Men’s Rights Redditors discover a new woman to hate (and it’s one of the ones I wrote about in my last post)
Reading comprehension: a bit of a problem for the angry dude crowd. So in my post earlier today I wrote about a Redditdude who got so angry reading a relatively innocuous Forbes column by a WOMAN ON TEH INTERNET that he called her a “cunt” and threatened to murder people and got more than a thousand net upvotes. All based on a complete misreading of her article, of which he obviously only skimmed the first paragraph.
Well, now the Men’s Rights subreddit has gotten hold of the Forbes column, and they too are pig-biting mad – not so much at the column itself, which it’s clear not many of them have actually read, but at a straw column they’ve written in their heads which is nothing but EEEVIL MISANDRY.
To reiterate: Kashmir Hill’s column in Forbes notes that some people have come to regard people without Facebook accounts as somehow suspect in our hyper-connected world. Hill finds this a bit silly, and writes:
The idea that a Facebook resister is a potential mass murderer, flaky employee, and/or person who struggles with fidelity is obviously flawed. There are people who choose not to be Facebookers for myriad non-psychopathic reasons: because they find it too addictive, or because they hold their privacy dear, or because they don’t actually want to know what their old high school buddies are up to. My own boyfriend isn’t on Facebook and I don’t hold it against him (too much).
Note to the painfully literal: that parenthetical “too much” in the last sentence is what’s called a “joke.”
Naturally, Reddit’s Men’s Rights squad, not having read much beyond the sarcastic title of Hill’s piece (“Beware, Tech Abandoners. People Without Facebook Accounts Are ‘Suspicious.’”) has concluded that she’s an evil misandrist who’s demonizing men without Facebook as creepy psychopaths. Yes, in addition to getting the argument of her piece completely backwards, they’ve also decided that it’s all about men.
MauraLoona, who submitted the link under the misleading title “Men without Facebook: You’re suspicious and potential stalkers, creeps, and psychopaths” explains in a comment:
While the article uses gender neutral pronouns in some places, the message is obvious: This suspicion is directed at men.
I suspect this might be a case of xenophobia: “I am a woman and love technology, so if you’re a man and don’t share that love for technology, you’re suspicious.”
JohnTheOther, a virtuoso in the fine art of getting things wrong, offers this take:
Forbes, apparently is now in the business of creating boogiemen. No evidence of anything equates to evidence of sinister intent. What utter fear-mongering drivel.
And our old friend Liverotto concludes that when Hill says she doesn’t hold her boyfriend’s lack of a Facebook account against him (much), she’s just lying, like women do:
Yes, of course, she doesn’t hold it against him, that’s why she wrote a full article about people without Facebook being suspicious.
Women are just liars, that’s it, that’s all it is, liars and dissimulators, if you trust what a woman says you are naive.
MRAs really do live in imaginary backwards land, don’t they?
Like this:
Posted on August 8, 2012, in creep-shaming, facepalm, hundreds of upvotes, imaginary backwards land, johntheother, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reddit and tagged creep-shaming, facepalm, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 308 Comments.
@hellkell
I was rather impressed with “falled”. I mean, fucking THAT up post elementary is pretty fucking impressive
Aw man, I always miss the trolls! Silly home internet issues. (and by internet issues I mean, total lack of motivation to read the gross wankings of our troll shitlords on my downtime).
I always have to laugh at the ones who are all “show me the misogyny you bitchez and manginas!”
LOL. Dude, look in the fucking mirror. It’s not that we can’t provide “proof” of widespread misogyny, it’s that you don’t see a problem with things that are misogynist. It’s not that rape culture “doesn’t exist” it’s that you don’t see a problem with the things that contribute to it. You can’t explain clouds to someone who refuses to believe in the sky.
her take down of Twilight was not as good sadly but it lacked the gifs that I think really made the review.
Crusader: What strawman? This is the bread and butter of, “The Movement” (as Varpole likes to style it).
What are these legitimate concerns you think feminism ignores?
Where are the moderate MRAs?
Please share them with us, we’d love to talk to them; because all we get are people like the ones in the OP.
pecunium you know he’s banned, right?
Crusader: Those are only Mangina cherry-picking extremists/being bigoted towards the MRA movement. There is no evidence that the majority of MRAs believe in those posts.
That’s your claim. Ok, back it up. We, obviously, aren’t smart enough to find all the moderates in the majority of the movement. So show us where they are.
We have only what we can find to go on.
So, please, show us the error of our ways.
On that Captain Awkward link:
I was in a Spanish class in high school run by a professor who was way into talking about human rights and tolerance and interdependence. This was also the class I shared with Mr. Creepy, who had a history of documented sexual harassment. I was his chosen victim. I didn’t do much, except spend half my time in class trying to get away from him-which was hard, because he always tried to sit near me when we changed our seating arrangements. He’d come over and lean over me and I’d hunch down and try not to notice him. He’d steal my homework to make me come see him.
