Categories
antifeminism drama kings false accusations MRA reddit

The Men’s Rights subreddit: Fighting imaginary enemies, since 2008

To arms, Men’s Rights Redditors! Evil feminists are running riot on Wikipedia, deleting pages devoted to books by MRA hero Warren Farrell!

 

Oops. False alarm! Turns out WillToHave doesn’t quite understand how Wikipedia works. As one commenter pointed out several hours after the post went up, no pages about Farrell’s books have actually been deleted. The reason there are no pages about most of his books is … that no one has bothered to put any up yet.

D’oh! MRAs aren’t being oppressed by feminists; they’re being oppressed by their own laziness.

Of course, the only ones who know this are those who’ve bothered to actually read the comments. 15 hours after being totally debunked, the post, with its misleading headline, remains near the top of the Men’s Rights subreddit, with 142 net upvotes.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

343 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

And here I just thought it was random non sequitur day! Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

Also, I gotta admit it’s fuckin’ hilarious when MRAs come in with their (always the same, always canned) list of female murderers. Do they want a list of male murderers? Um… okay.

Gary Ridgway. MAN.
Ted Bundy. MAN.
Jeffrey Dahmer. MAN.
John Wayne Gacy. MAN.
Lake and Ng. MEN.
David Berkowitz. MAN.
Hitler. MAN.
Stalin. MAN.
Pol Pot. MAN.

Now, are all the men around going to recoil in shame and horror that there are bad people in their gender?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?”

Depends how hard it rains?

The goalpost shifting and red herrings are strong in this one. Please troll better young padawan troll.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago
Reply to  Sharculese
Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Yet another MRM site with absolutely horrible site design, even if we wanted to read it, half the first bit is lost behind an ad.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Paul — do you have a point you’d like to get to? Otherwise could you run along now?

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

No, Paul, we are not going to address every MRM point ever, right now, in this one post, just to make you happy. It’s Saturday, man.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago
Reply to  Bostonian

Yes, I have a point.

Men are being treated unfairly and as such we have the right to ask for equality.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

I think we have a sock, Paul’s gravatar is getting me 0 google image hits (contra Snowy’s and Cliff’s, both of which turn up plenty of hits here, and other places as well) — he didn’t exist before he started trolling here in other words.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

as such we have the right to ask for equality.

Ain’t nobody stopping you.

Hell, you’re doing it right now.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

You aren’t asking, you’re demanding with arson (in Ball’s case) — that’s not really a point either, not one you could write a thesis on without driving yourself up a wall with how vague it is.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago
Reply to  Sharculese

He ACCIDENTALLY hit his daughter, not CHILDREN and there was no sign of abuse towards his wife.

Have you even read the story about him or are you just listening to the propaganda from NOW??

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Accidentally?! Did you read his manifesto? He said he meant to hit her, just didn’t mean to draw blood. Which is moot in terms of whether his wife had a right to a divorce (so did he, he just didn’t want one).

You’ll note I already said I’ve attempted to read the thing btw.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

What makes you think MY wife left me??

Been together for 28 years.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Paul:

Accident? Really? You mean his hand just “slipped” when he struck his daughter hard enough to make her bleed because she wouldn’t stop licking him? And you want to make this argument after being so upset that Andrea Yates wasn’t jailed on account of insanity…

You don’t have to excuse child abuse, dude. Please find a better martyr. A little self-awareness would be nice too…

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

He ACCIDENTALLY hit his daughter, not CHILDREN and there was no sign of abuse towards his wife.

…And he killed himself. That was his decision. Don’t act like this was an execution.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

I’m gonna go with these:

1. the use of violence and “threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. ter·ror·ist, noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

“threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”.

Yup,,, That pretty much describes NOW

http://now.org/press/06-12/06-04.html

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“What makes you think MY wife left me??”

…can you read? The only place you could’ve possibly pulled that question from (besides your ass) was when I said — “When dude, your wife left you, that’s her damned right.” — “dude” was clearly referring to Ball in context.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Paul:

What makes you think MY wife left me??

Been together for 28 years.

What, you mean this from Argenti?

Yeah, I wasn’t arguing with that part, just noting that he seemed to think he was entitled to stay married and was only paying child support because feminists. When dude, your wife left you, that’s her damned right.

Where she’s talking about Ball?

Alright, calm down and step away from the keyboard before you make yourself an even bigger ass.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

You can’t do that,, women are “victims” remember.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Now you need one of —

in·tim·i·date, verb (used with object), in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing.
1. to make timid; fill with fear.
2. to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.
3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

co·erce, verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.
1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

As well as one of —

threat, noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

Wait, what the hell? Now NOW is a terrorist organization because they organized activists to help elect people who agree with them?

What… I don’t… Huh?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“You can’t do that,, women are “victims” remember.”

Who can’t do what? You can’t manage to keep antecedents straight? (10:1 odds Paul doesn’t know what an antecedent is)

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

NOW is having a conference, so that’s… a threat of violence that terrifies you???

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Also “,,” nice evolution of the double period!

Paul
Paul
8 years ago
Reply to  Snowy

Never said NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto,, But many feminist consider it to be a great read:

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“But many[weasel words] feminist consider it…”

Oh right, you already displayed a sucktastic understanding of how wiki works, so let me cite that.

That website’s main page has under 5,000 hits btw, has anyone here ever heard of it before? Or did Paul just pull from the edges of the internet to weasel word?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

HTML lesson for you Paul —

<a href=”put_your_link_here”>and give it text</a>

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

You want an uncanned list of men who’ve killed people?

