Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex whores

Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit

Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.

414 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
magdelyn
10 years ago

First!

zhinxy
10 years ago

Yes, the whole idea that when people are against sex worker’s rights, the whole thing is really just ugly older women trying to increase their market value. If we could, we would also ban giving them chocolate, or telling them you are in a band. You just wait. You just wait.

Also, I think this is also party a function of them not leaving the house much and experiencing reality through movies and television shows. They believe the twenties-to-thirty-ish actresses that play high schoolers and college age women are all not lying about their actual ages, not Dawson Casting, and what 20 year olds really look like. So real thirty year olds must look, like, fifty.

burgundy
burgundy
10 years ago

That’s a troll, right? No one could possibly pick the username IHaveALargePenis in a non-self-deprecating way. That’s just a parody.

Right? Please, for god’s sake, someone tell me this person is not sincere.

BoggiDWurms
BoggiDWurms
10 years ago

MRAs claim to be for human rights but have such dehumanizing worldviews. Women are genetic stock with sexual market values, attractive objects to deposit mens’ seed. Men are alpha, beta, and omega primates who can’t help but screw everything they see.

And they claim feminists are misandrists. Just look at them. They portray men as brutes incapable of restraining their sexual urges, and take biological determinism to a whole new low to attempt to justify this idea.

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
10 years ago

Boggi: “And they claim feminists are misandrists. Just look at them. They portray men as brutes incapable of restraining their sexual urges, and take biological determinism to a whole new low to attempt to justify this idea.”

Yup. Not only are they misogynistic, but incredibly misandric as well. They think that they represent true men and anyone who doesn’t agree (that is, sees through their bullshit) is merely a mangina. When Paul Elam wrote in the GMP comment section that men would soon rise up and resort to violence if things didn’t go his way, someone perfectly called him out on his misandry, saying that men were not as violent and easily-provoked as Elam thought they were.

Lauralot
Lauralot
10 years ago

I say GOD IS DEAD.

Quackers
Quackers
10 years ago

@Lauralot

Yep. So is my faith in humanity.

Quackers
Quackers
10 years ago

@Crumbelievable

Yeah, funny how they aren’t really pro-man so much as they are “pro-man who agrees with everything I say”

I have yet to hear a large group of feminists call non-feminist women something that derogatory. The worst I can think of is when radical feminists call moderate or liberal feminists “fun-fems” and that doesn’t even really sound like an insult to me…

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
10 years ago

“Fun fems?” Yeah. That sounds more like a compliment.

Look at them…having fun… How pathetic…

Shadow
Shadow
10 years ago

@Crumbelievable

for some reason I just read that in a douchey faux-german accent

belledame222
10 years ago

“He said your dick was bigger than your brain.”

(Brightening) “Oh, yah? He really said that?”

“I don’t think he meant it as a compliment.”

–*To Die For*

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
10 years ago

“That’s a troll, right? No one could possibly pick the username IHaveALargePenis in a non-self-deprecating way. That’s just a parody. Right? Please, for god’s sake, someone tell me this person is not sincere.”

I still can’t get over the fact that AVFM once featured an article by a guy calling himself ‘Cooter Bee’.

Xardoz
Xardoz
10 years ago

Don’t they see they’re really hurting their cause here? They have just alienated any woman over 21 with a functioning self-esteem (sup #1 Magbag).

Think about it. That’s a lot of fucking people.

they aren’t really pro-man so much as they are “pro-man who agrees with everything I say”

They’d probably use some creepy evopsych to justify this. Men have always formed packs, killed the males they didn’t agree with, and then mate with the surviving females to perpetuate their genes.

Thankfully MRAs wet themselves at night thinking about women extracting money from them via sperm, so we won’t have to worry about that last part. Until we develop the artificial womb of course, which will allow the AntZ and Mellers of the world to finally make their mini-mes (PITY THEM).

Ullere
Ullere
10 years ago

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-01-17b.618.0

‘I am not here to make a moral speech about prostitution. There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, by my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying.

wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old’

This bill has nothing to do with the morality of prostitution or the rights of sex workers, it will not be any more illegal for you to be a sex worker at the age of 20, but if you buy sex from a 20 year old then dam if you might be a pedophile. Once again it’s a bill targetting the real causes of prostituion, the johns… specifically those johns who buy sex from 16-20 year old prostitutes. As soliciting sex is already illegal in the UK alot of prostitution is done through a pre arrangement of exchanging gifts or cash as a gift with a friend or associate, however this law could also be used to criminalise those men who have 16-20 year old girlfriends who buy them gifts or indeed give them cash.

