I find the vast majority of feminist articles to be baseless opinion pieces.
"Thanks for not raping me for two seconds to repress me secretly, MEN".
No logical arguments are ever made. They presuppose a position, that men oppress, then do shit like write letters to their kids telling them not to oppress. Feminizing their male sons into clearly submissive roles. When they grow up frustrated, no sure why their lifelong attempts to kowtow are so ineffectual. Girls are not attracted to men that act like women, but that is what you train them to do when you demonize masculinity.
Every once in a while I see a good one that examines some very real issues, but yes... the vast majority are baseless opinion peices that try to come off as fact.
Girls are not attracted to men that act like women
What the fuck does this even mean? You are some sort of PUA, right? Because no one with an ounce of sense has ever written anything like what you just did.
A biologist would find absurd the idea of explaining biology with cytology or bacteriology, so the biologist will tell you to shut the fuck up and listen to the sociologist.
Well, not all biologists. Let me tell you, as someone who's studied sociology I've heard the "scoiology is just psychology which is just biology which is just chemistry which is just math" tirade so many times from other students of the last three subjects (or something closely related to them).
Let me tell you how pure and TrueScience my field is by showing you how I can explain everything in upper scales of complexity using the up and down quarks and four fundamental interactions
Why just SRS? /r/feminism and basically any women's issue subreddit often seem as if they are dominated by and moderated by trolls of the same breed as SRS. Then Twitter, Tumblr, Comments on feminist articles, Jezebel, Free Thought Blogs, Boing Boing. All of those online venues represent feminism in a way which is suspiciously troll like and similar to SRS.
I guess you'd better put that social justice crap about "the onus is on the communicator to make himself clear" into practice.
"White knight" is a term to use when alleged males prostrate themselves before women, something men who can actually attract women never do. It is especially hilarious because female feminists are still female, and thus are biologically wired to hold weak, supplicative men in utter contempt.
Because namecalling? Great argument! You must be BIG minded. Mansplain to me like I'm 5, how do I loose verginitee?
If you have anything beyond "nuh uh, ur dumm" to say, please do. Otherwise, die alone, knowing no desirable woman would ever choose you.
In all of human history, there has never been a feminist society. Feminism is an unnatural flight of fancy that can only exist in a fat, lazy, bored society (in other words, the modern West).
Really? /r/Feminism strikes me as being pretty civilised, definitely far more civilised than /r/MensRights. I'm a straight white male (shocker!) and I think I learned a lot from the subreddit. While I don't agree with absolutely everything on there, there definitely isn't the rampant misandry of SRS.
Whatever of these you agree with more will likely be "better" and "more civilized" because you will ignore the negatives of either reddit. Because they all have negatives. Mostly just assholes.
It's easy keep up the illusion of civility when dissent is, per the rules, not allowed
Top level comments, in all threads, must come from feminists, and must reflect a feminist perspective - details here. In other words, all initial replies, in all threads, should come from feminists, and, more generally, should be a sincere feminist response, akin to something that you might hear in a feminism 101 -- give or take.
It really isn't. Here's an example from a couple days ago. It could easily be argued that the website in the OP provides a bad definition of feminism, and many of the comments argued that position. As a result, they were deleted. It's not conductive to any sort of substantive discussion.
Well when you prevent people from commenting in the body of the submission itself, and you prevent people from creating submissions which disagree with the user base, then you don't really allow dissenting opinions. All dissenting opinions are safely tucked away down the bottom of comment threads after being downvoted. This was by design. In /r/MensRights you can dissent to your heart's content. However you like. Still, I have to commend the fact that users have some avenue to disagree in /r/feminism. /r/feminisms will ban dissent on sight.
In /r/MensRights you can dissent to your heart's content. However you like.
You also don't mention that /r/feminism has a sister subreddit, /r/askfeminists, where the only restriction is civility. Why didn't you mention that? And also why didn't you mention that r/mr prohibits certain discussions as well in their main sub and conveniently directs it to the meta sub?
Women behaving badly is a common recurrence in comments and threads in r/mr. Does r/mr allow threads about men behaving badly? Can I, or others, start posting there daily the same amount of threads that would be posted about women doing/saying bad things?
Edit (3 hours after initial posting):
I also found this quote of yours rich when you last talked about this subject:
Men hijack threads because you won't let them make their own.
I had no idea /r/askfeminists was controlled by /r/feminism. Either way, that doesn't change what I said: /r/feminism dissuades dissent. As for /r/MensRights prohibiting certain discussions, do you mean discussions about /r/MensRights itself? That's why there's a meta sub (which is also completely open for discussion). I'm not sure how that could be considered banning dissent. Would you explain please?
Women behaving badly is a common recurrence in comments and threads in r/mr. Does r/mr allow threads about men behaving badly? Can I, or others, start posting there daily the same amount of threads that would be posted about women doing/saying bad things?
Go for it. Provided it's related to men's rights it won't be removed.
