The Men”s Rights subreddit weighs in on the “Why is Reddit So Anti-Woman?” debate.
Over on AskReddit, someone called 478nist has asked a question that has been puzzling a lot of us for some time: “Why is Reddit so anti-women? (outside of r/gonewild anyway).”
I used to think it was just because the large majority of users are men, but it’s not pro-men it’s becoming more and more anti-women.
Outside of the friendzoned crap, any comment that leans towards any kind of talk of womens issues, equal rights etc gets downvoted to hell so it’s not even capable of being discussed. It seems like it’s an US vs THEM mentality more and more. Was it always like this?
The thread that followed is nearly 2000 comments long, so far, and has gotten written up on TheAtlanticWire. The discussion is surprisingly … good? Not perfect — after all, this is Reddit we’re talking about here — but not terrible.
So naturally our friends in the Men’s Rights subreddit are complaining about it.
The legendary AnthonyZarat offers this thought:
MauraLoona, meanwhile, challenges the premise of 478nist’s question, and thereby challenges reality itself:
Legitimateusername also has a problem with Reddit’s alleged surplus of manginas.
Fuckrpolitics_again just goes with some plain old-fashioned misogyny:
The Men’s Rights subreddit, such a reliable generator of self-righteous poop.
Posted on July 28, 2012, in antifeminism, kitties, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, neckbeard rights, oppressed men, penises, reddit, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 650 Comments.
cloudiah – Worse than that, sometimes they string them up by their feet!
Robot Check
Yeah, but 99.9% of women aren’t any better off. If you say “don’t just look at the rich ones,” remember that most women aren’t rich either.
Compare apples to apples–when you’re looking at the plight of weak, poor, young, old, ill, or homeless men, don’t compare them to suburban housewives, compare them to weak, poor, young, old, ill, or homeless women.
But he can’t compare poor men to poor women, because then he wouldn’t be able to pretend that those men’s exploitation is about gender. And that just won’t do.
Ruby Hypatia has made a number of factually wrong and morally despicable claims.
But this isn’t one of them. Men really do “have just as many rights, if not more, than women.” Men really do “still have majority control in government and business.”
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The fact that many men don’t have power doesn’t negate the fact that the most of the people who do have power are men. We know that these few powerful men actually hurt the interests of men who aren’t like them, who don’t conform to their ideals. If you’ve spent any amount of time in feminist circles you’ll probably have heard the phrase “patriarchy hurts men too” at some point. Feminism doesn’t just help women, it also helps those men who are hurt by our society’s attitudes towards gender.
I used 3 billion instead of 3.5 billion, which is admittedly a bit dated. I also lost a decimal place somewhere. (I should have just used scientific notation.)
But you’re the one who forgot the difference between percents and decimals. 0.000007% of 3.5 billion is actually 245.
So we, er, both fucked up our math. Ideally this would be a moment of shared humility and laughter. Somehow I don’t think it’s gonna be.
Apex fallacy! Most tomatoes aren’t powerful. For every tomato that is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you have millions of tomatoes are just ground up and made into tomato paste. TOMATO PASTE IS MISANDRY!
Meanwhile, everyone knows all potatoes need to do is cry in the street and someone will rush over with sour cream and bacon bits.
@cliff –
You need to familiarise yourself with statistics on the division by sex (in the West) of:
– Warzone deaths
– Other workplace deaths
– Suicide
– Homelessness
– Likelihood of being a victim of violence up to and including murder
– Likelihood of being imprisoned
– Difference in length of sentences as applied for the same crime
– Spending on healthcare and welfare
– Educational outcomes
In all the categories: weak, poor, young, old, ill, or homeless – women in the West are statistically less likely to be on the shit end of the stick than men, and in the less likely event that they do find themselves on the shit end of the stick will find far more support / resources /networks available to them on both a personal and bureaucratice basis than men caught in the same situation.
Of course NWO might stomp on and thus rage-splat the potato before adding the bacon bits, but hey, he’ll still eat it.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of potatoes are given froofy dresses and middle-class homes in the suburbs, and yet cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge the sacrifices of Tomatoes for their lifestyles.
