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.
Cassandra, context is misandry, you know that.
Joe, why don’t you go fix this instead of parroting MRM talking points and conspiracy theories? I know, being a keyboard warrior is easier.
Oh, and whining at the feminists to fix it is even easier.
Is it bad that I hope for the meltdown?
Stupid and reductive. How would we ensure that? Do we force men who are uninterested and or unable to college to pursue university degrees? Do we tell women who are interested and able that they can’t go because the the number of men and women enrolled has to be 50/50. And, please remember, we’re talking purely about the numbers. Not that, “I wanted to go to this specific university but affirmative action kept me out and, no, the other schools I’ve been accepted to just won’t do” type bullshit.
So, 50/50, Joe: how do you achieve it? See, I’ve got ideas because I do think it’s a worthy goal. What are yours?
@Argenti – Obvious projection is obvious. It is YOU who keeps trying to move the goalposts.
My goal was to show feminism’s funding from a variety of external sources, that are large mainstream orgs, in contrast to MRM – not getting any of that funding. And I did that.
You on the other hand are engaging in the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “Nnanananananana I can’t hear you”
Your Fail is Epic.
And QEMFD is PAST tense = “as I have motherfucking demonstrated”.
You really shouldn’t make those goalposts dance so fast, Joe, you might hurt yourself.
lol, I’m not even looking up the context for Joe’s “your fail is epic” post, but that is one funny post, m’dear. I truly, truly could not be taking you less seriously.
Pretty rich coming from the dude who responded to the fact that not all feminists care about or listen to Gloria Steinem with “You can fuck right off.”
@Nobinayamu – wait, wait you’re arguing AGAINST quotas now??? Really?
So, explain to me how you can simultaneously be against quotas, and yet you are for the feminist, government imposed pro-women quotas that are enshrined in Title IX (soon to be rolled out to STEM! No, really, this is a thing!).
Presonally, I’m not in favour of quotas at all, but seeing as there is not a hope in hell of getting feminist government to drop Title IX* , I’ll bat for 50/50 quotas as a lesser of two evils.
(*or equivalent quotas over here in UK, which is why we have a shortage of doctors here and drain the 3rd world of their precious doctors- , because more women doctors retire/ go part-time after about ten years)
@Nobinayamu – you said:
“Do we tell women who are interested and able that they can’t go because the the number of men and women enrolled has to be 50/50.”
Well, that happens to men right now so… let it be sauce for the goose too..
Still reading through the thread on Crunk Feminist Collective. It really is funny that trollboy chose that particular post as an example of the evils of feminism, given that the comments section is pretty much a perfect illustration of why feminist spaces are so much more productive than MRA spaces.
(Though I’m finding some of the OPs responses to comments incredibly frustrating.)
“And QEMFD is PAST tense = “as I have motherfucking demonstrated”.”
That’s just priceless, QED is an established term Joe, you can’t just change its meaning to suit you. It’s a Latin abbreviation, the Latin being quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as “which was to be demonstrated”. The whole “was to be” thing is a tense English doesn’t have, but in no case does erat demonstrandum mean “was demonstrated” or “has been demonstrated”. And it’s passive voice, there’s no “I have” here, just “it has been”.
“I have demonstrated” would be boring old demonstrata, meaning “as I have demonstrated” translates as “ut demonstrata”.
Your Latin is as bad as your logic. At least you’ve realized I don’t actually give a shit what you say though, that’s a start.
Seriously though, QED is a math term, and it doesn’t mean “I have demonstrated”, that’d just be demostrata, one boring little word.
People-who-don’t-understand-affirmative-action-and-why-it-exists’ fails are epic.
“demonstrata”
For some reason I thought you said vagina dentata.
feministgamer — my fail is epic because I just keep mocking him instead of giving a shit about his “points”. I’d say ALL THE IRONY, but I just did that, that’s what he called epic fail (while claiming QED is active past tense…fuck it, ALL THE IRONY)
whataboutthemoonz — I keep seeing demonstrata as “layers of demons” so hey, vagina dentata, why not? (strata = layers)
Another one claiming that Title IX means telling boys/men they can’t do things? Citation-motherfucking-needed.