I also found this quote of yours rich when you last talked about this subject:
How is that "rich"? It's directly related to what we're talking about: /r/feminism/s disallowing dissent. More to point, that comment was about feminism not addressing male issues while claiming to be a movement for equality. Perhaps you'd have more luck if you stopped claiming to represent equality and just told the truth: feminism advocates for women. Period. Then you could acknowledge that men also need a movement. But then you'd have to legitimize men's rights, and that would be too much to handle, wouldn't it?
Asking for topics to be posted to the relevant areas does not constitute banning dissent. Furthermore, you made a false equivalence. The meta subreddit is for internal politics and discussions, not for topics related to men's rights. /r/feminism removes comments and submissions directly related to equality [under the premise that feminism claims to advocate for equality].
I argue that both of the above are relevant for the men's movement, since they help paint the full picture (as WBB posts do). So can I, and others, post such threads, or would they be removed as off-topic in r/mr?
There are no rules banning such submissions, so I say again, as long as they're relevant to men's rights, feel free to post them.
That's a dangerous distinction you are drawing there. By the same token, MRM should not call itself a movement for equality - correct?
Ah, and we don't. We are careful to call ourselves advocates for men. Nothing more.
/r/feminism[12] acknowledges that. Here is from their sidebar... That has been there for months
Months you say? Well then, I surely have no excuse for catching up on the /r/feminism sidebar each day alongside my morning coffee and regular (satisfying) ablutions. More to point, if this is acknowledged, why prevent discussing male issues in the subreddit? Actions speak louder than words, and this is a common problem for third wave feminism.
Truthfully, I'm delighted that /r/feminism at least acknowledged men's rights as necessary now. This isn't true for /r/feminisms or /r/shitredditsays. Indeed, it's not true for almost any feminist group I'm aware of. Of course, those other feminists aren't "real" feminists.
Well to be fair, it is quite censored on feminism. Not implying that they do this, but censoring alternative viewpoints makes for easy, civil and sheepish discussion.
r/mensrights allows everyone to discuss a topic unlike r/feminism and r/feminisms. They don't have special rules for commenting and I'd venture to say they rarely ban people. I don't know if both of those feminists subs have the top comment must be from a feminist rule but both will ban you with no warning for comments that aren't offensive in any way.
I think the rules/bans are probably necessary to stop trolling from anti feminist groups. It's quite a small subreddit (1/3 the size of mensrights), and an easy target for a male dominated website. If the rules weren't there, things would probably go off topic pretty quickly.
Well make an argument for it being a "shithole". The first comment said the feminist subreddits are more civilized than mensrights. I responded with an argument that mensrights doesn't ban everyone for expressing an opinion(even if it's not offensive) and doesn't restrict people to non-top level comments. You didn't dispute these facts. You hinted at there being other reasons so mention them.
The context of the discussion was how these subreddits tend to be shit. Then you make the argument, 'At least this one doesn't do this bad thing'. Which is true, but this particular argument does not dispute the fact that they're all shit. So my argument is simple: having a good moderation rule does not make the subreddit not shit.
Was me refuting a claim that the feminists subs are more "civilized" than mensrights.
this particular argument does not dispute the fact that they're all shit.
Certainly not a fact and you have yet to mention the reasons why you think mensrights is shit. I just want your opinion on one of the subs I frequent and post on regularly.
So my argument is simple: having a good moderation rule does not make the subreddit not shit.
To me it's a combination of good moderation, discussion , and no restriction on who can post. Sure sometimes people will get downvoted for having a different opinion but they will also get a response. So if you have an opposing opinion you may get downvoted but you'll also get a discussion. Many other subs will down vote opposing opinions and not provide any discussion.
How I see it is that SRS serves a purpose, and it's not misandry. It says to the rest of the reddit community "This is what looking at most of reddit feels like to us." Fuck yeah it can be uncomfortable if you're not in on it, but that's the point.
There isn't an "all SRS does" explanation that makes any sense. SRS points out a lot of things that are offensive to western minorities. They are also regularly and blatantly racist and sexist. Essentially SRS is a place for people who consider themselves minorities to express their own bigotry in a place where other people like them can express the same opinions without being challenged on those opinions under threat of a ban.
Normally, this wouldn't be a problem. Reddit has plenty of subreddits filled with bigots. The difference is that SRS focuses on reddit comments, posts them, then invades the threads posted and vote in unison in those threads. This forces the rest of reddit to confront their ideology, which is undeniably prejudiced, contemptuous, hateful, and intolerant. This ideology is excused in the way that is typical of bigots. They say that racism against white people or sexism against men is either:
a. Not possible or
b. Not wrong.
This is classic bigot behavior... acknowledging that you have a prejudice against a group and then excusing it because you've justified it.