For further reading, see The Myth of lycopersicum Power by Roy G. Biv.
“bureaucratic” (currrsesessss)
Potatoes should be mashed in the streets!
If potatoes had any sympathy for the plight of the tomato they would violently throw themselves at each other in the street.
(Since they don’t have hands to punch with.)
Hey FirstJoe, can you (a) define “the West” and (b) explain why only people living in the West matter? Because my understanding is non-Western people are humans too and should factor into any discussions — otherwise, you know, apex fallacy… (Which is not really a thing that exists, but whatever.)
Also the reason that potatoes don’t have hands is that they’re lazy. If they cared about justice they would have evolved super-hands by now.
And how many of those have fuck-all to do with feminism?
Yeah, it’s feminists enrolling men in the Dworkin Army so they can mine coal from the Steinem Pit. Every feminist here has been screaming that we’d love for women to have an equal shot at fighting in combat positions and working in dangerous jobs.
Suicide, violence, and imprisonment are highly linked to our ultra-violent social view of masculinity, which again, something feminism’s fighting.
Spending on women’s welfare is mostly actually spending on children’s welfare. The fact that more women are primary caregivers for children than men–not something feminism is a big fan of.
I’d argue that the “educational outcomes” one isn’t even a problem at all. More men than women are able to get good jobs in the trades that don’t require a college education–lucky them! They’re a lot better off than women who rack up student debt and then end up with a lower income anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/four-members-of-traveller-family-convicted-in-slaves-trial-7936127.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/slaves-put-squid-on-u-s-dining-tables-from-south-pacific-catch.html
“…The conditions suffered by 2000 mainly Indonesian men on 27 vessels were judged “appalling”, with gruesome accounts of extreme physical violence and verbal abuse….”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/modern-slavery-on-korean-fishing-boats/story-e6frg6so-1226113886388
A few years back in the UK
“….A total of 21 bodies, of men and women between the ages of 18 and 45, were recovered from the bay after the incident. Two of the victims were women, the vast majority were young men in their 20s and 30s, with only two being over 40 and only one, a male, under 20.[3]…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Morecambe_Bay_cockling_disaster
Gah, you’re all so fixated on potato this and tomato that you fail to see the real issue: peas! They steal jobs from hard working tomatos, buddy up with potatos to make the lives of tomatos harder, only to exploit the potatos for their own gain! And there’s so many of them.
Peaginas.
Genus traitors.
And then there are the tomatoes who prefer the company of other tomatoes, if you know what I mean. Vile, they are.
Too bad Steele left; I was hoping for more vegetable analogies. WHAT ABOUT THE BEETZ?!!?!!?!
I guess he couldn’t take the heat. ;-)
Hey, tomatoes are actually fruits! How dare you call them vegetables, you vile m-feminist?
“Bad things happen to members of this class, ever” ≠ “This is the oppressed class and the other one must be the privileged class.”
Someone thinks they know better than the United States Supreme Court.
@ First Joe:
I’m perfectly willing to accept that there are a few areas in Western society (although I’m not sure why only the West matters here) where men have it off worse than women. Mind you, those situations are few and far between. They are also often the result of the devaluing of women as a whole. For instance, to steal a favorite hobby horse of the MRAs, when the draft still existed in America, women were not subject to it. To this day, many countries don’t allow women soldiers into combat. As this means that men are more likely to be sent into combat where they risk injury and death, it could be said that this disadvantages men. But the underlying reasons for allowing only men into combat are ultimately misogynistic. Women aren’t seen as capable of handling combat.
Society’s undervaluing of women hurts men too. And you know who it is that wants to fix this? Feminists.
I’m British. What does your Supreme Court have to do with me?
@cloudiah – because I know much better what goes on in the Western world vs. other parts of the world re. statistics involved. Knowing how everyone here LOVES to jump on any error no matter how nit-picking, I specified a limited socio / economic / geographic region (also I am aware that e.g. in India some of the DDD jobs are done by women – I’ve seen pics of lower caste women in saris weilding pickaxes for instance).
