So apparently I’m way off base with this “misogyny” thing. For example, I have been under the impression that I have been finding misogynistic stuff in the Men’s Rights subreddit, like, all the time. With upvotes, and everything. But evidently I’m wrong.
Because now ignatiusloyola, one of the subreddit mods, has done a very scientific study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, well, whatever misogyny is there is officially not a big damn deal.
Ig explains his protocol:
I did a quick scan of the first 400 comments on the list (100/page, 4 pages in). I scanned for words like “cunt” and “whore”, and read the context of these. I looked for the words “woman” and “women”, and read the context of these. I looked for “suffrage” and “vote” also.
I found two comments that used the word “cunt”, one of them was used to describe men, the other to describe a specific woman. The only instances of “whore” were “attention whore”.
There were two comments involving the word “woman” that generalized women with negative stereotypes.
“Suffrage” and “vote” instances did not involve any context that suggested that women did not deserve the right to vote.
How a person defines “hatred of women”, either loosely (suggestive from context, rather than explicit) or strictly (explicit statements), it is pretty clear that out of 400 comments, very few are misogynistic.
Does misogyny exist? Yes. But it does not seem to be a significant contribution to r/MensRights. At best, people are seeing a few comments and focusing on their existence while ignoring the rest.
It’s a lot like that time Michael Richards did that standup routine, and everyone focused on that one word he said, totally ignoring all the other words he used that were totally not racist slurs. I mean, yeah, he said that word a bunch of times, but it still made up a very small percentage of all the words he used that evening.
So that’s that, then. Misogyny, officially not a problem!
Or that would have been that, had Ig not actually posted about his experiment to the subreddit he had just proved was, like, totally non-misogynistic:
Because it turned out that a couple of the fellas had an issue with Ig’s methodology. In particular, that stuff about female suffrage. Because, apparently, you can totally be against women having the right to vote and still not be a misogynist. As zyk0s put it (garnering upvotes in the process):
[T]here’s the matter of female suffrage. I really don’t see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny. It might be motivated by it, but not necessarily so, and treating it as such is akin to criminalizing holocaust denial: it’s censorship, pure and simple, and if [1] /r/MR wants to keep calling itself an open space where ideas are not silenced, that attitude has to change.
Our friend Demonspawn went even further(and got a few upvotes himself):
Suggesting that the government works better without the women’s vote is not misogyny. It’s an analysis of the facts and the consequences of allowing women’s suffrage.
Suggesting that women retain the right to vote without the corresponding responsibilities that men face is misandry.
So there you have it. The Men’s Rights subreddit doesn’t have a misogyny problem; if anything, it’s a hotbed of misandry.
Myoo! What a fantastic octopus!
And Burgundy,
You appear to have an opinion on the existence of patriarchy. What books have you read which dispute the theory? Any?
When I googled “victim feminism”, the third link was this: http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/, which defines it in the blog header as Victim Feminists, sometimes also called “LifeBoat Feminists”, sometimes called “Gender Feminists” are those who believe they are a Permanent Underclass of Victimized Women (with some male support) at the hands of the Patriarchy. (ie We Men). This blog is devoted to their rants, their lies, their misinformation and a mechanism to debunk the propaganda they produce, usually with your very own tax dollars. One of those mechanisms is to use credible sources who have investigated and found the truth.
Note: Patriarchy. (ie We Men).
Patriarchy is society. Society is made up of people. People are both men and women. Sometimes women are enforcers and defenders of the patriarchy. In fact, some of the strongest supporters are women who have indirect privilege due to the patriarchy – quite often affluent, privileged women who are married to affluent, privileged men.
I think that misandry is real. Misandry and misandry can be systematic or individual (I think others have defined it as bigotry vs. prejudice). But the systematic misandry comes from the patriarchy: boys don’t cry, men don’t do child care, men have to be the financial providers – all those come from the patriarchy.
But there isn’t a fixed amount of hate in the world. It’s not a zero-sum game. If we eliminate some misogyny, it doesn’t magically morph into misandry.
Also, individual misandry is like the racism I experienced as a white person a couple of months ago at an Indian restaurant. Before we went, I wanted Paneer Makhani and Mr. Dammit wanted Saag Paneer. Then they gave us both menus with some pages missing. There was no Paneer Makhani and to get Saag Paneer, you had to order the super expensive “Chef Recommends for Two” which was way too much food, too. We ordered it anyway, and then watched the South Asian couple at the next table point to the menu and get Paneer Makhani! And then the restaurant had the whole menu posted at the register and Paneer Makhani and Saag Paneer were on there. So we found a different Indian restaurant to eat at. The end.
@Myoo octoparty!!!!!
What need of books when we can all gain field experience by going to MRA websites and listening to you guys?
So far it all seems to be mistaking a societal assumption that women are lesser to be evidence that women make men do all the shit work.
I don’t see how dressing that up in fancy language and publishing books about it is actually going to count for anything, but feminism has books, so MRA needs books, too, because if you build the landing strip the proper way, you’ll get a plane full of electronics (where landing strip = civil rights movement and plane full of electronics = government Title saying schools have to have boys’ basketball teams).
Falconer, please hit the library also.
@clairedammit — Wow, that sucks. (For reals.)
Those Indians. All they have to do is sit and cry in the middle of the street, &c., &c. ( /silly )
Is it just me or does anyone else here have no fucking idea what Tom Martin is talking about? Sounds like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual arglebargle used by pretentious grad school droupouts.
But it’s made of bricks! I’ve barely managed to learn how to hit a cushion without splitting my knuckles open.
So you’ve got books. Doesn’t make it true.
There are plenty of credible books looking at the rise of our modern political parties, and then there’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
I don’t have to read Jonah Goldberg to be versed in the history of modern American politics. In fact, I think I would be dumber after I read the book than before I’d started.
A reading list troll. How original. At least provide a list of books that you think we should have already read. Preferably from academic publishers.
He’s demanding that the feminists champion the problems of men with bony arses.
As a librarian, I would like to discourage people from hitting the library, unless the library hits you first.
Oh, they haven’t done anything yet. They act all innocent, like they wouldn’t harm a fly.
But they’re sitting there … waiting.
As far I’m concerned, this is the only authorative source of the MRM that needs to be consulted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Origndtmali.jpg
@fembot: Pure MISANDRY!
As a visitor to libraries, I would recommend avoiding left wing-run council libraries on gender issues. The books in Conservative-run boroughs are much more to the facts for some reason.
@Tom Martin: Because reality has a well-known left-wing bias?
@fembot: I’m sorry, I find my understanding of your point clouded by wondering how Nancy Drew helped form the MRM, and thus I don’t get it.
As an occasionally kind fellow Brit, I would recommend that Tom Martin try to remember that the UK is not the only country in the world, and not everyone on the internet lives there.
“The books in Conservative-run boroughs are much more [biased to my point of view which is impervious] to the facts for some reason.”
Fixed it for ya.
@Falconer,
Don’t read into it. I was just being silly. 😉
A book list on misandry:
Spreading Misandry
Legalizing Misandry
Sanctifying Misandry
Why Britain Hates Men
The Myth of Male Power
Self Made Man
I went to the library! I got a wicked cool book from 1973 about string art!
Ooh, if only I had some string.
@fembot: I thought you meant their reading list was lightweight. I just wondered, why Nancy Drew?
I probably totally killed your joke for other people. Sorry.