Drama when a redditor plugs r/mensrights in a discussion about Boko Haram kidnapping girls. Is mensrights a welcoming space like twoX? Does the media only care about terrorism against women? Find out within. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
197 ups - 106 downs = 91 votes
248 comments submitted at 15:42:38 on May 11, 2014 by falafelcopter1998
I...
Dude, you don't get to attack feminism in a context where women are literally being enslaved. That doesn't even make any sense. That's the height of illogical.
Edit: Wow, that guy got thoroughly owned here.
I have never wanted to piss in the popcorn so badly as I have just now when I read the comment you linked. I just want to upvote it. Christ, my face just melted like that Nazi in The Temple of Doom from just reading it.
EDIT: I am apparently fucking terrible at ~~Kentucky Smith~~ Indiana Jones lore.
Dude! Uncool.
That was Raiders of the Lost Arc, not Temple of Doom.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, not Raiders of the Lost Arc.
Out-pedanted, get on my level scrub
Arc versus Ark is not pedantry, because they mean different things and it's an important distinction. (Also you are correct about it being Ark)
Raiders vs. Temple is not pedantry because there aren't any Nazis in Temple, also Temple is terrible whereas Raiders was amazing.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I even pondered on whether gilding constituted pissing, as a loophole, for a bit.
just an ordinary bounty hunter, ma'am
He didn't attack feminism, you're making that up.
You do realize that the Men's Rights movement is a backlash against feminism, that is to say, pushing MRM is attacking feminism, right?
So is that what you are talking about? Him mentioning the MRM? And not, you know, actually "attacking feminism" or "taking cheap shots at political opponents"?
No, taking cheap shots is the whole "people don't care when it happens to men" bullshit.
Oh, fuck it, I'm done. I don't have the time to fight the Men's Rights Warriors for today.
ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE
they are like ticks once they burrow in, aren't they
You didn't answer my question.
I'm wondering who and what you are referring to when you say:
> Dude, you don't get to attack feminism...
You seem to be talking about buzzy because you later link to a comment where "that guy got owned" which was a response to buzzy. But buzzy never mentioned feminism. So I'm trying to determine if you saw something else in the thread and it's just not clear what you are referring to, or if you are seeing attacks on feminism where they don't exist.
unearthly8 seems to have spotted the same thing I did, and you respond by saying "pushing MRM is attacking feminism".
So I'm asking you to clarify: is him mentioning the MRM really what you are referring to when you say "Dude, you don't get to attack feminism..."? Or were you referring to something else?
I think it's pretty bloody ridiculous to complain that somebody leaving a comment that does not mention feminism once is "attacking feminism" and I'm trying to figure out if you really are being that silly or if I'm just misunderstanding who you are referring to.
Edit: Can any of you 50 down voters please point out where they attacked feminism then? Because as far as I can see, it's something that was completely made up and you are just circlejerking along with it.
OK.
I'm going to bite.
/r/MensRights and its affiliates are a reactionary movement. That means, they want to revert to the status quo. By definition, they are anti-feminist.
Yes, there are places of overlap where both sides can and do agree, but Men's Rights was founded with the intent to "rebel" against Feminist thought.
So, when you promote MRAs, you're pushing an anti-feminist agenda.
It's like promoting a Fascist party and then saying you're not against Socialism. Those are not compatible stances to take.
I get accused of attacking feminism a lot. This is because I attack feminism a lot. I do this because I figured out that feminists like yourself react the exact same way to advocating for men/boys as you do to direct attacks on feminism itself. So what I'm trying to say is thanks, I guess, for reinforcing my worldview.
I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage you to transform your weird anti-feminist rhetoric into genuine support and advocacy for the Lost Boys of South Sudan. You can donate to Alliance for the Lost Boys [here] (http://www.allianceforthelostboys.com/donate-now/)!
Or, if you'd prefer, you can donate to [Child Soldiers International.] (http://www.child-soldiers.org/support_us.php) Or [War Child] (http://www.warchild.org.uk/donate).
Put your money where your mouth is. Let's improve the world.
Oh, lay off. You're not even advocating for men and boys, becuase there's nothing to advocate for here. The dude was lying, there was no injustice, which was half the case I was making; the case was fundamentally different when the boys were attacked than when the girls were kidnapped, the boys being attacked was covered, and we see numerous other human rights atrocities focused on boys reported on heavily in past history.
