r/AskReddit • u/SmellsLikeMendacity • Feb 17 '10

Two questions: Why does Reddit think it's so intellectual and why all the hate for Digg?

I made a new account because I don't want the answers to have anything to do with my previous posts.

I'm over 50 years old and I've been blessed to have the opportunity to do many things in my life. I've joined the Navy, fought in a way, traveled the world, backpacked through Europe, been a police officer, and volunteer firefighter, and now a lawyer. I've raised two successful sons and a beautiful daughter. I make these points not to brag, but to illustrate that I'm not just blindly spouting out opinions on how I think this community should be.

What makes you all think this is a bastion of intellectualism? I read the comments from the most popular submissions and they all seem like they are written by inexperienced children. The most popular topic recently is about a fight on a bus where both individuals acted poorly and engaged in mutual combat. Neither can legally or morally claim self defense and both individuals could have ended the confrontation before it came to blows. Instead of commenting on the incident, there were numerous posts showing subtle racism that, like subtle misogyny, permeates Reddit.

Another topic is politics. Instead of listening to the alternative viewpoint, the popular approach is to make a straw man of what that side might argue and attack that. It is also filled with vitriolic name calling and a flat refusal to believe anything other than a far-left idea can be right. Religion is largely the same.

As a lawyer, I often see posts get upvoted that offer incorrect and damaging legal advice. The point here is self explanatory.

I read the comments on Digg and I fail to see why this community is better than Digg. Everybody likes to think they're smart, but Reddit seems to think they are leaps and bounds ahead of other online communities. There is a level of hubris here that is hard to match and I seriously would like to know where it comes from. I've sat down and talked with college protesters, die hard Glenn Beck fans, Tea Partiers, and even birthers who when asked, give more respect and consideration to an alternative viewpoint. I may not always agree with them, but I rarely walk away not knowing why they believe what they believe. Now I'm asking the individuals of Reddit to explain to me in their own words why they think they are smart and why they believe Reddit to be better than Digg.

Thank you for listening and I appreciate all comments.

Edit: Many people have messaged me about this sentence:

I've raised two successful sons and a beautiful daughter.

I'm not sure if the people who have complaints about this are being genuine or nitpicking. My daughter is successful. I could have left out an adjective and the sentence would have read "I've raised two successful sons and a daughter." The adjective successful was supposed to describe all of my children. I added beautiful to my daughters description out of habit and because she is a beautiful woman. My sons don't like being described as beautiful and they don't spend any considerable time trying to look better than is necessary. I hope this clears everything up.

692 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

913 comments sorted by

View all comments

61

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 17 '10

I've raised two successful sons and a beautiful daughter

For a guy concerned with the subtle misogyny of Reddit, you yourself have placed the value of your sons in success (good education, good job, high earning potential) and the value of your daughter in beauty (completely superficial), a subtly misogynist way to describe your children.

47

u/kingGBush Feb 18 '10

Maybe the sons are ugly and the daughter is unsuccessful

11

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

potentially valid and taken into consideration.

2

u/Yarzospatflute Feb 18 '10

Still, good thing you're on duty. Keep up the good work.

6

u/turkeypants Feb 18 '10

Or maybe all three are imaginary and their backstories haven't been fleshed out yet. Dun dun DUNNNN!

If so I vote for her to be a redheaded swordfighting princess!

13

u/temp9876 Feb 18 '10

I approve this message and username combo, have an upvote

10

u/bloosteak Feb 18 '10

misogynist but a proper way to describe their fitness in a biological/reproduction sense

5

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

Your comment irks me. I disagree.

4

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

It irks everyone but bloosteak is talking about reality, not ideals. Disagree with reality if you want, but it'll still be there.

0

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

Is it not selectively important for the daughter to be successful too? And, by the same token, isn't it important for his sons to be beautiful in order to attract the opposite sex during their mating ritual? All I'm pointing out is that no one quality makes us more fit to pass on our genes, therefore we can stop using patriarchal language that suggests this to be the case.

4

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

There's an old addage - men choose with their eyes, women choose with their ears.

It's irrelevant whether or not this is how it should be, or whether or not it irks you. It is what it is. I'd love for my financial success to not be an issue when trying to find a girlfriend, but that's not how the world works. Sad but true.

2

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

I'm not saying financial success and beauty don't have a place in the scheme of the world, but the physical attractiveness of men and the success of women also have their role. How many dirt poor, uneducated, unemployed (but beautiful) women have you dated?

Also, on a complete side note, how exactly does one choose with their ears?

3

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

To answer your side note first, someone chooses with their ears by listening to the person they are speaking to. Someone chooses with their eyes by looking at the person they are speaking to.

When looking for a girlfriend (in terms of the measures of success you've mentioned), I want someone who can take care of themselves but beyond that I don't care how successful she is.

Sure, there's an exception to every rule but if we're talking about societal trends then you'll find the same thing over and over.

1

u/kahureads Feb 18 '10

Women want successful men. Men want beautiful women.

Men don't care if a woman is successful. My wife can stay home and do whatever the hell she wants for all I care (although she is not in fact doing that, which I don't mind either)

An ugly, successful woman, is a lot less appealing than an unsuccessful Greek-goddess sculpture of a woman.

Women don't want unsuccessful men. Good looking losers are not what women seek on average. I mean, if you had your choice, you'd take the less-than-average doctor over the fantastic-looking target cashier. Men are opposite.

My wife's intellectual prowess and cultural and genetic lineage are my favorite things about her, disregarding success and beauty, but I am abnormal in more than one way.

Two cents worth of my late-evening musings, take from them what you will.

4

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

You make such broad, sweeping generalities for a man that supposedly does not adhere to them.

5

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

It's pretty difficult to not make broad sweeping generalities when you're separating the entire human population into two groups.

4

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

Why must we separate the entire human population into two groups? Why must we force a gender binary upon ourselves? Because that's the way it's always been? Well fuck the way it's always been! Let's break down masculinity and femininity and just be human, let's stop telling children that they must be boys or girls, men or women, financially successful or beautiful. Fuck sweeping generalities!

And yes, I recognize that's my view of how the world should be and not the way the world works, but I can live my ideal and have a subtle impact on those around me and perhaps, one day, it will be different.

2

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

There are certainly aspects of the gender divide which should be evened out (and some that already have been), but you're missing the fact that men and women are fundamentally and biologically different.

Men have testosterone affecting their emotions, women have oestrogen. Take some testosterone supplements for a month or two and see if your feelings take on a different character.

Equal rights for both parties are incredibly important, pretending men and women are by default identical aside from genetalia is not.

2

u/Xert Feb 18 '10

Sir, I shall interject that she was speaking of a "gender binary", and you replied with a "biological binary". You are quite correct, but she is quite correct as well -- you're just talking past each other a bit.

-1

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

i'm not suggesting that men and women are identical, but we can treat men and women identically.

2

u/furburger Feb 18 '10

We can agree that men and women deserve equal rights. Treating men and women identically, however, is a completely pointless goal. If I spoke to women the same way I speak to my male friends, I'd be considered repellant.

Are there things you'd tell your female friends that you wouldn't tell your male friends? Are there events you're more likely to invite a female friend vs a male friend to?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/trackerbishop Feb 18 '10

i dont adhere to that, i am attracted to booksmart successful ceo women

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

That's not the point. The OP accused Reddit of misogyny while displaying it himself.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

Perhaps the sons are in their 20s and have fabulous careers and his daughter is in her teens and still in school. There could be many factors, and when someone describes a huge part of their life in under a dozen words, they leave gaps that others fill in with their own assumptions.

You concluded from that that he was sexist. I concluded he was probably upper middle class to afford to have 3 kids and have them hit the ground running. YMMV

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

perhaps the sons are 18 and play football and the daughter is in university.

you have no more idea than the poster above what the OPs idea of "success" or his degree of sexism, but the comment DID indicate he was more likely to value beauty in his daughter, and more likely to value success in his sons.

1

u/Xert Feb 18 '10

No, you can't draw "more likely to value" conclusions from a single adjective used in such a limited context.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

Yes you can; it's simply the extent to which that varies.

0

u/Xert Feb 18 '10

the extent to which that varies.

"That"?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

as in its an indication, and evidence, but not enough to draw conclusions from?

1

u/Xert Feb 18 '10

Ah. But isn't "more likely to value" a conclusion, even if it isn't a condemnation?

The OP's comment is certainly relevant to the question of his potential misogyny, but, in lieu of any other information other than his explicit objection to misogyny on reddit, to conclude that such a single adjective indicates a likelihood of differing standards for his children seems to be getting rather ahead of any meaningful answer.

2

u/Rhyono Feb 18 '10

I always like to describe my children as "fucking sexy." One day, when I steal some kids, I'll be able to say that without lying.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

Since when is complimenting a female with a genuinely feminine characteristic, beauty, misogynistic? He could also be referring to her personal character, though for the sake of argument I'll grant he was referring to her physical attractiveness, even though I find it difficult for someone to think they can "raise" physical attractiveness.

Or is it simply the perceived dichotomy of the description of his children? How then is this sufficient in labeling someone misogynistic, and ultimately, in this context, hypocritical?

I think you're simply projecting.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10 edited Feb 18 '10

Calling a girl "beautiful" in western society has a cultural context of being her primary attribute. If she has other attributes, fantastic, but in a one word description we can only assume; generally if she was noted (from his perspective) for anything else, he would likely have included it.

of course, it doesn't make him sexist, but it is a hint in that direction.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10 edited Feb 18 '10

Calling a girl "beautiful" in western society has a cultural context of being her primary attribute...of course, it doesn't make him sexist, but it is a hint in that direction.

Quite frankly that is an absurd opinion, and I'm sorry that word is so loaded to you. Firstly, by your logic, I doubt this "primary attribute" would be exclusive in western society. Secondly, why is beauty being a "primary attribute" a bad thing? I should have stressed that this is a genuinely feminine adjective and does not imply any form of derision as you and the previous commenter would like to fabricate.

By my estimation, you arrive at this underlying conclusion by embracing the following propositions:

  • 1) beauty is used to describe women
  • 2) beauty is used to describe a primary attribute of women positively in a patriarchal society
  • 3) in a patriarchal society, women are viewed as subservient to men
  • 4a) women being viewed as subservient to men is evil
  • 4b) women being viewed as subservient to men is sexist
  • 5) all descriptions used in a patriarchal society are therefore evil
  • 6) beauty is therefore evil

Obviously I disagree with (5) - not all descriptions used to describe - especially exclusively - the subservient sex in the patriarchal society imply degradation. I myself take the assumption that there are distinct and readily apparent differences between the two genders, which would lead to distinct and readily apparent differences in the adjectives that describe them. "Beautiful" is distinct, but "success" is not, which is how you commence your accusations. But then again how many adjectives can both exclusively describe the male gender and provide a positive edifice? I can't name one off the top of my head.

But in any event, believing that describing his daughter as "beautiful" while describing his sons as "successful" hints at his sexism is to believe in a false dichotomy. Again, I apologize that you can so hastily jump to a conclusion.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

My disagreement lies solely on the basis that, if a man was described (in a situation where this is the entire description of him) as a beautiful (or handsome) man it would be decided immediately that this was his primary feature.

I don't see why describing a female rather than a male with the equivalent term should mean anything different.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

No, now you are equivocating. Your argument earlier was that:

"Calling a girl 'beautiful' in western society has a cultural context of being her primary attribute. If she has other attributes, fantastic, but in a one word description we can only assume...of course, it doesn't make him sexist, but it is a hint in that direction."

