antifeminism crackpottery demonspawn dozens of upvotes evil single moms evil women evo psych fairy tales GirlWritesWhat it's science! mansplaining misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy playing the victim reactionary bullshit reddit

Men’s Rights Redditors wonder why nobody else realizes that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more

For example, women never have to fight off flying squirrels, which are very bitey, mind you.
For example, women never have to fight off flying squirrels.

So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently discussing one of the most important — if often overlooked — issues of our time, which is: How come nobody but us sees that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more? Or, as  paranoiarodeo497, looking hopefully towards the future, has chosen to put the question: “What future event/tragedy do you think will happen that will make people realize not only are women no longer deprived but in fact equal to men?”

Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.

BrambleEdge 17 points 15 hours ago (18|1)  Seeing as men are deprived and far from equal to women, and people don't see it now, I doubt they ever will. I sometimes fear that gynocentrism is biological and not cultural.        [–]Demonspawn [-1] 1 point 52 minutes ago (1|0)      gynocentrism is biological  Treating women as human beings and men as human doings? Yes, it is biological. It's also why "equality" isn't, and seeking it creates a system of female supremacy.

Shrekem, meanwhile, turns to the work of eminent historian GirlWritesWhat for evidence that women were never oppressed in the first place:

Shrekem 9 points 13 hours ago (12|3)  The problem is that women were never oppressed or deprived, they just had different roles. Women are certainly not "equal" to men today, they receive special treatment and are immune to many laws that would get a man locked up for life. I recommend you watch Karen Straughan's video on "When female privilege backfires".      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]villevillakulla -4 points 11 hours ago (4|8)  I guess it depends on how you define oppressed or deprived, but it kind of sounds like you're full of shit, and "different roles" can be a blanket statement to mean anything you want it to mean.      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]Shrekem 5 points 8 hours ago (6|1)  I would define oppression as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" just like everybody else. I challenge you to come up with one example of women being oppressed in western society in the past few centuries. The treatment of women is nothing compared to real oppression like that of blacks during slavery.

IHaveALargePenis, in addition to being highly confident about his relative penis size, is also a bit more optimistic than his peers, suggesting that the irresponsibility of evil slutty single moms will eventually end up annoying not only single men but other women as well and thus, I guess, help to spark a new wave of antifeminism:

IHaveALargePenis [+3] 5 points 12 hours ago (6|1)  Government taxing bachelors to sponsor single moms/women in general. If shit keeps going the way it's going, everything women need will be provided by a government, while working less and claiming there's still a pay gap. It won't take a genius to put two and two together and realize that the benefits women get from the government, plus the benefits they get from working are huge compared to what men pay/get out of it.  But that's not when things will change, not yet. What we're going to see is a rise of single, irresponsible moms who breed and have their lives paid for by taxpayers. And part of those taxpayers will be other women, who can't find men willing to "breed with them" or marry them, etc. These women will be working 40+ hours a week easy, will sacrifice greatly, miss their chance to have kids, and realize they're paying for all these irresponsible women to have their cake and eat it to (our society is pretty good at rewarding the irresponsible). That's when things will change.
But Scoundrel, a more pessimistic sort, can’t imagine any scenario that would get the evil femmies to admit that men are oppressed:

scoundrelTW 6 points 13 hours ago (8|2)  It will never happen. If the government should start killing random men, the feminists would claim that men are being targeted because they are more valuable, so therefore, it is still patriarchy. Feminists will NEVER let go of their assertion that men are privileged relative to women. It would break up their club and their life's purpose.
Sorry, IHaveALargePenis, but you’ve been outvoted.

Meanwhile, loose-dendrite, off on a bit of a tangent, warns those who might otherwise be susceptible to feminist-think that seeing similar numbers of men and women in positions of power would not be a sign of gender equality — but rather a symptom of FEMALE TYRANNY!

loose-dendrite 7 points 16 hours ago (12|5)  Most feminists seem to think that equal representation in all positions of power is sufficient. Seeing as feminists have moved to goal posts in the past, I find this unconvincing.  It would also almost certainly indicate a massive imbalance against men due to a few factors:      Female IQ is less extreme than male IQ. There are more male geniuses and idiots. Our leaders should be smarter than average so they can handle the mentally difficult job of managing our society. Therefore one expects more men than women in power going simply by intellectual merit. If representation is equal then some imbalance against men must exist (even if there is also an imbalance somewhere against women).     Men have higher testosterone and therefore are more likely to participate in status seeking behavior. In other words, there's more male than female interest in power because power is high-status. If there is equal representation then an imbalance against men must exist. I consider this an inferior argument to point #1 because I don't remember the associated research very well.

Huh. I was unaware that high IQ was a prerequisite to power in our society. Did anyone tell George W. Bush?

In conclusion, MRAs have once against shown that they can use any and all evidence to “prove” what they already believe. Another flawless victory over the forces of reality.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
9 years ago

LBT: I know that feeling. I’m told that when the notice of determination arrived, and I’d gotten past the initial incomprehension, and the words, “80 percent” soaked in, I just sat there in the chair and hooted for a few minutes.

9 years ago

RE: katz

Yes! (Although now I’m immediately getting the, “But do I really DESERVE this money?” feelings. I refuse to acknowledge them until I am absolutely certain the money is there in the first place.)

