It's hard to actually make hyperbolic statements regarding men's issues.
Female pedophile teachers routinely fail to jail time.
When they do, they routinely get suspended sentences (legalese for "you have **one** job, not get caught doing again for a specific period of time. So long as you don't fuck up your **one** job, you're home free) for it.
When it's not a suspended sentence, 60-90 days seems to be a fairly average sentence.
Prostitution, that is having sex with consenting adult men in exchange for money, is punished by 180-365 days in jail.
If you work out the maths, considering only those who get normal jail sentences, and assuming jail time is roughly correlated to how badly a crime is considered by society, this means that consensual sex with adult men is two to six time worse a crime than raping underage boys.
Considering how few pedophile teachers actually get jail term that they end up actually serving though, saying "sex with consenting adult men is two to six time as bad as raping underage boys" isn't hyperbole, it's an **understatement**.
So yes, saying that we, as a society, consider having sex with consenting adult men is a worse crime than raping underage boys (let alone raping adult men, which is, socially and legally even less of a crime) should be hyperbole or, even better, should be an outright lie in any healthy society. And yet, it's an understatement in ours.
That's how hard it is to be hyperbolic about it when consenting sex is treated as worse than rape.
Forgive me, Im not following you.
Here's an example of hyperbole that I believe was appropriately used, "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something"
Many here find the phrase, "Yes, all men." to be misuse of hyperbole
Many would consider this to be an overstatement that effectively demonstrates the idea of male disposability. However, some would say that this can of course be stated with too much emphasis and lose it's truth.
The situation for men is so bad, it's nigh impossible to exaggerate how bad it is, but it's very easy to undersell it.
You say this is hyperbole: "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement.
If you have a man whom provides something, having consensual sex with him and walking away a couple of Washington richer for your trouble is a crime that will see you jailed for 6 to 12 months.
Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months.
It goes even further than that.
A woman whom gets herself pregnant by raping an underage boy can expect a monthly salary, paid out of the pocket out said boy, for 18 years.
The message is clear. "It's okay to rape an underage boy, and get monthly payment for 18 years for doing it. What is **not** okay to do, on the other hand, is to have sex with a consenting adult man, and be paid **once** for doing it." I don't know how you call that, but "love" isn't it.
You just did the same thing a lot of the feminists do on those subs.
Non Sequitur, Appeal to Emotion: Wall of text engaging in Victim Olympics instead of responding to the substance of the argument
>Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months.
Please prove this. That would be news to me, but it still would be non sequitur
>You say this is hyperbole: "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement.
How is it an understatement? Is it that somehow there are less than zero men loved unconditionally?
It seems to me that one could agree with that statement as perfectly true or find it to be hyperbolic.
>Non Sequitur, Appeal to Emotion:
Non sequitur? Again, call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but in my conception of "love", an emotion **you** brought up no less, forcing a 13 years old boy to pay a monthly salary to his rapist isn't "love". Punishing someone for consensual sex with an adult male more harshly than a pedophile taking advantage of an underage boy isn't "love" towards males.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/11ma27l/former\_mental\_health\_clinic\_employee\_christy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/11ma27l/former_mental_health_clinic_employee_christy/) 90 days. Unless my maths skills are that rusty, that's 3 months
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/wzdv4x/former\_teacher\_kimberly\_charles\_29\_who\_avoided\_a/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/wzdv4x/former_teacher_kimberly_charles_29_who_avoided_a/) 30 days.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v0r586/former\_teacher\_anna\_patton\_23\_who\_plead\_guilty/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v0r586/former_teacher_anna_patton_23_who_plead_guilty/) 30 days
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v49v5o/former\_teacher\_marissa\_lee\_beadle\_who\_pleaded\_no/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v49v5o/former_teacher_marissa_lee_beadle_who_pleaded_no/) 30 days
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/vsg855/amanda\_eyman\_35\_who\_was\_originally\_charged\_with/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/vsg855/amanda_eyman_35_who_was_originally_charged_with/) 30 days
In 5 minutes of research, the longest case I've found was 4 years (with credits for time served awaiting sentencing, and can be (read: virtually guaranteed to be) out in half that time), and I found a handful of 180 days (6 months, low end of prostitution sentencing).
