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.
No one is entitled to have sex with anyone. Everyone has the right to their own bodily autonomy. The principle of “no means no” holds true for both men and women.
I’m a feminist and I’m telling you this. I’m sure that all of the regulars on Manboobz (save the trolls) agree with me on this.
Are you still going to insist that we, as feminists, still don’t really believe in gender equality because of one article you read by one self-proclaimed feminist? What makes the word of that one person so much more important than all of ours?
‘i didn’t read it because your a doodyhead’ isnt really mockery dude. have you never made fun of someone before?
WTF is the “Crunk Feminist Collective”? Please note that when David goes looking for quotes, he gets them from the most prominent MRA sites (Reddit’s men’s rights section, The Spearhead, AvFM), while in order to prove your point you had to go find a group of feminists who as far as I can tell none of the feminists here have ever heard of.
Ninja’d by Cassandra, but are you kidding me, Joe? HAHAHAHA, thanks for describing the MRM.
I’m too lazy to look it up. Which site had the serial rapist’s confession and his supporters?
@ Freitag
That was Reddit (big surprise).
@CassandraSays, thanks. I read a bit of it then had to go look at bulldog puppies for quite some time.
Aww, now he thinks I just can’t keep up, Joe’s a cute troll, can we keep him? (I’m picturing a GI Joe all huffy that there is no princess to save XD )
Honestly though Joe, it’d help if you had a coherent point, but as it stands you seem to just want to troll for the lulz of it, so you’ll have to pardon me for doing the same to you. FYI, your Necker Cube analogy fell apart somewhere between claiming feminists and MRMs are both wrong, and the squashed cube part.
“Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’”
I guess I’m just going to have to keep assuming it’s because you’re an asshole then.
I am curious how Ruby’s committing the made up Apex Fallacy, when Ruby’s well known for believing in female hypergamy.
Oh and —
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
on that Crunk Feminist Collective quote
“banksterism”
@Cassandrasays – certainly the wide variety of the “MRM” is indeed as wildly variable as feminism, if not more so. So much so that I am reluctant to claim it as my “movement” per se, and there are some people involved in it whose attitudes I strongly condemn (see the thread re. Tom Martin and his BS take on underage prostitutes)….
The “MRM” such as it is, has the excuse that it’s only a few years old, barely out of the “Holy shit! we’re fucked!!! wtf??” stage, and is a self-funding movement – in contrast with establishment feminism that has been well funded from many external sources (including gov’t in general, C1A (Steinem), and the Rockefeller Foundation) and has been going so long that governments and academia are ram jammed full of them.
For example:
– Joe Biden, who in introducing VAWA (whitewashing DV against men and boys) spoke about how female-on-male violence was A-OK in his house.
– Barak Obama, who recently said in a press release / speech that boys graduating 20% less than girls was a “victory for equality”. Hello!? Maths!
– Hilary Clinton, who once said “Women are the first victims of war” whitewashing combatant deaths that are (almost) all men.
etc. etc.
@Argenti or whoever – if you really are unware of the fantastically successful campaign by feminists in academia to transform teaching / learning in public schools to favour girls outcomes (charitably again – “incidentally” – at the expense of boys), I can’t help someone who is so utterly unaware of what is going on in society around them.
Cassandra, Crunk Feminist Collective is a WOC feminist blog. Joe clearly cannot read for comprehension, that post does not say nearly what he thinks it does. Even if it did, I’ll point him to Exhibit A, which is any Spearhead or AVfM article ever for being a thousand times worse.
I actually like the Crunk Feminist Collective; it’s a collection of feminists of color writing particularly, but not exclusively about issues of feminism, racism, and intersectionality. I don’t like it as much as Racialicious but there are some good writers and some interesting posts. I read the post The First Joe is referencing and it remains incredibly problematic. The author, crunkashell, is really… reaching for something with that piece. And she’s missing by quite a bit. She wrote a follow up piece in attempt to explain her original post (always a bit ridiculous in my mind) and clarify her original position.
