Category Archives: reddit
The Men’s Rights Subreddit finds a new woman to love! (Because she hates lesbian feminists.)
Mysterious lady, the Men’s Rights subreddit wants to buy you a drink.
The Men’s Rights subreddit has a new favorite lady! The one in the pictures above, if you haven’t guessed. Her name is Sonia Verstappen, and until recently she was a sex worker in Brussels; she’s also an activist for the legalization of sex work. The stills above are apparently from a documentary called Sex Workers and Proud.
The Men’s Rights Redditors who love her don’t actually know any of this. They just love her because she’s a women who apparently thinks hysterical, man-destroying American lesbians have taken over feminism.
TyphonBlue: “Aside from the minor … physical effects of abortion surgery, how is forced abortion different for men or women?”
Men suffer from all those stupid lady afflictions too.
You may recall that post a couple of days back in which I talked about Dean Esmay of A Voice for Men — the alleged “Men’s Human Rights” site that hosts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “activism” section — suggesting that unnamed Man Boobz “minions” might stoop to impersonating female MRAs in an attempt to make the Men’s Rights movement look bad.
Alpha Dogging it with the Red Pill Subreddit
So I spent a little time reading through The Red Pill subreddit yesterday and if there’s one thing that Red Pill Redditors aren’t, it’s fucking betas. No fucking way. They’re like the total fucking opposite of betas. And by that I mean they are ALPHA DOGS 4 LIFE.
Case in point: The totally rad insults they use to put the bitches in their place, as collected together in the recent thread “What Is The Most Cutting Insult You Have Said To A Woman Infield?” I mean, even the fact that they HAVE such a thread is totally ALPHA DOG but just listen to this ALPHA DOG shit they totally really say to women in real life totally for real:
Men’s Rights Redditor: Watch out ladies, or we’ll make Friend Zoning illegal!
So the Men’s Rightsers over on Reddit are getting worked up over the evils of women “friend zoning” men, and one especially angry fellow by the name of andreipmbcn has a warning for the ladies: if they don’t watch themselves, the men’s rights movement might just rise up and make friend zoning illegal:
What this means is not exactly clear to me. Would women actually be required to have sex with all men who are aggressively “nice” towards them? Who knows. But judging from the dozens of upvotes andre’s comment got, Reddit MRAs like the sound of it.
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely comment.)
On Reddit, a woman explains to other women why men hate them. SPOILER ALERT: It’s because women suck.
Wonder Woman: Forever alienating decent men with her blatant careerism.
Hey ladies! Have you ever wondered why so many men hate you? Well, you’re in luck, because on Reddit, another lady just like you has an answer. It’s because you suck. No, really. Men hate women because women are terrible. And not very ladylike, to boot.
Let’s join FleetingWish as she explains “Why Do Men “Hate” Us?” in Part 2 of her Who-knows-how-many-parts opus “Attracting Alphas,” which she has helpfully posted in the fPUAs subreddit, a forum apparently devoted to teaching “females” how to more effectively get picked up by alleged Alpha males.
Gullible Men’s Rights Redditors fooled by fake Jezebel article arguing that paternity fraud is “one way to break the rule of fathers.”
Some people are easily fooled.
This just in: Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most gullible nincompoops in the history of ever.
The latest evidence of this? The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy.
Warren Farrell’s Funny Footnote, and Where it Led Me
Please don’t check my footnotes!
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell is fond of mentioning his academic past — he has taught at a number of colleges — and is not exactly shy about mentioning his Ph.D. (Check the covers of his books if you don’t believe me.) But the books he’s written are for the most part polemical “pop psychology” and “pop sociology” rather than academic works, and most don’t meet academic standards by a long shot.
How far they fall short of academic standards I didn’t fully realize until I started investigating a suspicious footnote in The Myth of Male Power.
Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it
Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.
NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
The Myth of Warren Farrell: Farrell on Rape, Part One
No book has had more influence over the Men’s Rights movement than Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. Published in 1993, in the heyday of the early 90s antifeminist backlash, it set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement as it’s developed over the last two decades. He’s the one who came up with the notions of “male disposability” and the “death professions.” He’s the one who got MRAs fixated on the issue of draft registration.
How bad ideas get started: The “Apex Fallacy,” the “Frontman Fallacy,” and the murderer Marc Lepine
Would MRAs still be into the Apex Fallacy if boards of directors looked like this?
So some Men’s Rightsers are up in arms because the powers that be at Wikipedia just deleted a page devoted to a phony “logical fallacy” invented by a friend of Paul Elam. According to the now-deleted Wikipedia page, “the apex fallacy refers to judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs (the apex, such as the 1%) of society, rather than collective success of a group.”
