence, [b]not an exact case[/b] (as I knew that in the case in question, his rebuttal went unanswered at least to my knowledge). To wit: https://www.facebook.com/bluenationreview/photos/a.268624786652737.1073741828.268311603350722/300286236819925/?type=1&reply_comment_id=326873684161180&total_comments=4– but of note, I encountered this conversation when it ended with the man’s post, which I recall being shorter, perhaps even just the first line. (I came across it in October going by the chat mentioned next paragraph (in the chat, the man’s comment is shorter, but I will admit I have no way of knowing if it was snipped for context as I am not claiming perfect recall of something from months ago).)

            However, it is not my job to curate the internet, but as plainly, there is to be no expectation of any bona fides that my account of this conversation or any other is true: there it is despite its having evolved in my absence. (I pulled the comments to comment on them in a chat with a friend at the time, hence being able to pull them up now and before not actually having the conversation at hand the other day as the link is not in the chat, just in case you want to accuse me of fabricating the entire thread in question.)

          • I’m sorry, you’re claiming now that your earlier comment didn’t cast the “silenced” man you were speaking of as an innocent victim of feminist bullies?

            That link doesn’t go directly to a comment by a man, so I’m left guessing who you apparently thought was so misused (though, yes, I see what the original post was, and as I suspected it shows truly profound self-absorption that a man would try to make it about him). Is the “silenced” man Devon Miller? Elliot Saturn? Rodrigo Martinez-Negrete Gasque? Gideon Libsbane? All of them deserved all the mockery they got and more; to answer your question, I cannot fathom whether anyone would care whether they believe feminism is about equality for everybody, because someone who engages in blatant “women lie” rape apologia, who suggests that being raped is inherently worse for a man than for a woman, who claims that men have more problems with street harassment than women do, or who screams incoherently about women’s fears being “bullshit” is not someone who shows interest in “equality for everybody.”

          • Bdon

            It actually wasn’t any of the men you mentioned. I’m guessing the link doesn’t go directly to the quote for you since I was logged into facebook when I copied it.

            “as I suspected it shows truly profound self-absorption that a man would try to make it about him”

            The original post was: “Because what men fear most about going to prison is what women fear most about walking down the street.” Though you clearly don’t like it, that already is about men: it casts a contrast between what is assumed to be a universally male experience (fear of rape in prison) and an again assumed universally female experience (fear of rape while walking down the street).

            As female commenters pointed out, this isn’t even universal for women.

            As any male survivor of sexual violence can tell you (and hey, I am one, so I guess I am), it’s also patently false that ALL men don’t experience fear of sexual violence or rape in their day-to-day lives, which is the implied contrast. As such, the original image attempts to buy the validity of female fear of rape and street harrassment at the expense of men’s experiences while telling both men and women what they experience. Men therefore are well within their rights of rhetorical argument to “make it about men” because the statement is already about men.

            In any case: I think feminist use of ironic misandry is problematic, especially for feminists who both make use of it and then wax apoplectic that anyone in the public eye would dare deny their debt to feminism or WORSE say that for that celebrity’s experience, “feminists hate men” (And have posted several links prior to this in support of that position). You disagree; fine, I don’t see how anyone could think that logically consistent or coherent, but whatever, it’s your belief. I’ve seen “ironic misandry” used to silence men. You say otherwise. As long as you don’t actually expect me and others to ignore our experiences, then fine: you disagree with me. I’m done arguing with you. I’m done because while I agree that MRAs are generally bitter sexist reactionaries, what I’m saying is “I’ve seen feminists do the same things to men (which is probably where MRAs come from) and behaving similarly to them will make you look as bad to any outside observer” (which means we could dissect every crappy thing a man did in that Facebook thread and I’d probably agree with you on a lot of them but where we’d disagree is in the things you don’t even want to discuss or ignore as above with saying that the original statement was just about women and had nothing to do with men). You disagree or don’t care what others think of feminism even if they think the worst of it, okay, good luck with that.

