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.
“The funnier a person is, the harder it is to make them laugh, therefore, it is easier to make women laugh.”
This… this is like logic. It has a premise, and a claim, and… and…
My god, my brain is melting!!!
The funniest people I know laugh harder and longer than anybody else. WTF are you smoking, Tom?
Can you define irony for me there, buddy?
Hipsters(TM) aren’t a thing. They’re a collection of strawpeople held up by those who are desperate to convince the world they’re aren’t hipsters.
So true.
“South Park is hella funny…”
Yes, yes, we know, you have all the refined tastes of a day-old fruitfly. We get it!
What we want to know is why you’re proud of it.
It’s like “This painting is obviously authentic because it looks totally different than everything else the artist painted, and if you were going to make a forgery you’d make it look the same.” You can sort of see where it’s coming from, and yet…
Katz: YES.
Confession time: I made pretty much that exact argument one time in a college paper XD
Yeah, if not finding Beavis & Butthead or South Park the height of comedic genuis makes me a humorless feminist from Nofunnington, that’s fine by me. Really. I think I’ll survive.
Katz, did you get an A? That totally deserves an A.
MSN likes South Park. Quelle surprise.
“Everybody but us is an ideologically motivated moralistic jerkwad. Let me prove that to you via this episode in which we unthinkingly parrot a libertarian talking point and literally have the kids give you a little ‘this is the moral of this episode’ speech at the end.”
I thought the sketch Ugh linked to was primarily mocking the people who sell and promote homeopathic remedies, not the people who use them. If it had been mocking the people who use them, I doubt it would have been as funny.
There’s just something mean-spirited about mocking the people who use homeopathic remedies. Ultimately, I feel that that would boil down to something like this:
“Ha! Look at those sick people. They’re so desperate for a cure that they’ve managed to convince themselves that this nonsense will make them better. Either that, or they don’t know much about medicine and were never taught the critical thinking skills to figure out how stupid homeopathy is. And now they’re throwing their money away on snake oil. Desperate and uneducated people getting scammed is just hilarious.”
Mocking the victims of a scam is different from mocking the scam artist.
But I’m being a nit-picky pedant here. Even if that sketch had mocked the victims rather than the scam artists, it still wouldn’t be the equivalent of mocking an oppressed minority group.
@Anathema
To be fair, I think the sketch does mock patients of homeopathy a little bit as well. And it is vicious. But I think what saves it is 1. It’s clever enough to mock doctor dramas, homeopaths, and patients all at once, 2. It has actual characters who do unexpected things and are relatively complex (they are also the victims of homeopathic scams, by their bartender) and 3. Mockery of homeopathy has never been used as a tool to silence and economically marginalize a group of people.
I mean, yeah, it is kind of mean. But these three things make it a lot better than 99% of offensive humor.
Dear Tom,
You have all the humor and self-awareness of a dry heave given flesh, awareness, and a Youtube account, and so should really not be talking about humor at all.
xoxo
Tulgey
Ah, so that explains why women’s fingers are chubby little Cabbage Patch things.
Jesus, not the testosterone-ring finger thing again. That horse is so dead, I used it in kindergarten art class.
@ Ugh,
I suppose I’m just really irked by people who feel the need to look down their noses at victims of scams and laugh at their misfortune. There are times when people mock alternative medicine users where there’s this “people who use alternative medicine are so stupid and gullible, not smart like me” vibe that makes me kind of uncomfortable. The arrogance annoys me. In the right set of circumstances, even the most skeptically-minded person could fall for some nonsensical scam. If you don’t have access to the proper information, if you’re desperate enough, it’s really easy to be fooled.
I can see what you mean about the sketch mocking the people who use homeopathy too. I guess it didn’t annoy me as much there because it was focusing more on the people who promote homeopathy and the ridiculous nature of homeopathy itself than it was on homeopathy users. (And, in my opinion, the first two things on that list deserve all the vicious mocking they can get.) The two main characters in the sketch might end up being victims of the bartender’s scam, but they are primarily mocked as supposed healers rather than victims. We laugh more at the antics of the two doctors than the patient dying in their care. That makes a difference to me.
So yeah, you’re right, the sketch does mock the victims of homeopathy some, but not nearly as much as it does the nature of homeopathy itself and the people who sell and promote it.
