"'A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.'”

It’s not that I don’t have a sense of humor, it’s that you’re unoriginal and sexist.

Ha ha, what a funny joke, right?


Quoth Ricecake:

That’s a pretty shitty analogy. It only holds if you already accept the conclusion. I can come up with several that make just as much sense, but would lead to different conclusions.

If you have a pencil that can be sharpened by any sharpener, you have a normal pencil; if you have a sharpener that will only sharpen certain pencils, you have a shitty sharpener.

A man who can ride any horse is a cowboy; a horse anyone can ride is a good horse.

A function that can be computed by any machine is a simple function; a machine that can compute any computable function is a Universal Turing Machine.

A man who’ll dance with anyone is fun at a party; A woman who’ll dance with anyone is fun at a party.

A better way for you to have phrased it would have been “look at it this way: ‘ I approve of promiscuous males, and I disapprove of promiscuous females.'”

Emphasis mine. Face it, the joke is only funny if you’re already a misogynist who is against female promiscuity.

And if someone says that to you, and reason is not an option just retort with this:

“Sooo… you’re about two inches long and often found in the hands of authority figures? Sounds about right, from what I’ve heard.”

49 thoughts on “"'A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.'””

  1. Bullshit. The joke has a funny element to it, whereas your "interpretations" are nothing but bullshit

  2. Correct. the words, "lock" and "key" carry implications that if they don't perform the assumed task they are inadequate.. This however cannot be applied to genitalia.

    I've actually heard people say this joke seriously in defense of double standards.. despicable

    1. I once had a boyfriend who only exclusively fucked virgins thanks to this shitty statement, and looked down on women who liked to have casual sex (In spite of the fact that he himself cheated every chance he got)

  3. Haha I love this article it only proves how sexist our society is and the biggest problem I’m facing as a feminist is the sexual double standard. Little kids need to learn that stupid analogies like this is only making them look immature.

    1. Its not a double standard it is a completely separate standard. Biologically, emotionally, and physically men and women are different and not equal. Get over it.

      1. Different means they’re not identital, not that they’re not equal. Get over youself maybe? Definitely. WE are persons, not matter the gender. Maybe this is how you should see us: humans.

    2. Bragging about your sexual conquests makes you either “that guy” or “the Samantha” of the group. The “double standard” only comes into play when you choose to share, or you make horrible decisions in your choice of partners.

      This kind of thinking pretty much faded away in the 80s and 90s, only to become an issue again in the era of social media. Ironic that this particular analogy originally appeared in a place known for narcissism and exhibitionism.

  4. its ashame women see themselves as feminists. Men who want equality dont called themselves masculists! they call themselves humanitarians. Feminists would like you to think the whole worlds against them, well it not. In holland theres plenty of jobs to be applied for listed as "women only" and its not sex work. Feminists would like you to believe men are just woman beaters, when a new study shows in the uk that your just as likely to domestically assaulted by a man as you would by a woman, and guess what theres less support for men to come forward. Feminsts like people to think rape is a womans issue when in the usa you are just as likely to be a rape victim as a male than as a female, and again less support for the man. Men get no say in abortions nor get equal custody of a child despite men putting in half the DNA. The whole female promiscuity arguement is a good one, women have more of a chemical called oxytocin than males. This is a bonding hormone which bonds a man to a woman after sex, its also reveased during child birth. Without contraception a woman would get pregnant, so originally women werent supposed to be promiscuous. A man would be less likely to look after another mans child in the human world and this happens in the animal world.

    1. We live in a capatilist society. Which means that the powerful will take advantage of anyone to make money. Today, included in that ‘anyone’ is women. We need jobs specifically for women because most places hire men over women. And to the domestic violence issue, women can’t physically abuse a man to the extent a man can to a woman. Maybe emotionally, but not physically. I have no idea where you got your information on the rape issue, but it is not correct that men get rapped just as often as women. And it’s a woman’s issue because men are the rapists. There are very few women who uphold that title. Do you know that there has never been a woman to conduct a mass shooting? Women in their natural state are not violent people. So for you to say that men get raped more than women makes no sense. On the the abortion issue, is the baby coming out of your body? Is it messing up your hormone balance to make you become a person that you don’t even recognize? No. So it is completely the woman’s choice to have an abortions. Thank you.

      1. We need jobs specifically for women</cite]

        There is already, it is called kitchen. Stay there and make me a sammich.