          • egalitarian

            The CDC found that in 2010 and 2011, as many men were “made to penetrate” as women were raped by being penetrated (although more women reported being raped in their lifetimes). The problem is that the survey, like most other studies on rape, uses a definition of rape that requires the victim to be penetrated, which ignores men who are forced to have vaginal sex. But when you add men who were forced to have vaginal sex (or penetrate an attacker in another way) you get a high number of male victims.
            As for the common claim that male rape victims are raped by men, not women, that is again false if you consider “made to penetrate” cases. The CDC found that 80% of men who were made to penetrate were victims of only female perpetrators.

          • The CDC found that in 2010 and 2011, as many men were “made to penetrate” as women were raped by being penetrated (although more women reported being raped in their lifetimes).

            Points for actually naming an organization so that I could look up this claim.

            Points off for not actually citing it: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

            All the points off forever for it not saying what you said it said. 23.4% + 1.7% doesn’t equal or exceed 43.9% + 19.3%…not even when the second set of numbers is women.

          • Egalitarian

            The link absolutely does say what I claimed. I said that in the 12 month figures (2011 in the linked study, 2010 in a previous study) as many men were made to penetrate as women were raped, although more women reported being raped in your lifetime.
            Find TABLE 1, “Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of sexual violence victimization, by sex of victim — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011″. There are lifetime figures at the top, and 12 month figures at the bottom. Look at the 12 month figures.
            Look at the “made to penetrate” figures and the “rape” numbers. According to the table, In the 12 month period (2011) 1.7% of men were made to penetrate, and 1.6% of women were raped by being penetrated.

          • By presenting the information this way, you are misrepresenting the survey results. I will not publish any more comments from you that continue making this deceptive argument.

            If you look at the full context of the “made to penetrate” question, it’s incredibly vague and badly worded.

            Being made to penetrate without consent constitutes rape. However, the full question includes situations that are consensual, even if not “ideal”. Comparing that with “were you raped” is an exaggeration and makes you look foolish.

        • Tim

          Bdon, I appreciate the links you posted below, and I think it’s reasonable for you to bring this perspective. It seems to me that just as there are some who identify as Christians (and objectively fit the definition) who are just horrible people and use Christianity to justify their horribleness, there are also some who identify as feminists who use the language of feminism to justify bullying. That’s a real thing. But that’s not Samantha, right? The way she describes using mockery to respond to an argument or an idea seems reasonable to me. And laughing as an alternative to crying when you feel like you’re under assault is very human.

          I’m concerned to some degree about men who are vulnerable and relatively not privileged (for example, my young boys) being bullied or hearing damaging messages and taking them to heart. That could happen, probably will happen; they’ll have to navigate how to deal with that. But I have no fear that someone like Samantha, using “male tears” in the way she has talked about it here, will be the cause of that.

          Using language in a kind way is important, but when it gets right down to it, I think actually being a kind person is more important, and that’s the sort of thing that eventually shows through regardless of what language you use.

    • In my experience, not that I use the phrase much, it seems that it’s used when men are expressing rage over what they see as a loss of privilege, & these men tend to be the types who don’t cry, they just rage on b/c actually crying when they’re sad wouldn’t be “manly.” So “male tears” kind of cuts to the point, which is that these men are mourning something precious to themselves but don’t deal with their feelings b/c they don’t believe that these feelings are okay for men to have…so instead they bully & threaten women (the ones who, in their worldview, have feelings of sadness, & probably infected the men with these evil lady-feelings anyways…).