But, yeah, it’s much better 99% of offensive humor out there.
That horse is so dead..
You say that now.. but you’ll be sorry when this happens.
It would be possible to write a sketch similar to the Mitchell and Webb homeopathy sketch, on the effectiveness of “women the only victims” style feminist advocacy:
The ship is sinking due to a leak, but the hole is in the male quarters, and the women’s group that formed in the first place at the other end of the boat (from their now elevated position) look down on the men, who are frantically bailing out water. The men ask for help, but the women claim that the fault is at the male end of the boat, and therefore it should be men’s job to sort out their own problems.
Men argue they built the boat in the first place to sort out everyone’s problems – but the women claim that’s because men wouldn’t let women help with the building.
The boat keeps sinking, men’s end sinking deeper, thus elevating women’s end even further. The women declare that it is clearly a patriarchal system, with men on top, as the men’s heads are submerged, Douchetrail nodding in total agreement from under the water, “Blubba blabba bleeble”.
The women pat themselves on the back.
The whole boat sinks.
@ Tom- Wow. Obviously not funny, but the really odd bit is how you imagine it to be even remotely related to the Mitchel and Web sketch above. The M&W sketch wasn’t a vague and ominous metaphor. Hell, it didn’t even take place at sea. And I seem to recall there being a joke in there somewhere. Dude, you might want to consider some hormonal replacement therapy or something, because if the above attempt at humour is any indicator your testosterone levels are dangerously low.
Well to be fair, Vitamin D, he did already admit that his fingers are the wrong size for comedy.
@ShadetheDruid — I’m sorry now. Monster horse! Kill it with fire! Or if fire doesn’t work, try electricity!
Yes Vitamin D. Another hilarious point.
I tend to be able to think of funny scenarios, but work best collaborating with others who punch lines up.
To get to those lines, collaborators would listen to the scene I’ve just painted for instance, and say “yes, and… ” in order to perpetuate the humour-finding process.
Being a manboobzer, you’ve said “No! Not funny!”
My point is, out-funny me (or shut up).
Women are believed to have greater or deeper humour-appreciating capacity than men, as women process jokes with both sides of their brain, where as men use only one side apparently.
The trouble is, there is little correlation between being able to judge a joke, and being able to generate a joke.
Women going around saying “Not funny!” is er… not funny.
“I’ve got a vagina so don’t need to be funny” is not going to cut it.
@ Tom- I’m not really sure if ‘out funny me or shut up’ really qualifies as a point, Tom. Seems more like a pout.
Oh, just so you know, asking actual funny people to be funny for you doesn’t qualify as a talent. Really, if your only contribution to the creative process was showing up, it’s pretty fair to say you contributed absolutely nothing.
Also, you’re slipping into passive voice a bit. It’s not “women are believed to blah blah whatever you said”, it’s, “I believe women to blah blah something sexist”. Or, if you are drawing on some research, “this sketchy article that subscribes to the tired myth that people are more right brained or left brained has made some highly suspect claims about how women and men process humour differently. Sexism rules”. Just, you know, watch your tenses is what I’m trying to say.
And who the hell has been saying “I have a vagina so I don’t need to be funny”? Anyone? Why does this non-existent person feel she needs to be funny, and why does she feel her vagina will excuse her? I admire your stern but fair appraisal of the matter- a person this confusing should be cut absolutely no slack.
So, you’re hilarious as long other people write the jokes for you? What, apart you not being at all funny, do you think that proves, Tommy?
Do you really think women think this?
You just can’t stand the fact that some women are better than you, can you? Women go around acting like they’re important and intelligent and funny (gasp) andit chaps your ass, because nothing you attempt seems to ever work, and your entire life is shaded by nothing but failure. I could tell the funniest joke in the world, and you wouldn’t find it funny because I’m a woman. But if you truly had a good sense of humor, you would understand that the funniest remarks come from spontaneous conversation, and are indicative of quick thinking and wit– not some rehearsed joke you tell over and over again at parties.
What’s the difference between a man’s bum, a woman’s bum and a straw hat?
And does the humour of this joke vary depending on the sex of who tells it? (It’s most funny told by a small child, of course.)