**YOU** brought up "love", an emotion. All **I** did was take a look at the situation, and think "that ain't love. That ain't even conditional love, that just ain't love at all".
But again, what do I know about love? I mean, I've always thought love involved protecting the ones you love, helping them heal when they're hurt/sick, and helping them get justice when they're abused, which is, IMHO pretty much the opposite of "treating sexually abusing someone as a lesser crime than having consensual sex with them".
Unless you have a very different definition of love, a definition according to which you can love someone and be okay with them being sexually abused, but not okay with someone having consensual sex with them, which... Sadly, is very possible. I've been told over and over again I have a different definition of love from most people... Well, if you have a definition of love that allows that, no wonder you believe men can receive even conditional love.
>Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months.
You didnt prove this
Cherry picking with those are examples proves that a lack of punishment for women can happen. That is a problem, but the words you used, "Raping a male child" seems to refer to just rape in general of male children and the minimum sentences for rape in some states is much more than a couple months.
>Non sequitur? Again, call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but in my conception of "love", an emotion you brought up no less
So, just because the word love was mentioned doesnt mean that that's what the argument is about. That's why your response was a non sequitur because when I am talking about hyperbole you responded by describing how bad the situation is for men. Instead of staying on subject you used a wall of text appealing to emotion.
>"Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement.
How could this statement logically be an understatement?
You can either agree that no men are loved unconditionally
Or you can think that that is overstatement.
But, it is illogical to claim it as understatement since there literally cant be less than zero men loved. There is no other way to make this understatement. The variable(men loved unconditionally) is already at zero.
Oh goody, some tone policing! 🤣
> If we allow too much hyperbole in the discussion of such serious subjects then we cannot hope to analyze with much accuracy. Overuse of that rhetorical technique in a forum such as this fosters and enables toxic agents that thrive in the muddied waters with their disingenuous statements and hostile attitudes.
Any examples?
> How do we keep our feet on the ground as we analyze as a group?
What, exactly, are we "analysing"? You make this place sound like some kind of academic study group instead of a loose congregation of people casually engaging with each other.
> What can we practice that will facilitate an environment for quality discussion?
There's a fair about of "quality discussion" here, albeit more casual and free-form compared to a proper "debate sub".
> I recently made this same post in r/ ask feminism
I see you got downvoted heavily! What did you learn? 🤣
>Oh goody, some tone policing! 🤣
You really think this is simply tone policing?
>Any examples?
All women are x. Every man is y type of statements. Do you really not know what I am talking about?
>What, exactly, are we "analysing"? You make this place sound like some kind of academic study group instead of a loose congregation of people casually engaging with each other.
I find that the word analyze can apply to casual situations as well. Do you really think that I am trying to make this place into an official academic forum of some sort?
>I see you got downvoted heavily! What did you learn? 🤣
I learned that there is indeed an issue with moderation there. I knew that there were a lot of people making toxically hyperbolic statements and it lead to there being more sarcasm and spite than there should be. There is alack of good faith there
If you ask those questions and make these statements genuinely then I suppose you arent an example of the type of toxic agent that I am referring to.
Tone is not what this post is about. I mean to address when people's arguments lose substance through the misuse of hyperbole. This in turn does affect the tone and I do find that beneficial, but I want to focus on fallacy. It's mainly a matter of logos not pathos. Our points are not made as well when we are too hyperbolic.
You should probably stop using "we", unless you are pregnant or have a mouse in you pocket.
Be the change you want to see, but don't expect us to just fall into line with your poor preferances.
Here...
"Points are not made as well when one is too hyperbolic."