@Argenti – OK, I got the grammar of QED wrong, mea culpa.
BUT I have the USAGE correct! Ha!
“Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as “which was to be demonstrated”. The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
I employed it to signal that I had proved what I stated. And also, because I know it would annoy a bunch of you. Success!
I shall continue to use it, and hopefully annoy you a little more every time.
>:D
I could care less if you use QED, and I never said your usage was wrong, just that QEMFD annoyed me as being random English inserted into a Latin phrase.
And lookie there, you admitted you’re only here to annoy us, totally called that one.
@maselphie – people-who-think-that-60/40-is-equality-and-70/30-would-be-equaller-still? Their failure is titanic!
(Not the ship. Noooo. Although the Titanic that was in itself a titanic failure)
I couldn’t* care less
Fuck, I can proofread (non, non possit sum *shakes head*)
@Argenti – annoying you is just one goal among many. But hey! ticking that box! :)
Joe’s in the UK, right? 3AM on Sat/Sun, no wonder he’s getting progressively less coherent.
Fucking up Latin annoys me, try not to feel too special about it. Actually, feel special about it — being a stupid fool annoys me, and you’re managing it, might as well at least let you feel special about being a fool.
On further thought, I make your bucket list? *shudder* Creep, get lost.
“I shall continue to use it, and hopefully annoy you a little more every time.”
I knew he was here in good faith.
@Argenti – clearly, you could in fact care less. You care enough to keep responding to me.
Are you perhaps a Sicilian? I was told once never to mach wits with a Sicilian.
The First Joe is the British Br__n. How novel.
Yeah, quotas and Title XI don’t work the way you think they do.
Show me where a man who can afford to go to college and has been accepted into a college has specifically been told that he cannot go to any college, because he is a man.
Tell you what, I’ll address your idea of what quotas are and how affirmative action works if you’ll acknowledge that in the past (again, among other things) cronyism, nepotism, legacy acceptances, Business Associations, Country Clubs, and Greek organization culture created a society in which women and minorities were effectively kept away from educational opportunities, political enfranchisement, and economic independence.
“match” (buggerit!)
Cassandra – Yeah… she’s a piece of work.
@Argenti – don’t flatter yourself. :p
Aw, are we doing racial slurs now? I’m Italian enough to know exactly what that Sicilian crack means, nice try though.
What’s wrong with Sicily? (Vague thought just ran through my brain about Othello and “moors”; was it a race thing?)
Argenti: I think the Sicilian thing is a reference to the Princess Bride.
@The First Joe
Tell-a-vision told them you’re wrong.
Nooooooo, not at all, they can be quite entertaining.
@Nobinayamu
I keep wanting to jump into the conversation on that thread, but old thread + I’m not a known commenter over there + I’m not black = that would be very bad manners. The conversation really is frustrating though. When the OP says things like this, it feels incredibly coercive and creepy to me.
“I would like to see asking as fully empowering in its own right. But consistent denial of one’s requests certainly undercuts the power one finds in the asking.”
Why should empowerment mean that your sexual requests are not sometimes denied? It’s inherent in the act of asking for sex that sometimes you’ll be turned down. This is a feature, in that it means that people feel able to say no and thus they are not being coerced, not a bug. Not to mention, if feminists say shit like that how are we supposed to explain the idea that being able to say no without negative consequences (like a former partner sending you on a guilt trip) is a feature, not a bug?
But at the same time, you have responses like this, which are just as messed up.
” Even if a man rejects you he knows it’s far easier for you to find a willing partner than it is for him. He knows where the power is and it’s not with men.
Of course there are a few men who command that kind of power but their rarity and relative exclusivity makes them irrelevant. A average women will always have more sexual power than the average man.”
Which is frustrating in that he’s buying into the same basic idea of how sex works that she is, and just bemoaning his perception that the power balance is not tipped in his favor (he thinks).
Sometimes trying to talk about het sex just depresses me. I really wish people would stop framing all sexual interactions as a power play.
Also, I’m frustrated with a project that I need to finish by deadline but I’m feeling uninspired about, so please, bring on the meltdown and pass the popcorn.
