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.
@Pecunium: do you mind it being in cartoon form? Because Land Before Time + Rule 34 = childhood ruined, thankyouverymuch.
You.. you aren’t looking hard enough. Seriously though, don’t put “pterodactyl porn” in Google image search. I realise the power of telling someone not to do something, but save yourself! (Oh no my tiny mind.. it is shattered.. o.o)
Oh it’s not so bad if you go into it expecting laughs rather than sexayness.
But I can vouch for the fact that yes, pecunium, there is pterodactyl porn.
Also.
Kitten hugs for Argenti, if needed. 😀
sorry, i can only get turned on by actual video footage of pterodactyls fucking
Dammit, Sharc! You know the time machine is still in ‘animal testing’ phase.
Well, if one successful test with a dog was good enough for Michael J. Fox…
Howard and Sharc: Don’t step on any butterflies!!1!! (obscure literary reference is obscure?)
…the larger question, Raspberry Beret, is this: if the observation of something changes it, then does filming those prehistoric butterflies having sex change the timeline, even if I don’t step on them?
Damn physics.
Raspberthiliana, I read it in high school.
Read it in a book of short stories.
I’ve seen it. There were costumes. And a puppet. It was pretty funny, actually.
saw it on the simspons
simpsons
Argenti – I feel for you on the uncomfortable living situation, though mine is nowhere near as bad as yours.
Anyway, it’s good to have you back.
Oh I wish, I wish I hadn’t killed that fish
There’s also a shitty movie based on it but that doesn’t exist after I—
I have already said too much.
Shade — D’AWW! Don’t tell my mother’s cat though, she might get jealous, and we’ve just established a tenuous friendship — she’s still terrified of my room, but will play with me in the rest of the house. Well, “play with”, my hands are a mess from her swatting me instead of the pipe cleaners, but yeah (sorry, no pics, at least not yet, but she’s just a standard silver tabby with a strange fondness for pipe cleaners)
Probably better that she stays out of my room anyways, I’d have a fit if she knocked over my orchid.
Re: pterodactyl porn — I am so not looking, rule 34 does not need to be invoked.
Dracula — eh, it works, my father is sober currently, so he’s just an idiot, not a violent idiot. And my brother’s an actual adult now, and never moved out, so my father’s idiocy is sort of out numbered by people who think he’s an idiot…and there’s a cat, and a big stupid black dog (he’s a good boy, and seems to have finally given up trying to catch the reflection from his collar XD )
Glad to know you’re doing alright. Dogs and kitties usually help. 🙂
I was wondering where you were. I missed you 🙁
And you missed Tom Hard Chairs Martin McBaldy’s attempts at playing “Spot that Fallacy”, in which he made up a bunch of shit, called them logical fallacies, and gave them colored code names. It was as funny as it sounds.
I did not write the Catalogue of Anti-male Shaming Tactics. I did ask Marc Rudov to document his tactics in debating feminasties (because he is so good at it), but shortly thereafter (2007), someone else published it:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
I will say, in the series of public debates I’ve had, with the more accomplished feminists, they do not tend to resort to anti-male shaming tactics on the whole, accept sometimes, when losing the argument, and their cool.
The plebs do use anti-male shaming tactics though, quite frequently.
I suppose it’s down to a lack of understanding of ethical debating practices.
People don’t seem to realize, they’re using ad hominems at the point of losing an argument.
All MRAs need to do is point this juncture out, and the hater simply fizzles away to nothing.
Women seem to be more morally ambivalent about the rules of debate though, and so tend to scuttle off to twitter or wherever to try and get the mob to agree with their ad hominems, rather than win any arguments.
Front line resource-hogging feminism seems reluctant to police this behaviour amongst its rank and file – because feminism knows all it has in the face of further men’s equality concessions it doesn’t want to make, is ad hominem flak.
It’s all you’ve got – but men’s rights activists are at a different altitude, where flak won’t reach.
wait, you mean actual feminists arent the cartoon monsters you spend your considerable free time complaining about on the internet? reality does not conform to tom martin’s diatribes?!? who would have guessed!
*cant go a few sentences without insulting women*
*claims that men are the real targets of sexism*
*trips and falls facefirst in a pile of dogshit, dogshit wins 37000 pound judgment against him*
Feminasties? how original and cutting.
Semantics, Sharculese. You are a whooer. Are we clear?
I’m thinking a moderation challenge for all iterations of w***e should be enacted for Tommy.