Video of a women hitting a man hits the front page of /r/videos. One user comments "thank you, feminism" Drama ensues. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
86 ups - 38 downs = 48 votes
171 comments submitted at 18:55:34 on Nov 23, 2013 by ilikethreetwo
Video of a women hitting a man hits the front page of /r/videos. One user comments "thank you, feminism" Drama ensues. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
86 ups - 38 downs = 48 votes
171 comments submitted at 18:55:34 on Nov 23, 2013 by ilikethreetwo
While I don't hold with violence, that woman has some brass balls to punch someone, and then say "What are you going to do, hit a girl?".
she's great at giving instructions!
She actually said that right before she busted his nose, not after.
I don't think it would've even occurred to him if she hadn't have said that.
It's Lucy from Charlie Brown!
I am not any kind of feminist, but what did it have to do with that video at all?
Those people were drunken idiots acting like drunken idiots.
Just part of the ever present groups on reddit who will try and frame stupid people doing/saying stupid shit as part of a wider perceived "gender" war between men and women. Pretty much any interaction between a man and a woman in something that hits the front page is fodder to be looked at through what ever lens and be interpreted as misogynist/misandric. Drama guaranteed to ensue.
Not a lot, but this is my best attempt at an explanation:
In these types of discussions, feminists seem unwilling to concede any argument that involves violence toward women, and they either rephrase or deliberately misinterpret things like this from "wanting equality" (since I'm guessing they don't see it as equality) to "wanting to hit women" or "hating women." That, or they'll reframe the issue to "don't hit anyone", but this is pretty selective -- these same people will endorse violence if it's against the patriarchy or male domination or whatever.
You can see examples in this SRD thread here ("all of his posts are about women") and here ("reddits get a boner over hitting women").
So I'm guessing that the person saying "thanks feminism" believes that feminism has a view of women-as-victims that isn't conducive to gender equality or perceives feminism's view of women as harmful to gender equality. Whether that's true or not is one thing, but I'm guessing that's how they see it.
>Whether that's true or not is one thing
It's not true. Most feminists aren't the spiteful ones you see posting on tumblr or SRS.
*spelling
I have heard a lot of people say this, but I'm not sure how true it is. Jezebel is the most popular feminist outlet and it seems to align with what SRS believes. Tumblr is off the deep end, but that's another story.
That said, I have no idea how you'd support this claim if Jezebel is not considered representative. Has there been any feminism poll determining what "most" feminist believe?
One thing that always amazes me about the whole "gender war" debate is that people like you think most feminists are online because of Jezebel, tumblrs, and SRS. I'm pretty sure most feminists use none of the three. Is the assumption due to the fact that the MRA sub the main source of MRAs?
Err, I suggested using Jezebel as a metric because it's the most popular feminist outlet. I don't know how you'd identify how moderate (or not) the average feminist is otherwise. If you have any data that suggests the typical feminist is more moderate than Jezebel, I'd like to see it -- but I'm saying that I've never seen it provided in these kinds of discussions, ever, and you'd think someone would since this is the kind of crowd very likely to link-barrage you if they feel they have the data.
> people like you think most feminists are online because of Jezebel, tumblrs, and SRS.
Wait, I think this? Since when?
>Err, I suggested using Jezebel as a metric because it's the most popular feminist outlet. I don't know how you'd identify how moderate (or not) the average feminist is otherwise. If you have any data that suggests the typical feminist is more moderate than Jezebel, I'd like to see it -- but I'm saying that I've never seen it provided in these kinds of discussions, ever, and you'd think someone would since this is the kind of crowd very likely to link-barrage you if they feel they have the data.
I don't have survey data on the degree of feminist ideology, but even if your assumptions held I don't think the "most popular feminist outlet" would be valid as one either.
>Wait, I think this? Since when?
You repeated:
>I suggested using Jezebel as a metric because it's the most popular feminist outlet.
twice. I'm taking the meaning of "most popular feminist outlet" to be that most feminists use it (I don't see how else you're going to generalize them if you don't have at least a large majority of them, not that I agree with your reasoning). It has long been my assumption (much longer than using reddit itself for 3 years) that the majority of the feminist movement is offline at universities/colleges/groups/organizations. If you have other data to clear the smudges of my assumptions from my metaphorical window I view the world I'd be open to them.
> the majority of the feminist movement is offline at universities/colleges/groups/organizations
Let me review this:
I know that Jezebel is very popular; the most popular feminist outlet online.