“I really wish people would stop framing all sexual interactions as a power play.”
If it’s power play, I’ve got a strap on. If we’re just having vanilla-awesome-cuddle-sex, then there should be no power involved.
@leum – Yes! It is indeed a Princess Bride reference! You WIN!
@everyone else’s kneejerk taking offence! You FAIL! Again! Ha! Hhahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!! *dead*
Hey man, my strap-on is for tender egalitarian cuddles!
…sometimes.
I don’t get why people who want the power play can’t just find themselves a nice compatible partner who’s into that kind of thing, rather than trying to impose their kink on random people. Kink is great! With a consenting partner who understands what’s going on. Stealth kink that you don’t give people the choice to opt out of, on the other hand, is not so great.
“Hey man, my strap-on is for tender egalitarian cuddles!”
All power play involves strap-ons, but not all strap-ons involve power play :)
[On a side note, I find it terribly disappointing when men who say they're into kink mean they like a sexy outfit talking dirty, and not lady dommes :( ]
I’d probably have had a lot more casual sex over the course of my lifetime if the twin ideas that kink = female submission and female submission = a standard and non-negotiable part of “normal” het sex weren’t so frustratingly common in every culture I’ve lived in as an adult.
@cassandrasays – I tend to differentiate between power play (kink) and power manipulation (asshattery). Because one is consensual, and one is not, and I think that people who engage in the latter are overwhelmingly not interested in the former.
Oh, I agree. The problem is that the people who engage in the asshattery don’t seem to understand that there is a difference.
Um, that Princess Bride reference? It’s about as acceptable as having the giant be a brute and an idiot — it only works because that entire movie is parody.
At best, you’re similar unfamiliar with the racist assumption that Sicily is “black Italy” and subject to all the same racist assumptions as Africa. More likely, you want a pass to envoke those assumptions while going “I’m just quoting a movie you fools!”
But really, if you’re going to die laughing, please stick the flounce. (6/10, facing a 2 pt penalty if he fails to stick it)
Which is terrible! But talking about it means that people have sex, and enjoy it, and sometimes enjoy kinky sex, and that would be bad because. Reasons.
As an example, check out anything written by Roissy. He’s convinced that all women are into fairly extreme submission and verbal humiliation, and sadly he’s not alone in that belief. And some women actually are into that! But when guys start assuming that it’s a universal among women, that’s not going to end well.
Similar unfamiliar?! The fuck brain? That should say “simply unfamiliar”.
Hmm…is our buddy Joe friends with John the Other? Because coincidentally enough he showed up in the thread at Crunk Feminist Collective today (way at the bottom).
Actually, yesterday. I guess someone linked that post on R/Mr, maybe that’s where Joe found it too.
I am into fairly extreme submission and verbal humiliation, and I’ll still throw you out on your ass if you start doing it without negotiating. I’m pretty particular about what kinds of domination I want, and I’m very particular about knowing for certain that I can end it and get comfort from your soft decent side when I can’t take any more, and I’m not getting any of that from Roissy’s shtick.
I think that the fact that the woman doesn’t want what’s happening, and he knows it, but he can force her to accept it, is a fundamental part of Roissy’s fantasy. If he encountered a super submissive partner who actually got off submission I’m willing to bet that he’d either turn her down or be very unsatisfied with the experience afterwards. He doesn’t want willing, happy submissives, he wants women who he can bully and manipulate into sex that they won’t enjoy.
Yeah, kink isn’t worth it for me without cuddles at the end. For some people it is, but NAWALT, NAWALT.
These people are horrifying.
It’s cool; I understand. I read Crunk Feminist pretty regularly but I don’t participate in comment threads. Not because I don’t think it’s fairly well written as a whole; certainly, I do. And I’m Black so I don’t worry about not necessarily understanding the context of the discussion. But I do find it interesting to just follow discussions sometimes. And while crunkashell’s writing can be provocative (and occasionally amazing) that particular piece and her behavior in the subsequent discussion really chapped my ass.
And it’s a conversation I’ve been privy to multiple times in analog where it can be just as frustrating.
