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.
Joe, if you google he-man-woman-haters-club you will know better than to make such an absurd claim again. People have been mocking MRAs for a very long time.
It seems that at Boobzland, it’s acceptable to mock one phrase in a larger post, thereby ignoring the substance of my position.
You make yourselves the jester’s fools.
Reddit is obscure? My mother knows about reddit FFS (my mother cannot work FB without directions, I had to demonstrate how to “share” to her, but she knows that reddit is a thing).
Maybe try that on another post then Steele? Because the OP here is a publicly known site.
Also, trying to refute an argument by going “you’re a hypocrite”? That’s another round of Spot That Fallacy!!
Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
Thanks for the textbook example though!
” I hear what she’s saying and all but not being able to get laid just isn’t a political issue.”
You know, it’s interesting, I’ve seen a lot of sexist dudes assuming that this is one of the core feminist ideas, that women are entitled to sex, or to put it another way, that feminism is partly an attempt to make it easier for conventionally unattractive women to get laid. That’s clearly not what crunkashell was trying to say (I’m still trying to parse her weird men refuse sex to gain power conspiracy theory), but given the context of a lot of sexist dudes already holding that belief about feminism I’m not surprised that he interpreted her post the way he did.
I mean, her post is problematic as hell for several reasons, I’m just not convinced that he understood what she said well enough to know what those reasons are.
Steele, did it occur to you that perhaps what you consider the substance of your post, everyone else considers whiny made up nonsense?
If the substance of your position is that “creep” is a terrible thing to say, aren’t you being a little inconsistent?
Yeah, guys, everyone knows it isn’t possible for self-described feminists to disagree on issues. What we need to do is claim that the CFC is headed by No True Feminists and then sputter about how they’re obviously MRA plants designed to make feminism look bad. That’s the logical approach!
“It seems that at Boobzland, it’s acceptable to mock one phrase in a larger post, thereby ignoring the substance of my position.”
Come for the mockery, stay for the mockery? Steele, reread the sub-title of the blog already would you?
Joe — Try learning real fallacies before making others up ok?
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Nobody really gives a shit wtf Steinem did. And regarding the Rockefeller Foundation —
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same
@Whoever – here’s Obama himself opining on Title IX:
“40 years ago, committed women from around the country, driven by everyone who said they couldn’t do something, worked with Congress to
ban gender discrimination in our public schools.
Title IX was the result of their efforts, and this week, we celebrated its 40th anniversary—40 years of ensuring
equal education, in and out of the classroom, regardless of gender.
*snip*.
In fact,
more women as a whole now graduate from college than men. This is a great accomplishment
—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/23/op-ed-president-obama-president-obama-reflects-impact-title-ix
There’s more in the linked op-ed. In which the POTUS goes on at length about how more, more, more for women is good, super and great. Oblivious (again, I’m being charitable) to that this bias is the same as “equal education”.
Yeah. Because women are the victims who are most numerous, and generally suffer the highest casualties. Women are the ones who aren’t counted. Everyone remembers that men die in war =.=;
Context is misandry?
Yeah, that reasonable facade shit was about as transparent as Clingfilm.
Joe, readjust that tinfoil. Nothing in what you posted points to some vast feminist conspiracy. If we’re so fucking well funded, how come we’re not running the world? Take your pointyheaded nonsense elsewhere.
Have we found anything that Steele doesn’t consider to be misandry yet?
I find the linking of 2nd wave feminism to the CIA… I don’t know, it just makes me kind of shrug my shoulders. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to give a fuck, really.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was targeted by the Hoover’s FBI specifically -though not exclusively- because of his supposed connections to the Communist party and the belief that Civil Rights and integration were inherently destabilizing forces for the U.S. This was the justification Hoover used. And? So?
Black people were supposed to continue being terrorized and disenfranchised because it was more stable for White America?
Supposing 2nd wave feminism was financed by the CIA. Maybe Steinem was an undercover agent. Okay. I still need access to reproductive healthcare, my own bank account, and enhanced opportunity for education and financial independence. And I’m not giving any of that up because NWO wants a sex slave.
If men want to address legitimate men’s issues, I’m all for it.
First Joe is an amusing troll though, at least. Still, I find the Let Us Cling Together remake more amusing.