Oh also the reddit comments suck yeah…

Magpie
Magpie
10 years ago

“criminalise those men who have 16-20 year old girlfriends who buy them gifts or indeed give them cash.”

Maybe the writers of the law thought it would be pretty rare for a girl that age to be paying a man for sex?

darksidecat
10 years ago

I know all of my dating relationships could easily be mistaken for prostitution, because that doesn’t imply a power imbalance within the relationship at all. Nope. Not at all.

Explore Nature
10 years ago

Whole natural sexuality will be criminalized in future………………………

lowquacks
lowquacks
10 years ago

@Magpie

I think the sentence is meant to imply that the older men would give to the gifts to the 16-20yo girlfriends rather than vice versa, which could be implied to be paying the younger girlfriend in question for sex.

I don’t speak Troll Babble too well, though.

makomk
makomk
10 years ago

Xardoz: read the blog post. Its argument is that the bill is intended to prevent men from paying for sex with any woman that looks as though she could potentially be under 21, which in practice will mean women in their 30s because age is hard to determine, and women who are less conventionally attractive because our society’s conventional notions of attractiveness are about youth.

Also, “eliminating competition from attractive younger prostitutes” is believe it or not one of the more sensible explanations I’ve read for the anti-trafficking movement in the UK. While it’s probably a load of bullshit it would at least explain their actions, something all their stated reasons totally fail to do.

Firstly, it’s not about trafficking but about eliminating all prostitution – in fact, their successful fudging of the figures to make it look like trafficking was a much larger proportion of prostitution than it actually was so they could present outlawing all prostitution as the only solution to sex trafficking if anything most likely harmed them by discouraging more targetted approaches that might actually work. (Also, notice how the Guardian, the main paper of the UK left wing, linked to the Poppy Project’s full response but not to the criticism and didn’t say what any of the flaws were, leaving readers nothing to judge on except the Poppy Project’s contention that their opponents were somehow helping brothel owners.) They also almost managed to pass a bill that sex workers considered dangerous to their safety; it also managed to somehow criminalize paying for sex with women like Belle de Jour whilst claiming to only be about women coerced into prostitution by pimps or traffickers.

Secondly, it can’t be about protecting the women involved. One of their common arguments for wanting to get rid of prostitution full stop is that women are economically pressured into it, that they’re forced into it by not having any better economic alternatives, even because the only alternative is homelessness. Except again, the proposed solutions of those making this argument make no sense – they go on not to offer better alternatives, but instead argue the solution is to make it impossible to earn money in this way. Of course, this would force said women into alternatives that they considered worse, or possibly even make them homeless, and the best anyone can offer when this is pointed out is ad hominem attacks.

Thirdly, I’ve actually seen UK feminists claim that making sex workers’ lives more dangerous is a good thing, which is kind of hard to square with the idea that these laws are aimed at protecting them. (Even if they were, they don’t work. All they seem to have achieved is to drive sex work further underground and make it harder for the workers to protect themselves. Think about it for a while; the precautions that’d make it easier to arrest their customers if they rapes or attacks them are pretty much the same as the ones that would permit a sting operation or allow them to be arrested just for paying for sex.)

My personal explanation tends to involve less competition from younger prostitutes and more fears that prostitution will turn men into rapists who will attack “respectable” non-prostituted women (because there’s no evidence of anyone actually caring about or listening to the prostitutes themselves), mostly because one of the Poppy Project’s other much-reported studies was designed to play on those fears, but that’s hardly any less misandrist and the competition theory isn’t a bad one. Besides, the rapist argument could plausibly be cover for an underlying fear of competition.

Explore Nature
10 years ago

Dating will not be good for men in future……………..

Caraz
Caraz
10 years ago

Wait, EN is back, pin him down! we need a net or something to stop him escaping. EN’s statements practically beg for explanations that never seem to come.

EN, you might as well say:

‘Cheese is the worst enemy of civilisation………………………’

Because without explaining any of the reasoning behind it, it’s just gibberish of the highest order.

burnyourbones
10 years ago

I like how everyone is ignoring Explore Nature, who sounds like a vaguely disgruntled yet enigmatic spambot.
It’s sort of like badly translated poetry. Let me have a go:

Gender to tree as is life sphere force end ……………………..

Jill the Spinster
Jill the Spinster
10 years ago

Two posts from Explore Nature in the same post, score!!!

Please talk to us some more Explore Nature.

Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel
Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel
10 years ago

/~o in the year 2000 … /~o whargl bargl billy ocean from a rented van

FTFY EN

1 2 3 17
%d bloggers like this: