Men’s Rights Redditors came dangerously close to achieving a moment of self-awareness yesterday. But the crisis was averted, and the Men’s Rights subreddit was able to safely return to its habitual obliviousness, with all of its illusions intact.
Someone calling himself ffff1234 disturbed the universe of the Men’s Rights subreddit with a simple question yesterday: “Why is this subreddit frowned upon?”
Happily, the regulars were able to assure themselves that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it totally wasn’t their fault, nun-uh.
Their movement’s poor reputation in the wider world is, rather, the result of devious machinations by “feminazi overlords” who see the brave little Men’s Rights subreddit, and MRAs generally, as a threat to their continued hegemony.
“The people in power always hate the truth,” declared rg57.
“[W]e work against the plutocracy’s interests,” agreed the longtime MRA and terrible cartoon writer known as ThePigmanAgain. “That’s what it really comes down to.”
The plutocrats in question? Feminists. Or, rather, feminazis.
As Adanu0 put it
the feminazis hate it when you call out their bullsh*t, and this place does it all the time. We are the epitome of freedom of speech compared to them, and they want to keep their special snowflake narrative alive.
In a followup comment, he explained that
If you’re male, there is no existing with the feminazis, because their whole goal is the destruction of ‘the patriarchy’. This effectively means any form of male power is frowned upon and a target.
Anyone who thinks that is a good thing is ridiculous and belongs in that sub, slaving to the feminazi overlords.
I’m going to make this last bit my standard answer when anyone asks what I’m up to.
“Hey, David, what’s up?”
“Not much! Just SLAVING TO THE FEMINAZI OVERLORDS.”
K1NTOUN, meanwhile, warned his fellow MRAs not to underestimate their wily feminist foes.
They don’t give a damn about men or men’s rights. Equality means nothing to them. It’s merely a buzzword they use. Modern feminism is one group that can be completely generalized because they are all the same. There are no levels of feminism. You either accept the doctrine or you don’t.
Other commenters noted sadly that feminazi propaganda has infected much of society, leading many men to conclude that, contrary to MRA TRUTH, maybe women don’t actually run the world.
“Women are special creatures who are the peers of children when it suits them and the peers of men when it suits them,” lamented v573v.
Whatever women want – men must facilitate – including taking the blame for the demands that women place on men.
Either that, or women are capable human beings with an ability and power of their own, but if that was true – the victim card couldn’t be played; or perhaps the card is just another source of power which women can use as a path to power – a damsel in distress can inspire men to move mountains and under these rules women get the additional benefit of blaming men for anything bad that might of happened when the mountains were moved. Everybody wins! Except men, but they don’t count.
One bold fellow noted a parallel between the Men’s Rights movement and another movement that’s frequently frowned upon by polite society. The Men’s Rights subreddit is frowned upon, pazz explained,
For the same reason White Pride is. People always re-phrase it as a double negative and it changes the meaning. I am Pro-White and proud of my history is heard as I am Anti-Non-White and hate everything about you. Which is horrible.
Similar translations happen when you say I am Pro-Mens Rights. People hear I am Anti-Womens Rights. Which is horrible.
Like the rest of those I’ve quoted here, pazz was upvoted for his thoughtful stance.
Thus providing yet more evidence of some of the real reasons why people look down upon the Men’s Rights subreddit.
@Dalillama
I’m very aware that they really want less government to affect them personally, if used to oppress others than they’re all gung ho for it. I should have been more in depth with my responses.
I honestly find your pragmatism regarding economic policy to be quite refreshing. I really find it alot less confusing so long as I see it as “doing pointless discrimination is hindering the potential profits and expansion of the economy” or “spreading the wealth to the poor enables the middle working class to have more spending power, providing more happier, more productive individuals. Not doing so increases incentives of crime as alternate routes of currency acquirement are not to be found in these areas.” It provides some factual, hard data of a net positive benefit in regards to more liberal policies.
That isn’t to say anti-discrimination laws under regulatory policy is bad, or unnecessary, or that the intent of those progressive economic policies have to be devoid of care for others. It just needs to show that it is a worthy venture rather than to some “a feel good thing that doesn’t matter to my rational mind.” Of course these policies have and are providing massive benefits to those who are disenfranchised. It just needs to have the right framing for some. At least that’s how I see it from a marketing perspective.