I guess The First Joe neglected to mention how much she was taken to task by the blog’s regular followers for her original essay, right? How there was no consensus about what she’d written and strong, if respectful, disagreement by male and female feminists, alike?
Of course he did.
How’s that tinfoil hat fitting? Have you met NWO? You two should go off and talk about the lizard Illuminati or something.
I actually have heard of the Crunk Feminist Collective; it’s a site aimed at feminists of colour, and while I don’t read it regularly they’ve had some good pieces in the past. To Joe’s credit, his “one feminist said a bad thing, therefore feminism is bad!” example is a current website, rather than an out-of-context quote from Dworkin or something.
Of course, he’s still stupid as hell, but hey! It’s nice to see MRAs at least mixing things up with their “all feminists are responsible for every feminist ever” schtick.
The Creflo Dollar stuff was pretty intense.
this is not actual an excuse for the level of incompetence the mrm has displayed. or do you think the early feminists were as dismal at sloganeering as your ill-fated attempt the other day? (hint: they werent)
Oh, is the actual post worth reading? I’m not even reading Joe’s links in general since, well, he’s a dumbass.
Even if I did say what he thinks it does, I’d still say “fix your own movement first”, since that’s where he has more of a chance to effect change. He could start with the people on Reddit who cheerleaded Confessions of a Serial Rapist.
@Argenti – as I have no doubt that you’d assume I’m an asshole purely on the strength of offering any critique of how men are treated in society…. meh.
@ Nobinayamu
One of my favorite things with MRAs is when they pull out something problematic said by a feminist (usually on Jezebel, which for some reason they think is a hotbed of radical feminism), and use it as an example of What Feminists Think, despite the comments being a shitstorm of “WTF did I just read?”.
@Joe, have you been to Google Groups? You might want to check out soc.men, a usenet group that’s been around for quite a number of years and was a hangout for MRAs. The MRM is not “only a few years old.”
So why do the feminists who agree with that article get to define what feminism is, but not the one’s who disagree.
I’m looking through the comments of that article right now. There are a lot of commenters disagreeing with the original post. And they aren’t all “taking [the author] very gently to task.”
For instance:
So how come you are fine with letting the original post define feminism for you, but not any of the commenters explaining that it goes against the fundamental principles of feminism?
It’s interesting that you paraphrased the first two examples rather than providing actual quotes, almost as though a direct source would reveal that they aren’t saying anything like what you claim. Feel free to prove me wrong and show me where Biden or Obama actually said anything of the sort, of course; I can’t be arsed to do a search just to prove that you’re a liar.
Regarding the third quote, you know that war almost always kills and harms enormous numbers of noncombatants too, right? What am I saying, of course you don’t; that would require doing actual research.
“In contrast with establishment feminism that has been well funded from many external sources (including gov’t in general, C1A (Steinem), and the Rockefeller Foundation) and has been going so long that governments and academia are ram jammed full of them.”
C1A? Guys, I think we have a Pell incident in progress.
He thinks that Steinem was a pawn of the CIA? OK, this guy REALLY needs to make friends with Owly.
Kind of funny that he initially tried to come in and present himself as a reasonable, moderate MRA, huh? That never does seem to last very long.
“@Argenti – as I have no doubt that you’d assume I’m an asshole purely on the strength of offering any critique of how men are treated in society…. meh.”
No, no, you missed the point — you’re an asshole because you think you can meta-mock mockery by taking it seriously, while playing the following round of Spot That Fallacy!!
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct
“You’re both wrong and I’m better than either of you!” won’t get you anywhere on the internet (or in general).
Slightly random, but that rogue quotation mark in the title is bugging me. >.< I'm not normally bugged by mistakes, but it's like it's flashing in giant neon letters every time I look at the post. :P
Excuse me? The Crunk Feminist Collective is a well-known, reputable feminist site. Futrelle regularly cherry-picks quotes from random individuals over on Reddit to hold up as representative of the Movement.
