Categories
antifeminism kitties manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA neckbeard rights oppressed men penises reddit vaginas

The Men”s Rights subreddit weighs in on the “Why is Reddit So Anti-Woman?” debate.

Over on AskReddit, someone called 478nist has asked a question that has been puzzling a lot of us for some time: “Why is Reddit so anti-women? (outside of r/gonewild anyway).”

I used to think it was just because the large majority of users are men, but it’s not pro-men it’s becoming more and more anti-women.

Outside of the friendzoned crap, any comment that leans towards any kind of talk of womens issues, equal rights etc gets downvoted to hell so it’s not even capable of being discussed. It seems like it’s an US vs THEM mentality more and more. Was it always like this?

The thread that followed is nearly 2000 comments long, so far, and has gotten written up on TheAtlanticWire. The discussion is surprisingly … good? Not perfect — after all, this is Reddit we’re talking about here — but not terrible.

So naturally our friends in the Men’s Rights subreddit are complaining about it.

The legendary AnthonyZarat offers this thought:

MauraLoona, meanwhile, challenges the premise of 478nist’s question, and thereby challenges reality itself:

Legitimateusername also has a problem with Reddit’s alleged surplus of manginas.

Fuckrpolitics_again just goes with some plain old-fashioned misogyny:

The Men’s Rights subreddit, such a reliable generator of self-righteous poop.

 

650 replies on “The Men”s Rights subreddit weighs in on the “Why is Reddit So Anti-Woman?” debate.”

Are we playing Spot That Fallacy!!?

“….A total of 21 bodies, of men and women between the ages of 18 and 45, were recovered from the bay after the incident. Two of the victims were women, the vast majority were young men in their 20s and 30s, with only two being over 40 and only one, a male, under 20.[3]…”

Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

– Warzone deaths
– Other workplace deaths
– Suicide
– Homelessness
– Likelihood of being a victim of violence up to and including murder
– Likelihood of being imprisoned
– Difference in length of sentences as applied for the same crime
– Spending on healthcare and welfare
– Educational outcomes

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.

-> Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning[49]

-> -> Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents

Congratulations! You’ve managed to score the elusive triple layer fallacy!! (The only person here who supports the prison industry complex is Ruby btw, and you might’ve seen the shit we give her for that? Yeah, do explain how feminism is the cause of any of those)

@Anathema – feminists keep saying they are all for men too, but
1) the clue is in the name – if they were it would be called humanism or egalitarianism
2) the actions of most feminists disprove this claim at pretty much every opportunity

And so sorry to burst your bubble, but the situations in which men are worse off than women are not “few and far between” they are systemic. I’ve already given you a list of just some of the instances (see my post to Cliff) I recommend you go and look up the actual data.

Hi, The First Joe, It would appear you’re a new comments troll, please, come, stay a while and enjoy the scenery. Also we ran out of trolls to mock just as I was starting to get good at this so we need fresh material.

2)

Like when they make fun of me for saying stupid things! This proves that feminists are against rather than for men as a group.

1) the clue is in the name – if they were it would be called humanism or egalitarianism

So why is men’s rights called men’s rights again? Shouldnt it be called “equalityisticism” or something?

@Argenti – ignoring the garbage that makes up most of your post.

I took Ruby to task for her apex fallacy. Clearly you too suffer from this delusion, I have directed you to the categories where you should look at the actual statistical data which proves my point. Your failure to do so, is not my problem.

Apparently you also labour under the delusion that I’m claiming feminism caused all these systemic issues – No. Apart from education which it clearly did, health/welfare it had a strong influence, and suicide where there is a strong correlation, feminism per se (as opposed to much older, related, but not identical societal gynocentrism) is not the key causal factor.

No, tell us how male suicide is strongly correlated with feminism. We await with baited breath.

Actually, Owly, tell us how you manage to be under the illusion that “fuck-all to do with” means “is caused by”. Note that this is a use of English problem, not a whether or not feminism causes things problem.

@Cliff Pervocracy
“And how many of those have fuck-all to do with feminism?”

All of them.

Now here is something to take note of…. owly finally got something right!!! All of those things that were listed have fuck-all to do with feminism.

@CassandraSays
“No, tell us how male suicide is strongly correlated with feminism. We await with baited breath.”

