Reading comprehension: a bit of a problem for the angry dude crowd. So in my post earlier today I wrote about a Redditdude who got so angry reading a relatively innocuous Forbes column by a WOMAN ON TEH INTERNET that he called her a “cunt” and threatened to murder people and got more than a thousand net upvotes. All based on a complete misreading of her article, of which he obviously only skimmed the first paragraph.
Well, now the Men’s Rights subreddit has gotten hold of the Forbes column, and they too are pig-biting mad – not so much at the column itself, which it’s clear not many of them have actually read, but at a straw column they’ve written in their heads which is nothing but EEEVIL MISANDRY.
To reiterate: Kashmir Hill’s column in Forbes notes that some people have come to regard people without Facebook accounts as somehow suspect in our hyper-connected world. Hill finds this a bit silly, and writes:
The idea that a Facebook resister is a potential mass murderer, flaky employee, and/or person who struggles with fidelity is obviously flawed. There are people who choose not to be Facebookers for myriad non-psychopathic reasons: because they find it too addictive, or because they hold their privacy dear, or because they don’t actually want to know what their old high school buddies are up to. My own boyfriend isn’t on Facebook and I don’t hold it against him (too much).
Note to the painfully literal: that parenthetical “too much” in the last sentence is what’s called a “joke.”
Naturally, Reddit’s Men’s Rights squad, not having read much beyond the sarcastic title of Hill’s piece (“Beware, Tech Abandoners. People Without Facebook Accounts Are ‘Suspicious.’”) has concluded that she’s an evil misandrist who’s demonizing men without Facebook as creepy psychopaths. Yes, in addition to getting the argument of her piece completely backwards, they’ve also decided that it’s all about men.
MauraLoona, who submitted the link under the misleading title “Men without Facebook: You’re suspicious and potential stalkers, creeps, and psychopaths” explains in a comment:
While the article uses gender neutral pronouns in some places, the message is obvious: This suspicion is directed at men.
I suspect this might be a case of xenophobia: “I am a woman and love technology, so if you’re a man and don’t share that love for technology, you’re suspicious.”
JohnTheOther, a virtuoso in the fine art of getting things wrong, offers this take:
Forbes, apparently is now in the business of creating boogiemen. No evidence of anything equates to evidence of sinister intent. What utter fear-mongering drivel.
And our old friend Liverotto concludes that when Hill says she doesn’t hold her boyfriend’s lack of a Facebook account against him (much), she’s just lying, like women do:
Yes, of course, she doesn’t hold it against him, that’s why she wrote a full article about people without Facebook being suspicious.
Women are just liars, that’s it, that’s all it is, liars and dissimulators, if you trust what a woman says you are naive.
MRAs really do live in imaginary backwards land, don’t they?
In the quotes, it should be “[guy’s name] is awesome …” Darn html thinking tags are tags when they aren’t tags.
He likes to paraphrase, and then use quotation marks around what he has paraphrased. Even middle schoolers know better than to do that.
Blogger “misrepresenting” the MRM by quoting their exact words across two years and dozens of websites = misandry
Commenter attributing to other commenters things that they did not say in a transparent attempt to argue against a weaker position = totally cool!
Already told you, I’m not involved with the field. Do your own research or find someone who knows the subject.
(I think that black people only eat fried chicken, write songs about raping white women, and bang their zebra-skinned shields to make it rain. Evidence? Already told you, I’m not involved with the field. Do your own research or find someone who knows the subject.)
The post itself is blunt. I’m extracting what I believe to be her point. She may disagree immensely with me, big deal. I’m not dead-set on representing her views or agreeing with everything she says.
(Yet you white kinghted her, almost immediately, like a lap dog told to roll over.)
Read some Demonspawn from r/MensRights some time. Read this blog, there are some posts on very violent things the MRM says.
(That is like saying that this (http://irateirishman.com/blog/) proves that black people are stupid evil criminals. Where are the statistics? Also: Most posts from the “Demonspawn” only aim to give men equal rights)
See above, I’m not interested in representing this bloggers view or defending/agreeing with everything she says. She is not the sole arbiter of feminism.
(What is the first thing you did after reading that post? Did you A. Call her out. B. Defend her?)
I guess I’ll know for sure if its an old troll when he starts calling me a 9/11 shill nazi faciest commie pinko what-the-hell-ever.
@gametime Where are the stats that show what mra’s typically believe. Cherry pickings don’t count!
Personally, I think the writer goes a bit over-board with reguards to porn and sex workers. Only a bit though… it’s true that both these things are heavily influenced by, and heavily influence, a culture of normalizing “taking sex” from women (ie rape). Then again, there are kinks related to dom/sub relationships with women as subs that technically should be free to be explored by consenting adults. It’s complicated, but the blog post is mostly on the right side of the issue.
Simple enough for you?
-Kirbywarp, not defending a feminists extremeist
CC you are a very effective goalpost shifter.
And now I must insist that you read and refute every single post on this blog before we pay any more attention to you.
(And I suggest to everyone else that we ignore CC until zie has done this.)
Oh, that’s cute, you think I’m interested in arguing with someone who throws around accusations of cherry-picking like they’re going out of style. No, silly billy, I was just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy in objecting to what you feel is a mischaracterization of the MRM while simultaneously deliberately and repeatedly misquoting the people engaging with you.