No, I won’t define “the West” for you. What do you live under a rock??
@whoever and whoever – Hahaha! Awesome piece of hypocrisy there! When women had poor educational outcomes c.f. men (40/60 graduating college) it was held to be a disaster and something had to be done! Something was done and now the ratio has flipped (60/40) and men are on the shit end – but according to you that’s A-OK because: “trades”.
Bollocks!
Men would be fools to wait for feminism to free us from systemic problems…
(and I dispute that feminists in general have ever or will ever take any such action, see e.g. your hypocrisy above!).
Systemic problems that are nothing to do with “patriarchy” per se …
(which is about having a man as “head of a family” and is therefore pretty much already extinct in the West, where men are increasingly pushed out of “family” altogether and Government is the new Daddy)
….and everything to do with HIERARCHY and how that hierarchy assigns a kind of guaranteed floor-of-value to women, whereas men are much more likely to fall into the glass cellar. Here’s the hierarchy of which I speak:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy
Annoyingly I can’t instantly lay hands on the ?taxchange.org? I think page that had a great link to a .pdf where the % of who owns the world’s wealth was broken down, but suffice to say, we are the 99.999%
I thought tomato was a derogatory term for women? Which means that Steele cannot even get his comparisons right.
Are we playing Spot That Fallacy!!?
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
-> Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning[49]
-> -> Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents
Congratulations! You’ve managed to score the elusive triple layer fallacy!! (The only person here who supports the prison industry complex is Ruby btw, and you might’ve seen the shit we give her for that? Yeah, do explain how feminism is the cause of any of those)
@Anathema – feminists keep saying they are all for men too, but
1) the clue is in the name – if they were it would be called humanism or egalitarianism
2) the actions of most feminists disprove this claim at pretty much every opportunity
And so sorry to burst your bubble, but the situations in which men are worse off than women are not “few and far between” they are systemic. I’ve already given you a list of just some of the instances (see my post to Cliff) I recommend you go and look up the actual data.
@Cliff Pervocracy
“And how many of those have fuck-all to do with feminism?”
All of them.
Hi, The First Joe, It would appear you’re a new comments troll, please, come, stay a while and enjoy the scenery. Also we ran out of trolls to mock just as I was starting to get good at this so we need fresh material.
lol this gibberish again
2)
Like when they make fun of me for saying stupid things! This proves that feminists are against rather than for men as a group.
So why is men’s rights called men’s rights again? Shouldnt it be called “equalityisticism” or something?
@Argenti – ignoring the garbage that makes up most of your post.
I took Ruby to task for her apex fallacy. Clearly you too suffer from this delusion, I have directed you to the categories where you should look at the actual statistical data which proves my point. Your failure to do so, is not my problem.
Apparently you also labour under the delusion that I’m claiming feminism caused all these systemic issues – No. Apart from education which it clearly did, health/welfare it had a strong influence, and suicide where there is a strong correlation, feminism per se (as opposed to much older, related, but not identical societal gynocentrism) is not the key causal factor.
Tell us again how wars are caused by the wimmenz,
UsulOwly.No, tell us how male suicide is strongly correlated with feminism. We await with baited breath.
this isnt a real thing, dummy
Actually, Owly, tell us how you manage to be under the illusion that “fuck-all to do with” means “is caused by”. Note that this is a use of English problem, not a whether or not feminism causes things problem.
Now here is something to take note of…. owly finally got something right!!! All of those things that were listed have fuck-all to do with feminism.
damn! ninja’d by CassandraSays
I want the link between feminism and homelessness.
@CassandraSays
“No, tell us how male suicide is strongly correlated with feminism. We await with baited breath.”
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/male-suicide-rates-on-epidemic-climb.html
Every counrty without fail that has adopted the poison of feminism into it’s culture shows the identical pattern. Fun for the whole family. Just go to any country and use mens rise in suicide rate to determine when feminism was shoved down their throats. Well done ladies! Well done! It must be what women want.
@Futrelle – Hah! Good point
Answers:
– Those names were already taken.
