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.
@xardoz
But, don’t you know, men are powerless to choose who they date or to assert that they want to go Dutch. So if a woman doesn’t automatically pick up the cheque, a man has NO RECOURSE but to do so!
The belief that men have the power of speech is MISANDRY.
What is the MRM doing to get funding?
Well Tom Martin is shilling videos… Paul Elam is begging on the internet.
That seems to be about it.
They seem to think they should be subsidised just for being men, and they whine when they aren’t.
I also like that the charge against Steinem is conflating a couple of things. Worked for an enterprise which had the CIA (for whatever reasons, and the CIA is a BIG organisation, with lots of different branches, many; perhaps most, of which don’t communicate well with each other) is not the same as her being paid directly for them.
Even if she was, that doesn’t tell is what the CIA was hoping to get out of it. They may have had someone with a Varpole like misunderstanding of reality, who thought making feminism more widely known would hurt it, and so maintain the status quo.
So, “CIA funded feminism” is, absent context, a meaningless thing, even if true.
@pecunium
The best part is that Joe also thinks that feminism is a plot by Soviet spies and by international bankers.
So, in sum, in Joe’s world, international bankers, the Reds, and the CIA all have had EXACTLY THE SAME AGENDA. And that agenda includes destroying America through making it illegal to assault your wife.
I’d love to hear the policy statement of a joint CIA-KGB-banker committee.
Steele, give your keyboard a rest, all your copy-pasting of the same thing over and over is going to break it.
I love how Steele tries to make “paying for dinner” sounds like a systemic institutional problem by calling it “expect[ing] men to subsidize women’s food intake”. For someone who can’t write because of misandry, that’s brilliant word crafting.
Er, excuse me? I do not pay for dates; I am currently with someone who prefers to split checks.
And before I started dating Ella, I was someone who went on many dates, and barring one occasion in which the individual in question forgot her purse (understandable), I have never offered to pay for the meal. I won’t be browbeaten and I won’t kowtow to the feminists. On two occasions, I walked out of a date due to the woman insisting upon me paying for her livelihood – unsurprisingly, both were feminists. Disgusting. I won’t engage in misandrous practices, unless the vile misandrous apologists at Boobzland, who insist upon men subsidizing their food intake. Hypocrites.
Excuse me. “Unlike” the vile misandrous apologist at Boobzland.
Well Steele, you’ll therefore be pleased to know my husband was pleasantly surprised this morning to find his wallet still had the £40 he’d taken out before attending a drinks night with friends. He hadn’t put his hand in his pocket all night because I paid for the drinks AND the taxi home.
The deal when we eat out is usually along the lines of “I’ll pay for dinner if you take care of after-dinner drinks and transport home” and we take it in turns to do it this way. Technically he should’ve paid for the cab home last night seeing as I took care of the drinks, but he’s been on medication for a broken toe/sprained ankle for the past fortnight and last night was his first taste of alcohol in a while, so he was absolutely steaming drunk after just a couple of drinks, bless him…
I’m also sceptical of your claim that the women you say insisted on you picking up the bill were feminists. Expecting men to pay for dinner is a very traditional, chivalrous view and certainly not one feminists generally subscribe to. I personally have always insisted on going dutch when on dates, although you’d be surprised at the number of men who take offence/ feel really uncomfortable when you suggest that.
lol none of this happened
pretentious overreach is mikey’s greatest gift
Excuse me? Pardon? Come again?
Anyway, cool story Steelebro.
@Sharculese:
Even if some version of it did happen, two is a fucking tiny sample size for deciding that all feminists suck. What ever happened to science and logic?
Ponkz, as you can see, even the extremist M-feminists here at Boobzland believe men should subsidize them:
http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t1033-things-they-think-are-feminism-that-are-actually-sexism
Remember, these are women who literally have made a hobby out of denying misandry and laughing at men’s issues- they’re as feminist as it gets. And yet believe that I and other men should be expected to subsidize their meals. Disgusting.
Most women, in my experience, are not like that, of course. It’s generally not an issue; they will pay for their meals no questions asked. Because they are good, fair-minded people. The vile, disgusting feminists at Boobzland, on the other hand, want equality, except for when it suits women.
You see the difference, now, between egalitarianism (or maybe “casual”, uninformed feminism, as Ella identifies) and the feminist movement at large today.
oh god youre still obsessing about that
get a hobby, dude
you dont work your creepy need for negative attention out on them? (yet)
lol none of this happened
You are incorrect; I don’t see why it’s such a fanciful tale. I have strong convictions; there is no need to waste time with someone who doesn’t share them. I of course didn’t leave either woman with the bill; I paid my share, snorted contemptuously, and left.
mikey i imagine you snort contemptuously pretty much 24/7
LMAOOOO. Were you born this pretentious, or are you trying to revive that writing career that so cruelly scuttled by the m-feminists?
@pecunium 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”
You are spot on.
QFT!!
I of course don’t leave them with the entire bill; I pay my share, snort contemptuously, and leave.
I would ask Boobzland to consider: I am arguing for egalitarianism. You are making excuses for inequality so your food can be subsidized. Who is more “feminist” here?
Drop.
@shadow
he wasnt born that way. being that pretentious is something you have to work for.
You’re not arguing for anything, Steelepole. You’re throwing little fits and making shit up.
lol
‘what do you have to say to my argument that i am everything great and perfect, and youre all doodyheads?’
Cool story about Ella, bro. I see you haven’t given up on fiction entirely.
Who pays for dinner is a burning issue of the MRM? Get a life.