The Men”s Rights subreddit weighs in on the “Why is Reddit So Anti-Woman?” debate.

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.

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”.

@CassandraSays: I think you have a point–I also think that this is one of MANY reasons why it’s hard to use one’s personal experience as evidence in what was being framed as a discussion of changing social roles, the different levels of privilege (some) Black men have compared to (some) Black women. Now I need to go read the followup!

I think there is an issue she’s getting at that I’ve seen other Black women writing about — the disparities in education, jobs, and relationship prospects between Black women and Black men–with some Black men having a wider range of choices (since a lot of that disparity is rooted in the racism against Black men in terms of education, prison, and jobs, it gets very complicated, and trying to talk about one experience in the context can be difficult).

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.

The problem is that she is frustrated and, while struggling to make positive and proactive affirmation of her needs and desires (the more nuanced and really quite aching parts of both posts) she is succumbing to the weight of the statistics; “…(and 70% of Black women with advanced degrees are single, mind you)…” . I see this in real time with women I love very much; friends, family members and colleagues. They are literally bowed under the weight of those numbers: the number of Black women who aren’t married, who never marry, who have advanced degrees but no man.

And it doesn’t help that the mainstream media basically has 2.5 lenses when it comes to viewing and presenting Black women: 1) educated, driven, lonely and unfeminine, 2) loud, ignorant, lazy and unfeminine, and 1/2) stupid and hyper-sexualized but still, shockingly, unfeminine. When the only time you crop up in the zeitgeist is Condoleeza Rice, Oprah, Beyonce, and Welfare Queen – that shit can really take a toll. It’s exceedingly difficult not to internalize those perceptions even as you push back against them.

But what crunkashell is trying to do is conflate the idea of privilege and intersectionality as it relates to romantic relationships between Black men and women (a conversation worth having) and her own very personal experience with this one specific man. And, on a larger level, it just doesn’t work. I really felt for her when she wrote, in the second post, about her backstory with this man in particular. It’s a story I’ve heard before. Ultimately, however, it struck the same chord as the Nice Guy (TM) type bullshit that I don’t tolerate. If you find yourself in the position of being overly emotionally available to someone with whom you want a sexual relationship then the onus is on you. You can both feel empowered by stating your desires outright and understand that rejection is a real possibility.

What doesn’t work is trying to make your rejection an example of his privilege. Not in this case. But I see what she’s searching for. I really do.

There are real and worthy discussions to be had about privilege and power and dating, regardless of race. But I say what I say to my friends in real time. Dating is hard. Thinking of yourself as a number and not a person won’t make it any easier.

That was long.

Cassandra – I enjoyed this and I also hope that her posts spawn more discussion. I’m sad that a blog I like is probably about to invaded by a bunch of tone deaf morons but I think the folks over at Crunk Feminist can handle themselves.

Have a good night.

@ Nobinayamu

You too, and sorry for talking your ear off about this (and if I’m missing some vital context in all of this, which I probably am).

In horrendous slaughter of millions that was WWI almost all the direct victims of conflict were combatants, i.e. men.

WWI, yes, because of the extensive use of trench warfare (an atrocious waste of life which more than decimated the male population of some nations, Britain in particular). But that’s a rare case. Far more civilians than troops were killed in WWII, for example, and most wars include massive civilian deaths and injuries.

The point of Clinton’s speech was that these casualties are often ignored when estimating the human cost of war. I know this is hard for MRAs to understand, but a societal loss for men doesn’t mean a “win” for women. Sometimes, everybody loses.

Also, David usually only quotes from r/MR when he quotes redditors, and r/MR is not infrequently called the hub of the MRM by MRAs. Shitredditsays handles the random individuals on reddit, whereas Manboobz is for what SRS calls low-hanging fruit on and off reddit. It looks good and I look forward to reading it in the future (thanks, Joe! Can I donate some tin foil for your hat in return?) but I somehow doubt that the Crunk Feminists fulfill a function analogous to that of r/MR.

Holy shit, did I just try reasoning with Mikey? I need to go to sleep.

Shaennon: Even WW1 was far from limited in its fatal effect on non-soldiers, it’s just that the trenches made the face of combat much more obvious. Germany suffer privations (it’s when the word erstaz came to be what it is today). The Austro-Hungarian empire was devastated, so too the Ottoman. Russia, well the effects on the Russians were so bad that a revolution was able to take place.

The US has been blessed, in that our recent wars, have all been out of country, and our civilian populace is largely secure from the second order effects, because we’ve been engaging in wars of choice; even when they are internationally legal.

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..

Naturally, this is true – because you are a vile, revolting misandrist-feminist who elevates women above men, denies men’s issues, denies misandry, disparages men’s issues, thinks men are “worth less” than women, thinks women’s wrongdoing is “less bad” than men’s, excuses female rape fantasies as “less bad” and “understandable”, and despite all this, expects men to subsidize women’s food intake, as recently revealed in a Boobz Forum thread.

Vile feminists.

I know I’m late to this party, but man, THIS by The First Joe:

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.

“It’s so unfair that actual activist groups that run programs to help people get more funding than a fringe hate group that spends al their time complaining about how women are allowed to choose who they have sex with!”

The way they think that only they deserve funding, and ignore all organizations that are funded and actually help men, is adorable.

“Taking men at their word, allowing them to pay when they want, and picking up the cheque on other occasions is MISANDRY.”