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.
@CassandraSays: His ideas are bullshit. I didn’t think I was taking them seriously. Still, I’m probably only encouraging him.
Fuck, it’s after 11 Eastern. What’s the hour in Murrie Olde Blighty, Tom? Shouldn’t you be in bed? Don’t you have gotcha videos to film and then bias tomorrow?
Tom, instead of taking the time and energy to color code your perceived injustices against men, why don’t you do something real?
By real, I mean something other than frivolous lawsuits that put you 37k in the hole.
Tom, do you really expect to convert people here? What’s your real motive? To prove you’re the center of the universe and should not be questioned? It’s not working, dude. *snicker*
@ Cassandra- woa, yeah, I forgot about that thread. I kind of just can’t believe a person like this exists.
Cassandra attempting to herd a few sheep on the back of a false allegation.
Cassandra, I said child prostitution should be illegal. It’s not that complicated.
If you can’t engage with the argument, then go read a book.
Tom seems to thrive on any sort of attention, even negative attention, which is why I’m starting to question the wisdom of responding to him at all. If any of us engage him seriously that might give lurkers the impression that ideas like “98% of women are wh#$@s” are worthy of serious engagement.
Also he’s using this blog as a means of drumming up business for his various enterprises, so I’m not sure we should be helping him do that.
Oh lord, it’d be just like Mr Mybug from Cold Comfort Farm trying out his pickup line “Do you think women have souls?”
I think you’re right, Cassandra. Don’t feed the trolls. Well, I’m signing off.
Well, it’s either he’s trying to drum up traffic to his blog and maybe get a fiver through Paypal, or he’s trying to win over the people in the middle.
Lord knows I have no expectation that he’ll suffer some epiphany because of my bons mots and go and buy a chair cushion and bother us no more. I’m doing it because I hope that some people see the argument, and are persuaded that MRAs are whiny dicks.
It’s funny how manboobzers don’t seen to like ‘gotcha’ videos.
There must be some gotcha videos of men being badly or idiotically sexist somewhere, other than the ones of women looking like sexist idiots.
Tom’s motive here is basic attention, which he apparently can’t get anywhere else. He’s too cheap for a domme, so he uses us.
@ Cassandra- maybe tomorrow I’ll agree with you, but right now I have wine to drink and time to kill between fights.
Ninja’d by Cassandra.
That’s a funny way of saying “Children who are forced into prostitution should be punished, and those that pay to rape them should not.”
Tom, I’m sure a youtube search could find you the videos you’re looking for. A smart guy like you should be able to figure it out.
That’s right. You did.
And then you said that the child prostitute knew what xie was doing, understood the transactional nature of the act, and should be threatened with jail to get hir to go back to school.
And then you said the john was obviously sick, and needed to be treated.
And then we yelled at you. A lot.
And then you misrepresented what you said.
I hope the devil gives you the pointy chair at his table. But I will be disappointed, because I don’t believe in the afterlife or divine justice.
Yeah, call me a sucker, but I like poking the troll. 😛
Tommy love, you’ll notice the bit where I classified the first twenty items of your nice shiny list into “bullshit” and “not bullshit”? That’s an *argument*. (Admittedly, I left out my reasoning, but I assure you I had it and would be happy to elaborate on any points you’re confused about.) The bit where I called you a poor baby afterward is an *insult*, as is the condescending tone in which this post is written.
Imagine! Soon you’ll be able to understand basic arguments!
That not exactly what you said, Tom.
Falconer said: “blah, blah, blah… whiny dicks.”
Falsoner, you are using a Code Blue anti-male shaming tactic you pin head. I just posted the analysis of it! It’s a polite nudge, so you realize you’re coming off as an idiot when you use it.
It’s not that complicated:
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:
“Stop whining!”
“Get over it!”
“Suck it up like a man!”
“You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
“You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
“Your fragile male ego …”
“Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Aw christ, I probably opened that can of worms again, and borked the thread.
I got to go, so if the issue blows up again, I’m sorry, it’s my fault, and I’ll never engage Bony Arse again.
My concern here is that this particular troll has figured out how to engage the media, at least in the UK. That’s exactly the kind of troll that we don’t want to feed. Plus he’s dishonest enough to outright lie about his interactions with people, what he said, etc. Basically he’s tailor made for the Daily Mail, and they’ll present him in a way that whitewashes all the really nasty stuff.
Giving it a clue little color code doesn’t make it false, Tommy.
You make a good point about how responding to Tom at all seems to feed his ego by giving him the attention he apparently so desperately craves.
But I’m not sure any lurkers are going to think that Tom’s ideas have merit just because some of us respond to them. I mean, this is the guy who thinks that female penguins are wh*res. I think that most lurkers are going to recognize that the ideas of anyone who seriously makes claims like that aren’t really worthy of serious engagement.
I don’t care if someone labeled it as “Code Blue”. MRA’s really are oversensitive about a lot of things, so us saying, “Get a grip” is just telling it like it is.
Don’t go Falconer. we’re still waiting for your personality to arrive.