Your hypocrisy is palpable.
Excuse me, but did Steele just admit that such a thing as a reputable feminist site exists? I’m fairly sure that must be misandry.
“Excuse me?”
LULZ FOREVER.
Glad some one else decided to click through. That post spawned a very interesting discussion; hardly a block of monolithic support. Her follow up was better written. Still fucked up, but more cogent. In a lot ways, crunkashell was expressing a position not far removed from what seems to define a lot of what passes for grievance among some MRAs.
Specifically, “I’m awesome, how come I’m not getting the sex that I want! It’s not fair!” Despite her protests and explanations, it doesn’t come across as any less entitled or absurd. I hear what she’s saying and all but not being able to get laid just isn’t a political issue.
Shut the fuck up, Steele. You know good and the hell well you’d never heard of The Crunk Feminist Collective until just now.
Steele old chap, one of the comments Anathema posted called the OP’s position “Creep Factor Bazillion.” Shouldn’t you be freaking out over use of the C-word?
@hellkell – oh, I’m sorry, this is general knowledge, pardon me for waking you up from your complacent slumber:
“In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, raised the question of whether Steinem had continuing ties with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[26][27] Though she admitted to having worked for a CIA-financed foundation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Steinem denied any continuing involvement.[28]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem
see also:
“story appeared in the “Village Voice” on May 21, 1979.
…..
‘In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA’s Cord Meyers to direct an “informal group of activists” called the “Independent Research Service.” This was part of Meyer’s “Congress for Cultural Freedom,” which created magazines like “Encounter” and “Partisan Review” to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots. One of Steinem’s CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960’s, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women’s lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine’s first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive ….'”
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml
Also:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1M9EAly2hog&refer=home
Re: general funding of feminism, including Rockefeller Foundation:
“…..research and publication in Women’s Studies has been supported by foundations and federal agencies. In the past few years, at least two major sources of funding of dissertation research have been specifically designated for Women’s Studies (Woodrow Wilson Women’s Research Grants; American Association of University Women). The National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, National Institute of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of Mental Health, and other agencies have given both support and visibility to research on women’s studies. …”
http://www.umich.edu/~womenstd/background.htm
and
“The Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and Women’s Studies… In 1991 the Institute was awarded a three-year Rockefeller Foundation Grant. The Rockefeller Foundation Fellowships allowed us to have in residence visiting scholars ….”
http://www.rochester.edu/college/WST/SBAI/history.html
^And those were just the first two, purely academic (non-MRM) links from the first page of 1,000,000 plus hits for a google of “women’s studies Rockefeller foundation”
“Shouldn’t you be freaking out over use of the C-word?”
Not when it applies to women.
Joe, if you google he-man-woman-haters-club you will know better than to make such an absurd claim again. People have been mocking MRAs for a very long time.
It seems that at Boobzland, it’s acceptable to mock one phrase in a larger post, thereby ignoring the substance of my position.
You make yourselves the jester’s fools.
Reddit is obscure? My mother knows about reddit FFS (my mother cannot work FB without directions, I had to demonstrate how to “share” to her, but she knows that reddit is a thing).
Maybe try that on another post then Steele? Because the OP here is a publicly known site.
Also, trying to refute an argument by going “you’re a hypocrite”? That’s another round of Spot That Fallacy!!
Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
Thanks for the textbook example though!
” I hear what she’s saying and all but not being able to get laid just isn’t a political issue.”
You know, it’s interesting, I’ve seen a lot of sexist dudes assuming that this is one of the core feminist ideas, that women are entitled to sex, or to put it another way, that feminism is partly an attempt to make it easier for conventionally unattractive women to get laid. That’s clearly not what crunkashell was trying to say (I’m still trying to parse her weird men refuse sex to gain power conspiracy theory), but given the context of a lot of sexist dudes already holding that belief about feminism I’m not surprised that he interpreted her post the way he did.