I know a lot of feminists read Jezebel.
I don't know how many feminists are "offline."
I don't even know how I'd go about determining this.
Why am I supposed to believe that there is this silent majority of feminists offline that don't believe anything like what people on Jezebel believe? This is like saying that the GDP of the drug market must be in the trillions because not all transactions are recorded. I have literally no data on this. I have not even the slightest reason to take it as true, especially since the feminists that were active at any college I've known about read outlets like Jezebel anyway.
If that's the case then why are you trying to use faulty data if all you have is the assumption that website aligns with what you're trying to prove? Isn't that more of a confirmation bias/failed deductive logic than any sort of intellectual stance?
Data isn't 'faulty' or 'non-faulty'; some data is better than others. Anecdotes are the least reliable kind, and peer-reviewed experiments are on the more reliable end.
Jezebel doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's better than nothing. And suggesting that there must be a silent majority of feminists existing offline is making this conclusion with nothing supporting it.
I'm amazed at how often SRS posters chime in to basically say "Don't pay attention to us, we aren't good examples of feminists."
I mean, really? If you're that ashamed of yourselves, don't act that way!
That's not what I said at all. I said most feminists from my understanding do not use any of the three mediums and asked for clarification/proof as to why the user claims they do. I never applied judgement of what made a good feminist and whether SRS applies either way. I'm not ashamed one bit of SRS or myself and I think you're taking confirmation bias to reinforce your own stereotypes about SRS/feminism from my post when I never said what you think I did.
Feminism has existed for more than 100 years. The fact that you're claiming a website that has existed for 6 years is representative of 'most' Feminists is laughable.
Jesus christ calm down. What I'm saying is that if you have a better metric than Jezebel, provide it, but I don't currently know of one, and using the most popular feminist outlet as representative seems to work well in the absence of better metrics.
Also, the "[ideology] has existed for 100 years so any representation should be equivalently old" argument is really bad reasoning. The Democratic Party has existed for 185 years, Barack Obama's website in 2008 had existed for only a few months, yet at that time it was reasonably representative of what the Democratic Party believed.
[deleted]
How widely read is this among feminists? I mean, I could say that the Economist is a great example of what moderate, 'true' libertarians read/think, but this becomes difficult to argue for if it turns out reason.com is way more popular in that demographic.
[deleted]
I think that Ms Magazine is great if you're trying to pick an outlet that makes feminism look the most professional, but "paints the most flattering picture" and "is most representative" are two very different things.
>Also, the "[ideology] has existed for 100 years so any representation should be equivalently old" argument is really bad reasoning. The Democratic Party has existed for 185 years, Barack Obama's website in 2008 had existed for only a few months, yet at that time it was reasonably representative of what the Democratic Party believed.
I didn't say any representation should be equally old. The fact of the matter is, you aren't going to find a medium consumed by the majority of Feminism because of how spread out the movement actually is. Your best bet would be some of the key texts of the field, but even then there are often debates surrounding how valid they actually are. Feminism is academic, you can't just simply point at one website and say 'this is representative of what most Feminists believe', especially one that has existed for only 6 years.
You're conflating an Ideology with a Political Party as well.
Feminism = Ideology
Democratic Party = Party/Group
Feminism is a massive field with a ton of varying schools of thought, all unified by the overarching notion that genders/sexes should be equal. How this should be achieved (revolution, education etc) and numerous other factors conflict amongst the varying 'factions' of Feminism. Despite the differences, these 'factions' are all unified by their central belief in equality.
Of course TDP's website is reasonably representative of what TDB believes, they are in charge of what TDP is. They are NOT an ideology, they alone are in charge of how they represent themselves.
So what you're saying is feminism, as an ideology, is completely above criticism, because no statement other than the one sentence definition of the term, can apply to its members.
I would like to point out that this line of reasoning could be used to deflect any criticism from any group or ideology as well: White ~~Power~~ Rights is a massive field with a ton of varying schools of thought, all unified by the overarching notion that the races should be equal. How this... yadda yadda, you get the point.
In essence, you pulled the broadest and yet subtlest No True Scotsman I've ever seen, kudos.
> What I'm saying is that if you have a better metric than Jezebel, provide it,
You should be able to provide your own valid sources if it's for an argument you're pushing.
>but I don't currently know of one, and using the most popular feminist outlet as representative seems to work well in the absence of better metrics.
It doesn't, if anything it calls the credibility of your deductive reasoning into question, especially when you yourself admit you don't know the strength of your source's representation.
