Villain of the day: Monday "Henpecked Husband" Torchbearer

 

people in abusive relationships are the real villains

Ugh what a dated stereotypical misogynist origin story.

 

EDIT: the costume is v nice but that bio is terrible

 

MCM

Just go MGTOW.

Ugh what a dated stereotypical misogynist origin story.

 

EDIT: the costume is v nice but that bio is terrible

 

MCM

 

You're kidding right?

Ugh what a dated stereotypical misogynist origin story.

 

EDIT: the costume is v nice but that bio is terrible

 

MCM

 

You're kidding right?

 

Nope, I seriously think that bio is lazy cliche sexism.

 

MCM

 

 

.....lazy.....

 

MCM

 

I seriously think you are not giving George Bedford the credit he deserves... It took real effort to get off the couch, find his shoes, get in the car, go to Walmart (on a Saturday afternoon), put together his contraption, after the nap he took upon returning from Walmart of course.  And to cap it all off, he was able to complete this project with 3 beers left over from his case of 24 Molson, he bought for the occasion.

 

 

 

.....lazy.....

 

MCM

 

I seriously think you are not giving George Bedford the credit he deserves... It took real effort to get off the couch, find his shoes, get in the car, go to Walmart (on a Saturday afternoon), put together his contraption, after the nap he took upon returning from Walmart of course.  And to cap it all off, he was able to complete this project with 3 beers left over from his case of 24 Molson, he bought for the occasion.

 

XD Finding his shoes was probably ‘Woman, where are my shoes?’

 

Hopefully the response was ‘in the refuse sack on the front lawn, along with the rest of your crap you lazy entitled jackass. Bagging it up was hard work but nothing compared to the years of emotional labour I’ve been doing for you throughout our marriage!’

 

MCM

 

Ugh what a dated stereotypical misogynist origin story.

 

EDIT: the costume is v nice but that bio is terrible

 

MCM

 

You're kidding right?

 

Nope, I seriously think that bio is lazy cliche sexism.

 

MCM

 

If I made a character called 'gaslighted wife' an illusion controller with a bio about an abusive husband etc. would you call that sexist? I wouldn't

 

Unlike the henpecked husband I wouldn't find it funny since you know abused women aren't as funny as abused men. That would be kind of sexist of me actually, bit of a double standard.

That’s false equivalency.

 

MCM

That’s false equivalency.

 

MCM

 

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

 

Double standards are bad, and shutting down innocent humor is even worse.

That’s false equivalency.

 

MCM

 

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

 

Double standards are bad, and shutting down innocent humor is even worse.

 

Because if a marriage turns out bad it's never the woman's fault.  It's always up to the man to make things work out and when they don't, everything that happens in the divorce is always justified and everything the estranged husband and wife end up getting is deserved.

 

Come on, it's 20XX.  Get with the program  ::)

[

....... and shutting down innocent humor is even worse.

 

Nobody can shut down innocent humor without George's wife Rachel's permission.... and she is a hard woman... to get to do anything! ;D

Cute villain, shame about the boring social justice trolls in the thread

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

 

I’m not stepping into the rest of this dreck storm, but his point was your counter to his point was poorly made and illogical.

 

My thought was, if she makes the illusions than she is the one gas lighting people and you should come up with a better strawman if you want to keep going.

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

 

I’m not stepping into the rest of this dreck storm, but his point was your counter to his point was poorly made and illogical.

 

My thought was, if she makes the illusions than she is the one gas lighting people and you should come up with a better strawman if you want to keep going.

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

The thing is, equality, that thing people tout and rant and protest for is perpetuated on false equivalency.  Because equality doesn't and cannot exist between men and women.  Men and women aren't treated the same, men don't want to be treated like women and women don't like being treated like men...but equality anyway?

 

The only thing illogical here is your expectation for an equivalence to retain complete consistency when, in reality, that isn't and cannot be the case.  There is no equivalent example of a man nagging a woman and "de-effeminate" her.  Heck, there isn't even a word in English for it as both emasculate and effeminate are derogatory terms targeted at men.

Just a suggestion, make a toon for Rachel if you don't have it yet (or have a friend playing her). Cross references between toons makes it more interesting.

I plan to make something similar, but in a business setting, in which a loyal and skilled but naive entrepreneur is taken advantage by a manipulative narcissist who "convince" and push him to work for free, and then he breaks free. By having both business partners male, I can put potential gender polarization out of the equation.

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

 

I’m not stepping into the rest of this dreck storm, but his point was your counter to his point was poorly made and illogical.

 

My thought was, if she makes the illusions than she is the one gas lighting people and you should come up with a better strawman if you want to keep going.

 

Not impressed. Looks like you read a list of 'debate terms' and threw them together. Nothing even approaching a strawman anywhere near my comments. I didn't even make a claim around his position, such a fail bro but nice try.

......gender polarization....

 

I spoke with George Bedford (the make believe Villain in CoH) just now about the issue of gender "polar"ization, George agrees, nothing is colder than his Rachel.

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

 

I’m not stepping into the rest of this dreck storm, but his point was your counter to his point was poorly made and illogical.