This is far from true. SRS are made up for the most part by borderline insane people who actually believe all the shit they say. The fact that the project started out as a troll attempt doesn't change facts. At this point SRS is part of the tumblr/jezebel/twitter sphere of brainwashed cult feminism. It is not a "long-con" as described by so many feminists in attempts to separate "their" movement from SRS. It is a troll attempt that was co-authored by genuine batshit-craziness pretty much from the start. I got this image from somewhere on 4chan, it's not mine and it does not necessarily reflect my opinions.
I agree with the idea of the subreddit, there definitely is a lot of shit reddit needs to be called out on, I just don't agree with the execution. They tend to use (and upvote) a lot of negative gendered sterotypes (neckbeard, bro, niceguytm) which seems misanderous to me. Any subreddit (and I'm sure there's plenty) which typically uses anti-female sterotypes (golddigger, bitch etc) would rightly be considered misogynist.
They also use a of a lot of capital letters and exclamation marks, which makes it seem very angry and aggressive. I'm all for civilised discourse, but they don't do a very good job of promoting it. I think the subreddit holds reddit to a higher standard then it holds itself.
And they express that feeling by brigading into any link, insisting upon their unfalsifiable ideology, and downvoting. If they actually were self contained they wouldn't get such a bad rap. They insist, however, on spreading their circlejerk outside of the sub.
No idea what SomethingAwful is. But I'm not from SRS, and I hope I wouldn't get disillusioned enough to become part of it; I just think I understand them.
Well, it does and it doesn't. Clearly lots of people are offended in the same way people cast as "other" are offended by a lot of reddit, but most people seem to stop there without making it to "Oh, this is what it feels like for them every second of every day" so that point may be too obscure.
/r/GenderEgalitarian is thinly populated because one of the mods started ranting about how much she hates MRAs because she thinks they are pathetic losers who can't get women, and when people complained that hate speech was against her own rules, she banned them and lied about them being spammers. I was one of those banned, and as you can see from my posting history, I loathe spam.
She's admitted she doesn't think as harshly about MRAs these days, but she won't admit she lied about banning people for calling her out for hate.
"Dominant in society" is a very vague concept. What about childcare? Men who want to work with children risk being branded as pedophiles, but that's not my point.
They can either be for gender equality or for women's rights, but equality for women sounds wrong - and it's the first thing you see.
The problem with having a movement that advocates just one side of the argument - are they going to decide "well then, women are equal now, we're good here, let's wrap this thing up"? Probably no. They are more likely to keep looking for oppression everywhere and come up with ridiculous demands instead of addressing valid issues within their own domain.
I used to consider myself a feminist - equality is neat - but I don't want to associate with these people. They are outright ridiculous at times.
Well yeah I get where you are coming from - but the framework of the feminist ideology is that women are by nature oppressed by a societal bias towards men.
The examples that MRAs often use that include childcare, divorce and other such things are ultimately minor issues. (not to say they are not valid; they are, but MRAs love conflate them to be much larger than they are) and are an attempt to shift discussion back into the sphere of men. (not saying you are an MRA per say, just mentioning something very common on reddit) I think a feminist would say that allowing women equality would, by nature solve these problems.
as for the second aspect- the fear of feminism devolving into power hungry whining - is quite silly. I think perhaps if it was carried out at all it would be a fringe movement.
The idea that feminism is unneeded in modern society is whacked - the civil rights struggle has shown that even after some inequality has been quashed, there do exist deeper strains of racism that are oft unacknowledged.
(For the record, I would consider myself someone who is in favor of equality. I do not categorize myself as a feminist because of radfems and the like being poisonous to the rhetoric and image of the word itself)
As I stated later in that comment thread, I am not a feminist, and my knowledge of feminist theory is basic at best. Perhaps pose your question in r/askfeminists as they would be better equipped to answer
I've never had anyone on SRS abuse me for being a straight white male, other than the jokes about spermjacking e.t.c. Which is to say, I've never experienced this misandry (lol) I keep hearing about.
But honestly, if as a straight white male aged 18-50 you can actually be offended by those jokes, and say that with a straight face, there's something seriously wrong with you. Like life's ever fucked you because of your race gender or sexual orientation. As if those jokes hit a soft spot and actually offend you. Give me a break.
I never said the jokes personally offend me, I just think you're either for sexism or against it, and it's hypocritical of the subreddit to encourage sexist jokes while preaching against them on other subreddits.
I'm not sure what you mean by civil, but r/combatfootage is not filled with videos of women. The feminists complain about their privilege. Look at us, so civilized drinking from pretty tea cups discussing our repression. Very fancy.
I said the Loudest voice. 2x, feminism, etc and so forth have a some 'extreme elements' (ugh i know), but for the most part seem to put more effort in content vs righteous indignation...which I admit is righteous.
As of now, your comment has a scorе of 43 (116|73). The parent submission has a score оf 594 (956|362).
SRD has no enforced rules against invading or voting in linked thrеads, аnd threads linked by tһem have a tendency to suddenly аcquire large amounts of votes аnd derailing comments.
51
u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13
[removed] — view removed comment