I mean, her post is problematic as hell for several reasons, I’m just not convinced that he understood what she said well enough to know what those reasons are.
Steele, did it occur to you that perhaps what you consider the substance of your post, everyone else considers whiny made up nonsense?
If the substance of your position is that “creep” is a terrible thing to say, aren’t you being a little inconsistent?
Yeah, guys, everyone knows it isn’t possible for self-described feminists to disagree on issues. What we need to do is claim that the CFC is headed by No True Feminists and then sputter about how they’re obviously MRA plants designed to make feminism look bad. That’s the logical approach!
“It seems that at Boobzland, it’s acceptable to mock one phrase in a larger post, thereby ignoring the substance of my position.”
Come for the mockery, stay for the mockery? Steele, reread the sub-title of the blog already would you?
Joe — Try learning real fallacies before making others up ok?
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Nobody really gives a shit wtf Steinem did. And regarding the Rockefeller Foundation —
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same
@Whoever – here’s Obama himself opining on Title IX:
“40 years ago, committed women from around the country, driven by everyone who said they couldn’t do something, worked with Congress to
ban gender discrimination in our public schools.
Title IX was the result of their efforts, and this week, we celebrated its 40th anniversary—40 years of ensuring
equal education, in and out of the classroom, regardless of gender.
*snip*.
In fact,
more women as a whole now graduate from college than men. This is a great accomplishment
—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/23/op-ed-president-obama-president-obama-reflects-impact-title-ix
There’s more in the linked op-ed. In which the POTUS goes on at length about how more, more, more for women is good, super and great. Oblivious (again, I’m being charitable) to that this bias is the same as “equal education”.
Yeah. Because women are the victims who are most numerous, and generally suffer the highest casualties. Women are the ones who aren’t counted. Everyone remembers that men die in war =.=;
Context is misandry?
Yeah, that reasonable facade shit was about as transparent as Clingfilm.
Joe, readjust that tinfoil. Nothing in what you posted points to some vast feminist conspiracy. If we’re so fucking well funded, how come we’re not running the world? Take your pointyheaded nonsense elsewhere.
Have we found anything that Steele doesn’t consider to be misandry yet?
I find the linking of 2nd wave feminism to the CIA… I don’t know, it just makes me kind of shrug my shoulders. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to give a fuck, really.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was targeted by the Hoover’s FBI specifically -though not exclusively- because of his supposed connections to the Communist party and the belief that Civil Rights and integration were inherently destabilizing forces for the U.S. This was the justification Hoover used. And? So?
Black people were supposed to continue being terrorized and disenfranchised because it was more stable for White America?
Supposing 2nd wave feminism was financed by the CIA. Maybe Steinem was an undercover agent. Okay. I still need access to reproductive healthcare, my own bank account, and enhanced opportunity for education and financial independence. And I’m not giving any of that up because NWO wants a sex slave.
If men want to address legitimate men’s issues, I’m all for it.
First Joe is an amusing troll though, at least. Still, I find the Let Us Cling Together remake more amusing.
You’re thinking that it’s a zero-sum game, in that more for women is less for men. Not so, and that’s incredibly sloppy of you. You’re NWO lite, now with 50% less froth.
@Argenti – Ahahahahhahaha!!! Wait, you’re saying that no-one gives a fuck about one of the most famous feminists ever who ran a widely read feminist magazine! Ahahahhahahah!! Bullshit! You can fuck right off!
And as for your “association fallacy” cobblers – do you have a goldfish’s short term memory or what??
I brought up R Foundation and the C1A as just two EXAMPLES of MAINSTREAM, external funding for feminism – which point I have proved and demonstrated ^ see above along with other mainstream sources of funding.
This was in a post contrasting the relative neophyte, outsider status of the MRM vs. the 100year old+ $$$backed leviathan of feminism. QEMFD.