I think you've misidentified who is pushing the argument here. You are the one saying that Jezebel is not representative of feminism in the absence of anything to represent feminism with.
You have given me no reason to believe that Jezebel does not represent feminism, or to believe that there is an offline presence of feminism seriously outnumbering Jezebel.
> I think you've misidentified who is pushing the argument here. You are the one saying that Jezebel is not representative of feminism in the absence of anything to represent feminism with.
It's definitely you that's confused my friend. I'm questioning your claim and your response is to ask me prove the flip side of your source. That's not how it works. The burden of proof that the website represents feminism is on YOU. Not me. I'm merely questioning your sources.
>You have given me no reason to believe that Jezebel does not represent feminism, or to believe that there is an offline presence of feminism seriously outnumbering Jezebel.
Refer to above. You're being intellectually dishonest in your sources and reasoning.
If you are saying that the majority of feminists are offline or that the majority of feminism exists elsewhere outside of the most popular feminist outlet, you need to actually defend this claim instead of saying it's other people's job to prove that feminism isn't represented by this.
It would only be my job if the starting assumption were that feminism had some majority offline, but feminism doesn't necessarily have to have a majority one way or the other.
You are saying that feminism has a silent majority offline. You have not provided a shred of data supporting this, yet you are calling other people intellectually dishonest. You should really be supporting the things you're saying are true.
I have a reason to believe Jezebel is representative of feminism: (a) it's extremely popular and (b) it's a feminist outlet, the most popular of its variety.
What reason do I have to believe that there is a silent majority of feminists existing outside of Jezebel? I hate bolding things but you still haven't given any reason to believe this is the case and it's like if I don't straight up ask you this a million times you're going to keep dodging this issue that is crucial to figuring out what actually represents feminism.
> and they either rephrase or deliberately misinterpret things like this... "wanting to hit women"
This is exactly it.
Even in SRD threads linking to man-hitting-women videos there's always feminists whining about commentors "fantasizing" about hitting women.
Is your name a play on mine?
Or is this a koeenkeedink?
The latter; it's a part of the hardest tongue twister in the world according to Guinness.
The full tongue twister is "the sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick."
Tried it, it really is impossible to pronounce.
>That, or they'll reframe the issue to "don't hit anyone", but this is pretty selective -- these same people will endorse violence if it's against the patriarchy or male domination or whatever.
Yeah because 'Don't hit anyone' is such a terrible message. Curse those sneaky Feminists telling people not to hit each other.
EDIT: You've got to be mad to link this thread not once, not twice, but three times.
Wow that's completely not how you should have read that sentence. It's like you stopped midway to interpret "they selectively enforce the don't hit anyone mantra" as "don't hit anyone is a bad mantra." I don't know how you can put a sentence one line above yours and fail so hard at understanding it.
It seems to prove the point of reframing fairly well, doesn't it
Let me try and parse that whole word-salady paragraph: your point is that you're unhappy that people are reframing the discussion away from 'equality' to 'wow this guy really has a problem with women'. Yeah, that's generally because 'being able to get away with punching people who aren't the same gender as me' isn't something people usually fight for when they're aiming for equality. In fact, violence generally isn't considered something valuable by society, hence all the laws around it.
> people are reframing the discussion away from 'equality' to 'wow this guy really has a problem with women'. Yeah, that's generally because 'being able to get away with punching people who aren't the same gender as me' isn't something people usually fight for when they're aiming for equality.
Allowing women to join the military was a step for equality and it involved some degree of killing people who weren't the same gender as you, nevermind punching them. If one gender is entirely protected from violence but another gender is allowed to be as violent as they want, then yes, violence is involved in equality. Whether or not "most people don't aim for this" (do they? how are you determining this?) doesn't mean it's not part of equality; surely, equality could involve violence, and it doesn't necessarily have to involve nonviolence.
But I don't really think this, I'm just rephrasing to you why some people think feminism is involved with it. You seem unable to separate people from their positions. I am not an ambassador for this view.
Also, you really should not be reading these comments as "[person] is unhappy with [position]" or "[person] dislikes [position]", like you did a second ago; that brings bias into an otherwise neutral reading of "[person] rejects [position]."
I'm confused as to how women in the military supports the idea that feminism wants more women attacking men.
Sure, being in the military means you may hurt/kill other people, and since a lot of military groups don't have female soldiers I guess you could say that this means there is more female vs men violence. But does anyone really think women want to join the military just so they can have a go at attacking men? really?