@kupo
Dammit. She’s a treasure. Fuck those people
Also, originally from her Instagram
http://i.imgur.com/BctgpfN.gif
176 pounds! <3 <3 <3
@Pavlov’s House
I think it has to do with their not too subtle opinions on race as well. They seem to imagine people from Eastern Europe (I’ll add Russia in here as well) to all be fare skinned, blue eyed and blonde. Then comes their idea that women here are dainty little flowers who only live to make musaka and pierogi for their husbands, fathers and sons (female relatives be damned).
Aside from the race part, they also show absolute ignorance about Eastern Europe and still act like we all live in a village with 2 cows and one goat and we fear the unknown that is The West. There was this one article on Douche V’s website about where these dinglreberries could move if The West falls. I got the really annoying feeling that they were talking about us like some primitive tribe and were complementing us for being able to speak another language.
If any of these goobers actually came here, they’d see that a lot of women are in fact not their ideal white woman, that a lot of us have short hair, we dye it, we have piercings and tattoos and we don’t like being bossed around. But hey, that would require they admit that they don’t know everything and I don’t see that happening soon. I mean like ever.
> All
Thank you for your warm comments !
No worries for the pronoun. I am a lucky person whose parents never say that one gender is better than the other, and as i know who i am, i never feel hurted by this kind of mistake (plus, some say my voice can sometimes sound feminine – but from smoker type – on phone).
On topic.
This remembers me of a not so good movie where a dialog was : “I want the truth !” – “You can’t handle the truth !”. And just after, the bigotery of the second character was clearly exposed. I wonder if this is linked.
I admit i had to look for what plutocracy is. I was first thinking about people who want Pluto reinstated as a planet but i was wrong.
So, “against the plutocracy’s interests” said by someone who have the financial capacity to have a home, a computer, a connection to the Net, probably three meals a day, maybe a job, but who would not be ok to share it with those who have less or none, lacks a bit of credibility. This looks like those far-right politics in France who are against UE but gladly accept the salary of UE deputy. “Do what i say, not what i do”, eh ?
Feminazis. From people who are often White power goons, always ready to go down on POC and persons from non-christian confession, using nazis as an insult always made the irony shaming the sun.
And, strangely, i never hear or read a “feminazi overlord who want to take down the patriarchy” using masculinazi to designate a MRA or a MGHOW. Certainly an evil and devious scheme…
A Few Good Men. (How fitting!) I think at the time it came out, early 90’s (?), it was regarded as a really good film. I’m pretty sure it hasn’t aged well though.
@ violinless
The references to Guantanamo Bay obviously have a new significance now; but AFGM is one of the small handful* of courtroom dramas that don’t make lawyers wince.
The procedure is spot on. It also, unusually, shows that opposing lawyers might have it out in court, but outside the court they’re actually good friends and we can switch ‘adversarial’ on and off.
It also contains a brilliant depiction of the “one question too far” danger that’s a big problem in advocacy.
About the only “Hollywood” aspect is the courtroom is a bit posh. Military courtrooms are pretty utilitarian.
(* the only others being “My Cousin Vinny” and the Rumpole stories)
@Alan
12 Angry Men, DESPITE BEING A FLAWLESS FILM, has a plot point where someone does something incredibly illegal in the pursuit of justice (no spoilers behind that). If you’ve seen it, is the knife thing common? Possible? Maybe possible in ’57, but not anymore?
@ axe
Oh yeah, love that film! Not sure if it’s a courtroom drama though if you get my drift.
There’s a previous thread where I mentioned my idea to do something similar (ie you never see the trial) but set in the various eating places at the Old Bailey. That has a Judges mess, a barristers mess, a solicitors canteen, a jury canteen, two police canteens (City Police and The Met don’t get on), a public canteen, a press canteen and the prisoners get microwaved meals in the cells.
A mate suggested I call it “12 Hungry Men”. Brilliant. :-)y
ETA: polemic about the Knife point heading your way 🙂
@ axe
*spoilers for 12 hungry men; TW for one of my rambles*
Short answer, no he wouldn’t be allowed to do that. But it would only come to light if another juror complained, and they seemed happy with the result. (I love the fact they never clarify who “those people” are, so it’s an illustration of prejudice generally)
The U.S. And UK jury rules are very similar; but the big distinction is, over here it’s nigh on impossible to even enquire as to what went on in the jury room let alone challenge it.
