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.

361 replies on “Men’s Rights Redditors wonder why nobody else realizes that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more”

A lot of the governement gub’mint “subsidies to women” that these guys complain about (e.g. WIC) are subsidies to children through women.
However you feel about transfers of wealth between adults, being opposed to transfer of wealth from adults to children is really stupid.
Get a job kids! Stop sucking on both your mother’s actual teat and the governement gub’mint’s metaphorical teat!

Uuh, I’d really like to know how many actual ‘geniuses’ we have running the show here (we aren’t short on idiots though, I’ll give him that).

I sometimes wonder if there’s any hope at all of breaking these people out of the cage of unreality they’ve locked themselves in. Probably not.

Marie, I don’t think I’ve used that one before, but I’ve definitely posted very similar covers from other old men’s magazines, with men attacked by turtles and weasels, etc.


Huh. I never knew men being attacked by small cute animals was such a common theme in pics XD

Since when does a high IQ alone indicate a capacity for leadership? Really Reddit? Really?
That’s rather sloppy thinking.

I can only assume that loose-dendrite gained all of his/her knowledge from an obsolete medical text. In the field of health we don’t use the terms “genius” or “idiot” we use numbers on a scale which loosely describes a particular type of intelligence.

“and are immune to many laws that would get a man locked up” – is that why Marissa Alexander is doing 20 years for firing at a ceiling when her abuser was coming at her, under the same law that Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering a teenager under? GirlwritesWHAT indeed. Nothing based on actual research, likely.

Oh, but the female slaves had it easy. (This is actually an MRA argument I’ve heard made.)

Now that I think of it, a lot of MRA arguments for how women are more privileged than men also apply to children being more privileged than adults.* I mean, sure, children have no control over their own lives, but adults are supposed to supply them with everything they need and we are constantly bombarded with media messages about how adults should sacrifice themselves for children.

Adults’ Human Rights Movement! End the Filiocracy! (Latin-Greek etymological confusion is essential for any human rights movement)

*It’s almost like the instances of female privilege MRAs like to cite are examples of women being treated like children.

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

Hahahaha. Thank God once in a blue moon these dudes take a break from horrid awfulness to be hilarious.


You wrote
I have no idea why everyone doesn’t just completely ignore Ted Nugent.

I think a lot of people like his music, even if they don’t agree with his political views, plus he says a lot of things that many Americans on the right happen to agree with.


You wrote,
I’d like to dip Ted Nugent in honey and throw him to Tavis Smiley.

Sorry, I don’t get it. What is it with Tavis Smiley?

Oh, but the female slaves had it easy. (This is actually an MRA argument I’ve heard made.)

That sound you heard was my head exploding. I’ll make sure there’s no brain stains on the rug.

Red herring or not, that someone could even think this is ridiculous.

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.

One of the hidden joys of these guys is anytime they claim to know what feminists would say or do about something.

You gotta love the irony of a bunch of mostly white dudes who think (unsaid: white) men are oppressed by modern society dismissing feminism because (unsaid: white) women never had it as bad as slaves did. Like, take your pick, dudebros. Either it’s not as bad as slavery and therefore doesn’t matter or different degrees/axes of oppression must be considered on their own merits. I realize this is unlikely to sway a group of people who use terms like “divorce rape” sincerely and think child support is indentured servitude, but come on.

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.

That’s some potent distortion they’ve got going on there. Wow.

No worries, auggziliary – I was just addressing the MRA who said that. I didn’t interpret that as you believing that men are more valuable.


I was just thinking about this today. I was musing on Dunning-Krugger, and people who manage to think they’re still the smartest person in the room when everybody disagrees with them and actual evidence shows they’re wrong.

I was thinking about what it might be like to see the world that way, to have any contradictory information just confirm your prejudices.

And here we have it. “So, we believe in this weird and wild thing and for some reason 99% of people think it’s horseshit? THEY ARE SO BRAINWASHED WAAAAGGGHH”


In response to my question you wrote,
Smiley points out the hypocrisy within the NRA in regards to race.

Oh okay. I see what you meant now.

@bodycrimes I can understand that you might be confused as to where this free money comes from, but I’m an old timer, so I was here for the ongoing saga of The Big Book ‘o Learnin’.

What you do, apparently, is go sit in the middle of the street and cry, and men will throw money at you.

Is that Tina Majorino in your icon, or do you look a lot like her? I’m a fan either way, and here’s your welcome package in case you haven’t received one yet. It will help all and sundry to learn how sitting in the middle of the street and crying garners one money, how 12 year old girls wearing bathing suits at the beach is horribly offensive, and just how bad one milk machine technician’s life is because this one time he didn’t get a job.

By which I mean that there’s a link to the Big Book contained within, but we do call it the Big Book for a reason. This most recent troll has started making me nostalgic for Mr. Slave, the me me me me me shit is so much more boring than superdogs.

Apologies if you guys have already seen this, but it’s incredible:

Favorite parts:

(Would its founder, Col. Sanders, have endorsed this?)

One might say this would be like requiring women to wear blue to support a cause for men (a cure for prostate cancer). But no, wearing blue is not demeaning to women and their femininity as it is to require men to wear pink. However, women are really into their appearance, so let’s find a comparable counter entity, something that would equally demean the female image and femininity necessary for them to contribute their support. It would perhaps be like requiring women to wear no make-up, not shave their legs or armpits, and/or wear a gunny sack (one or two of these or a combination thereof) to support a cure for prostate cancer. That’s gratitude, right, the same as expecting men to wear pink to support a cure for women’s cancer?

Wow, that was very well written!


Also, Obama is much more prochoice than Romney. Idk what his point was

I think it was a non sequitur; he was saying “If women were 53% of the electorate, why did they vote for a man?”

hometeam: Such a good example of “so close and yet so far.” He’s observed that it’s considered demeaning for men to wear a color associated with women, but not for women to wear a color associated with men. But he misses the obvious conclusion that, if female-coded things have a stigma and male-coded things don’t, that suggests that men are indeed considered more socially valuable or desirable. No, he just concludes that we need to find other ways to demean women.

Wow, hometeampaper, that article is so histrionic. The comment where the dude says that pink in his NFL or NASCAR nearly make him puke really takes the cake, though.

I think it was a non sequitur; he was saying “If women were 53% of the electorate, why did they vote for a man?”

The US Presidential Elections: How The Fuck Do They Work?

Wow. That’s quite a tirade against the color pink.

For the record, I’d happily wear no makeup and/or not shave my legs or armpits and/or wear a gunnysack if it helped find a cure for prostate cancer. Is he saying he’d like me to do those things?

David – you have used the flying squirrels one before. We had a splendid derail about the squirrels’ anatomy, especially the one on the guy’s shoulder, and iirc talk about how real sugar gliders are cute.

That Shrekem character just outed himself as incredibly ignorant, didn’t he? I’d love to have a time machine and make him live as a woman in various eras.

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.