If anything people should be happy that feminism wants women allowed in the military since it also means they will soak up some of the violence that would otherwise hit male soldiers.
> I'm confused as to how women in the military supports the idea that feminism wants more women attacking men.
Well, it doesn't, so if you read it that way that'd explain why you're confused. This is what the military tidbit was responding to:
"'being able to get away with punching people who aren't the same gender as me' isn't something people usually fight for when they're aiming for equality"
If women are excluded from joining the military or being drafted and feminists are fighting for this, as a consequence they're fighting for opportunities to seriously harm the other gender. This doesn't mean that they want to harm the other gender in abstract, though, obviously, but then reddit doesn't want to hit women in abstract -- it's very clear that all the /r/videos people only see this as a form of equality because they believe women are shielded from this by society as a form of special treatment. That doesn't say how true it is, but if it were true (I am gender A and can hit you, but you can't hit me in self defense or retaliation because I am gender B, but you could do both with little or no repercussion if I were gender A) then it'd be a form of inequality at the very least.
>Allowing women to join the military was a step for equality and it involved some degree of killing people who weren't the same gender as you, nevermind punching them.
There's a slight difference between street/public violence (the initial discussion point) and war.
>If one gender is entirely protected from violence but another gender is allowed to be as violent as they want, then yes, violence is involved in equality.
Wait, you just said women are allowed to join the military. How is one gender protected from violence while the other one isn't? Unless you meant in public/society in which case no one is allowed to hit anyone, because the law and stuff.
>The girl is an ugly manly looking thing with short hair. Obviously its a feminist. Its a perfect example of feminist trying to act like a man as long as it benefits her, but playing victim when people react.
Totally logical assumption bro.
Clearly more logical and euphoric than those evil short haired feminists.
I should probably go get my hair buzzed, then
i thought she was pretty. even hot for a buzzed girl.
Here we go again
Brace yourselves SRD, the Gender Wars are about to erupt in full force.
And we all know how it will end
That was beautiful :')
I'm crying
they weren't repulsive enough
Here we go again.
Is it that time again?
Like this exact same thing happens around once a week at least.
I'm not trying to justify hitting women but you really shouldn't hit someone and not expect to get hit back, regardless of gender. I think it's kind of ridiculous she completely crumples and starts yelling "call 911" after she was hard as fuck 2 minutes ago.
Some of these people think "equal rights, equal lefts" (or any variation thereof) is such a profound statement I wouldn't be surprised if they have it tattooed somewhere on their body.
It gets repeated every thread were a woman gets her "comeuppance", even when it was a completely unfair fight (think of when Snooki, a tiny woman, got punched in the face by a 25-year old gym teacher, because she called him out on stealing drinks that belonged to her party). These guys don't want equality, they just like seeing women get punched in the face.
>These guys don't want equality, they just like seeing women get punched in the face.
Given the ratio of guys:girls getting punched in the face in the world is drastically skewed towards guys, it's equality whether or not it's positive.
i thought that was because people, y'know, hate snooki.
No. It's the same reason why people would like to see cartman, the fat little asshole from southpark, getting punched in the face.
> These guys don't want equality, they just like seeing women get punched in the face.
No, they want equality. They have a problem with the double standard that allows women to get away with physical violence, when men would be beaten up/punished for the same act.
Like when they all cheered "Equal rights, equal lefts" on that video of Snookie, who did nothing to provoke the dude other than ask for him not to steal her drink?
That had everything to do with people hating snooki. Kind of like everyone wishes Bush choked on that fucking pretzel.
Then why frame it as an equal rights issue? The Bush situation isn't comparable
Nobody was framing the snooki thing as an equal rights issue.
"Equal rights, equal lefts" is doing exactly that
I don't see snooki in there. And she's kind of hard to miss.
I'm referring to a different thread
self defense laws apply to everyone regardless of gender, the thing is, that shit isn't self defense.
More likely written in biro on the inside of the cover of their school notebook.
Wow, a video of drunk people behaving awfully to one another. Clearly, this is the fault of feminism. Whenever a video of women hitting men gets posted, someone brings this up. It's getting old. As a side note, I think maybe one reason we're seeing a rise in video posts about this is because it seems somehow novel (there's still that taboo of "don't hit a girl"). At the same time, because people still buy into that taboo, people react with glee when they see violence against women who start shit. Guess what? No one should be hitting people unless it's in reasonable self-defense.
