The top post on the Men’s Rights subreddit at the moment, with more than 300 600 700 net upvotes, is a link to this screenshot, posted as an example of radical feminism gone wild:
Naturally, the assembled Men’s Rights Redditors are outraged yet quiety affirmed in their beliefs by the quote. OuiCrudites responds with a slogan:
OsirisFox does a callback to that screenshotted lady we talked about the other day:
And DavidByron demonstrates a severe disconnection from reality:
There’s just one little problem with that rad-fem screenshot they’re all reacting to: it’s, uh, pretty freaking obviously not a quote from a real feminist. Not only is it ridiculously over-the-top — there’s no feminist alive who thinks women shouldn’t be responsible for any of their decisions — but there’s also that “supposed” in the final sentence, which makes it clear this isn’t a comment from a deluded feminist but a sarcastic comment from someone who is not exactly a fan of feminism.
The person who posted the screenshot to the Men’s Rights subreddit did not, alas, post a link to the source of the screenshot. But, making use of a little-known internet technology known as “Google,” I was able to trace it to its source: the comment section on Gawker. Specifically, right here.
Unlike the last screenshot from Gawker media that caused the Men’s Rights subreddit such embarrassment, this screenshot wasn’t doctored. But the screenshotter did leave out a bit of context: that is, if you look at GardeniaBlossom’s comment history, it’s clear that this pretty flower is no radical feminist.
Most of Gardenia’s comments are attacks on fat acceptance; there’s a snarky one insulting prostitutes and a followup suggesting that women dating PUAs shouldn’t be shocked when PUAs sexually harass them; and one, in the comments section to an article about feminism, setting forth the basic MRA talking points about circumcision and female genital mutilation. (You can find more analysis of Gardenia in the AgainstMensRights subreddit; there are also a few — a distinct minority — in the Men’s Rights discussion who suspect a troll.)
I’m guessing Gardinia is, at the very least, a Redditor, if not an active poster to the Men’s Rights subreddit.
MRAs love to claim that I take quotes “out of context,” but I quote liberally, and when I quote and/or post screenshots, I provide links to the quotes in their original contexts — as I have done here. I don’t generally quote comments by obvious trolls, or quotes that have been heavily criticized by others on the sites I find them on.
When I take comments from sites like Reddit or The Spearhead where readers can up- and downvote comments, I tend to quote comments that have received a substantial number of upvotes. When I quote outliers or unpopular comments, I mention this in my posts.
The Men’s Rights subreddit, by contrast, is happy to upvote completely unsourced screenshots without even doing the thirty seconds of Googling it would take to figure out where they come from in the first place. But that sort of makes sense. Given that Men’s Rights Redditors spend so much of their time fighting imaginary straw feminists — and that the entire Men’s Rights movement is in fact built upon fighting straw feminists — why does it matter if the screenshots of evil feminist quotes they like to circle-jerk over are real or forged, or, in this case, actually from a feminist at all?
Fighting imaginary enemies, all in a day’s work for the Men’s Rights Warriors of Reddit Dot Com.
EDIT: I reworked the paragraph starting “There’s just one little problem” to be a bit more blunt.
EDITED TO ADD: Some of the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit has discovered this post of mine. The regulars have recognized their folly, and have begun some serious soul-searching about their willingness to believe the literally unbelievable about feminists without even doing the most basic factchecking first.
Nah, just kidding, they still think the screenshot is real — though the subreddit’s mods (apparently having a teensy bit more sense than the subreddit regulars themselves) have finally labelled the screenshot a “fake.” Which isn’t exactly true. It wasn’t fake; it was simply some fairly obvious sarcasm that the regulars in the Men’s Rights were too obtuse to notice. Did none of them even read the comment all the way through to the end?
Also, turns out the TumblrInAction subreddit also had a giant circle-jerk over the screenshot as well, which garnered nearly 700 upvotes and more than 200 mostly outraged and not-in-the-slightest skeptical comments; they also discovered this post of mine and are also continuing to insist that the screenshot was a real feminist probably, honest.
How many centuries since Cervantes set Don Quixote flailing at windmills, and these dudes haven’t worked out that only fools attack shadows?
a simple trip to wikipedia clarifies “feminism”. seriously……
Another shining example of the critical thinking and basic search skills of the mighty minds in the MRM.
Love it.
No matter how many times they’re suckered, there is no limit to their gullibility. Fucking hilarious.