      Personally, I’m not angry that there are men who feel sad about women liking football. It’s stupid, but it’s the type of real feeling a privileged person is likely to have. What angers me is that these men choose to defend their feelings as right & just, instead of allowing themselves to mourn what they believe they’ve lost so that they can confront their own privilege & eventually have their first-ever real egalitarian relationship with a women, thereby embarking on the glorious road to egalitarianism 😀

      Far fetched? Yes. But a woman can dream…

  • my oh my, do I resonate with everything you’re saying here! The frustration that can come with tangling with the same issues, day after day, talking about the same diminishings that come with living as a woman under patriarchy…the resulting anger and despair needs some outlet. And like you, I prefer laughter.

    Not malicious, not targeting any individual as their unique, individual self — but insider feminist humor serves a very important self-care function as a release valve for all that bad energy! With that in mind, I wanted to share this .gif, on the off-chance you don’t already have it. I’m not sure any online feminist’s arsenal is complete without it: http://i.imgur.com/rB61wGK.gif

  • Brett

    Great article. Pushing back at misogynists, all things being equal, counts as punching upwards when it comes to humor – it’s doing what good humor should do.

    I enjoyed the dark humor of my disciples beginning quests in search of the fabled Nice Guy in order that they may sacrifice him in my temple.

    Well, that can’t be too hard. All your disciples need to do is hook the Nice Guy tributes such that they form a passive-aggressive attachment to them, and they’ll cling to them out of their own volition all the way back to the temple (provided your acolytes can survive days’ worth of whining and snide remarks).

  • srs

    Now, women are jumping on the bandwagon and buying team jerseys
    As someone whose dating strategy was based on finding a gal who didn’t like football this makes me very sad… oh wait, I got married so I’m not worried about this anymore…

    “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”
    (bro should have gone with the privileged version… )

  • Jeff

    Tangential to your point, but I think this:

    “First of all, when your options are 1) be constantly enraged by everything all the time always, 2) be filled with despair that the world is horrific, devastating place, or 3) laugh at the misogynistic idiots,”

    probably sheds a lot of light on why many people who are fully supportive of women’s equality nevertheless don’t self-identify as feminists; they don’t accept the feminist insistence on 1 and 2 (3 is really just a defense mechanism against 1 and 2, after all; not that laughing at idiots is necessarily a bad idea generally).

  • marciepooh

    And now my more on-topic comment.

    First of all, laugh at the idiots, it is the only way to stay sane, just be aware of your audience. “Male tears” is probably a good short hand way to sum up one’s feeling about rant like Sam’s example, particularly in certain circles. That said, I agree with Henry that “male tears” is not the best way to mock a similar author, particularly to a large, general audience, since some may not understand the meaning. (For example: Emailing the referenced rant to a friend with subject “More male tears” or answering the question “anything interesting in RSS feed?” with “lots of male tears” – ok; writing a blog post on your personal site about what “male tears” means, at least when you say it – ok; writing an article for a general audience about how “male tears” need to just stop, it’s stupid,… particularly without ever explain what you mean – probably a bad idea.

    Bdon, does this phrase really have that much history? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it before and I figured out what Sam meant. Yes, our society has a long history of encouraging men to suppress their emotions and in particular mocking boys/men for crying (and that should stop because we’re all human beings with feelings and crying is a perfectly valid way to express them) but ‘male tears’ isn’t a phrase used in that mocking, in my experience. (If your experience is different, then I’d like to hear about it.) The phrase, obviously, can get linked to society’s expectation of what’s “manly” in the hearer/reader’s mind, which is why audience matters. Also, unlike the n-word or the c-word this is a “punching up.” Male privilege may not extend to authentically expressing one’s feelings but “male tears” appears to refer to ranting about the loss of that privilege, something the people those other words are used for don’t have to begin with.

    • marciepooh

      Also meant to say that, as Henry said, the phrase is less than ideal in the general setting because it’s doesn’t mock the substance (or lack thereof) of the argument/rant.