You’re thinking that it’s a zero-sum game, in that more for women is less for men. Not so, and that’s incredibly sloppy of you. You’re NWO lite, now with 50% less froth.
@Argenti – Ahahahahhahaha!!! Wait, you’re saying that no-one gives a fuck about one of the most famous feminists ever who ran a widely read feminist magazine! Ahahahhahahah!! Bullshit! You can fuck right off!
And as for your “association fallacy” cobblers – do you have a goldfish’s short term memory or what??
I brought up R Foundation and the C1A as just two EXAMPLES of MAINSTREAM, external funding for feminism – which point I have proved and demonstrated ^ see above along with other mainstream sources of funding.
This was in a post contrasting the relative neophyte, outsider status of the MRM vs. the 100year old+ $$$backed leviathan of feminism. QEMFD.
As to WHY those mainstream orgs chose to fund feminism?? I’ll leave you to make that journey down the rabbit hole on your own…. :p
So it is Joe’s considered opinion that it was totally fine when education was totally restricted to, or heavily biased towards, men, but the very instant women overtook men in graduation it became a grave injustice.
Also, recognizing that discrimination against women still exists is the same as wanting “more, more, more for women.”
Joe, you are remarkably stupid. (I’m being charitable, here. The uncharitable explanation is that you’re deliberately pretending to misunderstand the difference between active and ongoing systems of oppression and the ending of a long-standing trend of discrimination.)
Pretty much exactly. But dudes like Joe lurve them some CIA shit, it plays right into their Bourne fantasy spank material. It could happen to THEM.
“Have we found anything that Steele doesn’t consider to be misandry yet?”
Puppies? (That’s the SFW kind of puppy, though I’m now curious if the euphemistic sort would be misandry…)
Shorter Joe: “You’re saying NOT all feminists get everything they believe from a single woman who was most influential several decades ago? Well, that just won’t fit in with my conspiracy theories, so it can’t be true!”
I am going to thank Joe for introducing me to the Crunk Feminist Collective, though, since despite the fucked-up-ness of the specific post he linked to there seems to be some other cool stuff to read there. I know that this is going to be challenging for MRAs to parse since they’re convinced that feminists are a hivemind, but it’s possible to disagree with one post on a blog and agree with other posts on the same blog. What matters is if, when fucked up shit is said, it gets called out and challenged. Which is the step that’s noticeably lacking on MRA blogs. You guys need to learn to argue with each other, rather than just with feminists.
@hellkell – feminists are certainly running the current US gov’t – the POTUS, VP and secretary of state are all avowed and active feminists in speech and deed.
Education need not be a zero sum game, in theory / principle, but that’s what the way the outcomes have shaken out in REALITY.
20 years ago – US college grads were 60% men, 40% women. Now it’s 40% men, 60% women. Men have not been reduced to parity or equality, they have been reduced to a minority in the output of your US colleges. That’s zero-sum in practice. QEMFD, again.
“Bullshit! You can fuck right off!”
Duuuude, all the irony right there, all of it. We’ve done this “Steinem is feminism” thing to death, and people here have repeatedly said they don’t give a fuck what she does/did. So laugh all you want, I stand by wtf I said.
“And as for your “association fallacy” cobblers – do you have a goldfish’s short term memory or what??
I brought up R Foundation and the C1A as just two EXAMPLES of MAINSTREAM, external funding for feminism – which point I have proved and demonstrated ^ see above along with other mainstream sources of funding.”
Perhaps you missed the point? The point was that wtf Steinem said has little to no bearing on what “all feminists” do/say/think.
“This was in a post contrasting the relative neophyte, outsider status of the MRM vs. the 100year old+ $$$backed leviathan of feminism. QEMFD.”
Oh, was that your point? Try actually making points, the goal post shifting is old already.
“As to WHY those mainstream orgs chose to fund feminism?? I’ll leave you to make that journey down the rabbit hole on your own…. :p”
Idk, for the same reason NAMI was on that list? That was basically a list of orgs that provide some sort of assistance to a specific group. Nope, still not seeing your point, sorry.
Everyone else — seriously, is this another Pell incident?
“the POTUS, VP and secretary of state are all avowed and active feminists in speech and deed.”
Except when they’re not.