11/23 Free choice. Making mountains out of mole hills.

I was browsing around, reading some comments about various articles, when one remark on CremasterGuy's own submission about a Jezebel article caught my eye:

Well, pal, we're fucked if we do and fucked if we don't. One of the services provided by this haven is to actually show the misandry. If your order were the rule, this subreddit would be a pretty lonely place.

I was pretty surprised about MR being a place primarily to showcase misandry. On the surface, MR seems to be more focused on expanding men's rights (reproductive rights, custody, stuff like that), but to purposefully hunt down and extrapolate misandry from feminist blogs or women-centered websites.. that was a bit surprising, but shouldn't be been, considering the conversations that go on in this subreddit. I guess I was being too hopeful that they would be concentrating their efforts on things that advance the MR movement, instead of regressing what women have done for their own gender issues.

What I feel is an underlying (but major) issue with MR is their ability to misconstrue and misrepresent any sort of feminist literature, female empowerment, or otherwise female-concerned issue, and to wring it out until they can tweeze out some vague misandric references. When I looked at Jezebel, my initial thought was this advertising campaign was aimed at people in countries where they commit female infanticide, or otherwise harm and mistreat females due to their unworthiness compared to sons. Even if the ads weren't, it still relates heavily to the discussion of females in China, for example, and this was not at all discussed in MR. The discussion on this article segued into another hateful venting about feminism, which nevadawildfires posted his endearing thoughts about:

Feminists are like locusts and feminism is the plague they spread. Jezebel is heavily infested. Skimming that all I can say is that we need to bring out the flamethrowers and torch them all until only smoking cinders remain.

(I will note that while his submission was downvoted, this attitude is not always very far from the general mindset of the community.)

 Jezebel's article was not about degrading men, but it instead, it wanted to highlight an important issue about rearing children, and the value (or lack thereof) that daughters have around the world. The advertising campaign almost seemed like a tongue-in-cheek approach -- unless you have the money to blow for a lab and a scientist to craft your specifically-chosen gendered baby, you can't just "decide" to have a girl or not. It wanted to underline the importance of accepting female children, and not throwing them away/abandoning them/whatever other horrible things in favor of having a hopeful son. Obviously, this just flew right over the heads of the MR participants, which makes me a little more angry, and a lot more saddened that there is such a vile, hateful discussion constantly going on in this subreddit.

November 16 - Methodology

1) Site--Where did you conduct your research? Why?
All research was conducted by investigating the subreddit MensRights (MR), and finding specific users to look at their post history in participation of any other subreddit. Since users can post wherever they want, and it being a site where users rarely keep to just on subreddit, other posts would further the understanding of the user's nature and behavior on the site as a whole.

2) Participants--Who did you study in your project? Why?
I kept my eye partially fixated on the moderators, like kloo2yoo (who is also the creator of MR), AnnArchist, and ignatiousloyola. However, because of the nature of posting (as well as the system of up/downvoting), I would simply pick posters who were more involved or vehement in their opinions. This is something that changes daily, if not hourly, based on the popularity of certain discussion threads. Typically, as is the fashion with the design of Reddit, the more popular a topic is, the more likely it is controversial/a hot topic/otherwise engaging. 


3) Self--What role did you play in your site?
I initially wanted to participate under a pseudonym so as to not link my real account to the discussion, but I realized that I might, purposely or not, affect the conversation to gain results that would corroborate my assumptions of the participants. Instead, I lurked and just read conversations (and restrained myself from responding, which took a considerable amount of willpower at times).

4) Data--What kinds of data did you collect? How did you collect it?
The best types of data collection would be screen captures of conversations, which allow for unadulterated chunks of discussion to be shared.

5) Analysis--How did you analyze your data?
One of the major issues I was looking for (again, based on my understanding of how Reddit works) was how outsiders were treated and voted. Not surprisingly, participants who did not align with the great majority of MR were downvoted into oblivion, talked down to, or a combination of both. I analyzed the interaction between MR members and those not indoctrinated within the MR movement (at least in the context of Reddit).

6) Tradition(s)--What major research tradition(s) did you draw upon to conduct your study?

I'm leaving this open for future editing..

Article relation

Admittedly, it's a little hard to find something quite specific for the topic I'm investigating. How does one really narrow down a search for "misogynistic, basement-dwelling, neck-bearded, spiteful-of-women nerd communities?" Instead, I did a general search, using terms such as "trolling internet forums" and "online harassment." One article I found was about a feminist message board sieged by trolls, yet regardless of gender, what was studied is still applicable to the forum I an analyzing -- the behaviors, motives, and interactions are similar, and produce similar results.


While MR (Men's Rights) does not actively pursue trolling other subreddits, nor does it endorse such behaviors, they do display similar behavioral tendencies toward outsiders who post in MR. (One must also consider the possibility that MR subscribers may go into other subreddits to troll, but again, this isn't something that is condoned openly by the community.) 


Trolling, in this article, is defined as "luring others into pointless and timeconsuming discussions" (Herring, et al, 372), although we can also recognize the more historical troll as the "fictional monster waiting under the bridge to snare innocent bystanders" (372). 


A quick screen capture from the front page of MR indicates some of the specific language that posters use (red underlines are mine; I wanted to highlight some of the purposeful language used):

Additionally, going under the "controversial" tab reveals further inflammatory discussions. ("Controversial" ratings are calculated by the amount of "downvotes" it receives. Discussions that are avidly voted upon, but have a low overall score are filed under "controversial")

"A quick question for you /mensrights/" begins with a post from the original poster, KaseyKasem

Why is it that in a situation where two drunk people sex, the man is always the aggressor? I understand rape is very serious, but it seems like it's a weapon that only women can use against men. If they wake up in the morning and realize that they DIDN'T want to have sex with that guy, he "raped" them. This completely negates the fact that this so-called "aggressor" could have been equally as drunk and consenting. Women are the de jure victims. I don't think I've seen a case like this where the woman was held responsible for taking advantage of a drunk man.

A selection of responses are as follows:

girlwriteswhat: Because society (and feminism) sees women as objects that are acted upon, and women's sexuality as something sacred, while they see men as agents who act upon others and who are always up for getting laid.

Also, society (and feminism) prioritizes the protection of women, therefore when women are harmed (even by their own idiot decisions), it is obvious that they were not protected properly by the man.

T3ST1CL3: Women want to monopolize sympathy. Yet all the evidence is that men deserve more sympathy.

ghbert001: Women don't want to be held accountable for their bad decision making. Women want have the privilege of being a total fuck-nut while under the influence of alcohol and then be able to say "Oops, sorry I was drunk, not my fault, tee-hee!". In some cases you'd be considered lucky if you even get an "I'm sorry". 

Another low-voted discussion entitled "Am I missing the point?" original poster bannister0142 asked the community:

Hey Mens Rights? I joined a few weeks ago and I'm kind of confused by what I see here. Let me preface by saying I'm putting down anyone's point of view, I'm just trying to get an idea of what they are so I can decide if this is a place I'm interested in spending time and energy.

What I see in this subreddit is mostly anti-feminist sentiment and people who feel threatened by the feminist movement. They don't support the changes to our society. There also appears to be a lot of attention paid to examples of women doing horrible things to men, and a lot of accusations or examples of women "crying rape" What I don't see Conversations and debates about masculinity, society and what it means to be a man. Discussions about real problems men face and the pressures our culture puts on them. Questions about how we can improve these problems Am I way off base here I honestly want to know. Like I said, I have no judgements either way. But I don't want to waste my time here if there aren't the conversations I'm looking to have.

Some of the selected responses: 

 smartsenior: Your post looks like concern trolling to me.

white_cloud: If I may be so blunt, I have seen your kind before. You are the kind who is quite frankly ignorant of men's rights issues, as you have not spent the time and effort that some of us have to educate ourselves about these issues. You come in here with some vague notion, probably derived from a feminist-inspired source, about how men have problems due to "masculinity, society, what it means to be a man, and the pressures that our culture puts on men" (your words). I've seen it before. In your shallow understanding of the problems faced by men, you cannot yet see beyond these mere buzzwords into the deeper, much deeper problems that males face (the things I mentioned before). 

PierceHarlan: You've obviously never been falsely accused of rape.

thingsarebad: This sub-reddit is mostly just a place for people to vent, whine, complain, and post frivolous, sensational stories.

There are a few real MRAs here, and a few people who actually get the whole picture, and occasionally a few people here will help someone in need, but mostly this sub-reddit is full of people who don't actually want to solve the problems our society has but only wish to complain about them. [Note: This post was downvoted so much, it reached a negative score]

moscova89: THANK YOU! [Note: Also downvoted into the negatives]

So while MR is not purposely engaging in external trolling, there are moments when they troll or condescend outsiders, or posters who post against the accepted community's grain. 


The article analyzed an incident where a poster named "Kent" willfully interrupted discussion on a feminist forum that was advocating gun control. Like the defensive posts on MR, Kent portrayed himself "rigorous and principled as regards the rules of debate, and potentially cooperative if others meet his conditions (providing proofs, answering his questions, etc.)" (375)." Such techniques are often employed, in order to elevate the poster to a supposed standard of authority and correctness, which will allow them to speak down to outsiders. This behavior creates an illusion that they are "fighting" fairly, and when they are opposed, it is acceptable for them to downvote, condescend, and otherwise humiliate their perceived opponent. Those tactics are thinly-veiled attempts to justify their posts, as Herring, et al, explained as "necessary to his [Kent's] debate strategy" (376), and this is exemplified particularly with the user white_cloud. Surely, it begs the question if that method is truly the only means possible of debate, and what it might suggest about the argumentative skills of the author.


The major issue with trolling is that neither side truly benefits or wins. These are processes with no fruitful goal in sight; the antagonizers simply want to piss off the targeted audience, and the victims, no matter how effective they will be, may not win the war of words, but can win in at least banning or reporting trolls. In a twist, victims can also retaliate at the troll, and employ similar, exploitative tactics. It is not uncommon to trolled groups to find the troll's personal information, or forums they frequent, and proceed to troll the troll back. When it all boils down to it, it just ends up that a lot of people wasted a lot of time arguing in a digital environment, with no intention of acquiescing to the (unconvincing) opposition.


In the case of MR, since they vastly outnumber any outsider, they will always "win" in their eyes -- such is the mentality of the "hive mind." And whether the win is important or not, it hardly matters to many, since each participant occupies a virtual space and likely does not met any of these members in real life. Using the Internet as a platform to propagate an agenda or ideology is easier than in real-life; one is offered almost total anonymity (if they are careful constructing their online identity), and can reach a great number of people whether they consent to it or not. Naive Internet users seem to forget that "universality of the social contract" (380) is inapplicable to many online spaces. The ability to hide behind a computer, in the safety and comfort of one's home, transcends what normal social cues we have learned to navigate in person.