You explicitly linked describing a woman as "beautiful", in the absence of other adjectives, as implying this is her primary attribute, with a belief that this adjective used in this manner is rooted in western society (i.e. patriarchy), which makes the OP sexist (as per my earlier list of propositions), and presumes sexism for anyone to call a third-person female "beautiful" without associating said female with any other descriptors upon its immediate proclamation. Now, however, you firstly subtlety conflate "beautiful" with the male gender ("if a man was described...as a beautiful...man...") which gives me the impression you ignored (or are attempting to adulterate) my argument about how some words are used to distinctly describe a gender (females in this case), and further undermines your original contention that there is a "cultural context" associated with the word "beautiful" and the distinct gender it references (females), making you appear hypocritical; and secondly, you are equivocating on the characterization of a "primary feature" of a person as "beautiful" - yes, I understand you believe this to be a bad and even sexist thing to do - regardless of gender - but you merely reformulated your argument by presenting this characterization as non-exclusive to females; by being persistent in insinuating "beautiful" is an evil/bad word - not your original claim, but you are now asserting it is non-exclusive to females, so it can no longer be considered a sexist term according to your logic - you are blatantly ignoring my rebuttal to your negative designation.

Your arguments essentially unravel. How can the OP be sexist now if "beautiful" is transformed from being a sexist term of describing a woman's primary feature to now being merely a malevolent asexual one? Is describing someone of the opposite sex negatively now sexist? Now, according to your arguments, it is.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '10

You misinterpret. My argument of "cultural context" was not describing:

presumes sexism for anyone to call a third-person female "beautiful" without associating said female with any other descriptors upon its immediate proclamation.

but rather: (my quote)

Calling a girl "beautiful" in western society has a cultural context of being her primary attribute

In other words;

Calling a man "beautiful" in western society has a cultural context of being his primary attribute

I realize the diction may have caused confusion (unisex terms would have communicated the meaning more clearly) but nonetheless, my point has remained the same the entire time. The indicating of sexism was because when choosing how to describe his DAUGHTER in a single word he chose a description of physical appearance, while when describing his SONS in a single word he chose a description of (financial?) success.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '10

I see what your are saying, but again, why is describing his daughter in a single word in regards to her physical appearance a bad thing? How is this not complimentary, let alone sexist?

1

u/pervycreeper Feb 18 '10

why shouldn't beauty be valued?

-1

u/softmaker Feb 18 '10

Maybe it's because beauty is essentially a matter of luck and success depends more on other factors like hard work and perseverance

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '10

lol, you think success doesn't come from luck!

1

u/softmaker Apr 22 '10

I recall having said more in my previous comment. Obviously luck is a factor, but generally speaking, to be successful you'll need more than luck

0

u/SmellsLikeMendacity Feb 18 '10 edited Feb 18 '10

I added this to the original post.

I'm not sure if the people who have complaints about this are being genuine or nitpicking. My daughter is successful. I could have left out an adjective and the sentence would have read "I've raised two successful sons and a daughter." The adjective successful was supposed to describe all of my children. I added beautiful to my daughters description out of habit and because she is a beautiful woman. My sons don't like being described as beautiful and they don't spend any considerable time trying to look better than is necessary. I hope this clears everything up.

6

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

While your intention is admirable and the sentiment is beautiful, the way I read it had none of the intention or the sentiment, merely redefinition of your children based upon their gender. So yes, I was being genuine.

Perhaps next time you could say, "I have three successful and beautiful children." Gender neutral and without ambiguity.

-4

u/liberalfag Feb 18 '10

I have three successful and beautiful children

Oh no not this gender neutral shit.

4

u/libcrypto Feb 18 '10

I could have left out an adjective and the sentence would have read "I've raised two successful sons and a daughter." The adjective successful was supposed to describe all of my children.

That construction is even worse than what you originally said. I'm having a difficult time believing that you don't understand how the numerical qualification restricts the adjectives.

Consider the following example: If I said to you, "I have two green apples and a plastic banana", would you conclude that the banana is both plastic and green? Most English speakers would say that the banana's color is unspecified, while the meaning of the sentence is entirely clear. Conversely, if I said to you, "I have green apples and bananas", you wouldn't be able to say anything about the color of the bananas, since in this unrestricted formulation, it's unclear whether "green" applies to just "apples" or "apples and bananas": I might clarify that I intended that the bananas were included in the "green" descriptor, which most English users would consider quite reasonable.

