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.
@MDubz
Telling women that they should renounce prostitution in all its forms tend to ruin a first date. Talk about awkward.
I’m kind of proud to be a wh*re actually. :3 All of my best friends are wh*res!
M Dubz seems RALE concerned that guys who say things she doesn’t like just might be getting laid……OH NOEZ! 😛
@Cloudiah
Yeah, that’s how whack-ass tricks generally view it, except for the whole “child sex-workers are just using grown men” thing. That’s just… Well, that’s the kind of thinking that eventually gets you on a list which prevents you from living near schools and day-cares.
@katz:
I have to say that the video you linked to was by far one of the most pah-thet-ic and sorry attempt at a spoof in the entire history of SNL.
@nomnomnom- I am worried because I genuinely believe that Tom could turn out to be the sort of person who would batter a woman’s psyche or her body. It’s soul sucking enough to read his bullshit here, I can’t IMAGINE a woman putting up with in on a regular basis, whilst naked.
Most dictionaries define the word “misogyny” as “the pervasive hostility towards women.” When academic feminists use the term “misogyny” they use it to refer to “the pervasive hostility towards women.” How dare feminists reinvent the English language by using the word “misogyny” in this manner.
That’s what Om Nom is saying, right?
I . . . what . . .
Jeez, MSN, you humorless whatever-you-are.
@ M Dubz
Yeah, that’s part of what’s bothering me. When he gets on a roll he has abuser written all over him, and a very specific kind of abuser that I unfortunately encountered several times as a child.
(To be clear, those people were not abusing me. They were however abusing family friends.)
@Cassandra- right? A man who uses the word wh*res the way that Tom Martin does is not the sort that thinks that sex workers should be treated well. And when he applies it to all women… well…
Tom’s attitude toward children’s abuse screams “why isn’t he under police investigation” to me.
Ooh, I read about that Tom. Even commented about it a while back. As it turns out, it’s one evolutionary psychologist (shocking, I know) who said, “gee, wouldn’t it be neat if the immune system worked in this way that contradicts all previous evidence to make blowjobs beneficial for women, but only if they aren’t horrible sluts?” He then proceeded to do no research, and now a bunch of news outlets with no integrity (it’s the Mail, for fuck’s sake) are reporting it as SCIENCE!
@ MSN- Sociology is a pseudoscience now. I am sure academia will be devastated to learn that. Look, if reality doesn’t interest you, you are, of course, more than welcome to ignore it and start making stuff up. And I suggest you call people who hate men ‘people who hate men’. It’s clear and accurate, and it doesn’t pretend to be the flip side of the term misogyny.
When the glowing red eyes went in, the humor had to come out. But hey, it’s a small price to pay for gleaming chromium and a death-ray.
Oh yeah, and complex concepts often require a bit more than a one line definition from a dictionary. That’s why we have books.
BWAAHAHA!
So this is Tom’s extensive, referenced, authoritative list of male oppreshun. I was expecting some misinterpreted statistics one would have to dig into to refute; most MRAs give at least a perfunctory effort to hide their stupidity behind the need to look shit like Eugene Kanin up in fucking Google. Tom is so hopelessly infatuated with himself that he should be the literal poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Well BOO FUCKING HOO! 😛
People don’t really wanna watch girls play basketball. So what? There are sports which not only do women participate on all female teams, but people actually want to watch women playing them! Like volleyball for example. We just can’t get enough of women in tight shorts or bikinis with those gorgeous bubblebutts! 😉
Yo, Imma let you finish, but I just gotta say that the sexualization of female athletes is already well understood by feminism, and that it is part and parcel of the attitude that women’s sports are taken less seriously than men’s sports, so we really did not need an update about these things from your twitching penis.
And Sir Omnomalot heads for the Planet of Moderation at warp speed.
God almighty, if our resident trolls don’t pick up their game, I’m going to start trolling the place myself.
Who says male athletes aren’t sexualized? I happen to know for a fact that they ARE. Both male and female athletes are considered to be attractive by members of the opposite sex(and the same sex too for that matter). Playing sports involves using the body so spectators notice athletes bodies.
Balance: The problem with this analogy is that Michael Richards is one person, and the Men’s Rights reddit is a loosely moderated(is it moderated at all?) internet forum with many different people contributing. This is cherry picking plain and simple. You know it is, and it’s all you know how to do. You never address any of the actual arguments or ideas that any of the MRAs have. You pick the quotes that sound bad, have no evidence that the entire movement supports those ideas
The problem with this defense is you have nothing to support it.
If you are right it should be easy to find the coutervailing MRM posts and publications and spokesmen; the one’s who are being moderate and restrained and not saying women are gold-digging Wh%res who want to steal your sperm and live high off the fat of the land while you slave for them or go to prison because the bitch wouldn’t get an abortion and you couldn’t walk away from the kid.
You’d be able to find people who don’t think rape only means some stranger jumping out a bush to beat someone into submission (because she fought like a trooper).
You’d have something more recent than S.CU.M., and more honest than “all men are racists, and that’s all they are”
But you don’t offer anything more trenchant than, “you are mean and really we aren’t like that!”
So prove it. Link to the sites which you say we are ignoring. Show us what the “moderate mainstream” of the MRM looks like.
MSN- Dude, there is a difference between finding people attractive and sexualization. Also, boo fucking hoo is not a great rebuttal when people are making the point there is sexism. Basically what you are saying is ‘I know it exists and I don’t care’. Which is kind of what makes it a problem.
Great observation, champ. After all that exertion, though, you might want to take a breather and sit out of discussions that are so obviously taxing on your understanding of the matter at hand.
Maybe he has a point. Anyone who can sit through a cricket test without getting turned on just isn’t human.
Then again, maybe he doesn’t have a point.