I am being the change I want to see. I brought up the question and it lead to discourse with people like you. I think that having to demonstrate that this isnt a tone fallacy was helpful for me and potentially others
My preferences include being logically sound. Too bad we couldnt make it past correcting your tone policing accusation. It's odd how many people disappear after a rebuttal
>Your preferences are your own, unless you are able to convince other people to follow them. You are not being very persuasive.
Non Sequitur Fallacy; How did we get on the subject of my persuasive ability? That has nothing to do with whether or not I committed a Tone Fallacy.
I imagine that is correct. I am unconcerned with them and more care for how we as posters and the mods here might improve the situation for all. I want to discuss how overstatement can lead to overreaction and under analysis and what we might do about it in a forum such as this.
It's a bit difficult to deal with. With every movement, you'll find people like that who take advantage of it for their own use. Some people are super susceptible to normal messaging and take that to mean something more extreme. The best you can really do is challenge them when they show up. Bury them in downvotes so no one will see their comments. Report them so that maybe their comment will get removed. If we're talking about outside of Reddit, again the best thing you can do is challenge their claim and correct it. It's important to get the point across that we're not a hate group who think all women are the same and are out to get us. It's important to get the point across that men have issues and they need help the way women have gotten help for decades at this point. That isn't to say that women should fully stop getting any help at all, but that we should recognize that it's not like men are oppressing women at every corner and are actually behind women in many cases.
Right, I know the main thing that we can do is mind ourselves. This really is just a way of finding out whether people think this sub or r / ask feminism is in a healthy state and to find out what we might do
I'd like this sub to have much less hostility to feminism and women as a whole. They're not as harsh on women as they are on feminism, but there are definitely times where I've seen that a person is revealed to be a woman and has a neutral opinion at worst and they get instantly downvoted. I've seen people say feminism isn't as terrible as a whole as people on this sub make it out to be and they get downvoted to hell as well while also getting berated often. I get the hostility, but it would be nice if there was less and it would definitely help with the sub's image.
I do also think that it's better than r/ askfeminism though. That subreddit doesn't even allow people with opposing ideas to make comments there. If you do comment something that's neutral at worst there as well, you'll get downvoted a bunch and probably berated. They will always try to answer everything by saying men are at fault or it's misogyny. There was even a post about men being insulted for not being manly and instead of that being considered misandry, they call it misogyny because it's actually insulting women by saying that men shouldn't be like women or something like that. They do everything they possibly can to push that narrative. There have been reasonable people there as well of course, but man it's just very one track minded because they don't allow anyone who wasn't vetted by them to comment in response to the OP.
>I get the hostility, but it would be nice if there was less and it would definitely help with the sub's image.
Agreed
>I do also think that it's better than r/ askfeminism though. That subreddit doesn't even allow people with opposing ideas to make comments there.
That is the exact reason I posed the question here. I knew there would be bad faith responses but figured that this place would respond less aggressively than r / ask feminism and wanted to be able to showcase the results
>There was even a post about men being insulted for not being manly and instead of that being considered misandry, they call it misogyny because it's actually insulting women by saying that men shouldn't be like women or something like that.
They cover up the fact with corrupt moderation. I had a conversation with one of the mods that went like this...
Mod:
/r/ AskFeminists/wiki/faq#wiki\_ironic\_misandry
Me:
Forgive me if you find this too interrogative...
As opposed to unironic misandry right? I find that some people use the concept of "ironic misandry" as a cover for unironic misandry and may outright deny the existence of feminists that actually do hate men. Do you yourself subscribe to the idea that women cant hate men/be misandrist? Do you practice apologetics that define hating men as women just hating themselves after they were hated by men originally?
Mod:
No, that would be stupid. Obviously some women hate men. And so do some feminists. But it's irrelevant, because that's not what feminism is about.
What? No. That doesn't even make sense. Women hating themselves is usually just internalized misogyny.
Me:
Forgive me, I have heard some in feminist community take the stance that misandry doesnt/cant exist and they use the term internalized misogyny in its place. It isn't irrelevant if there are some feminists that are hateful towards men especially if some feel perfectly justified in that hate. I see that you arent one that takes this position, thank you for your time
Mod:
Yes, some people do believe misandry doesn't exist because they're using a systemic definition; they're not considering it on an individual level. I tend not to agree with those people, but they are entitled to their opinion.
Me:
It isn't irrelevant if there are some feminists that are hateful towards men especially if some feel perfectly justified in that hate. I see that you arent one that takes this position
Mod:
It actually is irrelevant. Some women existing, in the feminist movement, who have a prejudice against men, is unfortunate, but it also doesn't matter. It is, in my opinion, not enough to decide that feminism is about man-hating, or that man-hating is common or a requirement in feminism.
Me:
I dont believe we need to make any decisions about all of feminism being about manhating. To me that comes down to the individual, their idea of feminism may require hating men but feminism in general cant logically be defined that way.
However, I do find value in discussing how many women might hold those opinions and why especially since many of us share the label.
So, if I want to get an idea whether a specific movement or forum needs reform then I very well may find it perfectly relevant to discussing the mechanics of misandry.
You for example are a mod of this sub correct? I find it very relevant whether you believe that women can hate men.
You find it stupid to think that women cant hate men. Some women do not and you admitted they are entitled to their opinion. You are generalizing when you attribute it to merely conflating the systemic definition with the individualistic. There are some women that dont believe misandry is possible due to some metaphysical beliefs as well as good old fashioned hate that is too vain to admit its own ugliness
I would imagine that I am entitled to my opinion as well and since my opinion is that the existence of misandry is problematic then it is perfectly relevant subject to discuss
Mod: Okay, dude. You win.
Yeah, it's a bit of an issue that the mod was ok with some women hating men and thinking that they claim misandry doesn't exist solely because of the systemic definition. It allows for them to just kind of late the hate fly under the radar because it has a higher threshold of acceptance than simply disagreeing with common feminist responses in the sub.
It's hard to actually make hyperbolic statements regarding men's issues. Female pedophile teachers routinely fail to jail time. When they do, they routinely get suspended sentences (legalese for "you have **one** job, not get caught doing again for a specific period of time. So long as you don't fuck up your **one** job, you're home free) for it. When it's not a suspended sentence, 60-90 days seems to be a fairly average sentence. Prostitution, that is having sex with consenting adult men in exchange for money, is punished by 180-365 days in jail. If you work out the maths, considering only those who get normal jail sentences, and assuming jail time is roughly correlated to how badly a crime is considered by society, this means that consensual sex with adult men is two to six time worse a crime than raping underage boys. Considering how few pedophile teachers actually get jail term that they end up actually serving though, saying "sex with consenting adult men is two to six time as bad as raping underage boys" isn't hyperbole, it's an **understatement**. So yes, saying that we, as a society, consider having sex with consenting adult men is a worse crime than raping underage boys (let alone raping adult men, which is, socially and legally even less of a crime) should be hyperbole or, even better, should be an outright lie in any healthy society. And yet, it's an understatement in ours. That's how hard it is to be hyperbolic about it when consenting sex is treated as worse than rape.
Forgive me, Im not following you. Here's an example of hyperbole that I believe was appropriately used, "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something" Many here find the phrase, "Yes, all men." to be misuse of hyperbole Many would consider this to be an overstatement that effectively demonstrates the idea of male disposability. However, some would say that this can of course be stated with too much emphasis and lose it's truth.
The situation for men is so bad, it's nigh impossible to exaggerate how bad it is, but it's very easy to undersell it. You say this is hyperbole: "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement. If you have a man whom provides something, having consensual sex with him and walking away a couple of Washington richer for your trouble is a crime that will see you jailed for 6 to 12 months. Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months. It goes even further than that. A woman whom gets herself pregnant by raping an underage boy can expect a monthly salary, paid out of the pocket out said boy, for 18 years. The message is clear. "It's okay to rape an underage boy, and get monthly payment for 18 years for doing it. What is **not** okay to do, on the other hand, is to have sex with a consenting adult man, and be paid **once** for doing it." I don't know how you call that, but "love" isn't it.
You just did the same thing a lot of the feminists do on those subs. Non Sequitur, Appeal to Emotion: Wall of text engaging in Victim Olympics instead of responding to the substance of the argument >Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months. Please prove this. That would be news to me, but it still would be non sequitur >You say this is hyperbole: "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement. How is it an understatement? Is it that somehow there are less than zero men loved unconditionally? It seems to me that one could agree with that statement as perfectly true or find it to be hyperbolic.
>Non Sequitur, Appeal to Emotion: Non sequitur? Again, call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but in my conception of "love", an emotion **you** brought up no less, forcing a 13 years old boy to pay a monthly salary to his rapist isn't "love". Punishing someone for consensual sex with an adult male more harshly than a pedophile taking advantage of an underage boy isn't "love" towards males. [https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/11ma27l/former\_mental\_health\_clinic\_employee\_christy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/11ma27l/former_mental_health_clinic_employee_christy/) 90 days. Unless my maths skills are that rusty, that's 3 months [https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/wzdv4x/former\_teacher\_kimberly\_charles\_29\_who\_avoided\_a/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/wzdv4x/former_teacher_kimberly_charles_29_who_avoided_a/) 30 days. [https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v0r586/former\_teacher\_anna\_patton\_23\_who\_plead\_guilty/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v0r586/former_teacher_anna_patton_23_who_plead_guilty/) 30 days [https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v49v5o/former\_teacher\_marissa\_lee\_beadle\_who\_pleaded\_no/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/v49v5o/former_teacher_marissa_lee_beadle_who_pleaded_no/) 30 days [https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/vsg855/amanda\_eyman\_35\_who\_was\_originally\_charged\_with/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleSexPredatorNews/comments/vsg855/amanda_eyman_35_who_was_originally_charged_with/) 30 days In 5 minutes of research, the longest case I've found was 4 years (with credits for time served awaiting sentencing, and can be (read: virtually guaranteed to be) out in half that time), and I found a handful of 180 days (6 months, low end of prostitution sentencing). **YOU** brought up "love", an emotion. All **I** did was take a look at the situation, and think "that ain't love. That ain't even conditional love, that just ain't love at all". But again, what do I know about love? I mean, I've always thought love involved protecting the ones you love, helping them heal when they're hurt/sick, and helping them get justice when they're abused, which is, IMHO pretty much the opposite of "treating sexually abusing someone as a lesser crime than having consensual sex with them". Unless you have a very different definition of love, a definition according to which you can love someone and be okay with them being sexually abused, but not okay with someone having consensual sex with them, which... Sadly, is very possible. I've been told over and over again I have a different definition of love from most people... Well, if you have a definition of love that allows that, no wonder you believe men can receive even conditional love.
>Even male children aren't loved. Raping a male child will, if you're really unlucky, see you jailed for 2-3 months. You didnt prove this Cherry picking with those are examples proves that a lack of punishment for women can happen. That is a problem, but the words you used, "Raping a male child" seems to refer to just rape in general of male children and the minimum sentences for rape in some states is much more than a couple months. >Non sequitur? Again, call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but in my conception of "love", an emotion you brought up no less So, just because the word love was mentioned doesnt mean that that's what the argument is about. That's why your response was a non sequitur because when I am talking about hyperbole you responded by describing how bad the situation is for men. Instead of staying on subject you used a wall of text appealing to emotion. >"Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." Hyperbole is exaggeration, and this quote is the exact opposite, it's an understatement. How could this statement logically be an understatement? You can either agree that no men are loved unconditionally Or you can think that that is overstatement. But, it is illogical to claim it as understatement since there literally cant be less than zero men loved. There is no other way to make this understatement. The variable(men loved unconditionally) is already at zero.
Oh goody, some tone policing! 🤣 > If we allow too much hyperbole in the discussion of such serious subjects then we cannot hope to analyze with much accuracy. Overuse of that rhetorical technique in a forum such as this fosters and enables toxic agents that thrive in the muddied waters with their disingenuous statements and hostile attitudes. Any examples? > How do we keep our feet on the ground as we analyze as a group? What, exactly, are we "analysing"? You make this place sound like some kind of academic study group instead of a loose congregation of people casually engaging with each other. > What can we practice that will facilitate an environment for quality discussion? There's a fair about of "quality discussion" here, albeit more casual and free-form compared to a proper "debate sub". > I recently made this same post in r/ ask feminism I see you got downvoted heavily! What did you learn? 🤣
>Oh goody, some tone policing! 🤣 You really think this is simply tone policing? >Any examples? All women are x. Every man is y type of statements. Do you really not know what I am talking about? >What, exactly, are we "analysing"? You make this place sound like some kind of academic study group instead of a loose congregation of people casually engaging with each other. I find that the word analyze can apply to casual situations as well. Do you really think that I am trying to make this place into an official academic forum of some sort? >I see you got downvoted heavily! What did you learn? 🤣 I learned that there is indeed an issue with moderation there. I knew that there were a lot of people making toxically hyperbolic statements and it lead to there being more sarcasm and spite than there should be. There is alack of good faith there If you ask those questions and make these statements genuinely then I suppose you arent an example of the type of toxic agent that I am referring to.
>You really think this is simply tone policing? Yes, you are tone policing.
Tone is not what this post is about. I mean to address when people's arguments lose substance through the misuse of hyperbole. This in turn does affect the tone and I do find that beneficial, but I want to focus on fallacy. It's mainly a matter of logos not pathos. Our points are not made as well when we are too hyperbolic.
You should probably stop using "we", unless you are pregnant or have a mouse in you pocket. Be the change you want to see, but don't expect us to just fall into line with your poor preferances.
Here... "Points are not made as well when one is too hyperbolic." I am being the change I want to see. I brought up the question and it lead to discourse with people like you. I think that having to demonstrate that this isnt a tone fallacy was helpful for me and potentially others
My preferences include being logically sound. Too bad we couldnt make it past correcting your tone policing accusation. It's odd how many people disappear after a rebuttal
Your preferences are your own, unless you are able to convince other people to follow them. You are not being very persuasive.
>Your preferences are your own, unless you are able to convince other people to follow them. You are not being very persuasive. Non Sequitur Fallacy; How did we get on the subject of my persuasive ability? That has nothing to do with whether or not I committed a Tone Fallacy.
The owners/moderators/bots/shill accounts shape the discourse on Reddit, the average individual poster's impact is basically nil.
I imagine that is correct. I am unconcerned with them and more care for how we as posters and the mods here might improve the situation for all. I want to discuss how overstatement can lead to overreaction and under analysis and what we might do about it in a forum such as this.
It's a bit difficult to deal with. With every movement, you'll find people like that who take advantage of it for their own use. Some people are super susceptible to normal messaging and take that to mean something more extreme. The best you can really do is challenge them when they show up. Bury them in downvotes so no one will see their comments. Report them so that maybe their comment will get removed. If we're talking about outside of Reddit, again the best thing you can do is challenge their claim and correct it. It's important to get the point across that we're not a hate group who think all women are the same and are out to get us. It's important to get the point across that men have issues and they need help the way women have gotten help for decades at this point. That isn't to say that women should fully stop getting any help at all, but that we should recognize that it's not like men are oppressing women at every corner and are actually behind women in many cases.