Tell you what: You tell me what minimum evidence would satisfy you that the MRM regularly produces and supports misogynistic ideas, and I’ll decide whether its worth my time to track that evidence down. Nothing vague: Give me a clear declaration of what would convince you.
@cloudiah Nice hissy fit you are throwing there. Please, show us some more! It is made of pure, unadulterated lulz.
@ConservativeCrusader:
At this point, why would I even bother talking to you? I’d just walk away and find somebody a bit more rational.
… k? Again, I extracted what I thought was a valid point. I didn’t know that semi-agreement was white knighting.
You asked for a citation about “over-the-top” statements in the MRM. I had compared an example of an extreme statement from feminism, which is based on a valid point, and an example of an extreme statement from the MRM, which is based on hatred. This isn’t a statistics question, this is an existence question.
… You’ve got a weird fascination with racism, haven’t you.
C. Agreed with what I thought was the underlying point. Try again.
A poll that covers a vast variety of MRAs from a vast variety of positions to represent the real MRA population.
I wouldn’t be an MRA if feminists weren’t so bitchy and hateful towards men.
@ConservativeCrusader:
Well, at least you got one thing right out of all of your shit-spewing.
@ConservativeCrusader:
Feminists would be a lot less hateful towards you if you stopped using the word “bitchy” to describe them.
(I’m gonna call you CC from now on. That alright, CC?)
At this point, why would I even bother talking to you? I’d just walk away and find somebody a bit more rational.
(Annnnndddd you drop the conversation! Again: How is that claim any less valid than yours?)
… k? Again, I extracted what I thought was a valid point. I didn’t know that semi-agreement was white knighting.
(You said she was “a BIT over-the-top” when she literally hates men. Get your shit together.)
You asked for a citation about “over-the-top” statements in the MRM. I had compared an example of an extreme statement from feminism, which is based on a valid point, and an example of an extreme statement from the MRM, which is based on hatred. This isn’t a statistics question, this is an existence question.
… You’ve got a weird fascination with racism, haven’t you.
(And that blog shows over-the-tops acts of violence by black people! Racism and feminism are almost identical, and just as logical.)
C. Agreed with what I thought was the underlying point. Try again.
(You barely said a negative word towards her. That’s like looking at her kill a white, cis, straight white male and saying “Well, that was a bit over-the-top, but I agree with the message. NOT DEFENDING HER GUYZ!”)
I don’t understand this. You only use quotation marks when you’re paraphrasing, and for actual quotations you just bracket off your own comments with parentheses. Who the fuck taught you how to write?
I’m sorry, I’m pretty sure I said don’t give me a vague and worthless criterion that you can redefine as it pleases you. “Vast” isn’t specific.
Oh, word? I assume you can back that up with a poll that covers a vast variety of feminists from a vast variety of positions?
Hitler killed millions of jews, but I agree with the under-lying mesage that Zyclon B is dangerous. Hitler was a bit over-the-top, but it s hard to deny his message. I am not defending him, he’s probably in fact evil. But I agree with his underlying message.
And we have a Godwin. Didn’t take long, did it?
@CC:
Well, first of all, racism is not valid whereas actual shit that happens is. But my point was that I’m not obligated to respond to someone who I think is completely out of touch with reality. You aren’t either! So there’s that.
I don’t even understand your point on this one anymore. Actual instance of cherry-picking crime statistics combined with actual prejudice by the justice system against people of color is the same as non-cherry-picked examples of violent rhetoric from a certified hate movement? Yeah… I don’t get it.
Today I learned that trying to point out how everybody in society plays a role in perpetuating it’s problems is literally hating men, which is the same as murder. I don’t think you understand metaphors or similes at all.
Now THIS is a hissy fit.
@CC:
I take that back You really don’t understand metaphor or similies (sp?). Also, stop comparing murder and genocide to pointing out how people perpetuate social wrongs by saying or doing nothing to stop them, or frequenting establishments that perpetuate them.
Another hissy fit:
Well, first of all, racism is not valid whereas actual shit that happens is. But my point was that I’m not obligated to respond to someone who I think is completely out of touch with reality. You aren’t either! So there’s that.
(Well, first of all, feminism is not valid whereas actual shit that happens is. But my point was that I’m not obligated to respond to someone who I think is completely out of touch with reality. You aren’t either! So there’s that.)
(If you can’t provide evidence, then there is NO REASON do take you seriously.)
I don’t even understand your point on this one anymore. Actual instance of cherry-picking crime statistics combined with actual prejudice by the justice system against people of color is the same as non-cherry-picked examples of violent rhetoric from a certified hate movement? Yeah… I don’t get it.
(Both are wrong. But when Mangina does it, thousands of liberals run over and suck his clit. Also: Blacks are statistically more likely to cause more crime in all areas. Yes, racism is more valid than feminism! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm)
Today I learned that trying to point out how everybody in society plays a role in perpetuating it’s problems is literally hating men, which is the same as murder. I don’t think you understand metaphors or similes at all.
)Today I learned that trying to point out how zyklon b kills people is literally hating jews, which is the same as murder. I don’t think you understand metaphors or similes at all.)
Holy shit. I didn’t know cats could make that sound.
I take that back You really don’t understand metaphor or similies (sp?). Also, stop comparing murder and genocide to pointing out how people perpetuate social wrongs by saying or doing nothing to stop them, or frequenting establishments that perpetuate them.
(You didn’t just say that. You said that while white knighting a sexist only because she was a woman!)