– The majority of men were utterly asleep as to how fucking badly they were being screwed under the old system, carrots like Marriage 1.0 and default paternal custody of kids (yeah, I’m going back a long way here) made men feel invested in their societies.
After decades of feminism took away all the carrots and left only the sticks (at the same time as the globalist hierarchy fucked men in other ways) men were forced awake, most often by losing their kids, getting horribly screwed in divorce, losing job(s) unjustly (affirmative action for women), getting slung in jail for being poor (euphemised as “contempt of court order to pay”) – things that feminists have been very prominent in doing / enabling / encouraging / lobbying (the bleating of manboobzers notwithstanding). So naturally, the movemnt got intially framed as feminisms mirror image. Actually a mistake I feel, up to a point, because men in general get badly fucked by the hierarchy of Assholes In Charge to whom feminism is just one tool in the kit… but:
– I don’t know, I didn’t name it. :p
Really, Joe? “equalityisticism” was taken?
Feminism is aimed at making sure that men and women have equal rights. As a whole, society gives men more rights than women and values men over women. So while men are also hurt by the way our society views gender, women are hurt more. That means that women’s rights are a primary focus of any attempt to make gender equality a reality. That’s why it’s called feminism.
If you don’t like the name or you think it’s misleading, fine. But that does not make it okay for you to redefine the word “feminism” to match your preconceived expectations.
Humanism and egalitarianism don’t work to specifically describe attempts to achieve gender equality because those words already have meanings. Humanism already refers to a range of philosophies which share a focus on human values, interests, and welfare. Egalitarianism refers to the idea that all human beings are of equal worth and should be treated as such. Unlike feminism, neither of these words focus on equality between the genders.
I am a humanist and an egalitarian. But I still call myself a feminist. My feminism is a natural outgrowth of my humanism and egalitarianism.
I’m not going to deny that there are a few feminists who take things to far. There are a few people who call themselves feminists who are anti-men. But this is not the majority of feminists! Most feminists would find those attitudes repugnant. Most feminists want to see both men and women treated fairly.
I smell a new faux blog coming… :-)
“Feminism” isn’t named “humanism” for the same reason that the North Carolina Animal Welfare Association isn’t named the “All Good Things For Everyone Everywhere Association.”
We’re allowed to specialize. It is not unethical for us not to take up every cause ever.
And before that he was whining about how feminists were secretly anti-male because gathered under the label of “feminism” instead of “humanism” or “egalitarianism”. You know, labels that actually were already taken.
Yeah, Joe, since the names you suggested were already taken, what would you have liked feminism to call itself?
Unless it’s that you just don’t think that a movement designed to secure rights for women should exist at all.
Is First Joe another one with his nose out of joint because he can’t be boss feminist, or is this new whining of his?
Joe, please tell us how it is like you did with the whole trans issue. Better yet, just shut the fuck up in general.
So is tomato sauce Super Mega Misandry?
I am NOT taking on equalityisticism. I already have one half-assed spinoff blog. lol.
I like how all feminists are evil because FEMININE, but MRAs just couldn’t choose a word that already existed, and how every single manboobzer is personally responsible for feminism even though Joe had nothing to do with naming the MRM.
If you aren’t claiming that feminism is the cause, then why are you whining to feminists about it? Why are you complaining about how gender inequality hurts men to people who are trying to bring about gender equality? We already know that gender roles hurt men and women alike, and we’re trying to stop that.
And how has feminism hurt men in ANY of these areas?
The North Carolina Animal Welfare Association hates vegetables! Full circle.
Butthurt can be quite painful, y’know.
I play Spot That Fallacy!! with the troll, he calls my mockery garbage. Well aren’t you just a precious one? XD
Guess what? You’re our star again! For this round of Spot That Fallacy!! we have correlation is not causation! — “and suicide where there is a strong correlation”
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
And wtf are you doing telling a bunch of feminists that feminism is wrong if you don’t think that list is caused by feminism? Shorter version of this question — well then why are you here?
