antifeminism I'm totally being sarcastic it's science! misandry misogyny MRA reddit the c-word whores woman's suffrage

Science proves the Men’s Rights subreddit to be totally not (completely) misogynistic

So apparently I’m way off base with this “misogyny” thing. For example, I have been under the impression that I have been finding misogynistic stuff in the Men’s Rights subreddit, like, all the time. With upvotes, and everything. But evidently I’m wrong.

Because now ignatiusloyola, one of the subreddit mods, has done a very scientific study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, well, whatever misogyny is there is officially not a big damn deal.

Ig explains his protocol:

I did a quick scan of the first 400 comments on the list (100/page, 4 pages in). I scanned for words like “cunt” and “whore”, and read the context of these. I looked for the words “woman” and “women”, and read the context of these. I looked for “suffrage” and “vote” also.

I found two comments that used the word “cunt”, one of them was used to describe men, the other to describe a specific woman. The only instances of “whore” were “attention whore”.

There were two comments involving the word “woman” that generalized women with negative stereotypes.

“Suffrage” and “vote” instances did not involve any context that suggested that women did not deserve the right to vote.

How a person defines “hatred of women”, either loosely (suggestive from context, rather than explicit) or strictly (explicit statements), it is pretty clear that out of 400 comments, very few are misogynistic.

Does misogyny exist? Yes. But it does not seem to be a significant contribution to r/MensRights. At best, people are seeing a few comments and focusing on their existence while ignoring the rest.

It’s a lot like that time Michael Richards did that standup routine, and everyone focused on that one word he said, totally ignoring all the other words he used that were totally not racist slurs. I mean, yeah, he said that word a bunch of times, but it still made up a very small percentage of all the words he used that evening.

So that’s that, then. Misogyny, officially not a problem!

Or that would have been that, had Ig not actually posted about his experiment to the subreddit he had just proved was, like, totally non-misogynistic:

Because it turned out that a couple of the fellas had an issue with Ig’s methodology. In particular, that stuff about female suffrage. Because, apparently, you can totally be against women having the right to vote and still not be a misogynist. As zyk0s put it (garnering upvotes in the process):

[T]here’s the matter of female suffrage. I really don’t see how suggesting women should not have been granted the right to vote is misogyny. It might be motivated by it, but not necessarily so, and treating it as such is akin to criminalizing holocaust denial: it’s censorship, pure and simple, and if [1] /r/MR wants to keep calling itself an open space where ideas are not silenced, that attitude has to change.

Our friend Demonspawn went even further(and got a few upvotes himself):

Suggesting that the government works better without the women’s vote is not misogyny. It’s an analysis of the facts and the consequences of allowing women’s suffrage.

Suggesting that women retain the right to vote without the corresponding responsibilities that men face is misandry.

So there you have it. The Men’s Rights subreddit doesn’t have a misogyny problem; if anything, it’s a hotbed of misandry.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
9 years ago

Anyone else think “Douchetrail” is stupid even for name-based insults?

[cloudiah raises her hand]

Douchetrelle would work but not be very funny. But by changing it to Douchetrail he has made it too difficult to link it back to the person he is trying to insult.

It’s like if he arbitrarily decided to call me Clamhammer instead of the more obvious ClawdeeDuh. Everyone would just be like “Who the fuck is Clamhammer?”

[cloudiah now kind of wishes she had named herself Clamhammer.]

@Vitamin D, I don’t think I get credit for noticing Tom’s marketing patterns, but I can’t remember who did.

Tom Martin
9 years ago

“Yeah, he’s only in this for the money. We all agree.”

9 years ago

No Tom, I don’t think everyone here believes you’re in it for the money. I for one believe you’re in it for the attention because you’re so totally self-obsessed, and I think other people here also think the same thing.

So wrong again, congratulations, you’ll be the next nwoslave in no time.

9 years ago

What money, Tommy?

Tom Martin
9 years ago

No money, Hellkell, as far as you’re concerned.

9 years ago

That makes no sense, baldy.

Tom Martin
9 years ago

Hellkell, your ad hominem arguments are patchy.

Anyone effected by baldness should listen to this show:

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

*sigh* Get your fallacies right would you?

Ad hominem ish — oh look, Tom’s drunk again, and since he’s drunk he can’t possibly say anything of value.

True ad hominem — since Tom sometimes posts while drunk, he can’t possibly ever have anything to say.

Not an ad hominem — oh wow are you wrong because X Y & Z, are you drunk again? (this is just a boring old insult, not a fallacy)

You make no sense, and are bald? Yeah, that’s just an insult.

Didn’t I already point out that there’s a whole wiki section on fallacies?

9 years ago

My youtube video has 28,000 views and 1256 comments – with 5 other youtubers copying it.

Wow, that’s about 0.075% as many views and 2.9% as many comments as Dramatic Chipmunk!

1 36 37 38
%d bloggers like this: