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.
If you aren’t claiming that feminism is the cause, then why are you whining to feminists about it? Why are you complaining about how gender inequality hurts men to people who are trying to bring about gender equality? We already know that gender roles hurt men and women alike, and we’re trying to stop that.
And how has feminism hurt men in ANY of these areas?
The North Carolina Animal Welfare Association hates vegetables! Full circle.
Butthurt can be quite painful, y’know.
I play Spot That Fallacy!! with the troll, he calls my mockery garbage. Well aren’t you just a precious one? XD
Guess what? You’re our star again! For this round of Spot That Fallacy!! we have correlation is not causation! — “and suicide where there is a strong correlation”
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
And wtf are you doing telling a bunch of feminists that feminism is wrong if you don’t think that list is caused by feminism? Shorter version of this question — well then why are you here?
Is Joe’s “apex fallacy” nonsense related to the troll who was babbling about how people not being able to relate to great white sharks the other day?
Totally ninja’ed by Anathema while playing Spot That Fallacy!! (Hint to the trolls, if I’m playing Spot That Fallacy!! you should not expect to be taken seriously. Spot That Fallacy!! is pretty obviously for the lulz XD )
Wow, my grammar has really gone to shit lately. Sorry about that.
Cassandra — the sharks claim was, iirc, Nikan. But no, things I learned from glossary troll — apex fallacy is a made up term of the manosphere for the whole “women want alphas” thing. See The Spearhead for wtf they mean with it.
@everyone – continually repeating feminist catechism about “equality for men and women” doesn’t fool anyone. Feminism is about – rights, power, stuff, cash and prizes for women.
I’m am sure there are some really well intentioned people out there (maybe even here) calling themselves feminists who care about everybody, and yet those voices are drowned out by legions of mainstream feminists who at best ignore men & boys (which is the most charitable interpretation of VAWA) and at worst seek to actively harm men (RadFems).
What feminists in general, by and large, as a group say and do does not match up with “equality”. Not even your rhetoric!
Here’s an example I was reading yesterday in which a self-proclaimed feminist holds that “no means no”, “my body, my choice, my reasons” does not apply to those men she wants to have sex with. If they won’t have sex with her, she feels ENTITLED to an explanation damnit!! She believes men are turning her down because: teh patriarchy.
She is quite literally a female chauvinist pig.
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/asking-for-sex-what-do-you-do-when-the-guy-says-no/
Feminists quite rightly condemn attitudes of “you owe me teh sex” in men, but if you read the comments you’ll see that while there are, yes, feminists taking her very gently to task (swap the sexes and imagine the flame wars!) there are also feminists supporting her attititude!
And that’s why men are fools to themselves if they support feminism per.se. and doubly so if they ever expect any help from feminism – because feminism in practice means:
– whatever any woman calling herself feminist at any given time says it means.
Which changes according to her self-interest at that moment.
It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.
@Cliff – yes, you are allowed to specialise and promote your own special-interest group. Absolutely. And now men are doing that too. And that’s allowed too.
“It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.”
Physician, heal thy own movement. Please? Because your entire spiel seems to have been written about the MRM and then just clumsily regendered.
@The First Joe
There’s no logic here. All debate, (haha), begins with the forgone conclusion of woman = default correct. Since woman is correct no matter what she says, no arguement will change the default status of being correct. Under feminist doctrine you are man, thusly privileged, which you cannot renounce. The privileged are always the oppressors. Being a man, you, at best can defer to a woman, but you can never live down the sin of being a man. You are wrong by default. The victim is always right, the oppressor is always wrong.
a) there are no mainstream feminists. Feminism is very much a sidelined ideology.
b) radical feminists are a tiny minority within feminism and every non radfem I’ve encountered strongly dislikes them.
I’ve never heard of the Crunk Feminist Collective, but assuming that article isn’t a parody, it’s absolutely deplorable. I don’t think anyone on Manboobz supports the attitude exhibited by that writer, nor have I ever read a similar article written by anyone who IDs as a feminist.
Oh, and if that article is a parody, it’s a crap parody that isn’t funny.
@Argenti – it’s really not may fault if you’re unable to follow a thread of an argument from one page to another – clue: it all starts with Ruby’s apex fallacy.
Yes, I am mocking your mockery. I am engaging in meta-mockery. Mockery squared.
Speaking of squares: Take a look at a Necker cube.
That’s (an analogy of) society. Feminists say it’s one way, MRA’s another. And up to a point, they are both right, and up to a point, both are wrong.
Both are largely missing that someone else (the 0.001%) are drawing the cube that they are trapped in.
Decades of feminism + technological changes + globalisation + bansterism among other things have squashed one half of the cube in one way, now the other half is responding to the tensions created by those forces.
Sort of. Kinda. It’s an analogy.
Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’
Clue: it’s not because I expect any of you to ever listen to anything I say, or his noodly appendage forbid – change your minds… :p
No one is entitled to have sex with anyone. Everyone has the right to their own bodily autonomy. The principle of “no means no” holds true for both men and women.
I’m a feminist and I’m telling you this. I’m sure that all of the regulars on Manboobz (save the trolls) agree with me on this.
Are you still going to insist that we, as feminists, still don’t really believe in gender equality because of one article you read by one self-proclaimed feminist? What makes the word of that one person so much more important than all of ours?
‘i didn’t read it because your a doodyhead’ isnt really mockery dude. have you never made fun of someone before?
WTF is the “Crunk Feminist Collective”? Please note that when David goes looking for quotes, he gets them from the most prominent MRA sites (Reddit’s men’s rights section, The Spearhead, AvFM), while in order to prove your point you had to go find a group of feminists who as far as I can tell none of the feminists here have ever heard of.
Ninja’d by Cassandra, but are you kidding me, Joe? HAHAHAHA, thanks for describing the MRM.
I’m too lazy to look it up. Which site had the serial rapist’s confession and his supporters?
@ Freitag
That was Reddit (big surprise).
@CassandraSays, thanks. I read a bit of it then had to go look at bulldog puppies for quite some time.
Aww, now he thinks I just can’t keep up, Joe’s a cute troll, can we keep him? (I’m picturing a GI Joe all huffy that there is no princess to save XD )
Honestly though Joe, it’d help if you had a coherent point, but as it stands you seem to just want to troll for the lulz of it, so you’ll have to pardon me for doing the same to you. FYI, your Necker Cube analogy fell apart somewhere between claiming feminists and MRMs are both wrong, and the squashed cube part.
“Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’”
I guess I’m just going to have to keep assuming it’s because you’re an asshole then.
I am curious how Ruby’s committing the made up Apex Fallacy, when Ruby’s well known for believing in female hypergamy.
Oh and —
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
on that Crunk Feminist Collective quote
“banksterism”
@Cassandrasays – certainly the wide variety of the “MRM” is indeed as wildly variable as feminism, if not more so. So much so that I am reluctant to claim it as my “movement” per se, and there are some people involved in it whose attitudes I strongly condemn (see the thread re. Tom Martin and his BS take on underage prostitutes)….
The “MRM” such as it is, has the excuse that it’s only a few years old, barely out of the “Holy shit! we’re fucked!!! wtf??” stage, and is a self-funding movement – in contrast with establishment feminism that has been well funded from many external sources (including gov’t in general, C1A (Steinem), and the Rockefeller Foundation) and has been going so long that governments and academia are ram jammed full of them.
For example:
– Joe Biden, who in introducing VAWA (whitewashing DV against men and boys) spoke about how female-on-male violence was A-OK in his house.
– Barak Obama, who recently said in a press release / speech that boys graduating 20% less than girls was a “victory for equality”. Hello!? Maths!
– Hilary Clinton, who once said “Women are the first victims of war” whitewashing combatant deaths that are (almost) all men.
etc. etc.
@Argenti or whoever – if you really are unware of the fantastically successful campaign by feminists in academia to transform teaching / learning in public schools to favour girls outcomes (charitably again – “incidentally” – at the expense of boys), I can’t help someone who is so utterly unaware of what is going on in society around them.