  • Not interested in the “Manly tears” argument.
    One of the things that I liked about my wife from the time we met was that she was a Dallas Cowboys fan. We have enjoyed watching football together and added the Denver Broncos to our obsessive viewership. It took me some time to get her interested in watching Lobo Basketball and she even wanted to get tickets to see both Football and basketball games. It’s something we enjoy together and I don’t feel like she’s breaking the rules by invading my mancave, especially since I don’t have one.
    That doesn’t mean we don’t part ways on some things, like I watch Game of Thrones and other shows by my lonesome and give her space every Friday when she gets caught up on Days of Our Lives.

  • HAHAHAHA hoo boy that guy should come to the Deep South sometime and meet the women who are MORE fanatic about college football than the men. The top three most fanatic football fans I know are two women and one man (I’m related to the two women). Even better, one of those women is stereotypically feminine and wouldn’t dare be seen without makeup. If you need a boys’ club, start looking elsewhere.

  • Crystal

    Before I say anything else, I want to say your article provides a very interesting perspective on the subject you have chosen to write – ie mockery of mansplaining. From what I have read, you explained that the mockery we should show chauvinism is valid because we should criticise ideas only. Fascinating perspective that I appreciate deeply; I will endeavour to remember ideas not people should be mocked. Thank you.

    “But there are days, like last Monday when I read an article where some dude was screaming about how it just sucks that women enjoy watching football these days. It’s absolutely horrible and we women ruined everything. Football used to be sacrosanct to men. Sunday afternoons was one of the few days when Men could be Manly and not be bothered by those supercilious, greedy women. But not anymore. Now, women are jumping on the bandwagon and buying team jerseys and it’s just the most awful thing that’s ever happened in the history of ever. How dare we.

    My reaction was to stomp gleefully in the three-inch-deep puddles created by his ‘male tears.'”

    I also have had to put up with this. I’ve read where a guy complained about The Hunger Games being feministic because Katniss is a strong woman. This stuff makes me groan. But I think you have given the right perspective when you say laughter is the best way to deal with it. I totally agree with you. And your last sentence has made me smile more than once. Ha ha!!

    Any man who tells a woman he wants to rape her in any way at all IS NOT WORTHY OF ANYTHING BUT PUNISHMENT. He’s not a gentleman and he’s a man every woman should learn to run from. More men should learn and be taught from a very young age that raping a woman is not cool and it’s not going to give him any kind of self-esteem at all. He’ll like it better if she enthusiastically consents, like you say.

    Furthermore, I just read your article at The Mary Sue (http://www.themarysue.com/i-dated-christian-grey/). I have to give you a cyberhug. I am so pleased with you and will be sharing this any way I can. THANK YOU FOR WRITING IT AND CONFIRMING MY THOUGHTS THAT THIS IS A BAD BAD JERK OF A MOVIE. I can assure you, the book is worse. If you want more info, the website I recommended to you would be good especially as she is a therapist and knows what she’s talking about. She also has reviewed the book, chapter by chapter, in a tasteful and wonderful way. This is all the more remarkable especially as she herself was in three abusive relationships. HUGS AND KUDOS.

    I know this sounds like a silly question, but do you personally know of any good resources that show what’s wrong with it as I want to explain to young folks like myself why I am not a fan of Fifty Shades of Grey from an informed point of view.

    I also wanted to say that I appreciate your web-log very much. It has been a positive influence in my life and now I can use it to help others if the opportunity ever arises.
    Thanks very much for writing it.

  • KP

    I’m actually a bit surprised there are so many people defending the use of “male tears” despite the fact that the “real men don’t cry” trope is so damaging to so many men who are regularly encouraged to stifle their feelings. The basis for the defense seems especially preposterous to me, the argument being that the actual men being ridiculed are just a specific subset of men who are complete misogynist jerks. But language doesn’t work that way. Regularly, words and motifs that are initially applied to individuals or a subset of a group eventually are applied to the entire group. What starts out as mocking a specific subset of misogynists who we all can agree deserve nothing but mockery, can easily be received by other men who aren’t in that subset as a mockery of their own legitimate emotions. And now you might have an entirely different subset of men who feel belittled (whether they were directly targeted or not) by both misogynist men shouting “boys don’t cry” and feminists mocking “male tears”, all because they’re open with expressing their emotions.