      2. Brenda Spencer.

        Her actions were horrific enough to inspire anarchist Bob Black to write a poem about her, and to inspire Sir Bob Geldof to pen the only Boomtown Rats song to break the charts in the US.

    2. Sorry, but I’d rather live in a world of MRAs and feminists than in a world of “humanists.” Being an American, I like the idea of some form of social checks and balances. Every once in awhile someone will step away from the mob mentality and suggest that the other camp might have a point. Our collective understanding (and shaming in the name) of science makes a blanket approach to addressing the needs of all humans a really bad idea.

      An illustration of this point: the UAE’s “Child Rights Law” sounds like something dreamed up by humanists.

  5. It carries the implication that a man is a key and a woman is a lock that must resist a key, so it's only valid if you accept the idea of the woman being your property. As you see and target them, that is your lock and you are the key, so it is also biased, most of the time, you, as a male want no one but you to "open" the lock, otherwise you can always say it's a shitty lock. And biases gives you a virtual advantage, but make you look pathetic. It also assumes the ability of men to open a diffucult lock, so the woman is to offer a challenge, and she better has to offer a "good" challenge to him, otherwise she is too "easy", the contraddiction is that anyhow the key want to open the lock, so it is contraddictory for the key to complain that the lock didn't resist them. It's only valid as long as the woman is perceived as lock that must offer nothing but a challenge for the key being otherwise perceived as uninteresting, not worth time, one of the most sexist concept still resisting. It alos gives no role to a woman and no dignifiation, not even to the woman who resisted anyone but you. You have the gratification of having opened even here, what's the woman gratification? Having resisted everyone but you? That's a passive gratification, while the woman is in this conception the object of your victory, she is the one that have been defeated by the men who conquered. Also, assumes the merit of the woman is in resisting, that is a passive and not pleasurable activiti, and the merit of the man in a active activity that gives them pleasure, whereas the merit of the women involve chastity, until the good key arrives.

    1. [quote]It’s only valid as long as the woman is perceived as lock that must offer nothing but a challenge for the key being otherwise perceived as uninteresting, not worth time, one of the most sexist concept still resisting. It alos gives no role to a woman and no dignifiation, not even to the woman who resisted anyone but you. You have the gratification of having opened even here, what’s the woman gratification?[/quote]

      Newsflash for you. Woman/female choose their partner, not man/male.

        1. As far as sex goes we kind of do. It is why we are referred to as dogs bc we try to have sex with anything we can. We are disgusting creatures. You should take pride in being the lock.

  6. <citeEmphasis mine. Face it, the joke is only funny if you’re already a misogynist who is against female promiscuity.

    Truth hurts. Being against female promiscuity is being misogynist? Nobody cares if you are promiscous or not. Don’t blame others for your choices in life.

    “Sooo… you’re about two inches long and often found in the hands of authority figures? Sounds about right, from what I’ve heard.”

    This is best you’ve got? No, whore like you is often checked on regular basis by authority figures.

    1. Truth hurts? Said the lonely, pathetic, live with his parents, piece of crap. Boo hoo. Go and take the trash. As in, yourself.

  7. If you agree with this quote you are noy a mysoginyst whatsoever. And if you are a “promicuous woman”, you are a slut and you are repulsive to a man like me: A man that doesn’t want to be with a woman who has been covered by a variety of semen.

    1. How nice of you, dumping in and being the final authority on what is and what is not misogynist, you clearly know best, being a man. It’s not like a woman would know about stuff like what is oppressive to women, right?
      I especially liked the shaming of sexually promiscuous women, yeah, you’re obviously not a misogynist at all.


      1. Oppressive? lol everyone is free to have sex with whomever they want. If it hurts your feelings to be called a slut then don’t act like one. Men are called sluts it’s just that it’s not an effective insult because we aren’t insulted by it. This problem is on you. Want to be a slut? Then you should deal with it better when people call you one. You can try and change modern values if you like but understand that your views put you in a minority so being able to dictate to the rest of us how we should view promiscuous women is kind of futile.

      2. I figure when life gives you two choices: to either find a means to force everyone to believe exactly the same as you do, or to recognize that certain beliefs will never be eliminated from society and choose to work around them, I usually go with the latter.

