antifeminism douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men rape jokes reddit that's not funny!

Men’s Rights Redditor: Rape jokes protect men from false rape accusations

How to get yourself upvoted on the Men’s Rights subreddit: Suggest that people making rape jokes help to protect men from false rape allegations. That at least seems to be the clear implication of this comment from DoctorStorm (hopefully not a real doctor):

How to get yourself downvoted on the Men’s Rights subreddit: Tell DoctorStorm that the reason you shouldn’t tell rape jokes is that some of those in your audience may be rape victims, and that as a decent human being you might just want to be a tiny bit concerned about their feelings:

Douchebaggery towards rape victims: it’s a Men’s Right!

65 replies on “Men’s Rights Redditor: Rape jokes protect men from false rape accusations”

Rape jokes? What’s the pay-off, really?

I think some of the people that tell rape jokes believe that if a joke has a big shock value, then it’s a good joke. Instead of being cool and edgy, though, the jokes are just hurtful. It also shows that the person making the joke can’t come up with something that’s actually clever or original.

Also, I tend to dislike the word trigger myself, but I thought it was common human decency that if something you say upsets a lot of people with no real pay-off, it wasn’t worth it.

I understand the arguments against the word, but I personally like the word trigger. I think it shows the impact that words have on people. I agree, too, that if a joke is going to upset other people, then it’s not worth it.

DoctorStorm at reddit/men’s rights also said

If “triggering” were a genuine issue, then there’d be no war on TV, no drug use, no violence, no murder, no anything. People have traumatic experiences all the time, and while some people are rape, it does not make their experience more traumatic, or more special, than any other traumatic experience. They don’t get special privileges just ’cause.

“Triggering” is another form of coercive persuasion in this instance. Feminists are attempting to say that “triggering” for rape is more important, thus further supporting the notion that rape is a special crime more deserving of our attention.

How is it a “special privilege” for someone to say that rape jokes and depictions of rape are triggering? His argument makes no sense. Feminists aren’t making a contest out of what kinds of trauma are worse, either. The only ones I’ve seen doing that are MRA’s that think that any type of trauma that disproportionately affects women is somehow less important than ones that disproportionately affect men.

“no war on TV, no drug use, no violence, no murder”

Those are on during all hours? What happened to watershed/safe harbor? “Examples of adult content include, but are not limited to, graphic violence, horror, strong language, nudity, sexual intercourse or reference, drug use, and/or sexually suggestive themes.”

Hm, looks like you can fairly easily avoid those already…

A quick look at Google Scholar shows that trigger/triggering is pretty much the accepted parlance for studies about people with PTSD. That doesn’t mean everyone has to like it of course, but somehow I expect the people over on r/mr only have a problem with it when it’s used on the context of rape & women. (I.e. what Kendra says better just above.)

I’ve seen some places (Shakesville?) use “Content note” as a substitute for “Trigger warning.” I like that a little better myself, but I’m not sure how widely used it is so I tend to stick with trigger.

cloudiah — Shakesville uses “Content note”, and I agree with liking it better (there’s a certain sick irony that if what triggers you involves triggers you’re just fucked)

um…if that sentence failed at clarity, the second use of the word trigger was meant in the firearms sense

As I understand it, there are PTSD triggers and OCD triggers* and they’re not quite the same thing, but it is courtesy to note either. You can’t get them all, but some things are reasonably likely to be triggering.

Also, building on what Karalora said: they feel their illegitimate power ebbing, and this is an attempt to retain it.

*I’m including ED here

ah yes, Shakesville. i keep wanting to go back there because i like the content, but then i remember what a jerk the person who runs the blog is, and i can’t stomach the thought of going there.

“Content note” seems nice to me because it allows for other reasons you might want to avoid the post. For instance, maybe a prudish type wouldn’t want to read posts with swearing in them.

I believe anying can be joked about, by the right person, and without the punchline simply being ‘Ha ha, joke’s on the victims’ (you’ll notice those who do it best, like The Onion, only mock the circumstances). But, as usual, the least funny people, the kind who drove Dave Chapelle to quit show business and quoted Borate six years after the movie came out, are the ones crying loudest about their right to tell jokes. Dude. I’m not just offended by the content of your joke, I’m embarrassed that you sincerely think you’re ‘the funny one’ in your sad little group of friends.

PS Anna thanks for that great link. In case anyone missed it on scroll down:

@Argenti, a lot of watershed stuff is self policing. Movie sales practices certainly are (as I would think that, in regards to any content other than sexual or national security matters, the recent free speech rulings regarding video game marketing restrictions and violence would apply to dvds as well). Sexual stuff is its set of less protected doctrines. Traditionally broadcast tv was subjected to regulation on time, place, and manner grounds. However, that really was not expanded to cable, as cable was viewed as less public and more opt in. I think it would be really interesting to see a basic cable network do a constitutional challenge around restrictions of violence and swearing in light of the newer developments of law in regards to other mediums. Of course, that would be more expensive than just going along and paying the fines, which is probably why they don’t, but in the current legal climate, they do have a chance at winning if they did challenge.

I like Shakesville and Melissa. (I’m assuming that’s who you’re talking about.) I don’t agree with everything she does or writes, but I most definitely think she doesn’t deserve to be called a jerk.

So I guess they’d be totally OK with jokes about prison rape then?

That’s the thing, it seems they’re ONLY ok with jokes about women being raped, and completely appauled by prison rape jokes. They also believe that women bring rape upong themselves by their behavior (short skirt, walking down an alley, wtc), but that men who choose to commit crimes which will land them in jail do not.

Meanwhile feminists don’t seem to think that any of these things are ok, yet we’re the bigots apparently.

darksidecat — I realize TV censorship is largely self-censoring, but the point I was making was that you’re more likely to see violence on the news than the show before the news. You might be right that cable could win if they fought it, but IANAL.

In any case, point was that you’re opting in to watch it, not having to opt out of half the internet to avoid rape “jokes”. (Yes NWO, half is the official feminist statistic XD )

yes, Wisteria, i was talking about Melissa from Shakesville. and yes, my experience with her is that she is a jerk who does not care much about other people’s feelings. and i am sure she would say that she has a right to be that way. and you know what? i agree, she DOES have a right to be a jerk who does not care about other people’s feelings. and i have a right to feel hurt by her attitude, and to say that she is a jerk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.