So here’s an interesting chart. Guess what it represents?
A) The membership of the David Duke Fan Club
B) The racial breakdown of the most successful Liberace impersonators
C) The demographics of the Men’s Rights subreddit
Well, ok, that was too easy. It is of course all of the above. I’m guessing. It’s definitely C, at least, as this chart was prepared to show the results of the 2013 Men’s Rights subreddit demographic survey.
Now, you might say, well, isn’t Reddit itself a pretty white place? And you would be right. But the Men’s Rights subreddit seems to be a bit whiter — and a lot less black — than Reddit as a whole, if Quantcast’s estimates of Reddit’s overall ethnic breakdown are accurate.
In other completely non-surprising news, 89% of Men’s Rights Redditors are men. And a lot of them are libertarians. MRAs complain endlessly that we pigeonhole them as a bunch of entitled white dudes. They’re really not doing much to challenge that assumption.
The most important issue to these fellas (and the small minority that aren’t fellas)? Survey says: False rape accusations.
Other critical issues to the Men’s Rightsers include “custody rights” (which is a bit odd because 92% of those surveyed have no kids), “legal discrimination” (whatever that means), “education discrimination” (this is a thing?), and “male disposability.”
“Male birth control” and “paper abortion,” while relatively less important to the Men’s Rightsers, each got hundreds of votes.
I’m surprised “friendzoning” isn’t at the top of the list, but unfortunately it wasn’t one of the choices. I blame misandry.
Why do you ignore citations given? Bah.
@Howard:
“Oh, FFS. Even Tom Martin had to admit that feminism was better on this one.
Tom fucking Martin!”
O: Who is Tom Martin?
O.
Wow. I am impressed. In years of dealing with the manosphere, and going on 25 years of being on the net, I’m hard pressed to think of a more dishonest actor then OF. That’s including the straight up trolling of Mr. Al. It’s pretty amazing.
… So what’s more important to the MRA agenda? The false accusations of rape, acquiring a better model of pickup or making sure short men get dates?
I’m not saying you can’t answer “All three”, but I am going to say that if you answer “All three”, your priorities are out of sync with what I normally understand to be “activism”.
Here’s something:
When the question comes up, and we talk about stuff
like roles, trolls and being the butt of jokes
Normalized rapes and terrile tropes
of sexual availability, victims and men
then?
You reply, high and dry: “…. not against the law”.
You’re right, it isn’t, and your mired, blinkered
slightly foggy perspective
is quite indicative of a biased objective
“Secure father’s rights! Let men live, not die! Get proper support and accord for the children of men!
And also, let the short men bang again! Those women pay for their food and, if you think something crude, write your own guide on how to get men pussy!”.
*come* *on*
Yeah, done with Mr. Evidence-c’est-pour-l’autres. Have fun y’all.
Shorter ObsidianFiles:
[quotes self, ignoring responses]
O: So you have no evidence.
O.
Wait, what?
You say you’ve been hanging on the Spearhead?
He’s written stuff for them.
But you’ve never heard of him?
How long have you been in the MRM?
Yeah, *seriously.*
@SittieKitty:
“Nope, we completely disagree on this. Reread what I said. Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton were about legalizing abortion. You also didn’t cite anything.”
O: Yes, I did; it is not my problem if you don’t wish to accept it.
As for Roe, it was indeed about the right to privacy. We have agreed that medically safe abortions were around prior to the Roe ruling, so that wasn’t at issue. The ability to provide them was there, it was whether a Woman was able to get them legally or not. Part of the argument was whether a Woman has the right to privacy. Hence Roe. Roe For Men argues for the same thing. Men should not be penalized for their private decisions.
“This wasn’t the topic?”
O: Sure it was; you broached it.
“My claim was that tearing down gender roles allows women to no longer be the default in childrearing. This is regarding family court issues.”
O: Alright; evidence, please?
“My other claim was that for men who want to be able to walk away, allowing the government to give the child support would decrease any financial pressure on the woman to get an abortion when she doesn’t want one.”
O: Why do Women need said support, when they are already the breadwinners in a majority of American homes, and Black Women in particular attend college at higher rates than anyone else in American life? Can’t they raise the child(ren) on their own?
“This is regarding reproductive rights. Neither of those is about fighting for the rights of dads to be involved in the lives of their kids. Jesus, you’re bad at reading comprehension. And no, that’s not an ad hominim, that’s just a statement of fact.”
O: That remains to be seen, given your inability to offer sources supporting your claims about Feminists…
“I’m done with you unless you start addressing shit and citing your claims.”
O: You first…
O.
Mr. O has been spending way too much time with the kind of people who think “well, it’s not illegal” is a reasonable hand-wave.
Lmao. The seduction community is about trying to get laid as much as possible and giving fuck all about how you go about it as long as it’s free. It’s not about dating. It’s about date raping.
Queer issues affect straight people as well. There’s this handy little thing that happens when you tear down barriers in the queer community that it often carries over into the hetcis communities. Acceptance of queer issues and reduction of gender roles through that helps hetcis communities.
Again, off on some irrelevant tangent. Saying something has decreased isn’t the same as saying it’s not a big deal, not a societal problem, or shouldn’t be addressed. And yes, that’s exactly what you’re trying to say. It’s the same as saying that black women are attending uni at an all time high – it’s political window dressing trying to say the problem is less worse than it is.