I don’t think David has the server space.

What in the fuck are you trying to prove? What “equality” are you even trying to get here?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Argenti:

I have no idea what Paul is doing, and I’ve reread this thread. Apparently, if you can find examples of women who kill there children, feminists are bad. Never mind all the men throughtout history who have killed their entire families… Is the point that some people are terrible? Because I don’t think anyone would disagree.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“killed her children” => “About 291,000,000 results”
“killed his children” => “About 191,000,000 results”
“killed her child” => “About 276,000,000 results”
“killed his child” => “About 323,000,000 results”

So um, congrats? You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

kirbywarp — idfk either, but after 2+ weeks of whack a troll with the glossary troll, this is almost refreshing XD

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

And oh, by the way, this has been bugging me.

Paul | June 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm
So the national Organization for Women is not a terrorist organization???

Sharculese | June 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm

So the national Organization for Women is not a terrorist organization???

considering theyve neither planned or carried out any terrorist attacks, i’m gonna go with no.

are you sure you know what terrorism is?

Paul | June 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Oh, you mean like the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.

“Society for Cutting Up Men”

Paul | June 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Never said NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto,, But many feminist consider it to be a great read:

Yes Paul, you actually did say that NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto. No, that isn’t a direct quote, it’s just a direct implication of the words you’ve used. Though to be fair, you’ve made so many non sequitors in this thread it could be the case that you’ve just randomly jumped to a new topic.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

BLOOOCKQUOOOOOTTTESSSSSS!!!

*falls to knees and shakes fist a the sky*

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_of_Women

Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of ‘men’s rights’, or for any other political cause –

BTW,, My responses my be off in as much as I am responding from emails.

I have to ask, how many of you are married??

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?”

Third option — women killing multiple children is more news worthy thus resulting in more hits. Those results are not attempting to account for the “About 1,330,000 results” for Andrea Yates.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

So um, congrats? You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?

No, he’s only managed to display what gets talked about more. It’s not like there’s only one page on Google per murder.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Argenti:

Maybe Paul could use this site for his future research? 😉

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

Men are being treated unfairly and as such we have the right to ask for equality.

Speak for yourself Paul, I don’t think I’m being treated particularly unfairly for being a man.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Try the talk page instead, there is already a discussion of controversy over there.

“I have to ask, how many of you are married??”

No, you neither have to ask, nor have any right to know.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
8 years ago

*Revels in the glory that is being right about sentient/evil blockquotes*

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

kirbywarp — maybe! XD

Cliff — I’m going to assume we jinx’ed on “No, he’s only managed to display what gets talked about more.”

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

I have to ask, how many of you are married??

I’m certainly not. I’m far too ugly and bitter and hairy, and I hate men too much!

Did I mention hair? Hair everywhere. I’ve got hairy fingernails. It sprouted spontaneously the day I read my first Gloria Steinem essay.

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

See, therein lies the biggest problem, you just read, say and hear only what you want to believe.

So give the the DIRECT quote where I said NOW wrote it.

” you actually did say that NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto. No, that isn’t a direct quote, it’s just a direct implication of the words you’ve used”.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

… Did I accidentally get baked or something? Or is this all a weird dream? Or am I just really really out of it today?

WHY THE HELL ISN’T THIS MAKING ANY SENSE?

Married? Why, Paul? Why do you want to know this? What purpose would the answer to this serve, since we aren’t talking about marriage at all? What rhetorical point could you possibly make? And why don’t you address your posts, making us have to guess what you’re responding to, which is made harder by the fact that every post is a non sequitor?

That comment didn’t even stay on one subject for the duration of the comment! WHY?

Paul
Paul
8 years ago

Thats because you have a mangina.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Paul:

See, therein lies the biggest problem, you just read, say and hear only what you want to believe.

So give the the DIRECT quote where I said NOW wrote it.

Let’s take the following hypothetical conversation:

Person A: Aren’t the boy scouts are a terrorist organization?
Person B: Since they haven’t done anything that would be considered terrorist, no.
Person A: But what about 9/11?
Person B: You really think the boy scouts were behind 9/11?

Now, pop quiz. Is person A saying that the boy scouts are behind 9/11?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Paul:

Thats because you have a mangina.

No! No no a thousand times no! The correct shaming tactic/stupid joke is “because you touch yourself at night.” Can you do anything right?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“… Did I accidentally get baked or something? Or is this all a weird dream? Or am I just really really out of it today?”

It’s him, not you, either that or this is some weird shared delusion. But my vote is on “it’s him”.

See, therein lies the biggest problem, you just read, say and hear only what you want to believe.

So give the the DIRECT quote where I said NOW wrote it.

Giving the direct quote where you said anything would be impossible seeing as how you have yet to actually make a point. Nonetheless, let me trying getting those blockquotes under control (pesky things!)

Paul | June 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm

So the national Organization for Women is not a terrorist organization???

Sharculese | June 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm

So the national Organization for Women is not a terrorist organization???

considering theyve neither planned or carried out any terrorist attacks, i’m gonna go with no.

are you sure you know what terrorism is?

Paul | June 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Oh, you mean like the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.

“Society for Cutting Up Men”

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

So pick one —
a) You admit your comment about the SCUM manifesto was a non sequitur.
b) Your comment about the SCUM manifesto was meant as an example of terrorism, which, in context, would have to be terrorism by NOW (or it’s a non sequitur, file under a)