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.
Ok, apart from the obvious question of how you expect to get funding for whatever special interest group you advocate for without providing evidence of need, what does this have to do with selling sex? Or maybe you’re confusing biological sex with sex for orgasms? Because the kind of sex prostitutes sell is sex for orgasms.
V-feminism is just stuff Tom pulled out of his ass. Must be a side-effect of those hard chairs.
Tom, you’re just mad ’cause they don’t use your numbers. That’s because your numbers are lies.
@Vitamin D: Martin’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “prostitute” as “a woman who doesn’t thank men for giving her absolutely everything she has.”
He’s one of those accountant misogynists who thinks that if the balance sheet isn’t exactly equal, males v. females, then males are getting ripped off.
Either that, or he just likes attacking women.
The sex a sex worker performs, is a fake act. Likewise, an inflated plea of victimhood is just a fake act – both done to secure money. Both forms of prostitution.
Yep. For all the bluster and bullshit, it goes no deeper that.
I love it how you people get butthurt by a little smug humor! American women already have the right to vote and have had this right for 92 years(it’s constitutionally protected). And before you start whining about how men have had it longer, well, since none of you were alive before women’s suffrage it’s really a moot point. And that ladies and gentlemen, is why that video is amusing.
FTR, going out with anyone(else) from this blog sounds like a nightmare.
Well, just setting aside whether the numbers are fake or not, isn’t acting is also fake? Does that make Harry Potter porn?
But getting all pissy because feminists don’t spend their time talking about misandry: SOCIAL REVOLUTION!!
@Cassandra
The one who ate the mice? That’s one of the most vivid memories of my childhood lolll
@ Shadow
Yes (and mine too). I think her name was Diana? She was deliciously evil.
@ MSN – what is the buthurt you are referring to? And I wouldn’t worry about dating anyone on this site. Except maybe Tom. Unless you use stats to prove people need things- that’s just slutty.
Shame on Padua Academy not teaching its students about the history of voting rights in America! ><
… You can’t prove anything! It could have been anybody! Those people were adults!
“Having said that, hard chairs are misandry.”
Um, yes they do. Especially the idiots who run schools like that.
It would be revolutionary if feminists started talking about misandry properly.
BTW Falconer: Why do you have such respect for the populist right? Elitism is actually a good thing rather than a bad thing so long as membership to the elite isn’t based on birthright but on demonstrating virtue and strength of character.
But Tom, there is no such thing as misandry! Cuz men are BAD and women are GOOD.
Jesus ballot-casting Christ, why am I defending this place, again? Oh right, because fallacy of composition.
Shame on the video makers for biasing their results. Some of Padua’s students don’t know what “suffrage” is. It does not follow that all of Padua’s students don’t know what “suffrage” is.
That’s the fallacy of composition. One of the apples in this crate has a worm in it; therefore all of the apples in this crate have worms, throw them all out.
Right. Because it’s all about you.
Let’s all start demanding that the MRM address the issue of people abandoning their pets on the side of the road.
It is not the responsibility of feminists to advance your cause for you. Especially since your cause is bullshit.
I have a feeling that you wouldn’t be satisfied until feminism had turned itself inside out trying to accommodate you, anyway.
What is misandry, anyway? You know misogyny is more complex than the hatred of women, right? it comes from the systemic oppression of women. Misandry really can’t be men’s version of misogyny because there is no systemic oppression of men. You get that, right?
Um, Falconer, ALL of Padua’s students should know what suffrage is! WTF is the schools excuse for not teaching it to them?
Perhaps you should ask the school rather than asking us? As far as I know nobody here works there.
WRONG.
You are confusing sexism with misogyny. Oppression of one sex by another is sexism. It isn’t necessarily based on hostility, but on chauvinism.
Vitamin D thinks there’s no systematic oppression of men. Here’s a referenced 164 item A to Z of discrimination and inequalities faced by men – interpersonal, cultural, and structural inequalities of opportunity and outcome:
http://sexismbusters.org/ref1.html