Bottom line: rejection does not negate empowerment. It’s disappointing to see a feminist frame a discussion about sex in that fashion.
Yeah, this stuff can be depressing.
Honestly, even his “all women like this” schtick is a power play. I don’t think that he actually believes that all women like that stuff, what he’s really after is more “I can make you pretend to like this thing that I know you actually hate because I have that much power over you and you have no other options”.
He’s a sick puppy.
Oh joy.
Adding more evidence to the “Joe cannot summarize fairly to save his ass”–like a number of you, I followed up on the Crunk Collective (which I’d not heard of at all before tonight)!
As pointed out above by several, the site is a collective by and for women of color of multiple sexualities, defining itself as a mix of hip hop and Southern Black culture.
I suppose it’s nice that Joe and Steele are all color blind, and didn’t note that it was a site by feminists of color–I don’t suppose they know anything about the complicated history of racisms in the white feminist movement (and it’s not just second wavers–but Gloria Steinem is a lot more likely to be racist than to be a CIA plant, ahahahahahahahahaha), or why womanists and feminist of color often create their own spaces these days — or even that the internet has allowed a lot more feminist sites to flourish rather than people having to depend on one magazine–I don’t know how well known or respected the site is–my not knowing of it means nothing more than I’d never run across it before. Actually, I am sure at least that Steele doesn’t even know it–Joe, I don’t know.
Do you read regularly over there Joe? Which is your favorite blogger? What have you learned from it?
The First Joe’s summary of the post at the Crunk Feminist Collective:
The link for the article for those who don’t want to click back.
What do you mean by “self-proclaimed” feminist? Are there any other types? Do you think that somebody else gets to declare real feminists to be feminists?
I think…..his very short and misleading summary of it does not begin to address the issues she raises — although I agree with commenters above that her desire to identify a Black man or Black men turning her down for sex as an example of male privilege is definitely a problem–I see from comments above, there’s a followup, but I didn’t read it yet (this post got long and link laden fast).
But it’s a bit more complicated than just “patriarchy” (which, if you take an intersectional approach, doesn’t situated Black men as privilegd as White men!).
A quote from the end of her post:
And the idea that there is a lot of agreement-well, I didn’t read all 81 comments, but here’s what Joe said:
Feminists, eh? Supporting her attitude, eh? Here’s a list of the first few comments mostly by male contributors (who may or may not identify as feminists!).
Miles Garvey defending the men saying no
Edward, accusing her of being a hypocrite (he and Joe would probably get along)
DC Mike, telling her she s full of shit.
Daniel: Telling her she is not entitled to sex
Sista, including herself as part of “we” the women, warnng aganist objectifying and essentializing men.
Lordamaru, cheering Sista (see below–this poster is a man).
hotairgenerator defending men’s right to say no.
A response by Crunkastic:
That response engaged in great and caring detail while disagreeing by Lordamaru (whose comments show he is a man).
I know a lot of major Black feminists’ work–but about 99% of that if not 100% deals with the issue of racism in the white feminist movement (as a white feminist, that’s what I need to work on).
I don’t do masculinity studies in my own scholarship (though I do have some readings on it in my graduate gender studies courses, and my students can write on masculinity studies in those courses). Therefore, I’d have to know more about the work in Black masculinity studies that she may be referencing to situate her argument in that context, and to make complete sense of it.
And yes, it’s not an argument I’d agree with (I’ve only skimmed fairly quickly), but as everybody else said: she does not speak for all feminists; she does not speak for all Black feminists. The blog is a collective which means there will be different perspectives–and the commenters do not fall over themselves agreeing with her.
And here’s where Joe and Steele and NWO may suffer head explosions: I actually do not think that Crunktastic saying what she does is in any way equal to being like a man who does not want to take a woman’s no for an answer–because DUDEZ there is no frakking documented history of Black women raping Black men (or White men) (or any other men) (and the actual statistics on women raping men–which does happen–is pretty damn low), so the CONTEXT for her unhappiness with being told no and exploring what to do in response to it (NOTICE NOWHERE DOES SHE SAY SHE GETS TO FORCE THEM! Which a whole shitload of PUA and MRA’s say outright at times) is completely different from what a man would do..