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/male-suicide-rates-on-epidemic-climb.html

Every counrty without fail that has adopted the poison of feminism into it’s culture shows the identical pattern. Fun for the whole family. Just go to any country and use mens rise in suicide rate to determine when feminism was shoved down their throats. Well done ladies! Well done! It must be what women want.

@Futrelle – Hah! Good point
Answers:
– Those names were already taken.
– The majority of men were utterly asleep as to how fucking badly they were being screwed under the old system, carrots like Marriage 1.0 and default paternal custody of kids (yeah, I’m going back a long way here) made men feel invested in their societies.
After decades of feminism took away all the carrots and left only the sticks (at the same time as the globalist hierarchy fucked men in other ways) men were forced awake, most often by losing their kids, getting horribly screwed in divorce, losing job(s) unjustly (affirmative action for women), getting slung in jail for being poor (euphemised as “contempt of court order to pay”) – things that feminists have been very prominent in doing / enabling / encouraging / lobbying (the bleating of manboobzers notwithstanding). So naturally, the movemnt got intially framed as feminisms mirror image. Actually a mistake I feel, up to a point, because men in general get badly fucked by the hierarchy of Assholes In Charge to whom feminism is just one tool in the kit… but:
– I don’t know, I didn’t name it. :p

@Anathema – feminists keep saying they are all for men too, but
1) the clue is in the name – if they were it would be called humanism or egalitarianism

Feminism is aimed at making sure that men and women have equal rights. As a whole, society gives men more rights than women and values men over women. So while men are also hurt by the way our society views gender, women are hurt more. That means that women’s rights are a primary focus of any attempt to make gender equality a reality. That’s why it’s called feminism.

If you don’t like the name or you think it’s misleading, fine. But that does not make it okay for you to redefine the word “feminism” to match your preconceived expectations.

Humanism and egalitarianism don’t work to specifically describe attempts to achieve gender equality because those words already have meanings. Humanism already refers to a range of philosophies which share a focus on human values, interests, and welfare. Egalitarianism refers to the idea that all human beings are of equal worth and should be treated as such. Unlike feminism, neither of these words focus on equality between the genders.

I am a humanist and an egalitarian. But I still call myself a feminist. My feminism is a natural outgrowth of my humanism and egalitarianism.

2) the actions of most feminists disprove this claim at pretty much every opportunity

I’m not going to deny that there are a few feminists who take things to far. There are a few people who call themselves feminists who are anti-men. But this is not the majority of feminists! Most feminists would find those attitudes repugnant. Most feminists want to see both men and women treated fairly.

“Feminism” isn’t named “humanism” for the same reason that the North Carolina Animal Welfare Association isn’t named the “All Good Things For Everyone Everywhere Association.”

We’re allowed to specialize. It is not unethical for us not to take up every cause ever.

Really, Joe? “equalityisticism” was taken?

And before that he was whining about how feminists were secretly anti-male because gathered under the label of “feminism” instead of “humanism” or “egalitarianism”. You know, labels that actually were already taken.

Yeah, Joe, since the names you suggested were already taken, what would you have liked feminism to call itself?

Unless it’s that you just don’t think that a movement designed to secure rights for women should exist at all.

Is First Joe another one with his nose out of joint because he can’t be boss feminist, or is this new whining of his?

Joe, please tell us how it is like you did with the whole trans issue. Better yet, just shut the fuck up in general.

So is tomato sauce Super Mega Misandry?

I am NOT taking on equalityisticism. I already have one half-assed spinoff blog. lol.

I like how all feminists are evil because FEMININE, but MRAs just couldn’t choose a word that already existed, and how every single manboobzer is personally responsible for feminism even though Joe had nothing to do with naming the MRM.

Apparently you also labour under the delusion that I’m claiming feminism caused all these systemic issues – No.

If you aren’t claiming that feminism is the cause, then why are you whining to feminists about it? Why are you complaining about how gender inequality hurts men to people who are trying to bring about gender equality? We already know that gender roles hurt men and women alike, and we’re trying to stop that.

Apart from education which it clearly did, health/welfare it had a strong influence, and suicide where there is a strong correlation, feminism per se (as opposed to much older, related, but not identical societal gynocentrism) is not the key causal factor.

And how has feminism hurt men in ANY of these areas?

And how has feminism hurt men in ANY of these areas?

Butthurt can be quite painful, y’know.

