Science proves the Men’s Rights subreddit to be totally not (completely) misogynistic

So apparently I’m way off base with this “misogyny” thing. For example, I have been under the impression that I have been finding misogynistic stuff in the Men’s Rights subreddit, like, all the time. With upvotes, and everything. But evidently I’m wrong.

Because now ignatiusloyola, one of the subreddit mods, has done a very scientific study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, well, whatever misogyny is there is officially not a big damn deal.

Ig explains his protocol:

I did a quick scan of the first 400 comments on the list (100/page, 4 pages in). I scanned for words like “cunt” and “whore”, and read the context of these. I looked for the words “woman” and “women”, and read the context of these. I looked for “suffrage” and “vote” also.

I found two comments that used the word “cunt”, one of them was used to describe men, the other to describe a specific woman. The only instances of “whore” were “attention whore”.

There were two comments involving the word “woman” that generalized women with negative stereotypes.

“Suffrage” and “vote” instances did not involve any context that suggested that women did not deserve the right to vote.

How a person defines “hatred of women”, either loosely (suggestive from context, rather than explicit) or strictly (explicit statements), it is pretty clear that out of 400 comments, very few are misogynistic.

Does misogyny exist? Yes. But it does not seem to be a significant contribution to r/MensRights. At best, people are seeing a few comments and focusing on their existence while ignoring the rest.

It’s a lot like that time Michael Richards did that standup routine, and everyone focused on that one word he said, totally ignoring all the other words he used that were totally not racist slurs. I mean, yeah, he said that word a bunch of times, but it still made up a very small percentage of all the words he used that evening.

So that’s that, then. Misogyny, officially not a problem!

Or that would have been that, had Ig not actually posted about his experiment to the subreddit he had just proved was, like, totally non-misogynistic:

Because it turned out that a couple of the fellas had an issue with Ig’s methodology. In particular, that stuff about female suffrage. Because, apparently, you can totally be against women having the right to vote and still not be a misogynist. As zyk0s put it (garnering upvotes in the process):

[T]here’s the matter of female suffrage. I really don’t see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny. It might be motivated by it, but not necessarily so, and treating it as such is akin to criminalizing holocaust denial: it’s censorship, pure and simple, and if [1] /r/MR wants to keep calling itself an open space where ideas are not silenced, that attitude has to change.

Our friend Demonspawn went even further(and got a few upvotes himself):

Suggesting that the government works better without the women’s vote is not misogyny. It’s an analysis of the facts and the consequences of allowing women’s suffrage.

Suggesting that women retain the right to vote without the corresponding responsibilities that men face is misandry.

So there you have it. The Men’s Rights subreddit doesn’t have a misogyny problem; if anything, it’s a hotbed of misandry.

About these ads

Posted on August 10, 2012, in antifeminism, I'm totally being sarcastic, it's science!, misandry, misogyny, MRA, reddit, the c-word, whores, woman's suffrage and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 934 Comments.

  1. Something just occured to me…

    Tom Martin is so ridiculous that he doesn’t even get a proper audience within the Manosphere… The only place that he gets any proper interaction is on a blog that’s primary purpose is to mock the manosphere.

    Tom, what are your *real* political views?

    You’re the Kenneth Tong of gender politics, aren’t you?

  2. @Happy

    Here’s some stuff from before he got ‘known’. It’s pretty much the same except now he’s a lot whinier, creepier and ridiculous.

  3. I can’t believe LSE let him in. Did he have someone else write his entrance material?

  4. “He’s so ridiculous, but I can’t quite explain why.”

  5. “He can’t get an audience”

    UCL’s Women’s Union usually get about 5 people showing up for their debates according to them, but when they invited me, 200 showed up, according to the local press, along with three documentary crews.

    My youtube video has 28,000 views and 1256 comments – with 5 other youtubers copying it.

    My Guardian article got 1000 comments in 12 hours before they shut it down.

    “He can’t get an audience”

    Ask Douchetrail about how his comments section does when I show up in it.

    “He’s such an idiot, which is why I can’t stop commenting on him.”

  6. Tom, I watched a video of an owl yesterday that over 2 million hits. Top that, you rank amateur.

    That owl had it all over you smarts and personality-wise. Cuter too.

  7. Ask Douchetrail about how his comments section does when I show up in it.

    “He’s such an idiot, which is why I can’t stop commenting on him.”

    I think if one of the MRAs or trolls ever showed they understood the point of this site, I think I might die of shock.

  8. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Shorter Tom Martin: “‘I knew I should create a great sensation,’ gasped the Rocket, and
    he went out.”

  9. Yes, Tom, you do realize that you get lots of people looking at your in the same way that AVfM and various other trolls do? It’s grimly fascinating.

    An audience that takes you seriously, that engages you in debate – not just dismiss you with ease like Helen Lewis did.

  10. @ Tom- What on earth does the nursing student story have to do with humour, Tom? Are you including uncomfortable courtesy laughter as a humour response? And laughter might be involuntary (though suppressible- ever had an inappropriate thought at a formal function?), but that doesn’t mean our perceptions and prejudices don’t influence what we find funny. And your focus has got to be a little off when you are chatting with women, since it seems like whenever you see one your brain just starts firing off profanities.

  11. Happy,

    Helen Lewis was a smooth debater. She’d done the show once before, and had Jenni Murray on her side too. The whole team of women in the gallery, behind the glass as well. The show was called “Woman’s Hour”, and they are very skilled at deflecting male complaint, because they’ve been doing it for sixty odd years. It is their business.

    They know their own show is part of my complaint, because I’d been writing to them intermittently telling them what scumbags they were for the last 5 years.

    I don’t recall Helen Lewis “dismissing me with ease” though.

    I did, as well as prepare for the interview, have a court case to prepare for, along with all the other media, so I was tired, and felt personally that I didn’t do wonderfully, but if you pay close attention, Helen Lewis is stylish in her delivery, but light on substance – and they both change the subject when I tell them how feminism fakes its statistics, and then she avoids my central point at the end and throws in a red herring about me making money from the fund raising effort. Bare in mind, I was told by the BBC that I couldn’t actually mention the case. They didn’t even mention in the intro that I was suing the gender studies depo, so they were being as vague and unhelpful as they could. LSE and the BBC have very close ties. The BBC lies about paygaps, sex slavery, drinks spiking, patriarchy, honour killings, anorexia etc – never mentions misandry, or men’s rights movements constructively, and is part of the anti-male establishment (although perhaps improving) and I had maybe three minutes to deconstruct their dominant discourse, and state my case without mentioning my case.

    And I don’t recall any Douchetrail followers dismissing the veracity of my complaint either, on any points, other than the old “Ha ha you lost. We are morally ambivalent whores” point.

    Yep. You’ve got me there.

  12. And where is all the wonderful media work of all you anonymous manboobzers?

    Point me to the interviews of Douchetrail going into a hostile men’s rights movement live show broadcast on a major network for instance.

    And point me to any one of you doing the same.

    Here’s one of a couple of interviews I did with sympathetic interviewers. It’s a lot easier:

    http://sexismbusters.org/Mens_Matters_Interview_NEW.html

    And here’s another (36 mins 30 in):

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/21/what-do-women-want-and-an-interview-with-tom-martin

  13. Cloudiah, you were the one who pointed out Tom had a pattern, right? Is this where he traditionally starts plugging his interviews and websites, or is he a little later than usual? Tom, you do realize you are getting airtime because people find your ideas freakishly ridiculous and sensationalist. To TV, you are an ideological car wreck, and the public slows down to stop a car wreck. But the scary thing is you think that’s something to be proud of. You go on camera or online, present your bigoted delusions, and get absolutely tuned by anyone who’s ever read a magazine article on feminism. You are the dude who keeps getting trounced every boxing match and yet never retires- no one is watching you for your game, they are watching to see you get clobbered yet again. It’s pretty cathartic for people who spend their days negotiating hidden sexism to find a dude who doesn’t mind voicing his absurd ideas. So, ya know, thanks for putting yourself out there like that, Tom! When the time comes and you actually develop a semblance of self awareness, know that you did all those people who are laughing at you a great service.

  14. Anyone else think “Douchetrail” is stupid even for name-based insults? “Douchetrelle” would at least be workable, but “-trail”. Wtf?

  15. Shorter Tommy: I did bad on TV because misandry! WAH!

  16. Anyone else think “Douchetrail” is stupid even for name-based insults?

    [cloudiah raises her hand]

    Douchetrelle would work but not be very funny. But by changing it to Douchetrail he has made it too difficult to link it back to the person he is trying to insult.

    It’s like if he arbitrarily decided to call me Clamhammer instead of the more obvious ClawdeeDuh. Everyone would just be like “Who the fuck is Clamhammer?”

    [cloudiah now kind of wishes she had named herself Clamhammer.]

    @Vitamin D, I don’t think I get credit for noticing Tom’s marketing patterns, but I can’t remember who did.

  17. “Yeah, he’s only in this for the money. We all agree.”

  18. No Tom, I don’t think everyone here believes you’re in it for the money. I for one believe you’re in it for the attention because you’re so totally self-obsessed, and I think other people here also think the same thing.

    So wrong again, congratulations, you’ll be the next nwoslave in no time.

  19. What money, Tommy?

  20. No money, Hellkell, as far as you’re concerned.

  21. That makes no sense, baldy.

  22. Hellkell, your ad hominem arguments are patchy.

    Anyone effected by baldness should listen to this show:

    http://www.thebaldtruth.com/

  23. Argenti Aertheri

    *sigh* Get your fallacies right would you?

    Ad hominem ish — oh look, Tom’s drunk again, and since he’s drunk he can’t possibly say anything of value.

    True ad hominem — since Tom sometimes posts while drunk, he can’t possibly ever have anything to say.

    Not an ad hominem — oh wow are you wrong because X Y & Z, are you drunk again? (this is just a boring old insult, not a fallacy)

    You make no sense, and are bald? Yeah, that’s just an insult.

    Didn’t I already point out that there’s a whole wiki section on fallacies?

  24. My youtube video has 28,000 views and 1256 comments – with 5 other youtubers copying it.

    Wow, that’s about 0.075% as many views and 2.9% as many comments as Dramatic Chipmunk!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,347 other followers

%d bloggers like this: