Video Tuesday: PBS on Reddit’s sexism, and a dramatic reading of “SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES.”
Can you find the woman in this picture of Reddit’s admins? (Screencap from PBS Off Book video about Reddit.)
I’m not big on posting videos here on Man Boobz – aside, of course, from those involving kitties and/or other adorable furry animals, and, obviously, my own – but here are a couple you all may enjoy.
The first is a short PBS “Off Book” feature on Reddit. Most of it is fairly glowing, but at about 3 minutes in there’s a segment about the rampant sexism on Reddit, which includes interviews with several mods from Shit Reddit Says – who are the only women interviewed for the feature, and who elected to appear anonymously due to the very real threat of harassment from angry Redditors.
Naturally, plenty of Redditors were pissed that SRS got any airtime at all, and some were shocked and stunned to hear that anyone could possibly think there was a lot of misogyny on Reddit. (SRSers responded to it here.)
SRS also regularly deals with the rampant racism, homophobia and transphobia on Reddit, but there was no mention of that in the PBS piece.
The second video is a dramatic reading from YouTuber and regular Man Boobz commenter Jessay of that SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES rant I wrote about the other day.
Like this:
Posted on June 5, 2012, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, bullying, douchebaggery, harassment, misogyny, MRA, reddit, ShitRedditSays, video. Bookmark the permalink. 193 Comments.
The predators flinch because they think they’ve been spotted (the guilty flee when no man pursueth), and the rest of the world… we have dominance cues, and socially meeting people in the eye means we think ourselves equal (US/European cultures, YMMV, not valid in all states, void where prohibited). Someone who is trying to be superior will find it unsettling. Someone who is uncertain of dominance (as most who are picking a fight are) is going to be put off their game when the response is “equal”. They want to have the moral advantage of being “superior”, which is why a bold front is almost as good as martial skill.
If you have the assurance of being able to dish something out (no one is guaranteed a “win”, and the only thing that hurts more than winning a fight is losing one), that bold front is almost always going to defuse; or at least, delay/diminish violent confrontation.
This is, of course, a generalisation. I commend “Cheap Shots, Ambushes, and other Dirty Tricks” by, Marc “Animal” MacYoung† for stuff on situational awareness, the branching patterns of semi-violent confrontation, and what to expect if t all goes south in a hurry.
†NB,I did the photography, and some of the posing and a bit of the proofreading for it. He’s the, “scary” guy I mentioned above. I get no money from the sale of any of his books.
Off topic but “I get no money from the sale of any of his books.” of course not, why give the artist a percentage?! *fumes a bit* and this is why “starving artist” still applies (for context here, I have to stop giving away painting and re-coup at least the cost of canvas, it’s just silliness)
Back to pseudo-on-topic-ness — seconding this: “If you have the assurance of being able to dish something out…” — I really don’t think I’ll “win” most fights, but if you start one, you’re going to get hurt for your trouble; combined with some basic Judo skills, it’s gotten me out of every mess so far. Including an ex over twice my size trying to shove me out of our shared residence onto the street in my fucking underwear — point was never to “beat him” point was to get my ass in some pants! (that was a fun day, he still insists I started it by trying to force my way through the doorway he was blocking, after I asked him at least 3 times to move so I could get dressed >.< )
That day also came with the vehement denial that blocking a doorway out of a room and staring down at me was threatening behavior…because gaslighting narcissists do shit like that.
Yeah, compared to ex's like him though, the in my face "hey honey" types are really not that scary!
Argenti: I got paid. Photography for hire is sort of like housepainting. I get to put it on my CV, and all like that Marc needs to eat, and it’s not like being an author is to be rolling in the dough.
If you really want to talk about self-defense, this probably isn’t really the forum; I’m not against it, but it’s a pretty big derail.
The ex… yeah, “you started it when you failed to admit I was in charge,” I love those types. There are some stories…
Pecunium — “…and it’s not like being an author is to be rolling in the dough.” — yeah I realize, but he gets a percent of book sales right? Idk, maybe it is vastly different, but I haven’t even bothered trying to get a gallery show because that shit only pays if something sells (and I can’t deal with the socialization required to have a gallery show)
Regarding the self-defense derail, I should send you an email in general anyways, I am failing to properly introduce myself huh?