I'd dispute you on that point, but it would be a sideshow at this point. The core of the issue is that he could have been claiming men are unfairly targeted by penis-seeking missiles, and you'd still be claiming he was attacking feminism by doing so.
No, but if he pushed MR, I'd still contend he was attacking feminism by doing so. See the distinction? It's not advocating on behalf of men and boys that is anti-feminist; in fact, there's plenty of good advocacy on men's issues from feminists, from gender role deconstruction (no more being called a pussy for not being willing to fight back) to awareness of male rape victims.
I'd also say that he probably should form a group capable of actually doing something about the penis seeking missiles, because MRM has no real ground organization, and has continued to show no interest in (Or has failed amusingly to) actually engage in real activism.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you accept that there is such a thing as "good advocacy" for men's issues, but whenever you see a MRA doing it you attack them because MRAs always do it wrong...even when they do it right.
And the funniest thing of all? You're right when you say that sometimes feminists do good work on men's issues. For example, here's a report from the UK charity Object, who are about as feminist as it gets:
> There is a wealth of evidence of the inequality of women in the media: research shows that 75% of the UK’s news stories are about men; while men make up 82% of spokespeople and 77% of ‘experts’. Conversely, women are more than twice as likely as men to be portrayed as victims in news stories.
>On the one hand you accept that there is such a thing as "good advocacy" for men's issues,
Yup! Nobody wins in oppressive systems; "privilege" just means you get out better off. Remember, white folk didn't get to sit in the back of the bus even if they wanted to. Doesn't mean they weren't better off, just means that nobody wins.
>whenever you see a MRA doing it you attack them because MRA's always do it wrong
No, I attack MRA's because they attack the people who actually work on men's issues.
>even...when they do it right.
I've literally never seen that happen... that, and as I said, they're historically just a backlash against feminism and have basically never done anything other than fight feminists in the real world.
>And the funniest thing of all? You're right when you say that sometimes feminists do good work on men's issues. For example, here's a report from the UK charity Object, who are about as feminist as it gets: There is a wealth of evidence of the inequality of women in the media: research shows that 75% of the UK’s news stories are about men; while men make up 82% of spokespeople and 77% of ‘experts’. Conversely, women are more than twice as likely as men to be portrayed as victims in news stories.[1]
And I never denied that. In fact, you'll find that I just said
>gender role deconstruction
Which includes things like media portrayal.
> I've literally never seen that happen...
But it did just happen. You just saw an MRA complain about media portrayal without complaining about feminism, and you still treated him as if he was complaining about feminism! Tell me, how can the MRM, or any male-focused advocacy group, become what you want it to be if feminists like yourself oppose us on this basis every single time?
So prevalence of atrocities against creating group means new atrocities should go unreported?
By this illogic no one should have reported Holocaust because Jews and others were persecuted even before it occurred?
What? How did you get that?
I don't even understand. What I'm saying is that in this case, the attacks on the boys weren't unreported.
If that's the case then I retract my remark about holocaust.
Then the media is not at fault fully ,its First lady trying to rail up emotional crap to use this tragedy for politics.
No, this charming individual is claiming that men aren't underrepresented as victims in the media, which even proper feminists know is nonsense:
> There is a wealth of evidence of the inequality of women in the media: research shows that 75% of the UK’s news stories are about men; while men make up 82% of spokespeople and 77% of ‘experts’. Conversely, women are more than twice as likely as men to be portrayed as victims in news stories.
The research that presentation mentions deals with the removal of agency from women in news stories, specifically dealing with tabloidization culture in the UK. It's literally irrelevant to your argument and in no way, shape or form supports what you claim it to.
> The research that presentation mentions deals with the removal of agency from women in news stories
Yes, which I assume is why they mentioned that particular statistic. "Victims" are not a category widely associated with agency, and so over-representation of women as victims has a rather patriarchal air to it.
As it happens I broadly agree with that assessment, but Object's reasoning for including it isn't relevant. The statistic is the statistic, and the overall subject of the report could have been South African cabbage farmers and that excerpt would still be relevant.