And if it was a man hitting a girl then people would just get upset at anyone who doesn't like it (Fuck double standards, a perfect example of why feminism just doesn't work)
I'm not sure I understand what your comment means.
>And if it was a man hitting a girl then people would just get upset at anyone who doesn't like it
What does that actually mean? The man was hitting her in retaliation after she instigated violence, so I don't understand what your comment means.
I saw this drama happening from a mile away.
No one wins in these threads.
we sort of do, until someone continues the drama in here too
Geeze, Reddit, what do you want? You can't even thank feminism without getting 100 replies and 100 downvotes.
http://np.reddit.com/user/Tim8080/submitted/.... All his posts are about women
You can almost taste the spite when you click the link.
It's salty
omfg...
>I was just watching fight videos on YouTube and this was recommended.
Hahahahaha, right.
To be fair, by this point it probably IS recommending those.
"Totes not gender baiting tho"
Uh, I went through that guy's post history and it's very clear that most of his posts are about (what he perceives to be) injustice/inequality toward men. Calling it "about women" is being willfully ignorant.
Christ, you're fucking deluded.
Nice counter argument.
not really..
Men's rights, ladies and gentlemen
edit: ZOMG mensrights brigade
edit2: for every downvote I get I'm going to personally misander a man in public.
> for every downvote I get I'm going to personally misander a man in public.
for every downvote you get i'll misogynate five whole wimminz
#patriarchypride
All them soggy knees!
This is basically "Thank you, feminism" in reverse.
BUT ITS DIFFERENT WHEN I DO IT SO THERE!
Please do. Let the rage out...
Damn, I'm not even a big SRS person, but that submission is alarming and disturbing in the most basic sense of those words.
I mean, what's the content? It's a video of a woman attacking a man and the man retaliating. And it's sitting at the top of a 4-million-users subreddit.
What kind of a person sees a video of a "lesbo getting knocked the fuck out" and upvotes it? It's not even an edgy joke or a morbidcuriousity type of a deal. It's just... violence.
really? are you honestly questioning why people are upvoting violence?
There's lots of that around though. If you go to /r/bestofworldstar there are monthly fight compilations, you can watch young men brutalize each other all day. Violence against women is just much more taboo, if there's an excuse to watch it (i.e. they are the aggressor) then people will take it.
The sort of people who dislike people who use their gender or race as a shield?
> Video of a women hitting a man
It's upvoted because it's a video of a man hitting a woman, not vice-versa. There has been a submission like this on r/videos every day for the past few days.
I'd be in my happy place if this sort of thing was buried or didn't gain much traction, but this is #1 on /r/videos at the moment.
Pretty fucking sickening. Still, this is the subreddit most prone (in my experience) to upvote racism (even non-disguised racism - "typical nigger" comments are a goldmine) and other forms of hate, so at least these silver-spoon fuckwits don't direct their hate solely at women.
> It's upvoted because it's a video of a man hitting a woman, not vice-versa.
Actually it's a video of both. The woman punches the man in the face first (which is why the man's nose is bleeding at the end of the video), and then 10 seconds later he punches her and knocks her over.
I realise that; the point I was making is that the upvotes come principally because of the 2nd part.
Well, yeah. Cos it's a subversion of what usually happens, which is nothing. This is patriarchy smashing in action, people!
I'm convinced that everyone in /r/videos has a repressed BDSM fetish.
Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe they resent women
maybe they're all hopped up on big purple pills that rained down from mars!
Or perhaps people dislike people who use their inherent traits as licenses to be assholes, whether it's race, gender, disability, etc.
^ Here's one of those women resenters BTW
B-B-BUT WHY CAN'T I HIT WOMEN!?!!? MISANDRY!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Every one of these nutjobs needs to get laid real bad.
I know you are joking, but I reckon that is essentially the reverse of the "all these angry feminists need is a good deep dicking" type joke. It's interesting, because of the two guys who have the most sex out of anyone I know, one is a kind of cheeky, mild chauvinist and the other (I think) has real issues with women, cheats on all his girlfriends and generally treats them badly. I am not sure there is a pattern though.
> You thinking that a video of a fucking cunt getting her comeuppance is somehow sexist against wimmin
Err, no. The video alone isn't sexist, the fact that /r/videos loves watching women "get their comeuppance" and repeatedly upvotes them to the top is.
Same thing with videos of black people getting beaten up. I saw one of those only a few days ago, again right near the top.
Uh huh, whatever you say buddy.
Are you trying to say that I'm lying about what I find bigoted?
