Thread turns to insults as man in picture is regarded as a pansy, pussy, fucking pussy, and ignorant about feminism. (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
82 ups - 46 downs = 36 votes
Basically the thread was bound to be a shitfest in one way or another.
Man in picture has abuse scar on his wrist. Picture mentions feminism negatively. People decide this is a good reason to insult the man repeatedly.
Full thread. Scroll down for the repeated "pussy" and "pansy" remarks.
Redditing Redditors of Reddit decide to:
Educate him of what feminism really is (spawns fight).
Tell him that he needs to look up the definition of feminism (spawns another fight).
Tell him that Feminism DOES NOT support domestic violence (spawns fight)!
Explain how it is the patriarchy's fault. Follow up commenter claims men "shafted" themselves which is why they aren't taken seriously.
Make fun of him.
Oh, and offer support but get downvoted.
143 comments submitted at 04:57:17 on Dec 13, 2013 by singasongofsixpins
> Expected to be the sole financial support for the family
Because women weren't allowed to work or had an incredibly hard time getting jobs. That is making women second class citizens. In the public and private spheres men had the power. They were expected to provide financial support because they were the only ones allowed to. They were the head of the family and were the only ones who owned property. Women being barred from employment doesn't make men oppressed. Homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the army, and to "regulate homosexuality in the U.S. military, physical exams and interviews were used to spot men with effeminate characteristics during recruitment", but gay people not being allowed to serve and straight people being forced to doesn't make heterosexuals oppressed, it makes gay people oppressed.
Not allowing women to work is discrimination against women.
Free-loading as in expected to do all the domestic work? And have no political power or power in the public sector? Outside of the domestic sphere women had no power, and even in the domestic sphere men were the heads of the household.
Yes men had to provide financial support, because of the oppression of women. Having to go to work doesn't make you oppressed; not being able to go to work does. That definition could be used to make it seem as if men were oppressed, except that the established laws and customs gave men all the political power and established them as the head of the household.
Plenty of men were oppressed, but overall women as a whole faced oppression that men did not for being men.
"Because women weren't allowed to work or had an incredibly hard time getting jobs"
No. This sentence, and your whole reply, broadcast that you aren't interested in truth, but instead you must see it through your viewpoint only.
If you think the pressures placed on men were only because "women weren't allowed to work", then we have nothing to discuss. You are entirely closed minded about facts you don't have a clue on.
What? That is why men had to provide; women received far lower wages and were discouraged from working. In the UK, lots of women took on men's jobs while the war was ongoing, and when men returned it wasn't just that they took back their jobs, which is understandable, but there was no real improvement in women's employment until later on.
I didn't say the pressures placed on men were only because women weren't allowed to work, and I meant that women were seen as the domestic gender while men were seen as the breadwinners. Please enlighten me further about the facts.
"That is why men had to provide" this is you regurgitating only the opinions you have heard which happen to agree with your opinions.
You have not, and will not, provide evidence that men only got stuck with the worst of the situations because they thought women were inferior.
newsflash: women WERE allowed to work. I am of the opinion that men worked because it was expected of them to do the work, and women stayed home because it was expected of them to raise children. Not because people thought women were worse than men, but because that is how people thought the family unit was best performed.
But your radical feminist copy-pasted opinion is presented as fact everywhere, when it is only an intentionally ignorant skew of how things were, with the intent of painting women as worse off than men.
The people who were treated the worst in history were men. The people who were treated the best in history were also men.
But it seems to appear that you cant entertain any ideas other than "men oppressed women".
> You have not, and will not, provide evidence that men only got stuck with the worst of the situations because they thought women were inferior.
That's not what I said. Women were often seen as less competent in employment, which can be evidenced in that they received lower pay then men from working in the same factories.
I know women were allowed to work, I phrased that previous comment poorly. What you're saying is an opinion as well, and I actually said a similar thing in that women were seen as the domestic gender while men were expected to be the breadwinners. The fact that women were not allowed to vote, hold office or own property was due to perceived inferiority of women, and this can be seen in some of the opposition to women's suffrage at the time. Over here in the UK there were plenty of people opposed to women gaining suffrage or office on the grounds that they were less able than men to do so.
It's not a radical feminist anything.