I play Spot That Fallacy!! with the troll, he calls my mockery garbage. Well aren’t you just a precious one? XD

Guess what? You’re our star again! For this round of Spot That Fallacy!! we have correlation is not causation! — “and suicide where there is a strong correlation”

Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

And wtf are you doing telling a bunch of feminists that feminism is wrong if you don’t think that list is caused by feminism? Shorter version of this question — well then why are you here?

Is Joe’s “apex fallacy” nonsense related to the troll who was babbling about how people not being able to relate to great white sharks the other day?

Totally ninja’ed by Anathema while playing Spot That Fallacy!! (Hint to the trolls, if I’m playing Spot That Fallacy!! you should not expect to be taken seriously. Spot That Fallacy!! is pretty obviously for the lulz XD )

Cassandra — the sharks claim was, iirc, Nikan. But no, things I learned from glossary troll — apex fallacy is a made up term of the manosphere for the whole “women want alphas” thing. See The Spearhead for wtf they mean with it.

@everyone – continually repeating feminist catechism about “equality for men and women” doesn’t fool anyone. Feminism is about – rights, power, stuff, cash and prizes for women.
I’m am sure there are some really well intentioned people out there (maybe even here) calling themselves feminists who care about everybody, and yet those voices are drowned out by legions of mainstream feminists who at best ignore men & boys (which is the most charitable interpretation of VAWA) and at worst seek to actively harm men (RadFems).

What feminists in general, by and large, as a group say and do does not match up with “equality”. Not even your rhetoric!

Here’s an example I was reading yesterday in which a self-proclaimed feminist holds that “no means no”, “my body, my choice, my reasons” does not apply to those men she wants to have sex with. If they won’t have sex with her, she feels ENTITLED to an explanation damnit!! She believes men are turning her down because: teh patriarchy.
She is quite literally a female chauvinist pig.

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/asking-for-sex-what-do-you-do-when-the-guy-says-no/

Feminists quite rightly condemn attitudes of “you owe me teh sex” in men, but if you read the comments you’ll see that while there are, yes, feminists taking her very gently to task (swap the sexes and imagine the flame wars!) there are also feminists supporting her attititude!

And that’s why men are fools to themselves if they support feminism per.se. and doubly so if they ever expect any help from feminism – because feminism in practice means:
– whatever any woman calling herself feminist at any given time says it means.
Which changes according to her self-interest at that moment.

It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.

@Cliff – yes, you are allowed to specialise and promote your own special-interest group. Absolutely. And now men are doing that too. And that’s allowed too.

“It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.”

Physician, heal thy own movement. Please? Because your entire spiel seems to have been written about the MRM and then just clumsily regendered.

@The First Joe

There’s no logic here. All debate, (haha), begins with the forgone conclusion of woman = default correct. Since woman is correct no matter what she says, no arguement will change the default status of being correct. Under feminist doctrine you are man, thusly privileged, which you cannot renounce. The privileged are always the oppressors. Being a man, you, at best can defer to a woman, but you can never live down the sin of being a man. You are wrong by default. The victim is always right, the oppressor is always wrong.

yet those voices are drowned out by legions of mainstream feminists who at best ignore men & boys (which is the most charitable interpretation of VAWA) and at worst seek to actively harm men (RadFems).

a) there are no mainstream feminists. Feminism is very much a sidelined ideology.

b) radical feminists are a tiny minority within feminism and every non radfem I’ve encountered strongly dislikes them.

Here’s an example I was reading yesterday in which a self-proclaimed feminist holds that “no means no”, “my body, my choice, my reasons” does not apply to those men she wants to have sex with. If they won’t have sex with her, she feels ENTITLED to an explanation damnit!! She believes men are turning her down because: teh patriarchy.
She is quite literally a female chauvinist pig.

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/asking-for-sex-what-do-you-do-when-the-guy-says-no/

I’ve never heard of the Crunk Feminist Collective, but assuming that article isn’t a parody, it’s absolutely deplorable. I don’t think anyone on Manboobz supports the attitude exhibited by that writer, nor have I ever read a similar article written by anyone who IDs as a feminist.

@Argenti – it’s really not may fault if you’re unable to follow a thread of an argument from one page to another – clue: it all starts with Ruby’s apex fallacy.

Yes, I am mocking your mockery. I am engaging in meta-mockery. Mockery squared.