Re: the ex, yeah, that’s basically it. He also managed to find a way to cheat in an open relationship, which takes a special amount of skill! Basically just all around a terrible human being, but enough of a narcissist to put on the appropriate front to fool people.
Pecunium — your LJ email was the one I’d found, so it’s been emailed, hope that’s the right addy!
It works.
He gets a percentage of the sale price, against advance. Most books don’t actually, “earn out”, so the advance is all most authors ever get. And where does the percentage of the take come from? The publisher (not without some justification) see illustrations as something the author provides, so it has to come out of his take.
Gallery shows… oi, the economies of that. It’s part of what makes it hard to sell photos, because the half to the gallery means the price to make any money on a print is doubled, and I’m out the printing/framing costs, irrespective of what sells.
But they have to pay the rent, which is whether I’m there or not, so…
Cheating in an open relationship isn’t any harder than in a closed one… rules, you break them.
W00t for epically delayed responses (I appear to remember to check old threads every 2-3 days >.<)
The economics of book sales aren't that different from gallery shows then I guess, just a different set of people who have to be paid before you are. What really puts me off the idea of trying to do a gallery show is that we have an entire art district, that makes it not "irrespective of what sells" but rather "regardless if anything at all sells" — and I can't afford to take that risk, I also have to pay the rent.
"Cheating in an open relationship isn’t any harder than in a closed one… rules, you break them." — ding ding ding! that is correct! I'd say it's still harder though, if only because the rules are more open to discussion (if one can have an adult discussion, which he usually couldn't manage).
I’ve been told numerous times by men that they’re intimidated by my intelligence specifically. Every time a guy I’m into is like, “You’re probably smarter than me,” I’m always like, “Yeah, I probably am.” Hahaha. It tends to drive away the ones who are obsessed with weird gender roles because if a man can’t handle his woman being smarter than him if she just happens to be, he’s not worth my time anyways. I’m not dumbing myself down for a date. One of my exes understood how great having me around was because I could answer almost all of his random questions.
I find these guys are selling themselves short though. They have the ability to be really smart but they choose willful ignorance. They’d use hateful, ignorant words because it’s easier than learning why they shouldn’t and curbing their behavior. They’d rather stick to traditional gender roles because they cause the least social conflict directed at them.
Kinda related story. I recently met these three younger dudes (like 21, 22) who I was hanging out with and they were so into their gender roles that it was embarrassing. Like, two of them just up and fought with each other over some petty, perceived insult on the guy’s daughter (which wasn’t intended that way but it was interpreted that way). The one who took it as an insult wouldn’t accept that it wasn’t and was like, “Talk about my daughter again and I’ll knock you out,” and the one who said it thought it more important to be a “big man” who could “stand his ground” and, instead of being like, “Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way,” thought it necessary to say, “Yeah, try it, I’ll fuck you up.”
REALLY GUYS? These were good friends too. Of course being the non-drunk, older party, I felt I needed to try to interject. I eventually talked down the guy who said the original statement and he was telling me how he was too proud to back down. These guys were seriously lost souls, I’m not even kidding. And they were shocked at my banter and ability to make jokes, hold conversations, and make logical arguments. It’s as if they’d never met a woman who didn’t fit into the quiet, subservient, idiot stereotype.
See, this is the problem with gender roles. It leads people to make complete asses out of themselves for no good reason. If I meet people who I believe are smart and good hearted enough to learn, I can’t help but try and shake them loose of these boxes they’ve put themselves in.
This sounds kinda like the mentality of pretty much every mra ever.
“This sounds kinda like the mentality of pretty much every mra ever.”
Thinking is just so easy when you just clump all of your opposition into an inhuman, unfeeling monolith, isn’t it? You know every boyfriend who has ever dumped you? They’re probably all MRAs or “closet spearheaders.”
Oh, look, Mr. Prego Punchout himself’s trying to sneak in the last word.
Find any facts lately?
I don’t do any sneaking. I use a pseudonym because I don’t want to die. I’d call that more self-preservation than sneaking.
Or were you referring to something else?
Oh, it seems David has blocked links to avfm, or maybe it’s just a technical issue. I’m giving it 75-25 odds, respectively.
Anyway, I was just saying that anything you might confuse with sneaking is actually self-preservation.
ideologuereview — um, that was about one ex, mine, and I did the dumping…thinking is just so easy when you just clump all of your opposition into an inhuman, unfeeling monolith, isn’t it?