Is Joe’s “apex fallacy” nonsense related to the troll who was babbling about how people not being able to relate to great white sharks the other day?
Totally ninja’ed by Anathema while playing Spot That Fallacy!! (Hint to the trolls, if I’m playing Spot That Fallacy!! you should not expect to be taken seriously. Spot That Fallacy!! is pretty obviously for the lulz XD )
Wow, my grammar has really gone to shit lately. Sorry about that.
Cassandra — the sharks claim was, iirc, Nikan. But no, things I learned from glossary troll — apex fallacy is a made up term of the manosphere for the whole “women want alphas” thing. See The Spearhead for wtf they mean with it.
@everyone – continually repeating feminist catechism about “equality for men and women” doesn’t fool anyone. Feminism is about – rights, power, stuff, cash and prizes for women.
I’m am sure there are some really well intentioned people out there (maybe even here) calling themselves feminists who care about everybody, and yet those voices are drowned out by legions of mainstream feminists who at best ignore men & boys (which is the most charitable interpretation of VAWA) and at worst seek to actively harm men (RadFems).
What feminists in general, by and large, as a group say and do does not match up with “equality”. Not even your rhetoric!
Here’s an example I was reading yesterday in which a self-proclaimed feminist holds that “no means no”, “my body, my choice, my reasons” does not apply to those men she wants to have sex with. If they won’t have sex with her, she feels ENTITLED to an explanation damnit!! She believes men are turning her down because: teh patriarchy.
She is quite literally a female chauvinist pig.
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/asking-for-sex-what-do-you-do-when-the-guy-says-no/
Feminists quite rightly condemn attitudes of “you owe me teh sex” in men, but if you read the comments you’ll see that while there are, yes, feminists taking her very gently to task (swap the sexes and imagine the flame wars!) there are also feminists supporting her attititude!
And that’s why men are fools to themselves if they support feminism per.se. and doubly so if they ever expect any help from feminism – because feminism in practice means:
– whatever any woman calling herself feminist at any given time says it means.
Which changes according to her self-interest at that moment.
It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.
@Cliff – yes, you are allowed to specialise and promote your own special-interest group. Absolutely. And now men are doing that too. And that’s allowed too.
“It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.”
Physician, heal thy own movement. Please? Because your entire spiel seems to have been written about the MRM and then just clumsily regendered.
@The First Joe
There’s no logic here. All debate, (haha), begins with the forgone conclusion of woman = default correct. Since woman is correct no matter what she says, no arguement will change the default status of being correct. Under feminist doctrine you are man, thusly privileged, which you cannot renounce. The privileged are always the oppressors. Being a man, you, at best can defer to a woman, but you can never live down the sin of being a man. You are wrong by default. The victim is always right, the oppressor is always wrong.
a) there are no mainstream feminists. Feminism is very much a sidelined ideology.
b) radical feminists are a tiny minority within feminism and every non radfem I’ve encountered strongly dislikes them.
I’ve never heard of the Crunk Feminist Collective, but assuming that article isn’t a parody, it’s absolutely deplorable. I don’t think anyone on Manboobz supports the attitude exhibited by that writer, nor have I ever read a similar article written by anyone who IDs as a feminist.
Oh, and if that article is a parody, it’s a crap parody that isn’t funny.
@Argenti – it’s really not may fault if you’re unable to follow a thread of an argument from one page to another – clue: it all starts with Ruby’s apex fallacy.
Yes, I am mocking your mockery. I am engaging in meta-mockery. Mockery squared.
Speaking of squares: Take a look at a Necker cube.
That’s (an analogy of) society. Feminists say it’s one way, MRA’s another. And up to a point, they are both right, and up to a point, both are wrong.
Both are largely missing that someone else (the 0.001%) are drawing the cube that they are trapped in.
Decades of feminism + technological changes + globalisation + bansterism among other things have squashed one half of the cube in one way, now the other half is responding to the tensions created by those forces.
Sort of. Kinda. It’s an analogy.
Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’
Clue: it’s not because I expect any of you to ever listen to anything I say, or his noodly appendage forbid – change your minds… :p