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.
“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!