That's not how statistics work. You can't conflate women being broadly represented without agency as men being underrepresented as victims. Statistics without context have no meaning.
The context in this case is that women are broadly portrayed as traditional mother and wife figures (only in UK tabloid culture, I might add), and do not have authority or autonomy in that media. They do not do actions; they are acted upon. That is in no way the same as saying men are under-represented as victims in the media - in fact, depending on how you cherrypick those statistics, the fact that: >75% of the UK's news stories are about men
directly violates what you are trying to argue.
Edit: I want to emphasize again that these studies ONLY deal with UK tabloidization and the UK market. You are arguing that that is equitable to the entire world's media. Those two things are not comparable.
Cut the fucking strawmen.
Oh, you're right, sorry.
You don't deny that there was a difference in the scale of the coverage, you're just doing a song and dance wherein Boko Haram killing boys for seeking a western education is several orders of magnitude less worthy of coverage then girls getting kidnapped for seeking a western education.
My mistake. I'm sure that when two stories featuring male/female victims in sufficiently similar circumstances came up, you totally wouldn't invest your time trying to pick out minute differences to justify a massive disparity in coverage. Absolutely not.
Edit: and to respond to a comment you made elsewhere:
> No, taking cheap shots is the whole "people don't care when it happens to men" bullshit.
People do care when it happens to men, but as the statistics above show, they care less. And you care so little about that that you spend your time whining about hyperbole from the people who point it out.
No, you don't get it. Mentioning Men's Rights is literally attacking feminism.
I mean, it might just be that some people want to make sure men's issues don't get ignored. But no actually, they are just evil anti-feminists because talking about men literally, literally destroys feminism. Apparently feminism is just that fragile.
Please don't let these myopic idiots ruin feminism for you.
> Dude, you don't get to attack feminism in a context where women are literally being enslaved.
The point is that nobody paid attention when it was little boys being burned alive.
>The point is that nobody paid attention when it was little boys being burned alive.
False. Boko Haram's attacks have been reported on pretty extensively in the media.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/world/africa/nigeria-year-of-attacks/
> False. Boko Haram's attacks have been reported on pretty extensively in the media.
The story didn't gain traction until just recently. This article, written at the time, pointed to that problem:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-horrific-massacre-of-school-children-by-islamic-radicals-youve-heard-nothing-about/
And this article from the Guardian supports the same claim:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/10/boko-haram-battle-caliphate-kills-thousands
"The schoolgirls have become symbols of an increasingly vicious conflict that had until now not registered on the western media's radar."
I've been reading the shit Boko Haram does in /r/atheism for a long time.
No, what you are claiming is the opposite of reality.
Here are news reports on Boko Haram before April 1st.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+haram&client=firefox-a&hs=nRa&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=sb&tbas=0&biw=1536&bih=726&sa=X&ei=68RvU9DyO-mhsQSr64CwCQ&ved=0CBkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccdmin%3A%2Ccdmax%3A4%2F1%2F2014&tbm=#channel=sb&q=Boko+haram&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=0&tbas=0&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:4/1/2014
Is it your position that the Boko Haram were as big of a media story prior to the kidnapping of the 200 girls as it has been after the kidnapping?
Your original claim was "nobody paid attention". I showed that was false.
Your next claim was the Boko Haram wasn't gaining traction in the media. I showed that to also be false.
Now if you are claiming that Boko Haram is a larger story now than it was previously I would agree, but that wasn't your original or second claim.
> Your original claim was "nobody paid attention". I showed that was false.
Yes. Because, obviously what I meant by the use of the word "nobody" was literally 0 people. And when I said that it failed to gain media traction, obviously what I meant was that 0 news articles had been written about the Boko Haram.
> Now if you are claiming that Boko Haram is a larger story now than it was previously I would agree, but that wasn't your original or second claim.
Ok. So, the question is, why is it a bigger story now than it was?
My position is that it is because girls are the victims, and because educational opportunities for girls is a political issue in the United States.
> Ok. So, the question is, why is it a bigger story now than it was?
The type of attack? The scale of the attack? The response on twitter? High-profile people supporting some type of action?
> My position is that it is because girls are the victims, and because educational opportunities for girls is a political issue in the United States.