Imagine if their gullibility could be used as a power source. Renewable energy for the win!
Though there’d need to be a way to eliminate all the toxicity that goes with it, of course.
All-too-predictable mra response: “Well, maybe that particular quote isn’t from a feminist. But most feminists agree with it anyway. If they deny it, that just proves I’m right!”
people cannot be this dense….
….please tell me they cannot >___<
or give me a piece of pie. whatever is more realistic…..
I’m sending pie to pineapplecookies!
Unfortunately, that’s unpossible. 🙁
Pie for pineapplecookies!
D’you like mixed fruit (loganberries, blackberries, raspberries, that sort of thing) pie, with whipped cream? I’m sure we have some left over at Home from ‘tother night …
Pineapple upside down cake?
Sadly, that’s far more realistic than the hope that people can’t be this dense.
Even my mother, whose mere presence can break my computer, can google her way to an original source and look things up on Wikipedia.
Gad, ellex, are our mothers related?
It looks like they were riffing on or responding to this bit in the article:
I have zero context for the parenthetical, and Gawker’s site stymies my ancient (2007) computer so I don’t have the patience to go digging.
I lurk on r/againstmensrights, and I thought this post was pretty interesting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1f24cv/a_couple_observations_about_mras/
(Also the discussion, not just the post.)
mixed fruit!! whipped cream, yes, please! ^__^
oh… and a cup of tea!! ♪
much needed…. thanks, kittehserf and cloudiah.
it’s “unpossible” to understand all the mental process that goes on with mras. and the 13 year-old rhetoric strategies as becausescience mentioned.
I have been reading the ones that post here and they seldom answer to questions properly or acknowledge… anything that is said by anyone really!
like that dude that mentioned x times about how everyone was promoting that stupid pua was ugly, body-shamed and threatened with violence… when in fact was just a careless comment from a random person and all the regulars were quickly to criticize harshly that same comment! And the dude mentioned that over and over as if it was a major thing everybody was in agreement.
it was unbelievable! I was reading in awe at the high level of foolishness.
Pineapple upside down cake? that sounds good! what is that?
Thing is, the first sentence in the OP that has the MRAs knickers in a twist has a kernel of truth. It’s way more of a radfem perspective that’s usually surrounded by a whole lot of wrong, but it’s food for thought (which means MRAs are starving).
You guys gotta keep the chews toys tender for me–I’ll be in Vegas (for work, boo) until Saturday. I leave at the asscrack of dawn, ugh.
“but it’s food for thought (which means MRAs are starving).”
Bwahahahahahaha!
ooooooooooooh…. I need that *___*
pineapple upside down cake
Why are these so obviously fake to most feminists but so real to MRAs? You’d think after whining about feminist supremacists all day every day, they’d know the broad arguments. It’s really funny though.
It does baffle me how quick MRAs are to confirmation bias without verification (and the good old “well, it doesn’t matter it was a fake, feminists think like that anyway). So the American legislature is filled with people legislating to make all hetero sex is rape (Yo radfem John Boehner. Did he publish his “queering with patriarchy-smashing vaginas manifesto” yet?) I can’t even.
Anyway, it is pretty interesting that David gets accused of putting comments out of context. One thing I have noticed on manboobz is how many commenters take the time to check the context. I do it often, even though I loathe supporting them with my traffic. But it seems like most MRA sites can safely pull bullshit quotes out of their ass, no one actually verifies them (they’re too busy changing the world, one Reddit comment at a time.)
Pineapple upside down cake is when you put the butter and brown sugar in the pan then the pineapple slices, pour in the cake batter and bake. When you take it out of the oven you turn it out on the plate and the pineapple is on top. (you can put candied cherries in the holes in the pineapple rings if you like it that way)
Pineapple upside down cake is a white or sponge cake (as I understand it) where sliced pineapple is layered on the bottom of the pan before baking.
When you decant the cake from the pan by turning it over, the pineapple rings become the top of the cake.
It’s yummy.
I hope you can have at least a little bit of fun in Vegas, hellkell! We’ll save a few chew toys for you.
Seriously. This is my fave.
*Upside down pear almond cake*
I can’t find a picture, but the best is this recipe by Deborah Madison. Most of the flour is replaced with finely ground blanched almonds, and the pears are caramelized.
Sooooo good.
http://www.cucinanicolina.com/pear-almond-upside-down-cake