Hey, do you need an instant karma boost on Reddit? Here’s how to get yourself hundreds of upvotes in four easy steps!
1) Make or find a misogynistic meme graphic that suggests women are terrible and makes light of domestic violence
2) Post it to the AdviceAnimals subreddit with the headline “I know I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion, but its true….”
3) There is no step 3
4) Enjoy your hundreds of upvotes!
Huh. I guess that’s really only two steps.
Graphic after the jump because — trigger warning — it makes light of domestic violence, as do several of the other comments I’m going to quote.
It’s funny because it’s true!
(Note: That last statement is completely false.)
In the comments, one clever fella piggybacked off of the OP’s misogyny to win a couple hundred upvotes of his own with this hilarious comment:
And this guy won himself a couple dozen upvotes with a nice little list about how awful women are — and got his comment linked to in r/mensrights for allegedly providing great insight into “how Women are set on a pedestal in today’s society.”
Oh, but don’t worry, some brave Redditors stood up to defend women from these not-so-nice generalizations. Like this guy:
Huh. I guess that isn’t much of a defense after all, considering that it blames domestic violence on “immature bitch[es].”
Reddit: Where “chivalry” means suggesting that not all women are “immature bitches” who deserve to get punched. Just some of them.
The Advice Animals subreddit: amazingly, often worse than r/mensrights. It’s not clear if this is because the denizens of r/adviceanimals are actually more baldly misogynistic than the r/mensrights regulars, or if it’s just that the folks in r/mensrights know that really obvious outbursts of misogyny tend to make them look bad.
Ick. I’m still mad they took the rationalization hamster meme back, the dogs.
What way is it that they think women act in arguments? I am sadly unaware of the stereotype they’re talking about. And while we’re at it, how do they think men argue that is so superior?
I like that the bear in the graphic looks upset that she (or he) is being used to promote such hateful ideas. It is almost a “why are they doing this to me” look. Poor cute little bear.
@Kim
A woman, by arguing with a man, acts in a way that shows she thinks a man wrong. A man, by being a man, is obviously in agreement with a man. This is the better way to be. 🙁
I do declare bear abuse! How dare they use that cute a critter for such a thing.
Shut up, DL.
Kim: women get all emotional and shit, while men are paragons of rationality. Until some bitch makes him hit her.
Some Gal, I like your explanation for the bear’s expression. It makes it easier to look at somehow.
I’ve been lurking for some time and decided to post. I just wanted to say that I’m disgusted and that I wish I could understand the reasoning of these people. They just fail at every level to see women as human beings and instead they see us as ‘The Other’. It makes me sad because on a shallow level I once thought the MRA had some valid points to make.
Hitting a person because they disagree with you isn’t hysterical and overemotional? It seems that reason escapes them.
@At Some Gal, that’s exactly what I thought the moment I looked at the bears expression.
@cloudiah
Thanks. Maybe I don’t fully understand how making these things works, but shouldn’t the animal reinforce what they are saying somehow? Like maybe this one should have had two upset looking animals in it? (Or maybe a male lion eating a gazelle to really drive home the threat?)
Re-reading the comments in the OP, it’s almost as if they believe the opposite.
That women are manipulative, conniving and emotionless, while men are easily manipulated by their emotions – they feel bad, can be guilt tripped and are that angry.
That sort of behaviour does exist of course, and is abusive. Why do they leap to the conclusion that it’s “woman” behaviour rather than “abuser” behaviour? Oh right, they hate women.
Or they are completely self-absorbed. Or both.
So when women argue they get all aggressive and hysterical cause they know they won’t get hit. So, does that mean all the guys that get all aggressive and hysterical do it cause they know the same? Do these idiots really expect anyone outside of their circle jerk to think that females are the only ones who can make a complete ass of themselves when in a confrontation?
It’s not even like they are denying reality at this point. It’s like they have created their own world where reality no longer applies. The fact that people so hateful are walking around looking like ordinary people, scares the crap out of me. Monsters should look like monsters, not men.