Possible, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.
Boko Haram has been a HUGE story in international news for about a year. Outside of Syria and Nelson Mandela, I can't think of a bigger story to come out of Africa recently.
Exactly. The only reason these MRA shits don't know about it is because they actually do not give a shit about men unless there's a point to be made against feminists or female victims.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/boko-haram-school-attacks-nigeria
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/03/schools-shut-prevent-boko-haram-attacks-20143615264765350.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/10/boko-haram-battle-caliphate-kills-thousands
The extent of Book Haram's attacks have been reported in for a while, and the recent kidnappings have brought attention to them, which will only serve the expose light on the full extent of their atrocities.
Ultimately though, the reason there's so much more attention on the kidnappings is those girls are still alive. Something can be still done to help them. With the case of previous attacks, the best we can wish for is that the Nigerian government can step up counter measures and prevent further attacks.
> The extent of Book Haram's attacks have been reported in for a while
The articles you posted even mentioned that this had not become a bit story until recently:
From the al-jazeera link:
"The schoolgirls have become symbols of an increasingly vicious conflict that had until now not registered on the western media's radar."
> Ultimately though, the reason there's so much more attention on the kidnappings is those girls are still alive.
...and that they are girls who were seeking an education. The educational opportunities for girls in the third world is a political issue in the United States.
> "The schoolgirls have become symbols of an increasingly vicious conflict that had until now not registered on the western media's radar."
That's probably just al-jazeera attempting scoring points against "western media", note the first guardian article's date.
The point is, saying nobody cared about those boys, or were aware of it is facetious. Hopefully even more people learn about the extent of their atrocities from this, and people are galvanized into shutting down Boko Haram once and for all.
It was actually the Guardian - I got that wrong.
> The point is, saying nobody cared about those boys, or were aware of it is facetious.
True. But it did not gain serious media traction until the girls were kidnapped.
You're right it didn't get the attention it has now until the girls were kidnapped. The problem is you're focusing on only one difference between the cases, that of gender, when there are others to analyze. Like the fact those boys are dead, these girls are alive. The fact this whole scenario has an easy to digest phrase through which people can participate and understand the concept.
Other people have already pointed out Kony 2012 to you, remember that? People did give a shit about child soldiers, young boys kidnapped, and they wanted to do something there. In light of that you can't look at all of these scenarios and seriously say your theory as to why these kidnappings are receiving attention is simply because the victims are girls.
It's a real shame that we men don't have any organisations to look out for our rights. All we get is the men's rights movement, which is about anything but.
There are tons of non-profits and other similar organizations that look out for men's rights and focus specifically on problems men and boys will face in their lifetime! Some of them might strike a chord with you, and if it's something you find is important, share the word, donate, or volunteer! Especially donate--every time I post this list I have to take out one or two links because the domain has gone dead and (I assume) their work is unfortunately over before it began.
This group focuses on helping male survivors of sexual abuse overcome their ordeal, along with spreading the word that male sexual abuse survivors are often overlooked, forgotten and shamed.
This group is tailored to male nurses and the problems challenges they will face in a female-dominated/stereotyped field.
This group works with at-risk boys
This organization promotes "Male studies" options in university so that the state and challenges men face in the world can also be studied--presumably so arguments over whether nobody cared about the young boys who died wouldn't have to happen.
A personal favorite, this group reaches out to men about health issues that are particular to men.
I also recommend you google "Men's group" or "Men's advocacy" + your area! You might find places in need of donations or volunteers.
You are right, to an extent.
But then again, neither did the MRAs. Because it never matters until it can be used to whine about how much more the world cares about women.
The point is that it's completely irrelevant. There are literally women being sold into slavery, and to use that (and young men being burned alive) as a chance to take a cheap shot against your political opponents (especially when your organization didn't care either until it was convenient) should leave a bitter taste in your mouth, especially when you're attacking people who have spent time advocating against women being enslaved like they are here.
Moreover, the killing of young men by Boko Haram is a matter of means to an end, from Boko Haram's perspective. That's terrible, but it's not nearly the same thing as the enslavement of young women for IDEOLOGICAL reasons; Boko Haram does not believe that all young men should be burned alive, but they DO believe that women should be effectively owned by men. The atrocities are substantially different, and it's just silly to go "The focus on the women here is unreasonable unless men are focused on just as much." There are numerous fundamental differences between what happened in the two circumstances.