Speaking of squares: Take a look at a Necker cube.
That’s (an analogy of) society. Feminists say it’s one way, MRA’s another. And up to a point, they are both right, and up to a point, both are wrong.
Both are largely missing that someone else (the 0.001%) are drawing the cube that they are trapped in.
Decades of feminism + technological changes + globalisation + bansterism among other things have squashed one half of the cube in one way, now the other half is responding to the tensions created by those forces.
Sort of. Kinda. It’s an analogy.

Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’
Clue: it’s not because I expect any of you to ever listen to anything I say, or his noodly appendage forbid – change your minds… :p

Here’s an example I was reading yesterday in which a self-proclaimed feminist holds that “no means no”, “my body, my choice, my reasons” does not apply to those men she wants to have sex with. If they won’t have sex with her, she feels ENTITLED to an explanation damnit!! She believes men are turning her down because: teh patriarchy.

No one is entitled to have sex with anyone. Everyone has the right to their own bodily autonomy. The principle of “no means no” holds true for both men and women.

I’m a feminist and I’m telling you this. I’m sure that all of the regulars on Manboobz (save the trolls) agree with me on this.

Are you still going to insist that we, as feminists, still don’t really believe in gender equality because of one article you read by one self-proclaimed feminist? What makes the word of that one person so much more important than all of ours?

Yes, I am mocking your mockery. I am engaging in meta-mockery. Mockery squared.

‘i didn’t read it because your a doodyhead’ isnt really mockery dude. have you never made fun of someone before?

WTF is the “Crunk Feminist Collective”? Please note that when David goes looking for quotes, he gets them from the most prominent MRA sites (Reddit’s men’s rights section, The Spearhead, AvFM), while in order to prove your point you had to go find a group of feminists who as far as I can tell none of the feminists here have ever heard of.

It’s not even a consistent ideology! It’s mostly self-justifying rhetoric after the fact.

Ninja’d by Cassandra, but are you kidding me, Joe? HAHAHAHA, thanks for describing the MRM.

I’m too lazy to look it up. Which site had the serial rapist’s confession and his supporters?

@CassandraSays, thanks. I read a bit of it then had to go look at bulldog puppies for quite some time.

Aww, now he thinks I just can’t keep up, Joe’s a cute troll, can we keep him? (I’m picturing a GI Joe all huffy that there is no princess to save XD )

Honestly though Joe, it’d help if you had a coherent point, but as it stands you seem to just want to troll for the lulz of it, so you’ll have to pardon me for doing the same to you. FYI, your Necker Cube analogy fell apart somewhere between claiming feminists and MRMs are both wrong, and the squashed cube part.

“Why do I keep popping in here? Good question. Not gonna answer it tho’”

I guess I’m just going to have to keep assuming it’s because you’re an asshole then.

I am curious how Ruby’s committing the made up Apex Fallacy, when Ruby’s well known for believing in female hypergamy.

Oh and —

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

on that Crunk Feminist Collective quote

“banksterism”

@Cassandrasays – certainly the wide variety of the “MRM” is indeed as wildly variable as feminism, if not more so. So much so that I am reluctant to claim it as my “movement” per se, and there are some people involved in it whose attitudes I strongly condemn (see the thread re. Tom Martin and his BS take on underage prostitutes)….

The “MRM” such as it is, has the excuse that it’s only a few years old, barely out of the “Holy shit! we’re fucked!!! wtf??” stage, and is a self-funding movement – in contrast with establishment feminism that has been well funded from many external sources (including gov’t in general, C1A (Steinem), and the Rockefeller Foundation) and has been going so long that governments and academia are ram jammed full of them.
For example:
– Joe Biden, who in introducing VAWA (whitewashing DV against men and boys) spoke about how female-on-male violence was A-OK in his house.
– Barak Obama, who recently said in a press release / speech that boys graduating 20% less than girls was a “victory for equality”. Hello!? Maths!
– Hilary Clinton, who once said “Women are the first victims of war” whitewashing combatant deaths that are (almost) all men.
etc. etc.

@Argenti or whoever – if you really are unware of the fantastically successful campaign by feminists in academia to transform teaching / learning in public schools to favour girls outcomes (charitably again – “incidentally” – at the expense of boys), I can’t help someone who is so utterly unaware of what is going on in society around them.

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.