But in essence jurors are meant to apply their own experience and common sense to the evidence. They’re specifically warned against not speculating about things that weren’t brought up in the trial. They can however ask questions during the trial, it’s up to the judge and lawyers whether they get an answer.
There’s a rather old law that allows jurors to use anything that ‘an ordinary person’ might have on them. The olden days must have been fun because that incudes things like tape measures and log tables.
They’re specifically not allowed to visit sites to make their own observations but paradoxically they can use any existing local knowledge they have about an area.
So our friend wouldn’t have been allowed to buy the knife, but he could say “I know that place and it’s easy to buy knives there”.
Jurors are meant to apply their everyday knowledge and experience and they’re warned about not deferring to anyone just because they may claim particular expertise (very relevant now that lawyers can be on juries), but there’s nothing to stop a doctor, say, disagreeing with the expert witnesses and the jurors listening to them (jurors are told that they don’t have to go along with expert opinion evidence, even if it’s not disputed)
There was a case over here where the court of appeal wouldn’t overturn a conviction because a juror who was a tyre fitter had noticed that all the expert witnesses in relation to tyres were wrong. The appeal court didn’t investigate his expertise, the case turned soley on whether he could apply his own knowledge.
Off topic, but . . . .
I just had the misfortune of running into online a young Asian woman who carries so much internalized misogyny that she’s an ardent supporter of the MRM. To the point that she trolls the feminist groups on the social site I encountered her on (at least until she is banned) just to spread her nonsense.
Her total lack of self-awareness is astounding. Not only is she an Asian female — someone MRAs on a whole feel should be a submissive little lotus blossom, but she claims to be a dominatrix in the BDSM lifestyle with a male sub. She’s also going to law school. I cannot see her association with the flaming pile of human garbage that is the MRM ending well. One day they’re going to turn on her and eat her alive. I only hope she won’t end up doxxed, threatened or worse, even though she is an extremely unpleasant person.
@ saphira
Not suggesting you should be unduly suspicious but it’s amazing how many seeming MRA types, even on here, suddenly turn out to be female/black/neuroatypical etc. when challenged.
@Alan
I remember!
I’m thinking Guy Ritchie directs. That pitch is almost hand crafted for him, tho I wonder if he can reign in his more ‘genre’ compulsions… Maybe Luc Besson with a more restrained, hands on, British producer? Hmm… I really kinda want this now
Re: spoilerz
@ axe
I love Luc Besson!
Guy Ritchie, hmm? A number of my real gangster clients have some views on him (doesn’t stop them endlessly quoting the films though). Jake Arnott has a great novel, ‘True Crime’, that exam on that whole gangster chic/mockney culture.
Maybe we should produce it ourselves. I’m sure there’s a role for you with your film star good looks.
@ axe
I love Luc Besson!
Guy Ritchie, hmm? A number of my real gangster clients have some views on him (doesn’t stop them endlessly quoting the films though). Jake Arnott has a great novel, ‘True Crime’, that examines that whole gangster chic/mockney culture.
Maybe we should produce it ourselves. I’m sure there’s a role for you with your film star good looks.
ETA: I’m cringing that this doesn’t come off as “Hey, you’re black so I’m going to make a big fuss about how I like a black director! I’m cool like that” but I’m really getting to like Noel Clarke’s work. He’s brilliant at depicting authentic London underworld life.
@Alan
I’ve recently re-watched My Cousin Vinny and it still holds up as a really good movie, imo, even after all those years! I don’t think I know the Rumpole stories but a quick Google search tells me it might be good. I’ll try to check out the 2003 and onwards mini-seasons when I get the chance.
Ooh, what are some of the worst courtroom offenders on film or TV?
As a librarian, I can say that the Noah Wyle Librarian movies and tv-series are spot on! That’s exactly how we do it. All very secretive though, hush hush, you understand.
@Dark Statistic,
Seconded! I am always happy to see occasional reader in the comments. He’s polite and consistently interesting. And he always says “have a nice day” 🙂
@Imaginary Petal – I just read your re-cap of those conversations and my head is spinning :/
You must love your Otter very much 🙂
@Alan
A regular black DiCaprio over here ?