 

My thought was, if she makes the illusions than she is the one gas lighting people and you should come up with a better strawman if you want to keep going.

 

The only thing illogical here is your expectation for an equivalence to retain complete consistency when, in reality, that isn't and cannot be the case.  There is no equivalent example of a man nagging a woman and "de-effeminate" her.  Heck, there isn't even a word in English for it as both emasculate and effeminate are derogatory terms targeted at men.

 

 

OK, I am going to step into the line of fire a little and explain why this isn't actually funny.

 

Do you know what we call a man who continuously nags, berates and otherwise belittles a woman? An abuser. It's one of the more classic forms of non-physical spousal abuse, in fact.

 

Frankly, the "nag, emasculate" thing is something stupid people came up with to try and rationalise away a man being a victim when the more unpleasant forms of masculine expression (that even some women buy into) deny the possibility that a man can be a victim. She's a nag, she's a shrew, she emasculates me, because gods forbid I could ever be described as being the victim of abuse from an actual woman.

 

I just don't find domestic abuse funny.

I don't really find this origin funny...

 

but I kinda appreciate it for what it is.  Honestly as a guy who was in an abusive relationship with an overbearing, demanding, physically, emotionally, gas lighting 90 lb woman who would do everything she can to get me to react physically just so if I do snap she can use it as leverage to control me more with police support (I'm not kidding, she even brags about this sort of thing to friends and I've seen her do it with other men...yes other men because she reduced me so low I didn't care who she saw or how much of a "real man" they were instead of me).

 

It put me in a really dark, angry, resentful place.  It took me years to recover and be a strong, self assured individual again.  But honestly, I could see an abuse victim of a husband going completely to the dark side and taking out his anger on civilians.

 

Also just to stop anyone there that attacks me for sharing my abuse story - no I'm not into that whole MGTOW crab, I have a loving an supportive partner now who is a strong capable woman, Yes I was a pathetic shell of a man who wasn't perfect then either but who is when they are abused?

 

I also resent the fact that I know I have to put this disclaimer because some people will never believe what I went through.

Also just to stop anyone there that attacks me for sharing my abuse story - no I'm not into that whole MGTOW crab, I have a loving an supportive partner now who is a strong capable woman, Yes I was a pathetic shell of a man who wasn't perfect then either but who is when they are abused?

 

I also resent the fact that I know I have to put this disclaimer because some people will never believe what I went through.

 

More power to you. We see you. We know. We believe.

Not impressed.

Wasnt trying to impress you.

 

Saying men who emotionally scar women and manipulate them for the express purpose of making them doubt their sanity (ie “gaslighting”) is the same as a woman who nit picks at her husband’s faults is what grown ups call a false equivalency. 

 

Perhaps before you try to insult me for knowing what a phrase means you should try understanding what the phrase you used actually means.

 

Edit

Also, if the man in your example was gaslighting someone than he is the one with illusion powers.

Not his victim. 

 

 

The thing is, white males have rarely been the victim. Pretending to be one or make light of being one only exaggerates and prooves our inability to understand the problem, to understand what it means to be a victim of abuse.

 

Are there instances where they have been? Yes, absolutely. A previous poster shared an example. But unfortunately society is not able to easily resist stereotyping and the white male demographic has earned its misogynistic asshole reputation. This kind of humor only makes it more difficult to shed that reputation.

Why? Why is one ok and not the other, please educate me?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

 

I’m not stepping into the rest of this dreck storm, but his point was your counter to his point was poorly made and illogical.

 

My thought was, if she makes the illusions than she is the one gas lighting people and you should come up with a better strawman if you want to keep going.

 

The only thing illogical here is your expectation for an equivalence to retain complete consistency when, in reality, that isn't and cannot be the case.  There is no equivalent example of a man nagging a woman and "de-effeminate" her.  Heck, there isn't even a word in English for it as both emasculate and effeminate are derogatory terms targeted at men.

 

 

OK, I am going to step into the line of fire a little and explain why this isn't actually funny.

 

Do you know what we call a man who continuously nags, berates and otherwise belittles a woman? An abuser. It's one of the more classic forms of non-physical spousal abuse, in fact.

 

Frankly, the "nag, emasculate" thing is something stupid people came up with to try and rationalise away a man being a victim when the more unpleasant forms of masculine expression (that even some women buy into) deny the possibility that a man can be a victim. She's a nag, she's a shrew, she emasculates me, because gods forbid I could ever be described as being the victim of abuse from an actual woman.

 

I just don't find domestic abuse funny.

 

Domestic abuse isn't funny.

 

What is described in that bio isn't the degree you make it.

 

I'd akin it to the subject of bullying.  Duh, bullying is bad but damnit, it serves a purpose in moderate doses.

 

Had Rachel being physically harming him or some other circumstance of emotional or psychological abuse, you might not sound like a sensationalist.  The only thing describe, really, is that their relationship has hit shore and something needs to change (both of them) to get the ship sailing again.  It's a parody of a bad relationship which do happen and aren't always some moral soapbox to espouse platitudes on how people's experiences can be bad or affect them greatly.  We know.  But this is a joke.  Learn to laugh or at least not ruin other people's fun.