(And considering he was a gaslighting narcissist, yeah he probably is the MRA type, or would be if he ever discovered the MRM)
Again, having dated him, it was nothing of the sort — the person he was cheating on me with conned him out of a car and stole a painting (which he accused me of, that was funny, if I’d wanted to steal one of his paintings it wouldn’t have been that one).
You just keep commenting on things you know nothing about though, it’s funny to watch.
The spam filter grabbed it, for no apparent reason. It’s up now.
Are you ever right about anything, even by accident?
“Or were you referring to something else?”
Dude you posted on a days old dead thread to sneak in the last word, nobody cares that you use a pseudonym >.< (so yes, something else being your timing)
My second comment pertains to nothing apparently — I'd thought the self-preservation/sneaking "argument" was about the cheating ex maybe not sneaking, but it was not, so ignore me please.
IR/FF/PP: Um..,. nice try at the change of topic. No one is saying the use of a nom-de-net is “sneaking”. It’s that you came to a thread which is quiet, when another thread is being active enough to make it more likely your post will slip off the front page before anyone else notices.
Hence, “sneaking in the last word”.
As to your second link… What’s the connection? Do you have a spouse you think likely to kill you if she finds out about Preggo Punchout?
While the fifth survey in Steinmetz’s study (which was completed by Richard J. Gelles)
reported that men relied upon physical violence more frequently than women in their intimate relationships, such results need to be considered critically in light of the frequency
rates consistently reported by the other survey and perhaps more importantly, the skewed
nature of the sample gathered to be surveyed. In his 1974 survey, Gelles found, for example, that 11% of husbands and 5% of wives engaged in violent acts between two and six times a year. Steinmetz, supra note 6, at 503. For further discussion of the skewed nature of samples used in various domestic violence studies, see infra note 59 and accompanying text.
So… between 2 and 6 times in a year. Ok… what is the average? And what is the relative rate of incidence? Is the women = 2 and men =4?, or is it they equal the same?
By inference, the need to state the range, and then use it to compare to the women in the study implies to me the average is higher for men, in total incidents, and that the “an act of violence occurred during the year in question” is being used to mask that disparity.
Then again, this is a Law Review Article, citing a few of hundreds of studies which claim to show parity… as opposed to thousands of studies which show an asymetry†. Moreover the core studies in this article are based on the Conflict Tactics Scale, which has a significant amount of critique,
A “meta-study” analysing the the nature of this disparity includes the following facts:
Those who insist on gender symmetry must also account for two statistical anomalies.
First, there is the dramatic disproportion of women in shelters and hospital emergency
care facilities. Why is it that when we begin at the end of the domestic violence
experience – when we examine the serious injuries that often are its consequence — the
rates are so dramatically asymmetrical? Second, claims of gender symmetry in marital
violence must be squared with the empirical certainty that in every single other arena of
social life, men are far more disproportionately likely to use violence than women. Why
are women so much more violent in the home that their rates approach, or even exceed,
those of men, while in every other non-domestic arena men’s rates of violence are about nine times those of women (on rates of violence generally, see Kimmel, 2000)?
…These studies uniformly find dramatic gender asymmetry in rates of domestic violence.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of the one million cases of “intimate partner
violence” reported each year, female victims outnumber male victims by more than five
to one. In their analysis of police data, Dobash and Dobash (1979) for example, found
that only 1% of all domestic violence cases in two cities in Scotland were assaults by
wives. The National Crime Victimization Survey (1994) found females reported ten
times as many incidents of violence as men did – 3.9 incidents per 1,000 population for
male perpetrators, and 0.3 per 1,000 women (see also Dawson and Logan, 1994). The
NVAW found that men physically assaulted their partners at three times the rate in which
women assaulted their spouses.
Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
A report the The Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science but Michael Kimmel Professor of Sociology SUNY at Stony Brook
The parallel between the general rates of violence, and the specific rate of relative disparity in DoJ statistics is interesting.
But this, this law review article on domestic violence is why you are using a nom-de-net, and slinking into quiet threads to post?
Because of this you aver that posting on Manboobz is life-threatening?
Much be incredible to be so brave as to tell us how groupthinky we are.
† It’s important to note that the vast majority of the, “parity studies” are all using the same Conflict Tactics Scale as their measure of “violence”.