I’d heard of the Dulthoods, but never seen em. I might check em out
@Hoax
Oh, so you know my cousin, Ex Calibur. What a scamp
@ violinless
Rumple is excellent (I have a particular soft spot because it’s both set, and externally filmed in my old chambers), but check out the original TV series with Leo McKern. He is Rumpole.
As for worst offenders, pretty much everything ever filmed but particular teeth gritting at anything with “Law & Order” in the title.
It is hard though to make a realistic but also not boring depiction of a trial. By way of illustration I’ll share the following.
One of my favourite judges (retired now) had two letters framed in his room. One was a letter published in a paper that had reviewed a TV series as “the most accurate depiction of a real trial to date”
“I have to agree. I found it so realistic that 10 minutes into the show I was already asleep”
The other letter was a rebuke from the Lord Chancellor’s Department for bringing the judiciary into disrepute.
As for librarians, your secret’s out. We know you’re all secretly solving mysteries and fighting crime by night.
@ Alan
I will try to get ahold of the old shows then 🙂
I have never liked “Law & Order” shows. Now I have a reason!
@ Axe
I also know your king… Rex Calibur!
*crickets*
I’ll show myself out.
The topic that make me angry today : https://www.thenation.com/article/the-financial-firm-that-cornered-the-market-on-jails/
What annoy the most is that almost nobody is talking about it. Sometime, cynical exploitation feel even dirtier than naked racism, just because at least racists are upfront.
@Hoax
The best part of L&O, as a New Yorker living abroad (the South), is seeing the setting cards
*Cling Clang* Apartment of Connie Futachelli, Flatbush and Utica, Friday, May 19
It’s just another police procedural, it’s goofy, things wrap up too easily, the characters are barely people. All of that is true. But that’s my home, and they understand it better any other show
Also, Vincent Donofrio is an acting machine
This is for you
http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Damn+all+these+quot+fj+family+quot+is+really+getting+to+me+_123d655ea594f529ee42580201f80162.jpg
So many lovely people to reply to here today. I’m afraid I’ve certainly missed a number of you that I shouldn’t. I blame the four hours of sleep.
Thank you for the clarification on the not good, very-bad data visualization abuse, EJ! Nothing quite torques my wrenches quite like someone using statistics to lie. Especially when they do it *badly*. If you’re going to be a cheaty-cheater, at least respect yourself enough to do it properly! None of this red-lines-and-circles-everywhere nonsense, leave that garbage at the chanhouse.
@IP said
And it’s really so true. That is the world I want to live in <3. I think the big difference is that the various conservative and alt-right ideologies require the presence of an Other, a group who is not the Volk. The stronger and more capable this out-group is, the more extreme measures the authoritarian can excuse.
To the authoritarian, if everyone was within the group there would be no reason to have the Authority, since the Authority is there to protect the people from the outsiders. They *want* strong enemies, so that the Authority has a good reason to organize itself, to expunge dissident elements and become a pure, unified whole. Without that pressure there’s no excuse to take those steps, making society weak with diversity and differing opinions.
It’s the old fascist myth of pure tribes, separate and distinct, with well-formed boundaries, like crystals of feldspar and quartz in an intrusive marble. Only the pressure of conflict allows those crystals to grow large and pure. But real life isn’t myth, and the instinctual tribal urge to fear the outsider and cling to the tribe is worse than useless in the modern age. Education and exposure to diversity are our weapons against the authoritarian. We don’t have much hope for changing the minds of the old guard, but their children live in a very different world and our success is inevitable.
Wow, that was a ramble. Normally I wouldn’t bother posting that but I guess I’ll leave it in as an example of my brain without the coffee filter. Time to go make supplications to the caffeine gods, to see if they will bestow upon me the wisdom needed to actually prepare this stupid conference presentation I have to do tomorrow.
@MissEB47, hi5! I hope your doctorate work is going well!
@WWTH – Oh, you’re right, it’s Christine O’Donnell. She was also the one who asserted “I’m not a witch” in a campaign ad (because someone had aired an old interview where she said she’d dabbled in witchcraft in high school). Anyway.
You take that back about my favorite movie! 🙂 I know Aaron Sorkin isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I love me some Sorkin dialogue. At least before he became unbearably condescending in his later stuff.
@ Alan
I’d heard that My Cousin Vinny was a pretty accurate representation of legal procedure. Good to know I wasn’t misinformed.