“Monsters should look like monsters, not men.” or women for that matter.
Kim: if you just give in and go with the guiding MRA doctrine of Bitches ain’t Shit, it makes their thinking easier to grasp.
Ever played Fable or InFamous? They let you choose to be good or bad but how good or bad you are affects how you look. They’re even good about not making you ugly or beautiful or any other naural human feature.
Yup, I’ve played the Fable series and I wish how good or bad we were affected how we appeared to others. That would be awesome. Then everyone would know who to avoid.
And people who are bad might get sick of people running screaming all the time (in the first Fable I was completely evil and the screaming did get a bit grating after a while) and start being nicer.
How often do men get hit in arguments, anyway?
I mean, maybe this is a cultural thing, but I’m pretty sure most of the men I know here in merry old England aren’t regularly getting into fist-fights with their friends. Siblings, yes, at least in the past tense, but that doesn’t seem to be gendered.
Drunken brawls are a thing that happens, but from outside they look to be far more about mutual indulgement of aggression than arguments gone physical.
It just looks to me like the whole premise – men know that if they are rude in an argument, they will be hit – is false. Men know that if they are rude in an argument they will be given funny looks and maybe, rarely, called out on it by other present friends, more like. And that’s not violence, and it’s not gendered.
If we’re talking about men getting hit by their romantic partners… again, most people aren’t abusive and violent and therefore most people don’t hit their partners. I don’t see an epidemic of women hitting men who are conditioned not to hit back. It happens, but it’s not so common that it explains this particular bit of misogyny.
@viola
They are still upset that “Don’t hit women” was ever a thing. Even though, AFAIK, most children are now taught just “Don’t hit,” the fact that a man was ever taught to specifically not hit women is misandry. (That women were – and are! – getting lessons on how to not be hurt by a man, no matter how misguided that is, and that this might prove that the advice wasn’t meant to position women as better or more precious seems to have never entered their minds.)
Reading that list of “stuff women do in arguments” was like listening to Tom Leykis again. It is integral to this form of misogyny to take everyday hypocrisies of individual women and then start generalizing it to “stuff women do.” Suddenly it’s not something she did, it’s something women do, and that segues into the rest of misogyny—women are bitches, hypocritical, “pedestalized by society,” etcetera. The generalization takes such strong hold that people believe the generalization even more than their own experiences. Discussion of “what women do” serves as an occasion to get oneself worked up about “bitches,” and talk about counterexamples becomes a discourse of control in which female deviation from perfect reasonableness serves to immediately condemn the woman in question and in which women who aren’t “like that” are “exceptions that prove the rule” with the implication that she must be extra careful to maintain her “elevated” status.
MR. Assholes extend this by using “NAWALT” as a dodge: of COURSE not all women are like that, but let’s not discuss the implications for our stupid generalizations as if evidence could shake our anger at women.
@viola
I think it is a bit of a cultural thing. In some parts of the US (predominantly the south) they have more of an honor culture. I have no idea if this site is good or problematic and I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now to vet it, but it does look interesting and I intend to read it, but here is an article talking about honor culture.
http://artofmanliness.com/2012/11/26/manly-honor-part-v-honor-in-the-american-south/
But if you hark back to days of dueling, you can picture what it might be like for these guys, maybe.
I would like a cross-examination IP check on Ruby/DL. Do I need to fill out a form?
@Tulgey Logger
Brilliantly said!
Ugh. I don’t know anybody else but if DL had come back from that “damaged goods” comment with an apology a couple days later I’d be comfortable letting bygones be bygones? Even after that post on zir own blog, if zie said “I’m sorry, I was really upset, now that I’ve calmed down I realize I’d overreacted and I’ll write another post,” I’d be like “yeah you sure did overreact and I’m not sure what you’ll say next, but we’re cool for now.” But this come back, leave a little comment, acknowledge nothing routine? It really pisses me off.