    The argument of the form “I was using a term that is generally recognized to apply to a large demographically-defined segment of the population, but I swear I was only using it to deservedly mock this one subset of people who identify with that term” is complete and utter bullshit. There’s an entire cottage industry of the blogosphere dedicated to calling out this kind of argument when it happens in other contexts. I don’t see why it gets a pass here.

  • If anyone wants to complain about me liking football (and/or any sport.), they need to take that up with my dad and all the dads like mine that took their little girls to football games and taught them about the sport. Football is what my dad and I do together. There is this strict expectation that every fall Saturday after the Clemson game, I will call my dad. We analyze the plays and yell about bad calls and the stupidity or genius of our coaches together. We’ve done this for 18 years since I was a freshman in college. Before that, we watched them together. My dad and brother and other relatives and friends seem to have no problem with me venturing into this temple of manliness. I’m sorry the random internet dude does. (not really.)

    Now, to the point of the article. I’m a long time feminist and I have problems using the male tears thing to mock idiots. Everyone knows or should know that when you use male tears or Yes All Women, that we aren’t referring to every man out there. However, inevitably, there is going to be one guy who gets upset with the mocking. It isn’t worth it to me to fight that battle so I tend to just accuse the individual of being an idiot and/or address his argument.

    • Crystal

      I’m thrilled you play football. Some people complain it’s unladylike for young women to play soccer like another woman would like reading/sewing, but I think it’s another unique facet of someone’s personality to be like that.

  • What is this? My sexy girlfriend/wife has learned to enjoy an activity which I enjoy but which she previously did not enjoy, giving us more in common to talk about and bond over? The horror!

    • Crystal

      Women, according to traditional theories, are supposed to support their men. I don’t know how they can if men and women are required to have such different interests (sorry for butting in, but this is a topic I’m rather passionate about). Complementarianism demands that men and women have these different “roles” and interests so that men and women can be different, and then demands that women support their husbands. This sort of mind-game has had many couples scratching their heads trying to balance out the “gender gap” in their marriages. How can women support men if they are not interested – for their own sakes very much – in what men are doing? The whole thing leaves me puzzled and confused. Ironically, egalitarianism creates a greater chance of the marriage bonding because of similar interests and activities and career opportunities. The other wacky theory that has been ruling doesn’t.

      There’s another thing too. Ironically enough, (I learned this from A Beka Book) it is possible that your wife is “adapting.” What that means is to become interested in the activity your spouse is doing so that the two of you have another interest to share. For instance, if the man is interested in football, the wife coming with him and sitting with him on the benches to cheer for his favourite team would be adapting, although she might bring a book with her.

      Again, apologies for butting in as I don’t want to dominate the online conversation, but kudos to the two of you for defying non-equality and bonding over shared interests. I hope your marriage strengthens over the years.

    • Crystal

      Excuse me – “ironically enough” refers to the principle of adaptation coming from A Beka rather than the fact that your wife and you share a common interest just in case I didn’t make myself clear. Your wife and you sharing a common interest is natural and thrilling, not ironical. But the thing I didn’t like about adaptation was that they made it sound martyr-like, that you should do it because it’s your duty, rather than doing it out of love for your spouse.

      I just had to correct that as I saw that would be confusing. A Beka’s principle of adaption was the ironic thing!

  • Pat

    “Gender-based mockery, like ‘get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich’ should be obviously wrong.” Okay then. But how is “can I get a refill of your male tears, please? thanks” not gender-based mockery?
    Saw your 50 Shades post on the front page of Google News. Congrats.

    • You’re right, that isn’t clear simply from the language of this post. However, the two aren’t comparable because reverse sexism doesn’t exist.