        Think about it, explain to me how the “double standard” hurts women or helps men? How does hiding misogyny under a bunch of white knight/nice guy rhetoric help anyone? What weight does something like “number of sexual conquests” really amount to in the job market, getting out of a speeding ticket, or finding a decent partner?

        I’d rather the misogyny be out in the open than swept under a rug.

        1. Wow, fuck this line of thinking. There are plenty of real, material losses that women suffer as a result of the double standard that you are so quick to discredit. I personally know women who, when speaking against workplace harassment, have instead been shamed by their white male bosses for making sexual advances of their own that they never made. Some of these women lost their jobs as a result. One of these women that I know decided to get a lawyer, and was able to collect a settlement and severance benefits, but countless other women are not so lucky, or simply believe that their case will not be heard (which under some judges, they won’t).

          It is insincere to claim that you support equality without resisting the casual sexism that happens all around you. (It is also worth noting that sexist and racist jokes are not protected speech, unlike most forms of comedy.) It *is* possible to change behavior. Start with your own.

          1. Making false accusations about your employees to destroy their credibility or shame them into silence isn’t a “double standard” issue. Strip away any sexual element and it still remains defamation and fraud.

            Again, hiding misogyny under a blanket of appropriateness masks the problem, it doesn’t solve it. Would you rather have a manager who lets you know right from the start he was a bigot (at some point where you can diplomatically address it), or would you rather have a manager who hides his intolerance and secretly sabotages your efforts to move up in a company? If you believe something needs to be changed, a conversational approach is going to make more of an impact than a confrontational approach.

            Most people learn in their teens that the easiest way to dodge a confrontational approach is by lying. If someone pretends to agree with you, you’ve lost the battle and a chance of shifting their opinion.

          2. You seem to be failing to make the connection between everything I just said and the overarching culture of sexual oppression. You also seem to have missed my statement that under many courts, HR departments, managers, etc., men get away with this kind of slander and harassment with no penalty, *all the time*. Men continue to do these things because they *continue to get away with it*, as they feel entitled under their surrounding climate of misogyny.

            The entire point of institutional oppression is that it *cannot* be attributed to a single act, or a single person. It requires a long-lived status quo of believing that some segment of humanity is inherently less privileged and that objectifying, outright defaming or even RAPING them is just “a thing that happens”. This status quo is perpetuated by the above mentioned jokes and gawking, which many perhaps well-meaning men are hypnotized by their peers into parrotting and inevitably believing to be something normal. Therefore: the connections between fraternal sexist jokes, patriarchal sexist oppression, and rape culture simply cannot be severed.

            I must severely misunderstand what you mean by “hiding misogyny under a blanket”, because neither I nor any of the women I’ve mentioned have tried to do anything but the opposite. It’s everywhere, to whomever has their eyes open. (Just look at the comments scattered everywhere on this blog.) If you are referring to how men in power use their clout and peer structure to instate oppression, I agree. But if you are insinuating that my aunt should have done more than everything she and my family poured into her defense, which was very close to everything humanly and legally possible in the face of company management that did *not* bring these issues to light (by way of reciprocal defamation) until *she* did, then I defy you to prove that you are doing anything more than blaming the victim.

          3. You can slap a few band-aids on institutional oppression with the occasional law. The question is, do you have the honest support of those who claim to believe in the changes you want to make, or is it merely lip service? That’s what I mean by “hiding misogyny under a blanket.”

            Having a confrontational argument with someone might mask an opinion, but it doesn’t change it. I’ve always thought the best approach is to reflect how those opinions hurt the person voicing them. I’d respond to the lock/key analogy with “what you’re actually saying, is that in your experience, the women you meet tend to set the bar way too low.” The same goes for someone trashing an ex, it also reveals a lot about their choice in men or women.

            If I’m trying to convince some guy to not take a drunk woman back to their place, I’m going to get a better response with “why don’t you just get her number, and assess her emotional baggage when you’re sober” than a lecture on rape culture. While the “rape culture” argument may make me feel better for taking the moral high ground, all my drinking companion is going to hear is “institutional sexism blah blah blah”. There are plenty of excellent personal reasons why drunken sex is a bad idea for men and women, why use an argument that relies on blanket statements and addressing someone as part of a group? Real change comes with understanding your opponent, and addressing them as individuals, not a group of mindless drones driven by cultural programming.