Then one day, after he’d loomed over me again, I looked up to find my purse gone, so I immediately freaked out and blamed him-this is the first time I’d spoken out about his treatment. Well, he didn’t have the purse-some of his friends did. (I’m sure he inspired them-after all, the only time I was distracted enough for them to go for it was when I was focusing on him.
You know what the teacher said? “Sometimes, when guys like you, they play tricks.”
First off, Goddamn it, we were fucking seniors in fucking high school. (This I thought-I was to shocked to say anything.) Second off, did you not notice I spent half my time in your class avoiding this creeper? No? Hmm, I thought it would be bleeding obvious when I’m hunched over my desk and he’s leaning over me.
I finally ended up sending her an email about this two years later, basically saying when she sees stuff like this she’s probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and that by brushing it off she tells students that she won’t listen to them when things go wrong. That was the lesson I learned, anyway.
Choose wisely?
Someone else has used that phrase… anyone remember whom?
re voting at reddit: The total is accurate, but the specific numbers aren’t. They say they do this to reduce system gaming; and the implication is the ratio is about right.
But it’s frustrating as all hell to know that the actual numbers aren’t real, just valid.
Ah… I missed all the “fun”.
Where are the trolls of yesteryear? This new crop is all over the top, no subtlety, no sense of craft.
You would think that women would prefer a guy without a Fuckbook page. They’re not on there connecting with old friends and ex-lovers. But that would be common sense. Women want a man with lots of fuckbook friends. They’d rather share a man with them than get with a man without a facebook.
Just to make clear to those who are just catching up with the comments here, I banned ConservativeCrusader after he started posting rape joke after rape joke. I deleted those after I banned him. He wasn’t banned for disagreeing.
@Buttman aw someone has a sad cuz he had more people click ‘decline’ than ‘accept’ to his friend requests.
I’m almost positive it’s possible to both have a Facebook page and not be a cheating scumbag. Like, at the same time.
Those MRAs really enjoy putting their dumbassery on display.
He wasn’t banned for disagreeing.
A likely story. As far as CC is concerned, this was the worst atrocity since Mussolini used Zyklon B to bomb Pearl Harbor, which was supported by anyone who ever wanted the trains to run on time. LOGIC!
You would think that people in a functional relationship wouldn’t sit around expending energy trying to limit their partner’s cheating options. But that would be a functional relationship, and MRAs are more likely to believe in unicorns.
@Wordspinner: That’s fucked up. It’s extra ridiculous to say that guys “play tricks on girls they like” when they’re your age, but I really don’t think it should be tolerated among kids either. That it’s okay for boys to steal things from girls, taunt them, pull their hair etc if they do it out of “affection” is like the elementary school version of rape culture.
It’s not just MRAs who put their dumbassery on display, ruby.
@ Dvarghundspossen
I agree with you about the elementary school harassment-I think that is where the socialization to shut up and take it starts. The worst part about my harassment, though, was the fact that I second-guessed my decision to stop responding to him-looking away, refusing to acknowledge that he was talking to me, etc, because we all know how horrible women who socially ostracize people are. Nevermind that not only were we not friends, we weren’t even part of the same friend group-there’s no reason why I should have to talk with everybody, especially if they’ve abused that privilege in the past.
lol wut?
Um, no. You really know nothing about women. Stop reading MRA/PUA blogs to learn about women. Would you read Mein Kampf to learn about Jewish culture?
conservatives, sorry ‘libertarians’ are absolutely pigfucking awful at satire, that’s what
Christ, CC’s blog is like a humongous slippery slope fallacy wrapped up in an army of straw men.
>I wouldn’t be an MRA if feminists weren’t so bitchy and hateful towards men.
Hey, if I had to pay a penny for every instance of feminists invading MRA-blogs, I would lose very little cash.
now if a penny was spent on funding some project pertaining improving the situation of men every time some MRA invaded a feminist blogs, the movement would never be strapped for cash.
My partner doesn’t happen to have a Facebook account, and that’s fine. But if he did, and was connecting with his old friends and exes, I’m deeply confused as to why I would object to that. Am I supposed to want him not to have any friends besides me? Because that seems pretty damn weird and horrible. I’m really, really okay with “sharing” him with the world in the sense that he interacts with people who are not me sometimes, and it’s fairly concerning that you apparently think the solution to fears about your partner’s fidelity isn’t “date someone you trust” but rather “try to prevent your partner from ever talking to other people.”
@Buttman
Did someone reject your advances citing your lack of Facebook account? If so, I’m just gonna give you a pro tip: That was her way of letting you down easy. In reality you were probably just creeping here out. Sorry “cr**ping her out”.
I suspect they’d act the same way even if feminism didn’t exist. The hatred of women is there anyway, it just gets prodded a bit by it not being acceptable to all and sundry anymore. Back in the day they’d have probably blamed women for not being available to them when the women were sold in the slave market. Feminism just gives them that nice martyr’s-crown glow when the property gets uppity.
::crosses fingers hoping first-ever attempt at block quote works::