Here is the opening paragraph to the survey as administered (Straus, 1990):
Such a framing assumes that domestic violence is the result of an argument, that it has
more to do with being tired or in a bad mood than it does with an effort to control another
person. This may, of course, be true of a significant amount of domestic violence, but it
is certainly not true of all.
As we can see, the CTS asks about frequency, although only for one year. Asking how
often in the past year either spouse hit the other may capture some version of reality, but
does not capture an ongoing systematic pattern of abuse and violence over many years.
This is akin to the difference between watching a single frame of a movie and the movie
itself.
Context. The CTS simply counts acts of violence, but takes no account of the
circumstances under which these acts occur. Who initiates the violence, the relative size
and strength of the people involved, the nature of the relationship all will surely shape the
experience of the violence, but not the scores on the CTS. Thus, if she pushes him back
after being severely beaten, it would be scored one “conflict tactic” for each. And if she
punches him to get him to stop beating their children, or pushes him away after he has
sexually assaulted her, it would count as one for her, none for him. [Kimmel, link supra
So this is the operational definition of, “violence” the law review article is basing its arguments on. This definition is presented without explanation; thus allowing the reader to use his/her personal understanding, and almost assuring a conflation of all acts of interpersonal contact with the sort of thing which would lead to medical/police intervention were they to occur in public, when no such actuality exists.
Pecunium — ooh meta-analysis, fun! This is so much better written too.
From Pecunium’s meta-anaylsis — “The CTS lumps together many different forms of violence, so that a single slap may be equated with a more intensive assault.”
Yeah I’d caught they were equating “threw something” with “threatened with a weapon”…because those are equal? (Note, don’t throw things, but definitely don’t threaten with weapons)
It’d be like deciding a teenager shoplifting one thing to see if they can get away with it should be treated the same as an organized armed bank robbery, and it’s nonsense.
I acknowledged there was a quarter chance it was a technical issue. You have such a hate-on for avfm that I considered it a solid bet that you just block any links to them.
Oh, that snarky “little am I right about anything?” Well, while we’re in Insultville, I do have a job and could be self-employed if need be, so I know something about functioning and benefiting modern society. I mean, your blog where you spread awareness to likewise indoctrinated cronies is great and all, but you seem to be more interested in attacking and insulting people than improving anything.
IR/FF/PreggoPunchout, how goes the game development?
cloudiah — well enough he’s got a scene up too (IR that really needs to be behind a mature content warning, at the least)
Ironically, the random favorites are pro-slutwalk. o.O?
So you’re stuck in an embarrassing situation and are trying to divert attention away from it. It makes me think of a drunk heckler getting soundly debunked by a comedian, and then rebutting it by attacking his tie. Add to that the fact that the comedian is wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and you have a pretty good example of about 90% of the discussions you can have with a feminist.
ideologuereview — are you taking lessons from NWO in not making sense or from Aktivarum in not explaining antecedents? “So you’re stuck…” — who’s the “you” here? You can’t mean the meta-analysis unless you just failed to read it, it soundly debunks all the claims from you law journal link. Have the last two sentences as an example — “As concerned citizens, we need to be concerned about all victims of violence. And we must also be aware that the perpetrators of that violence – both in public and in private, at home or on the street, and whether the victim is male or female – are men.”
That’s after 20+ pages proving that, no really, they’re men — we can debate other causes for this though, if you want -
“Slightly more than 11% of women living with a same sex partner report being raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by a female cohabitant (compared with 30.4% of women with a livein male partner). About 15% of men living with a male live-in partner report having experienced violence (compared with 7.7% of men with female live-in partners). (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).”
Could be fun to see you have to admit that homophobia hurts male DV victims…
Oops, I should note for clarity that homophobia hurts female DV victims too, point was that IR doesn’t care about them.
Homophobia is indeed bad. It wasn’t hard at all for me to admit that.
Were you trying to convince me that I was homophobic or something? Nah, that would be gaslighting.
IR/FF/PP:
And what are you doing here besides quote mining for your little no-account blog no one but a few us might read?
Slow your roll, bullet train, you’re not exactly changing the world doing what you do.
ideologuereview — trying to convince you what you believe would indeed be gaslighting, merely assuming you share the common beliefs of MRAs is a simple mistake however. (And calling you a bit thick is a boring old insult) — Care to address the other set of numbers in my last quote?
hellkell — he’s not changing the world for the better anyways, wish I could confidently say he isn’t changing it at all >.<
I don’t see the big huffy deal about Reddit. It’s a hangout for young male people, this is just how it goes. If the site was female-dominated there would be similar bullshit about men. Anyway, I think it’s overstated because you have an entire subreddit devoted to pointing out things that are occasionally legit but mostly just stuff taken out of context.