Yes, but the problems affecting women are discussed and prioritized by feminists! So the problems affecting men should analogously be discussed and prioritized by MRAs? And yet, it’s not. That’s kinda my whole point.
No, it’s not. Citations, maybe? You still haven’t provided me with anything other than assertions.
True. So? It’s speculation. I’m not saying you definitively haven’t looked. If I was, I’d be asserting something I can’t prove. You’re making claims, without backing up any of it. You aren’t just speculating. Pretty much you’re just being disingenuous. You stated: “they seem to have a very narrow set of (self-serving) interests that don’t have anything to do with all the things you have profferred above.” That’s an assertion. You need to back that up by providing examples of how they aren’t doing anything in Philly except having a very narrow set of self-serving interests.
I can see why, in your instance.
What a dishonest turd this one is.
@Howard:
“Wait, what?
“You say you’ve been hanging on the Spearhead?”
O: Yup.
“He’s written stuff for them.”
O: I’ll look into it.
“But you’ve never heard of him?”
O: Nope.
“How long have you been in the MRM?”
O: I’ve been writing for the Spearhead for the past few years; I have never claimed that I’ve known personally everyone else who’s written for them.
O.
Pecunium: I know right? This one refuses to find–forget own–his shit. Impressive.
Agreed percunium and inurashii. I’m done. C’est la vie, that was an interesting first troll discussion but I’m not interested in wasting time doing this dipshits research for them. I’ve done my homework and gotten the degree already. I don’t have time to take them through university level discussion right now because K-12 is apparently also necessary.
I don’t expect you to know everybody. But given his feuding with, ahem, certain sectors, I thought you ought to have known *him.* Ah, well.
@SittieKitty | June 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Yeah. The amount the MRM whines about coercion and sperm-burgling and what-not? Pure white-hot projection.
That’s all they ever have.
@SittieKitty:
“Lmao. The seduction community is about trying to get laid as much as possible and giving fuck all about how you go about it as long as it’s free. It’s not about dating. It’s about date raping.”
O: If your and others’ claims are true in this regard, you have clear grounds to prosecute. What are you all waiting for?
“Queer issues affect straight people as well.”
O: Really? How so? Please explain?
“There’s this handy little thing that happens when you tear down barriers in the queer community that it often carries over into the hetcis communities. Acceptance of queer issues and reduction of gender roles through that helps hetcis communities.”
O: OK – could you please cite some examples? Thanks!
“Again, off on some irrelevant tangent.”
O: No, it’s on-point…
“Saying something has decreased isn’t the same as saying it’s not a big deal, not a societal problem, or shouldn’t be addressed. And yes, that’s exactly what you’re trying to say. It’s the same as saying that black women are attending uni at an all time high – it’s political window dressing trying to say the problem is less worse than it is.”
O: That’s because…it is…
“Yes, but the problems affecting women are discussed and prioritized by feminists!”
O: Precisely. So why do you have a problem with this being done by the MRA community when it comes to Men and false rape charges/convictions? Why are you good with it when Feminists do it, but are so against it when the MRAs do it? Please explain?
“So the problems affecting men should analogously be discussed and prioritized by MRAs? And yet, it’s not. That’s kinda my whole point.”
O: Not true. Both the poll Dave broached in this post topic and the poll I linked to per the GMP says otherwise…
“No, it’s not. Citations, maybe? You still haven’t provided me with anything other than assertions.”
O: Yes, I have. Meanwhile, you haven’t provided anything in the way that supports your claims about Feminists working so hard in the communities on the issues we’re discussing. I still await them.
“True. So?”
O: So it’s wholly off topic. Remember?
“It’s speculation. I’m not saying you definitively haven’t looked. If I was, I’d be asserting something I can’t prove. You’re making claims, without backing up any of it.”
O: Not true. You’re the one not backing up claims.
“You aren’t just speculating. Pretty much you’re just being disingenuous. You stated: “they seem to have a very narrow set of (self-serving) interests that don’t have anything to do with all the things you have profferred above.” That’s an assertion. You need to back that up by providing examples of how they aren’t doing anything in Philly except having a very narrow set of self-serving interests.”
O: Just like you need to prove that Feminists ARE indeed doing things along the lines you’ve asserted.
Like I said: you. First…
O.
Howard B, RSS feed was a great idea! Thanks!
@Howard:
“I don’t expect you to know everybody. But given his feuding with, ahem, certain sectors, I thought you ought to have known *him.* Ah, well.”
O: *shrugs*
O.
@Hellkell:
“I can see why, in your instance.”
O: Oh, really? You a clarivoyant now?
“What a dishonest turd this one is.”
O: Look who’s talking…
O.
I have to get back to work but I want to call for a spectacular meltdown five hours max. Have fun with the chew toy!
Oh, more from the “NO U” school of argument.
You know, that doesn’t work? I mean, we can actually read what you said, see her reply, and when you say ‘look who’s talking,’ we do. We see it. And we smile and nod along.
Your pithy reply doesn’t skewer who you think it skewers.
hellkell, this is all I can think of
http://media.catmoji.com/post/k7g/you-cant-fool-a-kitten-nope-nu-unh-no-way-kittens-just-know.jpg