  • Pat

    Thanks. I get the “reverse sexism doesn’t exist” part, but why does that make them not comparable? They still seem like the same thing to me.

    • “Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich” is considered “funny” by a certain sort of person because the point of the joke is that women are inherently subservient to men and “belong in the home”. It is directed at all women. All of us. Regardless of anything we believe or support.

      “Male tears” is directed at a very specific argument and the men who make it: it pokes fun at men who whine about the fact that equity “deprives” them of their “rights”.

      • Pat

        Can’t they both be okay or not depending on context? In Sylvia’s comment, the sandwich joke means something very different from how you explained it. She’s saying it to mock the same people you’re mocking with the male tears joke.

        • Context does matter, but outside the boundaries of a long-standing trust-based relationship, where it’s possible to subvert the sexism, that joke doesn’t subvert anything. It enforces sexism.

          • Pat

            Subvert the sexism? I came here to read a movie review and am running into terminology which is over my head. Can you explain this in layperson’s lingo?

          • Pat

            That was kind of sarcastic. I know what subvert means.

          • Well, then, maybe don’t ask questions that can easily be googled.

          • Pat

            A dictionary definition of subvert doesn’t say much about how a sandwich joke undermines sexism. Sorry for asking. I guess you also have a special-circumstances rule which makes it okay for you be a jerk to people who aren’t in your club because it subverts the sexism or something. I’m done here.

          • Right. Because in your universe, sarcastically responding to a question that was easily answered with a sliver of effort on your part is “being a jerk.”

            I’m not Google. I’m a person with a life outside of answering inane questions.

            (By the way, everyone, at this point I’m drinking male tears, which is situationally hilarious).

          • Pat

            Okay, I just got it. You mean it’s okay if it’s understood who the joke is aimed at. Yes?

  • Tim

    This is a bit off-topic in the sense that what you discussed in the post (mocking male privilege) has almost nothing to do with the topic Bdon brought up (feminists’ empathy, in general, toward male survivors of sexual assault).
    However, I’m curious about your response to Egalitarian’s cite of the 2011 CDC study http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm of sexual violence and intimate partner violence victimization. It’s well known that women are at much greater risk than men of being raped by a stranger (from survey data, perhaps 50,000 women in the US raped by a stranger annually vice roughly 2,000 men raped by a stranger). And it’s well-known that men are overwhelming the perpetrators in both those types of crimes. The number of men sexually assaulted by being attacked and “forced to penetrate” a strange woman is such a small percentage of the population that it is statistically non-existent. Men just aren’t raped by or forced to penetrate strange women in any numbers that are large enough to form a pattern of social behavior.
    But, as has been discussed in other places on this forum, victims of sexual assault by a stranger are by far in the minority of victims of sexual assault. This site http://www.popcenter.org/problems/sex_assault_women/ suggests more than 80 percent of attackers are known to the victim. So when we look at the larger number of victims of sexual assault, both men and women, it’s notable that annually roughly 8 million women are victims of sexual violence by an intimate partner and roughly 6 million men are victims of sexual violence by their intimate partner. And within those broader categories, roughly 2 million women are raped by their intimate partner (the perpetrator being a man 99 percent of the time), and a very similar number of men are forced to penetrate their intimate partner without their consent (the perpetrator being a woman about 80 percent of the time.) This suggests that there isn’t any sexual violence in more than 80 percent of all intimate relationships, and neither rape nor forced penetration occur in 96 percent of relationships. But in the roughly four percent of intimate relationships where rape or forced penetration does occur, the perpetrator is not hugely more likely to be a man than a woman, and the victim is not hugely more likely to be a woman than a man. In general, men don’t get raped by strange women. But, in general, a large number of men (roughly 1.3 percent of the male population) are sexually assaulted annually by being forced to penetrate by a woman within the context of an intimate relationship. From my perspective, it does not seem that Egalitarian’s statements about the survey were hugely misleading. Somewhat misleading, but not grossly misleading.
    I saw in your response that you said the context of the made to penetrate question was vague and poorly worded and included situations that might be consensual though not ideal. My interpretation of this comment was that you were referring to the questions about non-physical coercion http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/24726 . I’ll just quote verbatim:
    “How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressure you by doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you? Wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy? Using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?”
    I would agree with you that this is a pretty broad question – in my mind, threatening to leave or using a position of authority is quite a bit more coercive than simply looking sad. But this question about non-physical coercion applies equally to the statistics on rape and to the statistics on being made to penetrate.
    I can see an argument that the non-physical coercion has disparate impact: i.e. If a man threatens to leave a woman, on average, the woman has less agency in that situation than a man would in the reverse situation because, on average, a woman is more likely to be economically dependent on her male intimate partner than a man is likely to be dependent on his female intimate partner.
    But, again, I’m just curious about your conclusion that Egalitarian’s reading of the CDC study was really grossly misleading just on its face, if you would care to clarify.