> Moreover, the killing of young men by Boko Haram is a matter of means to an end, from Boko Haram's perspective. That's terrible, but it's not nearly the same thing as the enslavement of young women for IDEOLOGICAL reasons; Boko Haram does not believe that all young men should be burned alive, but they DO believe that women should be effectively owned by men. The atrocities are substantially different, and it's just silly to go "The focus on the women here is unreasonable unless men are focused on just as much." There are numerous fundamental differences between what happened in the two circumstances.
No, I doubt they actually think that women should be literally owned by men. They think that they should be the wards of men, and that the women who are tainted by western influence can still be 'saved', but the boys who have are better off dead.
SUCH MISOGYNY THO
soggy knees!
>The atrocities are substantially different
You're right. Those girls are still alive. The boys, on the other hand, died a particularly gruesome death.
Whatever their ideology maybe the fact is atrocity has been committed.
Would you really care about someone's ideological motive when they try to murder or rape you ?
Pointing out that media is ignoring boys doesn't mean that people are advocating the terrorists action against girls
>Pointing out that media is ignoring boys
Except they weren't.
>Whatever their ideology maybe the fact is atrocity has been committed.
>Would you really care about someone's ideological motive when they try to murder or rape you ?
No, but it kinda matters as a third party, as it tells me about their potential future actions.
I don't think you can seriously look at the coverage of the kidnapped girls versus the coverage of the murdered boys and say the media didn't ignore the latter.
It's not controversial to acknowledge this though, this is a well known concept in criminology/sociology. Some people refer to it as the 'perfect victim'. Basically the safety of some members of society is considered sacrosanct (children, elderly, women) and the public reaction is more acute when their safety is threatened. This is partially why Madeleine McCann is still in the papers all the time - she has all the qualities of a perfect victim really - she's a child, white, cute, from a wealthy middle class family.
"A cheap shot against your opponents?" is that all you see?
Are you unable to see how problematic it is that Boko Haram got near zero international attention as long as they let the girls go and only murdered boys? Is it an attack on women or feminists to point this out?
> Moreover, the killing of young men by Boko Haram is a matter of means to an end, from Boko Haram's perspective.
They were killed because they pursued a "western education" , just like the girls were enslaved because the pursued a "western education". I just don't understand your warped thinking.
>Are you unable to see how problematic it is that Boko Haram got near zero international attention as long as they let the girls go and only murdered boys?
It isn't problematic because that isn't what happened.
> It isn't problematic because that isn't what happened.
Crackpots theories about what happened to MH370 got more attention than that attack. If that's not near 0, I'm not sure what is.
> "A cheap shot against your opponents?" is that all you see?
When that's all you post, that's all we see.
> especially when you're attacking people who have spent time advocating against women being enslaved like they are here.
That's exactly the point. More attention is paid to female victims. That's a point r/mensrights makes all the time.
It's much tougher to raise money and sympathy when it's male victims because nobody gives a shit.
It's the same thing with the Congo. Rape is used as a weapon of war against both men and women, but foreign aid organizations that offer aid to men who have been raped risk losing their funding.
> That's terrible, but it's not nearly the same thing as the enslavement of young women for IDEOLOGICAL reasons
They killed the boys for the same ideological reasons - opposition to western education. Why do you think enslavement for ideological reasons is worse than murder for ideological reasons?
> More attention is paid to female victims. That's a point r/mensrights makes all the time.
Crazy suggestion: maybe they could try paying attention to male victims instead of never doing anything but whining about women.
> Crazy suggestion: maybe they could try paying attention to male victims
That appears to be what they are doing with the victims of the Boko Haram.
Did they have anything to say before people showed concern for the female victims?
Most didn't know about the situation -- I know I didn't.
So the attention about the female victims also drew attention to the male victims. I don't see this as a bad thing.