AKA: False equivalency Joe.
Plus, crap summary, and bad reading skillz.
F (and a really LOW F, like 10%, not a 59% F).
Bloody hell: I read that sucker three times–and thought I had the html blockquotes straight!
*ACK*
Sorry comrades.
i see Joe is palming cards, “direct deaths”, which removes all non-combat deaths from the equation, and so he can ignore all the women who died in Russia, and France, and Germany, and Belgium, and Poland and Serbia, and Palestine and… as a result of the second order effects caused by the war.
@Nobinayamu: I think you posted while I was writing that long ass thing–thanks! I have bookmarked the site to read a bit!
@CassandraSays: Ahahahahah, so Joe is NOT a regular reader of the site, and is just dare I say it CHERRY PICKING!
AAHAHAH
*goes to read more of the comments*
Hate: I’m with cassandra. I don’t hate Bush Fils (despise yes, but not hate). Dick Cheney… I hate him.
Leum: The court didn’t say they were biologically vegetables, they said people eat them in the same way they eat vegetables, and they didn’t qualify for the expemtion from taxes that fruits got.
Argenti: It’s not Pell. It does feel familar, but I can’t quite place it. It’s not Eoghan, but there is a sense of that level of obsession.
Was Joe the one who insisted on writing mu5lims instead of muslims too? Like C1A? To avoid the NSA’s evil web scouring bots? What I don’t get is, does he really think there’s no one in the NSA/CIA/whatev who is smart enough to put in totally obvious variations for the search-bot to look for? I mean they are evil world dominators, I feel like we should probably assume they’re pretty good at it.
p.s. I had an absolutely marvelous heirloom tomato salad tonight. I don’t care if tomatoes are a fruit (which they are) or a vegetable, they are fucking delicious, and since I am a potato-feminist I really enjoy eating them.
You mean that brunch casserole where you cube day-old demons and pour some eggs and milk on top and bake them? I love that, so delicious and so easy, especially for a crowd!
See, I know that the Crunk Feminist Collective is an intersectional blog, so I assumed when Joe posted the link that the issue was about how the race/gender intersect and how sex-positive feminism doesn’t work for black women because of racial stereotypes.
Which is kind of what’s going on, from what I can tell. A lot of ick, but a lot of other complicated things Joe’s not smart enough to understand.
I think what’s bugging me about crunktastic’s responses to criticism of her original post is that it does feel like she’s misusing feminist theory in an attempt to shut people up. Her emotional response to the dude who she propositioned and he said no makes more sense when you read her follow-up, but still, there’s really no reason to assume that patriarchy has anything much to do with his response, or even that it was her being too forward for a woman that was bothering him. There are all kinds of reasons why he might have said no, you know? It makes no sense to assume that particular reason, other than that it’s the one that allows her to be annoyed rather than upset/confused/disappointed. I think that the blogger who called her first post rapey was overstating it a bit, but her argument is definitely manipulative, and I think if she truly accepted the idea that hey, men sometimes just don’t want sex at a particular moment for whatever reason, she wouldn’t be making the assumptions that she did. Dude could have changed his mind, seeing an old flame could have kicked up emotions that he wasn’t ready to deal with yet, hence “let’s slow down”, he could have erectile dysfunction and be too embarrassed to admit it, he could be seeing someone else and not want to admit that but also not want to cheat…tons of potential explanations, so no reason to assume the things that she assumed. Even if he was yanking her chain in a manipulative way, there’s still no reason to assume that’s about patriarchy and wanting to maintain gender roles, could just be good old fashioned relationship assholery.
It was a hoot to see MRA Dude over there yammering about how important it is for men to be able to say no when that’s not exactly the, erm, tone or content on most MRA sites which castigate women for saying no!
Although, again, intersectional issues – I’m not positioned in the same way crunktastic is in terms of dating and sex and how society interprets it if I make the first move, so there may be things here that I’m missing. I just don’t think that it’s ever a good idea to present an argument that can be interpreted as “feminism says that men should give me sex when I ask for it”.
@ ithiliana
Especially funny to see JtO pop in, given his stated views on rape.