          4. OK, this is starting to make more sense. You apparently assume I’m male, even though I’ve hinted at nothing, and that I’m only doing this for brownie points. It also almost sounds like you view men as only being able to think with their dicks, and that I can only make real change if I appeal to their own baseness. After having shared our experiences from the field so candidly, I’d like to think better of you as a straight cis-male human being than that image implies.

            I’m glad you’ve found your own methods. I have my own, and they’ve been effective often, just on a different audience. My primary audience is people already on the fence or near it (which actually make up a lot of today’s cynical internet-raised youth), while yours sounds mostly like men who are still stuck in the mud. So, actually, I completely understand your assumption that I must be just another “white knight” male who doesn’t give a damn about equality beyond what it earns me in kudos or self-righteousness (or in bed), since you probably don’t get to see many counter-examples.

            In any case, while I don’t envy the job you’ve cut out for yourself, I don’t have to say anything like, “you’re just putting pearls before swine,” either. If you believe your approach really does make change, then surely you won’t have to think of misogyny as something inevitable.

      1. no one wants a key that is rusty from being wet and no one wants a greasy hole. btw im 22 male and im a virgin saving myself for marriage ijs some people are very childish we are all human beings do what you want live learn love fuck what ever floats your boat.

  8. I find the quote quite funny. I can also imagine many feminists getting there panties in a bunch over this one. However, I don’t consider myself a misogynist. This quote is more a play on double standards than anything. Look at it this way, perhaps you would laugh at a racial stereotype joke, but that does not make you a racist. That’s just the way I see it, even though it might be a pretty shitty analogy.

    By the way, you’re retort is not very good. Just sayin’.

  9. lissen mami U kno how niggas b wen we wanna holla at u jus gots to come correct or u cant b comin at all kno wat im sayin we aint tryin deal wit dat bullshit so u gotta show a nigga some luv na mean or else is gon b all 4 one and one 4 all so i pass her to my homies

  10. No reasonable person would presume to control other people’s sexuality. We can all agree about that. So we’re just talking about opinions here. Male and female sexuality is different and works toward different ends, in this species (and all species). Humans are dishonest about their mating prerogatives by genetic nature. Opinions like “lock-key” are rooted in mostly antiquated common-sense observations that more promiscuous women are EXTREMELY LIKELY carrying other mens’ children. Even today, with birth control readily available (here), sexual dishonesty rooted in our nature results in a super fuck ton of STD’s and paternity frauds (knowing and unknowing). No one wants that. Until that problem is resolved, it makes sense to hold a long-term partner to certain standards. Men with a history of cheating, abandonment of children, etc. are poor long-term choices. Women who are highly promiscuous, have a history of cheating, etc. are poor long-term choices. “Lock and key” opinions won’t go away until the underlying problem of dishonesty and careless behavior stops.

    1. Or you can disregard the above advice. Your choice. But, the results might convince you otherwise.

    2. I like how your sexist perspective says that promiscuous women are bad, but not promiscious men. Men are only bad if they’re actually dishonest. And it’s all based on biotruths and similar nonsense.

      In actual fact, there’s no problem with men not knowing what their children are. Humans evolved in this situation in fact, so that is the most natural for us to accept if we’re going to base it on biotruths.

  11. Someone applied this to “females can just show up, smile and get fucked by damn near anyone, but a man has to put in work if he wants to fuck a female. Thus why whores get clowned for fucking a bunch of dudes, while Guys are considered Macks/Pimps/Players of the Year for fucking a gang of females.” Then applied the Key lock analogy and END OF STORY the deal.. I thought that was clever.

  12. my word! i used to think this was a mindless analogy, but only now do i fathom its elegant brilliance: since it is generally very difficult for normal men to get laid, a man who manages to sleep with many women is admirable. now, in the course of being hit on by many men, a normal woman denies many lesser men to pick one that she considers to be of good quality, hence the admirableness of the promiscuous man. since all it takes is a “yes, i’ll sleep with you” for a woman to get laid, a promiscuous woman is likely choosing to accept advances from lesser men, therefore a promiscuous woman is considered contemptible for ‘loosening’ her prerogative to choose. side-note: you can’t say that men who sleep with many woman are also lowering their standards to make it easier to have sex, because lord knows even most women of horrible quality are hard to get. the model also assumes most people are normal and not abnormally promiscuous. don’t be mad feminist, simply appreciate the undeniable validity of this analogy

Comments are closed.