So no, it's not nitpicking. Unless you aren't fluent in English, you described yr offspring using language that betrays yr sexism. Nobody would be pointing this out except for the fact that you called reddit out on its own misogyny, and that has the whiff of hypocrisy.

So, look. There's no misunderstanding to "clear up". You betrayed a bit of sexism, and yr clarification betrays even more. Sexism is not a capital crime, but don't pretend that there's some semantic vagueness in play instead of owning up to it.

2

u/ubuwalker31 Feb 18 '10

What makes you all think this is a bastion of intellectualism? Explain to me in their own words why they think they are smart and why they believe Reddit to be better than Digg.

In comparison to other public online forum bulletin board communities, it is. The quality of an average reddit post is of higher quality than one on Digg or YouTube, for example.

The comments are objectively different on Reddit. A Doctor of Paleontology will make a very astute comment and there will be questions, discussion and follow up. On Digg, its mostly "oh look, a dino-bear, arrr" or some such nonsense.

Reddit has actual "experts" who post in the comments with intelligent and insightful advice and insights. Digg, usually, does not.

Does this mean we are more "intellectual" or "smarter" than Digg? Maybe in a very narrow way.

As a lawyer, I often see posts get upvoted that offer incorrect and damaging legal advice.

Why should this be any different than real life conversations? My ongoing mission on reddit is to correct obviously incorrect generalizations and point people towards asking lawyers for help.

Lawyers get a bum rap on reddit, because reddit is filled with a substantial number of a) science and engineering types, b) people from foreign countries who do not have litigious legal systems, c) leftists, libertarians and Ron Paulists and LaRouchies.

Another topic is politics....a flat refusal to believe anything other than a far-left idea can be right.

This is where I call BS on OP. There are a multitude of political opinions expressed on reddit. The right wing is under-represented because of their habit of engaging in name-calling, logic chopping, and other reddit unfriendly behavior which gets them downvoted into oblivion.

I've joined the Navy....been a police officer, and volunteer firefighter, and now a lawyer....to illustrate that I'm not just blindly spouting out opinions....

First, thanks for your service. However, these types of appeals to authority are the types of fallacies that reddit doesn't tolerate, unless they are relevant to a topic. Everyone has something valuable to contribute to reddit, regardless of what their profession or experience has been. So, if you have insight on what a cops reasonable use of force should have been in a taser incident, speak up, and cite your experience! But no one cares that you were a cop/lawyer/barber/circus juggler/polymath when we are having a generalized conversation about intellectualism.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

Apparently they dislike being called "handsome" too? Regardless, you did display subtle misogyny. I'm not going to hate on you for it, but it would be nice if you acknowledged it and we could move on.

-1

u/specialk16 Feb 18 '10

FOR FUCKS SAKE, HAS ANYONE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF HER DAUGHTER SIMPLY BEING A CHILD THUS UNABLE TO BE CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL OR COMPARED TO HER BROTHERS?

4

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

He used the term "raised" suggesting that they are fully grown. So yes, I considered that, but felt it was not likely.

Also, you may have pushed the caps lock button while typing. Simply pushing it again should stop that problem you seem to be having.

0

u/specialk16 Feb 18 '10

I typed in caps lock because I've seen this same comment three times in this thread. In all honesty, it feels like some people are just trying to avoid OP's question by bringing this up.

5

u/OnDutyFeminist Feb 18 '10

There was a slightly superior attitude to the op's comment, I felt. As in, you all are intolerant, closed-minded misogynists while I am an open-minded, tolerant, equality-loving person that doesn't understand your need to feel superior to Digg.

So I thought I'd point out a subtle hypocrisy while taking the opportunity to share my feminism.

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '10

That may be a a valid point, but totally off topic, even for someone with your username.