I usually just lurk around, but I had to make an account to respond to you. Are you actually serious? How is it a good thing that atrocities directed towards males are only publicized when women are affected? What you're saying is that it's "not a bad thing" that currently people only seem to think that gendered problems are only worth airing if they affect women first. That is absurd, and I think this serves as a good example of how violence against women is given so much more weight than violence against men, which I assume is why men's rights has taken a stance on this. These things shouldn't be a gendered issue when it comes to reporting.
I think it reflects that people generally care less about male suffering. Which is an issue r/mensrights talks about quite a bit.
And, the thing is, the suffering of women does draw attention to the suffering of men - but not too much foreign aid effort goes into helping the male victims. A good example is rape being used as a weapon of war in the Congo. It is used against men and women - but if a foreign aid organization offers services to men, they risk losing their funding.
So, if a guy gets raped in the Congo - his family typically leaves him, he could be arrested for sodomy, and if he tries to seek help at a refuge, he will be turned away.
MRM is not the media ,its not their job to report atrocities .They are speaking for ,unbiased coverage .
But they are an advocacy group, so they should be speaking out about things that matter to them.
> Dude, you don't get to attack feminism in a context where women are literally being enslaved. That doesn't even make any sense. That's the height of illogical.
> There are literally women being sold into slavery, and to use that (and young men being burned alive) as a chance to take a cheap shot against your political opponents
Who are you talking about when you say these things? You refer to "that guy getting owned", but your link is a reply to buzzy. The most buzzy did to attack anybody is to say this:
> What most people don't know is that Boko Haram is also responsible for butchering and setting on fire little boys. This has still gone unreported by the media.
He didn't mention feminism or political opponents once, just a vague "media".
Edit: Can any of you 50 down voters please point out where they attacked feminism then? Because as far as I can see, it's something that was completely made up and you are just circlejerking along with it.
It sure is polite of you to ask, but I think we both know the answer: /u/cam94509 thinks that asking the media to report male victims is attacking feminism, and is unironically using that as a launch pad to accuse the MRM of politicizing the issue.
This is patently absurd. If you actually read what I've said, you'd know this wasn't the case, but I understand why it's easier to attack a strawman.
Let's see: The OP complained that the media wasn't reporting on the slaughter of schoolboys. He didn't mention feminism at all, and a quick ctrl+f on his user page finds no mention of feminism in his 20 or so most recent comments.
You then out of the blue accuse him of attacking feminism and using the dead schoolboys and kidnapped schoolgirls as political pawns. Further, you make some fucked up distinction that doesn't really speak to Michelle Obama's reason for focusing on the female victims: she linked the kidnapping of the schoolgirls to attacks on women's education worldwide, when Boko Haram are quite explicitly against western education for boys too.
He may simply lack awareness as to what MRM is and it's history, but pushing MRM is basically an attack on feminism; MRM has no actual activism capability, and mostly they spend their time fighting feminists on issues completely unrelated to the issues they claim to support.
I don't know how to say this, but MRM is a farce. It basically exists as a way of calling yourself an antifeminst without feeling bad about it.
MRM is a backlash against feminism, and nothing more.
Because most of the replies to your post were basically attacks against you, upboats to you, good sir/madam
Thanks! It feels nice to not be attacked for a moment. I got gold the other day and now I see every time my name gets mentioned, so this thread has been mildly unpleasant in some ways.
No problem, I know that feels.
You're doing the good work, dear sir/madam.
> No problem, I know that feels.
> You're doing the good work, dear sir/madam.
do you always do this?
>There are numerous fundamental differences between what happened in the two circumstances.
The biggest difference is probably the fact that one group is male and the other is female.
I doubt western media outlets thought over the butcherings and said "Well he's just doing it as a means to an end, it's probably not that bad." It's more likely that western media outlets just didn't think a story about boys being killed would sell as well as a story about girls being enslaved.
> Moreover, the killing of young men by Boko Haram is a matter of means to an end, from Boko Haram's perspective.
Selling women into slavery earns money. Doing so also accomplishes the end of making women into objects to be owned. The act of selling women into slavery, even for ideological reasons, is a means to an end.
WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZZ!!!!!!!!!
The "MENZZ" in this scenario were children who were murdered for seeking an education
They still benefited from male privilege.
They're still kids.
Ignore him/her.
Fake 'SRS/SJW' troll.
Ah, makes sense.
He's from /pol/, more specifically.
low-effort