As to WHY those mainstream orgs chose to fund feminism?? I’ll leave you to make that journey down the rabbit hole on your own…. :p
So it is Joe’s considered opinion that it was totally fine when education was totally restricted to, or heavily biased towards, men, but the very instant women overtook men in graduation it became a grave injustice.
Also, recognizing that discrimination against women still exists is the same as wanting “more, more, more for women.”
Joe, you are remarkably stupid. (I’m being charitable, here. The uncharitable explanation is that you’re deliberately pretending to misunderstand the difference between active and ongoing systems of oppression and the ending of a long-standing trend of discrimination.)
Pretty much exactly. But dudes like Joe lurve them some CIA shit, it plays right into their Bourne fantasy spank material. It could happen to THEM.
“Have we found anything that Steele doesn’t consider to be misandry yet?”
Puppies? (That’s the SFW kind of puppy, though I’m now curious if the euphemistic sort would be misandry…)
Shorter Joe: “You’re saying NOT all feminists get everything they believe from a single woman who was most influential several decades ago? Well, that just won’t fit in with my conspiracy theories, so it can’t be true!”
I am going to thank Joe for introducing me to the Crunk Feminist Collective, though, since despite the fucked-up-ness of the specific post he linked to there seems to be some other cool stuff to read there. I know that this is going to be challenging for MRAs to parse since they’re convinced that feminists are a hivemind, but it’s possible to disagree with one post on a blog and agree with other posts on the same blog. What matters is if, when fucked up shit is said, it gets called out and challenged. Which is the step that’s noticeably lacking on MRA blogs. You guys need to learn to argue with each other, rather than just with feminists.
@hellkell – feminists are certainly running the current US gov’t – the POTUS, VP and secretary of state are all avowed and active feminists in speech and deed.
Education need not be a zero sum game, in theory / principle, but that’s what the way the outcomes have shaken out in REALITY.
20 years ago – US college grads were 60% men, 40% women. Now it’s 40% men, 60% women. Men have not been reduced to parity or equality, they have been reduced to a minority in the output of your US colleges. That’s zero-sum in practice. QEMFD, again.
“Bullshit! You can fuck right off!”
Duuuude, all the irony right there, all of it. We’ve done this “Steinem is feminism” thing to death, and people here have repeatedly said they don’t give a fuck what she does/did. So laugh all you want, I stand by wtf I said.
“And as for your “association fallacy” cobblers – do you have a goldfish’s short term memory or what??
I brought up R Foundation and the C1A as just two EXAMPLES of MAINSTREAM, external funding for feminism – which point I have proved and demonstrated ^ see above along with other mainstream sources of funding.”
Perhaps you missed the point? The point was that wtf Steinem said has little to no bearing on what “all feminists” do/say/think.
“This was in a post contrasting the relative neophyte, outsider status of the MRM vs. the 100year old+ $$$backed leviathan of feminism. QEMFD.”
Oh, was that your point? Try actually making points, the goal post shifting is old already.
“As to WHY those mainstream orgs chose to fund feminism?? I’ll leave you to make that journey down the rabbit hole on your own…. :p”
Idk, for the same reason NAMI was on that list? That was basically a list of orgs that provide some sort of assistance to a specific group. Nope, still not seeing your point, sorry.
Everyone else — seriously, is this another Pell incident?
“the POTUS, VP and secretary of state are all avowed and active feminists in speech and deed.”
Except when they’re not.
Also, re: men in education:
When you control for race, you find that black men are doing astronomically poor, and that white men are doing as well as ever.
You should read up on the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Seriously. The problem with the MRM is not its more legitimate grievances, its supposed lack of funding, or its age.
The problems are (among other things) its lack of coherent platform, its laziness, and its deep embrace and promotion of misogyny to the exclusion of actual organizing and activism.
