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.
ftfy
Jester’s fool is pretty precious, yes.
‘Misandry’ had less than nothing to do with you not being an author, dude. I mean, it doesn’t really exist except as the gendered (And generally less so) oppression on another axis, but yeah, even if it was totally a thing, your sheer inability to craft a sentence is a much bigger problem for you.
‘reverse’ because it’s the opposite of the direction it’s supposed to be in!
A: That study was faulty, I’ve already said why about 30 times now, and you’ve never addressed it.
B: You don’t really understand what it means to be an individual, do you? I began what I said with “In a vacuum…” for a reason, you know XD
I have a mental image of Steele and Ella McTotallyARealPersonWhoExists sitting in a restaurant after a romantic Valentine’s Day dinner, both working out their precise share of the bill, including proportion of tip owed, on their iPhone calculators, as waiting staff wander by rolling their eyes bemusedly. Ah, l’amour!
fuck
I thought a jester’s fool was a person who dressed in motley and bells and made fun of other jesters, but your definition works too.
And another thing, Cliff – it’s clearly about gender for you. You say “it’s gauche for women”, “I don’t blame a woman”, without considering that higher-earning women may date poorer men; in other words, you view everything through a Marxist gender division, as M-feminists are wont to do.
Personally, I think it’s more than “a little gauche”, it’s extremely presumptuous and rude. And in such a case, I will exercise my right to inform her of said fact, before excusing myself from the situation. But irregardless.
Of course I like my girlfriend, and of course it’s not that much money. It’s the principle of the thing. The personal is political.
My mental image of a date with Steele is where after a long and intense debate involving several uses of the phrase “is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?”, I just give the fuck up and don’t order anything. He crosses his arms and refuses to order either. We sit silently at an empty table until the restaurant asks us to leave. Afterwards, I go home and make myself a sandwich.
However, yes, you are free to never take a second date with someone who expects you to pay for everything! That’s an option you have! No one would begrudge you it!
I think I’m also free to not acquiesce to that expectation. Or do you disagree?
so you dont confine your tantrums to the internet, then? you behave like this irl?
fukkin lol
Walking out mid-date is douchey and also it’s just your stupid power fantasy. Don’t forget the part where the whole restaurant erupted into cheers and then your date fell into a fruit cart wearing a white dress.
I also think it’s “pretty douchey” to demand that another individual subsidize your livelihood. You get what you give. I have walked out of two dates; no, it wasn’t all dramatic. I would do it again; the individuals earned that disrespect.
Who actually uses the phrase “of said fact” in conversation?
Marxist is a word that means things. It’s not a generic way of saying “bad stuff that is baddy badness.”
And honestly, I think when two people are in a relationship, how they divide expenses is between the two of them. I certainly would never tell a higher-earning woman (or a lower-earning one! her choice!) not to pay for dates.
This isn’t even about gender politics any more. This is just about you wanting to set up a situation where you’re morally right in humiliating a woman and making a big scene. (And screwing over a restaurant, if she really didn’t have her wallet.) This isn’t about your Rights As A Man, this is about your “and then she slipped on a banana peel and fell right in a pile of horse poo and then every friend she had in high school appeared and laughed at her and carried me away on their shoulders while singing ‘Twist and Shout'” revenge fantasy.
Sorry, I’m allergic to the phrase “the principle of the thing,” because it’s usually invoked in a house that reeks of cat shit because one roommate took out the litter 5 times and the other 6, and latter roommate won’t budge because it’s the principle of the thing and meanwhile the poor cat can’t use its box anymore and is peeing on the bed.
Here’s an amazing story: I was in the hospital, and my boyfriend came and visited me, and he didn’t charge me anything for it! Talk about exploitation! THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL!
Boy, Steelepole sounds like a fun date.
Or “irregardless?” Or “acquiesce to that expectation?” Buttpole is just a fractally bad writer.
Okay, let’s be clear here:
THINGS YOU CAN DO:
1. Pay for her and chalk it up as totally worth it, considering how nice the date was.
2. Ask her for another date, while asking that you go Dutch or she “get you back” for last time. (She may say no; that’s up to her.)
3. Decide not to date her again.
THINGS YOU CANNOT DO:
1. Demand that she go on a second date and pay for you.
2. Call upon the Universal Gender Government to rule in your favor and simultaneously change every woman’s mind in your favor.
THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, BUT THEY’RE JUST SO UNDIGNIFIED:
1. Throw a shit-fit about the situation and expect that to change anything.
2. Be in a personal situation that you actually like just fine, but be frothingly angry that someone, somewhere is having her dates paid for.
@Ithiliana, I see your M&M feminism and I raise you an M. Behold the tabletop RPG that will take the patriarchy by storm and rustle countless jimmies:
Feminism: Misandry of Might and Magic!
On sale now where fine misandric products are purveyed.
That’s funny, Steele; the other day you said they were saying that men should provide for womens’ livelihoods. Which is it?
And when are you going to stop lying and actually read the thread you wave around like a war trophy, you vile, evil, disgusting, sickening, vile, hypocritical, misrepresenting, vile jerk?
The imaginary teacher who quashed your dreams of being a writer saved you a lot of time and heartbreak, Steele.
cloudiah — I’ve used “irregardless” as “you’re right, but this topic sucks and I don’t want you to be right” — I’m not sure Steele/Varpole gets that irregardless isn’t a word, and would be a double negative if it was a word.
As for “acquiesce to that expectation”, I have no fucking clue, and I say hither (as in “come hither”)
Funny thing is, in a conversation with less “vile Marxist M-feminist,” talking about how awkward it is to have a mismatch in expectations about date-paying is actually worthwhile. It’s an issue that kind of intersects with our cultural inability to talk about money (which is why some people will get weird if you just ask beforehand) and our weird piecemeal approach to gender equality that’s stuck women in a rather “all the responsibilities of men… not all of the privileges” place right now.
But this isn’t about “wouldn’t this be easier if we could just talk about these things?” It’s about how he totally showed those two M-feminists.
…Makes you really wonder what they talked about on that date.
THINGS YOU CAN DO:
1. Pay for her and chalk it up as totally worth it, considering how nice the date was.
2. Ask her for another date, while asking that you go Dutch or she “get you back” for last time. (She may say no; that’s up to her.)
3. Decide not to date her again.
I can also refuse to pay for her.. You seem to think that she has the right to compel me to pay for that date; she doesn’t, and will not.
Steele — I think that was what this meant —
THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, BUT THEY’RE JUST SO UNDIGNIFIED:
1. Throw a shit-fit about the situation and expect that to change anything.
And is “but irregardless” conceding that we’re right and you just don’t like that? That’s the only valid use of “irregardless” that I can think up. (Hint here, regardless means without regard, so irregardless means…with regard?)
Ah, reading back in the thread I see that Mikey switches to “insist” at one point. So it’s either normative, an expectation, or an insistence—just about anything but what was actually said.
Eh, that’s just a particularly petty and tantrum-throwing way of choosing Option 3.
HAHA holy shit, Varpole has YET ANOTHER occupation! Now he’s a grad student, a businessman, and a lawyer/doctor.accountant! How does he do it?