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?
@CC:
Well, to address this I’d have to go over every single list item. But here’s a couple that are obvious:
That makes even less sense than the rest of your drivel…*reads more* Never mind, you topped it.
Feminism is a straw house made of assumptions and bigotry, that falls to bits with the the wind of common sense.
Wow…that’s just…(snrfl)…
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously, dude, you are in middle school, am I right?
Again, you cherry picked the ones that are easy to defend, and only represent a minority of men!
CC is Tom Martin.
CC they don’t represent “MEN” at all.
Nice try.
I thought I was Steele!
Go on to bed Kirby. Here is a cookie and some milk to tide you over to breakfast.
http://www.layoutsparks.com/1/85808/milk-n-cookie-love.html
Apparently CC can’t tell the difference between defending an idea that a person espouses and defending the person and everything they say. *shrug*
I don’t defend Stalin, I just agree that in his believe that rich people own too much fucking money.
Kirby, you can engage all you want as far I’m concerned. It’s actually kind of fascinating what an insipid blatherskite our new troll friend is.
Are you really surprised Kirby? It requires effort and thought and understanding of nuance. None of those things are common conservative traits.
Pell?
They do. Increase the taxation level to 70%!
@CC:
I did so because, as you claimed,
Even cherry-picked, I’ve successfully countered your claim. And you’d be surprised at just how many men make rape jokes or harassment jokes or or say that if a woman dresses in a skimpy outfit she’s “asking” for her rape. No, this does not represent only a tiny portion of the problematic men.
Daniel Tosh and his supporters. All the people who’ve been flamining Rebecca Watson and Anita Sarkisian. Ring any bells?
Stalin’s communism was also only “over-the-top”.
By my count, there are 30 items on that list. Kirby pointed out 7 ones which obviously do support rape culture, and you responded by dismissing them as “easy to defend.” This is what’s known as “moving the goalposts;” you claim that almost none of the items are relevant, Kirby points out that more than “almost none” of them are, and you find an unrelated reason to disqualify them.
And if you think 23% of something corresponds to “almost none,” shit, no wonder you think the MRM isn’t filled with misogyny.
Haha who knows. It’s funny anyway.
Nothing you say really makes sense or is factual.
Regarding cherry picking, it’s not hard to prove someone does that. Yet, the MRM don’t do it. They just say it over and over and over again.
If this blog was cherrypicked, people would come here to REDIRECT, but no they come here and spout anti feminist crap. So, no, this blog does not cherry pick, it highlights the vomit you puke out quite nicely.
So WHICH does not represent the movement? The Spearhead? A voice For Men? JohntheOther? They are often quoted here in their entirety sometimes entire screeds, etc.
HA at this “new” guy.
@CC:
That’s the closest you’ve come to making a valid simile. Of course, it’s a stupid one because you’re equating a stupidly false idea with a true one… but I’m not expecting much at this point.
Not all MRAs frequent nor respect those sites.
Oh look, yet more proof that “ConservativeCrusader” is unable to understand nuance. Or details, or context, or reality, or anything really.
Go away.
Can’t imagine why anyone would call you a racist, buddy.
This one is just entertainingly jejune.
@CC:
No, you’re just continuing to perpetuate rape culture with a fucking shitty-ass not-funny joke. As I’ve repeatedly told you was the point of the post. But that post was directed at men who say they are against rape. So it may not have been directed at you.
I am too lazy to google Zyklon B, what the hell is it?