    • I’m obviously not Samantha, but one thing that jumped out at me right away was that those numbers were cherry-picked on a page where nearly all the numbers, and the text on the page, showed a large gender disparity, including the lifetime numbers for the same comparison. Why would there be such a large disparity between “in the last twelve month” numbers and lifetime numbers? I could speculate, but I wouldn’t simply ignore the lifetime numbers.

      • Tim

        Thanks for the comment. This is a pretty complex and comprehensive report and I probably need to dig through it a little further in order to come to any conclusion about likely causes for the disparity that you note between the lifetime and last twelve month numbers. I appreciate the pointer.

    • This is period week for me so I’m not really capable of typing up a full response for you, Tim, but one thing I’d like to point out is that with the particular question I referenced, I’m pretty sure the female experience of that would be in the ballpark of 80-90%. It is rare and extremely unusual for women to be talking about their sexual experiences and for us to not have at some point in the recent past experienced at least one of those. The endless, constant nagging and whining until we finally just throw our hands up in the air and say “fine! just get it over with already” is pretty much the baseline for “normal” sex for women. Being lied to in order to get us into bed? Everyday occurrence– in fact, there’s even a whole character devoted to nothing else but that reality in the character of Barney Stinson. Many women live in constant fear that if they don’t have sex with their partner, their husband will leave them– see Every Single Time an Evangelical Pastor Opens His Mouth About Sex.

      The problem is that, as several studies have shown recently, girls and women think all of this behavior is completely and totally normal so if you ask us a question like this, many of us will answer in the negative because we’ll think of the absolute worst time this happened, and no, that hasn’t happened in the last 12 months– but last year, there was this huge asshole guy I dated and no what I’m experiencing now isn’t anywhere that bad.

      I don’t experience coercion like this is my current relationship, but I’m having a hard time thinking of many exceptions with women I know.

      • Tim

        I get it about not feeling up to a long response and I appreciate the response you gave here. I’m satisfied that I understand the question, survey and lifetime vs past twelve months disparity now, but I think it would needlessly clutter your blog for me to go on further about it here.

        To me, having sex after you’ve badgered your partner into it would suck; enjoying seeing your partner enjoying you seeing their enjoyment … like standing between two mirrors that reflect each other endlessly … isn’t that an essential component that makes sex so much better than simply masturbating?

  • Sam DeVoy

    Men have had their pain mocked all their life. When I was 10, I was mocked for crying when I BROKE MY FUCKING ARM in a hockey game. If you’re one of the bullies who thinks it’s fun to mock another human being’s pain with expressions like “male tears” or especially if you say you bathe in them, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. That makes you a terrible and despicable person.

    If you have a point to make, you can make it without using hate speech, and “male tears” is exactly what that is. And, btw, I don’t care if women follow football. Let them follow whatever they’re interested in.