…You know that percentages always add up to 100, right? Like, the fact that men have decreased as a percentage of college graduates doesn’t actually mean any fewer men are graduating from college. They could be graduating in lower numbers, or higher numbers, or the same numbers, without any of that being reflected in their representation as a percentage of college graduates.
You need to provide actual numbers to prove that education is zero-sum, you dingus.
QEMFD is annoying me. QED = quod erat demonstrandum = which was to be demonstrated. If you want “which was to be motherfucking demonstrated” then you need “quod (erat) demonstrari cum matre concubitu” — that’s “which was (to be) demonstrated by having sex with your mother” — I threw in a free yo mamma joke.
Now, will you please stop mangling Latin?
RE education – yep, the achievement gap in terms of gender is really not impacting white men much at all, but it’s definitely having an impact on black men. Now, there are a lot of reasons why black women are doing better in terms of education than black men, but that’s not a 101-level discussion, and it’s going to go way over Joe’s head. The important thing to pull out of that stat is that, as usual, the things that MRAs identify as being purely about gender are actually a lot more complicated than just “society hates men”.
Keep fucking that chicken, Joe.
@rutee – Bullshit!
In horrendous slaughter of millions that was WWI almost all the direct victims of conflict were combatants, i.e. men.
Civilian casualties will certainly INCLUDE women and girls, but hey, bombs don’t discriminate by sex so they INCLUDE men and boys too. Meanwhile men die on the battlefield as WELL.
Democidal campaigns often focus on men and boys (close to fighting age specifically).
Here’s an excellent site:
http://www.gendercide.org/
remember I was talking about men’s forced labour? see also this:
“….. a detailed case-study of the institution of corvée (forced) labour, which we consider, together with infanticide, the most “gendercidal” institution in human history.
Throughout history and continuing into modern times, the practice of forced labour has overwhelmingly targeted adult able-bodied men, leading to millions if not tens of millions of deaths. Despite this grim record, the ILO’s Forced Labour Convention designates one group and one group only as legitimate targets for forced labour: these same adult able-bodied men. Article 11 of the Convention states that “Only adult able-bodied males who are of an apparent age of not less than 18 and not more than 45 years may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour,” so long as “they are physically fit for the work required and for the conditions under which it is to be carried out” and “the number of adult able-bodied men indispensable for family and social life” is allowed to remain in communities targeted for forced labour. In addition, the ILO states that both the forced labour involved in military conscription and the use of prison labour are acceptable under the terms of the Convention. Both of these institutions, of course, target males close to 100 percent of the time (see the Gendercide Watch case-studies of military conscription and incarceration/the death penalty). ….”
http://www.gendercide.org/news.html
What’s more
Re: H Clinton was not talking about women dying! Hell no! She was whitewashing the deaths of men, downgrading actually being killed in contrast to surviving women’s suffering! Here’s you go:
“…..Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children……”
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
^And this was a speech she gave in a country, El Salvador, that had just finished a dirty civil war that the US and C1A had all kinds of involvement in!
@gametime – Duh. My problem with the education situation now is…. INEQUALITY! 60/40 women / men grads is UNEQUAL. When that UNEQUAL ratio was the other way around feminists everywhere = RAGE. Now, it’s flipped 180′ and is UNEQUAL the other way? feminists everywhere = ohheycool, you go grrrl etc. etc.
EQUALITY = 50/50.
Oh dear, Joe is approaching meltdown.
Joe, you do realize that there was a point in history where the gender ratio in education was 100/0 in men’s favor, right? Context, it’s a thing.
So you literally think that if one year x men and x women receive college degrees, and the next year x men and x+1 women receive college degrees, that is a grave injustice. You furthermore think that it is a bad thing that the “extra” woman received a degree, rather than thinking it a good thing that another person received education but a bad thing that however many other people, of either gender, did not.
Am I on the right track? I want to make sure I have a deep and complete understanding of your stupid, stupid beliefs.