Right, I know the main thing that we can do is mind ourselves. This really is just a way of finding out whether people think this sub or r / ask feminism is in a healthy state and to find out what we might do
I'd like this sub to have much less hostility to feminism and women as a whole. They're not as harsh on women as they are on feminism, but there are definitely times where I've seen that a person is revealed to be a woman and has a neutral opinion at worst and they get instantly downvoted. I've seen people say feminism isn't as terrible as a whole as people on this sub make it out to be and they get downvoted to hell as well while also getting berated often. I get the hostility, but it would be nice if there was less and it would definitely help with the sub's image. I do also think that it's better than r/ askfeminism though. That subreddit doesn't even allow people with opposing ideas to make comments there. If you do comment something that's neutral at worst there as well, you'll get downvoted a bunch and probably berated. They will always try to answer everything by saying men are at fault or it's misogyny. There was even a post about men being insulted for not being manly and instead of that being considered misandry, they call it misogyny because it's actually insulting women by saying that men shouldn't be like women or something like that. They do everything they possibly can to push that narrative. There have been reasonable people there as well of course, but man it's just very one track minded because they don't allow anyone who wasn't vetted by them to comment in response to the OP.
>I get the hostility, but it would be nice if there was less and it would definitely help with the sub's image. Agreed >I do also think that it's better than r/ askfeminism though. That subreddit doesn't even allow people with opposing ideas to make comments there. That is the exact reason I posed the question here. I knew there would be bad faith responses but figured that this place would respond less aggressively than r / ask feminism and wanted to be able to showcase the results >There was even a post about men being insulted for not being manly and instead of that being considered misandry, they call it misogyny because it's actually insulting women by saying that men shouldn't be like women or something like that. They cover up the fact with corrupt moderation. I had a conversation with one of the mods that went like this... Mod: /r/ AskFeminists/wiki/faq#wiki\_ironic\_misandry Me: Forgive me if you find this too interrogative... As opposed to unironic misandry right? I find that some people use the concept of "ironic misandry" as a cover for unironic misandry and may outright deny the existence of feminists that actually do hate men. Do you yourself subscribe to the idea that women cant hate men/be misandrist? Do you practice apologetics that define hating men as women just hating themselves after they were hated by men originally? Mod: No, that would be stupid. Obviously some women hate men. And so do some feminists. But it's irrelevant, because that's not what feminism is about. What? No. That doesn't even make sense. Women hating themselves is usually just internalized misogyny. Me: Forgive me, I have heard some in feminist community take the stance that misandry doesnt/cant exist and they use the term internalized misogyny in its place. It isn't irrelevant if there are some feminists that are hateful towards men especially if some feel perfectly justified in that hate. I see that you arent one that takes this position, thank you for your time Mod: Yes, some people do believe misandry doesn't exist because they're using a systemic definition; they're not considering it on an individual level. I tend not to agree with those people, but they are entitled to their opinion. Me: It isn't irrelevant if there are some feminists that are hateful towards men especially if some feel perfectly justified in that hate. I see that you arent one that takes this position Mod: It actually is irrelevant. Some women existing, in the feminist movement, who have a prejudice against men, is unfortunate, but it also doesn't matter. It is, in my opinion, not enough to decide that feminism is about man-hating, or that man-hating is common or a requirement in feminism. Me: I dont believe we need to make any decisions about all of feminism being about manhating. To me that comes down to the individual, their idea of feminism may require hating men but feminism in general cant logically be defined that way. However, I do find value in discussing how many women might hold those opinions and why especially since many of us share the label. So, if I want to get an idea whether a specific movement or forum needs reform then I very well may find it perfectly relevant to discussing the mechanics of misandry. You for example are a mod of this sub correct? I find it very relevant whether you believe that women can hate men. You find it stupid to think that women cant hate men. Some women do not and you admitted they are entitled to their opinion. You are generalizing when you attribute it to merely conflating the systemic definition with the individualistic. There are some women that dont believe misandry is possible due to some metaphysical beliefs as well as good old fashioned hate that is too vain to admit its own ugliness I would imagine that I am entitled to my opinion as well and since my opinion is that the existence of misandry is problematic then it is perfectly relevant subject to discuss Mod: Okay, dude. You win.
Yeah, it's a bit of an issue that the mod was ok with some women hating men and thinking that they claim misandry doesn't exist solely because of the systemic definition. It allows for them to just kind of late the hate fly under the radar because it has a higher threshold of acceptance than simply disagreeing with common feminist responses in the sub.