/r/videos loves watching all kinds of people get their comeuppance. For some reason though, you're pretending it's only male-on-female violence that gets posted (or gets upvoted). And videos of black people getting beaten up? You're pulling that completely out of your ass.
> And videos of black people getting beaten up? You're pulling that completely out of your ass.
I can't find the link I had in mind - it was a shoplifter (black) getting suckerpunched.
If you'd settle for highly-upvoted, sometimes gilded racist /r/videos comments, I can dig some out for you? They're not too difficult to find.
No one is defending the woman--she's clearly in the wrong. We're addressing the trend of videos featuring women being struck and the subsequent comments such as your delightful bon mot:
>a video of a fucking cunt getting her comeuppance
Hey, people are tired of girls thinking they can get away with assaulting people. This is a great trend.
And right, I know, women can't be cunts. I get it. Only men are allowed to be called mean names. Yes, sweetheart. I don't give a fuck.
I, for one, am tired of people assaulting each other in general.
>Only men are allowed to be called mean names
Nope, name-calling is uncalled for in general. But let's be honest here--I know your comment pattern, and I know how much absolute vitriol you harbor towards women. Don't pretend, and don't call me sweetheart.
>I, for one, am tired of people assaulting each other in general.
me too, that's why i find it great that she got immediate negative feedback for breaking the guy's nose.
hopefully she learned a lesson, and stops assaulting people?
I hope so, too--people shouldn't attack people and antagonize them. As I said, she's in the wrong. But the I was commenting about the general response to the plethora of videos just like this one.
> and I know how much absolute vitriol you harbor towards women.
To be fair I only hate middle class white chicks like yourself.
edit: sweetheart
I'm sorry you choose to limit your personal contact like that. Given your history, I know you don't care for minorities and "middle class" white women (whatever you mean by that--that's a nebulous adjective), and in the U.S middle class white women aren't a minority, so that means you have a very limited range of people you feel you can trust. That must be lonely.
> Given your history, I know you don't care for minorities
What kind of minorities? Racial minorities, or all kinds of minorities? You must be talking about all minorities, because I'm sure my history shows that I'm homophobic.
As for the rest of your comment, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
If you get sick from people pointing out circle jerks in a default you should probably take a break from reddit. You seem a little agitated.
I know enough to stay away from comments sections on videos like this. Too many college freshmen trying to make sense of the world and failing. I guess what I'm trying to say is Reddit is intelligent, but not experienced. Its pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
Reddit gets a huge boner when it comes to hitting women.
The silliest thing is that you believe this.
No one would say (or I hope no one would say) that "reddit loves hitting men" because a woman or man hit a man in a /r/justiceporn video.
Even with the biggest stretch of interpretation it's pretty obvious that reddit likes to see things it believes are representative of equal treatment, however violent. If reddit "got a huge boner when it comes to hitting women" then unprovoked assault of women would be everywhere, but the violence in the video is obviously provoked retaliation.
The point is that the fights themselves aren't very remarkable...they'd be ignored if it were two guys. They get upvoted because it's a man hitting a woman back. Reddit gets a huge boner over that stuff. Vids exactly like this are on the front page at least once a week.
> they'd be ignored if it were two guys.
Except for the part where videos exactly like this one, only with 2 guys, get posted all the fucking time. Give it a rest.
Just look at the comments of this video and it is super apparent that that's the focus.
Reddit does not have a healthy relationship with women, so many guys have problems getting girls and think it's the girls' fault. Nice guy syndrome, "She's not interested in me because I'm nice, that stupid bitch".
Reddit loves when a woman gets hit by guys. A lot of videos, gifs, images of women getting hurt by a guy usually make it to the front page. Like this massive repost for example. who has made the front page more than enough times. Hell, we have subreddits dedicated to this shit. And oddly enough when I type in ''Why does reddit hate..." it comes up as "Why does reddit hate women" as one of the suggestions.
This was one of those posts that I saw on /r/all and without watching the video or looking at the comments just knew this was ending up here.
Feminism drama never fails to deliver.
Jesus, reddit is really obsessed with this shit.
Some sort of nightmare/fantasy
she took that punch like a man, though. got up for some more. i'm impressed.
She started wailing like a child, begging people to call 911...
But the most bizarre aspect was that she, who had just struck him, was genuinely surprised when she got laid out for it.
The only thing that should've been surprising to her was that he waited until he realized he was bleeding before hitting back.
i don't care
You say no, but your actions say 'yes'.
Men have the right to not get punched too.