Would there? I never realized pinterest was such a hotbed of anti-male bile.
Oh, Snowy, you know that’s just how it goes, so there’s no point in trying to do anything positive. As a matter of fact, we’re worse than reditt for pointing out some problems.
/sarcasm
It`s a hangout for racist, misogynistic manbabies who view any attempt to criticize their racist and misogynistic views at an attack on free speech. Also, they like to fantasize about fucking pubscent girls.
Please don`t make it seem like Redditors represent young men in general. Thanks
Signed,
A young man
Ooh, an actual example of begging the question!
“Anyway, I think it’s overstated because you have an entire subreddit devoted to pointing out things that are occasionally legit but mostly just stuff taken out of context.”
Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[14]
Premise — “just stuff taken out of context”; Conclusion — “overstated”; at least you got the “I think” part right.
“I don’t see the big huffy deal about Reddit. It’s a hangout for young male people…” — that’s the big deal, it isn’t merely “namely of interest to men” but “hateful towards women” — were they usually talking about topics that just didn’t interest many women, but no less polite to female redditers than male redditers, there wouldn’t be any issue. It’s that they’re rude or hateful to women; in other words, the “big huffy deal” is why it’s a hangout for young men, the answer to that “why?” being “because women get harassed into leaving (or going to specifically inclusive sub-reddits)”.
Make that — nice use of begging question, and what’s the big deal? What Crumbelievable said.
Um, ok.
The guy who tried, and failed, to make a video game based on pregnant women trying to make each other miscarry through violence thinks WE’RE embarrassed? That’s rich.
“Um, ok.”
*sigh* Let me make the meaning of “begging the question” more obvious — you tried providing the “big huffy deal” with reddit is “overstated” buy calling it “just stuff taken out of context”; overstated = overstated is tautological, and begging the question in this case. Not your fault everyone misuses “begging the question” but yeah, your conclusion (“overstated”) cannot simply be a restatement of your premise (“just stuff taken out of context”). Basically, you think in a circle here, but at least admit it’s just what you think.
If the issue is “but how is reddit a hang out for misogynists!” I cannot help you, that’s been explained twice now.
I think that a lot of the “misogyny” on Reddit is mostly a response to antifeminist resentment felt by the majority of Reddit’s userbase. I think they feel misrepresented by society and feminism, because they (as a whole) aren’t the Average Man. They probably couldn’t verbalize it but I think it’s true. You could disagree with their conclusions, obviously, but. That’s I think the situation.
Congrats, you have also just answered what the big deal is — plenty of people, dare I say most people even, feel misrepresented by society, the vast majority manage to feel this way without spewing hateful remarks though.
(And today’s run-on sentence award goes to… >.< sorry guys!)
In other words, ShitTroll would like us to know that the misogyny on Reddit is because of….feminism.
You know, I wonder how many MRAs think feminism is to blame for lousy weather.
Well personally, I don’t think male privilege exists to any meaningful degree for the younger generation. You can say that elite or attractive or “masculine” men get fawned over or whatever, but I wouldn’t call that “male privilege”, I’d call it something like “conforming privilege” or “masculine privilege” because women get it too if they are likewise at the top of the heap.
And I think, since Redditors skew young, they know this and there is antifeminist resentment because of it. I think it’s kind of dumb and immature, but I get the logic behind it.
Anyone else getting a certain vibe of that which shall not be named off our new friend Shiterotica? Just me?
Is Shiterotica sounding like an old troll that we thought we’d got rid of to anyone else?
Jinx.
Buy me a coke.
Never mind, just forget it.
Bye, shiterotica:
Aww man, it’s totally him.
I was on the other thread, and was ninja’d by you guys over here. Definitely him.
IR/FF/PP: Who changed the subject? Not I. You made claims (one of which is absurd on it’s face… that you use noms-de-net because you “don’t want to die”), and we responded to them.
You have not responded to those responses; rather you say we are changing the subject.
The ball’s in your court.
….Heehee, even if this were true, it’s no more than a Tu Quoque, coming from you XD
@MRAL: Get a fucking hobby, seriously. This is just pathetic.