RE: pecunium

Part of me is so paranoid and arm-chewy that I’m sure I’ve misunderstood, that it’s going to be another rejection letter or another delay. I’ve gotten so used to the idea that disability would be like a Bugs Bunny joke — always in process, never finished — that I don’t actually know what to do with the idea that things might have changed.

9 years ago

Although now I’m immediately getting the, “But do I really DESERVE this money?” feelings. I refuse to acknowledge them until I am absolutely certain the money is there in the first place.

Ugh, been there. “I’m not doing as much with my life as I wish I could, so therefore I deserve nothing and must sit here in the corner and stare at the wall.” Doad has to show up and be like “It’s OK for you to get froyo even if you’re unemployed.”

Michelle C Young
9 years ago

My favorite part is “I consider this an inferior argument to point #1, because I don’t remember the associated research very well.”


9 years ago

LBT: That was my next reaction: The “what… they are sending me that much money?”. It’s still a tad unreal, and I’m always half afraid it will go away.

So I have my fingers crossed.

9 years ago

“It’s OK for you to get froyo even if you’re unemployed.”

That should be a t-shirt.

LBT, I am crossing my fingers and toes for you.

9 years ago

RE: katz

Oh man, I been there. One of the first thought loops I needed to break was, “You can’t buy that bread! You need that money for treatment of your eating disorder…” (Also frozen yogurt is amazing. There’s a place here that makes it in amazing flavors like blueberry basil, creamsicle, and watermelon, and puts fresh mochi in it! MMMMM.)

Also, it’s a lose-lose condition. I feel bad because I’m able to do some writing and shit and plan my trip — obviously I’m not sick enough. But if I were sicker, I’d probably be depressed and feel I was a shitstain upon the socks of humanity who hasn’t earned the right to exist.

RE: pecunium

Yeah. At this point in my life, ~$700 a month sounds like a fucking king’s ransom. That’s enough to afford a room! A REAL room! One with a roof and a window and at least four walls! HOW CAN THIS BE?

9 years ago

Yay for LBT! And non-contact hugs.

Got my fingers crossed for you!

Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Congrats LBT, well maybe, if you read it right, but if so, congrats. Beyond that…I can’t do this conversation, you and pecunium will both get why and I don’t really care if everyone else does. So yeah, congrats and stuff.

Re: Session 9 — you don’t met her, the Session 9 part comes from the labels on the tapes from her sessions with her psych. He’s a jerk but it seems that the women in question isn’t aware of the others, who’re Billy and The Princess — the former your standard fare protector archetype, the latter seems to be the little girl she was when it all went to shit. And then there’s Simon…but the rest of the plot, the actual movie since her tapes are just how one of them is using his lunch breaks, that all only works if Simon is a demon or similar and not part of her system.

So going with “Simon’s a demon” we’re left with a pretty stereotypical but harmless multiple. As for revictimization…woman…insane asylum…besides what that implies the worst is her psych’s really ham handed attempts at making her remember.

And I’ve given away basically none of the plot, since this is the overarching subplot.

Part of why I still like it, and SPOILER…one of the leads tells his friend/co-worker that he hit his wife, he turned and spilled boiling water on his legs, and smacked her…and this is treated as an absolutely horrible thing. One’s dating another’s ex — “I should’ve never introduced them”, no MRA shit or how she’s terrible or anything, just what a mistake he made.

Idk, you may well hate it, but it’s miles better than two face and multiple miggs. She really does come off as an innocent woman stuck in a horrible place because of what Simon did (made her do, pick your theory) — and Simon almost has to be some external supernatural entity for the actual plot to work.

/movie babble

9 years ago

RE: Argenti

Yeah, see, I really don’t much care for the victim multi either. There’s the evil male multi (note: in a female vessel, the evil alter will almost ALWAYS be male) who also actually gets to have some control over his life and others, and there’s the helpless innocent female multi who gets no control over everything and mostly acts as the world’s punching bag. Creepy gender ideas aside (because oh MAN is that a creepy trifecta of conflating gender with power and morality!), I find both forms very tiring and done to death. They can be done well, but I’ve just seen it too much. It’s like fucking teen vampire romance.

The ‘inner demon’ is also something I’d like to never see again. If only so people will stop fucking assuming we have an evil alter in here, just waiting to swing an axe at them. (I used to be the designated ‘bad alter’ of the system. Some people really, REALLY have a hard time letting go of their treasured Jekyll/Hyde crap. I fondly remember our second roommate, who believed that Mir and the kids would go to heaven upon death, but me…)

Howard Bannister
9 years ago

Some people really, REALLY have a hard time letting go of their treasured Jekyll/Hyde crap.

See, this is one of those areas where I feel like Authorial Intent ought to come into play a little bit. Most people totally miss the obvious point that actually Jekyll is a major jerk looking for an outlet, and the reason he is addicted to his transformation is that he PREFERS the freed-from-societies-constraints version of himself. He’s not horrified in the slightest at what he does.

The BBC series Jekyll goes to some interesting places with this, where the “obviously” evil half is actually just, y’know, young and figuring out the world. And what the two of them really need is to learn to get along. (because otherwise the evil corporation exploiting their advanced research is totally gonna steal their kids)

I don’t know if they entirely manage to get it right, but they walk right into the usual tropes and start slapping them in the face.

1 13 14 15
%d bloggers like this: