Legbeards v Neckbeards in trollx discussion of body hair (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
78 ups - 0 downs = 78 votes
295 comments submitted at 02:52:30 on Dec 2, 2014 by beardslap
Legbeards v Neckbeards in trollx discussion of body hair (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
78 ups - 0 downs = 78 votes
295 comments submitted at 02:52:30 on Dec 2, 2014 by beardslap
Women definitely have the right to not shave. Kind of funny, though, that the same people who desperately defend a woman's right to not shave and hate men who prefer shaved anything call the same men "neckbeards".
I love it. This is the exact same lack of reading comprehension that fueled most of the dumbass replies in the linked thread.
Why bother thinking when you can just assume somebody else said something stupid? So much easier that way.
Really, what am I missing? Do you deny the irony in calling people you disagree with "neckbeards" when you disagree with holding someone to higher grooming standards because of their gender?
Yes, because calling someone a "neckbeard" is not a comment on their personal grooming, it's a comment on their beliefs and opinions.
To look at it a different way, I have been called a "legbeard" in this very thread.
Now I could play dumb and act like the guy is body shaming me, and I could even call him stupid because I'm male and my legs actually are shaved, but because this isn't my first day on reddit I know that he isn't actually talking about my legs, he's talking about me agreeing with Two/TrollX.
So wait: using physical characteristics is or is not an OK shorthand for describing someone's beliefs and opinions? I can't tell by the way you phrased this.
I'm not arguing if it's OK to use neckbeard as a shorthand (incidentally I'm fine with it, especially after the flurry of replies I've received over this).
I am arguing that "neckbeard" is not shorthand for "man with hair on his neck", and it is not body shaming. Men who wear beards are not typically exposed to body shaming, except maybe from confused dogs.
> "neckbeard" is not shorthand for "man with hair on his neck", and it is not body shaming
just on the face of it, that's EXACTLY what this means, and you're literally in the process of shaming these guys.
I am literally in the process of shaming these guys for their physical neckbeards?
WTF are you reading? Is this bait?
neckbeards are physical things. if a man has a physical neckbeard, your words associate him with a particularly negative stereotype of men. so yes, you're shaming.
Oh OK, so I am unintentionally shaming men with beards on their necks who aren't actually "neckbeards" by using the term "neckbeard".
You know you're on reddit when...
Did you not finish reading the post?
I just find it hilariously ironic that these dudes probably have carpets on their legs, and jungles for pubes, and they're turning around and calling it vomit worthy. If you think it's that horrific and disgusting for a sexual partner to have that, then why do you expect them to put up with yours?
Y'all are mad
I think it's silly to post a comment based entirely on imagining what people you don't know look like.
I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make.
I wouldn't put up with a penis on a partner, and yet I expect my partner to be enthusiastic about mine. Oh my god, it's almost like men and women are attracted to different things!
> assuming everyone is straight and likes the exact same thing based entirely on gender
Guys need to stop getting angry in TwoX and TrollX. The content isn't catered to us, but lets flip our shit about everything they say.
The word 'shaming' is now a buzzword that has reached 'SJW' buzz levels.
"Yeah and /r/theredpill is catered toward men, so why are these damn women getting angry about it?" /s
not even a slightly valid comparison
How so? A sub catering toward a specific group doesn't mean they have free reign to shit on another group. For a less extreme example, it's like saying /r/mensrights is justified in their misogyny because "it's not catered to women"
Red pillers are a hate group who actively promote violence towards women. TrollX will be hostile towards people of either sex who are being assholes, but is a community that is accepting of men and male opinions.
They were only "shitting" on the cheetomongers because they came into a space that is safe for women and starting spewing a bunch of antiquated horseshit about how women should be soft silky hairless babies.
Calling someone a "neckbeard" is not equivalent to shaming women for their grooming choices. One can be a neckbeard without actually having hair on your necks and their are plenty of hairy necked men who are not neckbeards. It doesn't have anything to do with grooming or the actual beard, and everyone knows this.
However I think there's something valid about objecting to any pejorative term based on physical characteristics so I personally prefer cheetomonger.
> Calling someone a "neckbeard" is not equivalent to shaming women for their grooming choices. One can be a neckbeard without actually having hair on your necks and their are plenty of hairy necked men who are not neckbeards. It doesn't have anything to do with grooming or the actual beard, and everyone knows this.
"Yeah, I don't call all black people a n----r, only the ones that act like n----rs!! It doesn't have to do with their skin color or anything!" /s
See how fucking stupid that argument is?
Yeah except the word neckbeard doesn't represent centuries of enslavement and oppression?
Nah, it could just be making fun of social disabilities, that is totally cool though, right?
Obviously not but it's the same principle.
"It's different because I like one group and dislike the other!"
> > To all the highly-downvoted comments down there... > > > > You do realize that just about every woman in your life has had legs like this at one point or another? > > > > Bodies grow hair. It's one of those things they do. > > > > Removing it for aesthetics is a fairly recent trend, taking humanity's history into account. It's completely possible that it will stop being a trend at some point. > > > > It's not gross, or disgusting, or vomit-worthy to have hairy legs. It's the natural state of being, which happens to be counter to what society currently deems "normal." > > > > Some ladies like to be smooth all the time. Some like to be hairy. Some like a combination of the two. All of these choices are fine. > > > > Get over yourselves. > > Thank you for saying this. The neckbeads are leaking too hard in here.
top kek
The insult neckbeard isn't even about the hair on the neck, though. A man with a hairy neck isn't necessarily a neckbeard unless he starts acting like one. I guess scrub or cheetogrub are the new go-to funny insults. RIP ~~neckbeard~~ shamebeard.
Critical of how a woman deals with her body hair? "OMG you disgusting neckbeard."
That's... Interesting.
In fairness neckbeardness is more of a state-of-mind / worldview than speaking of someone's choice of hygiene and grooming.
edit: omg neckbeard brigade in /r/subredditdrama. The jimmies have been rustled. I repeat. The jimmies have been rustled.
Ahem. I'll now try to point out a parallel to help you see the fault in this way of reasoning. Disclaimer: I'm not in any way trying to claim that the level of systemic opression faced by one group is directly comparable to the level of verbal hostility limited to only some parts of the web faced by the other. That being said, your comment seems mostly like the same way of rationalization that people make when they say "I don't hate black people, only niggers".
So now neckbeard is a slur? News to me. Being a neckbeard is a choice; people can choose to have that lifestyle. One cannot choose to be black, or gay, or female, or transgendered, or any other number of historically marginalized people.
So then you think it's OK to shame legbeards, right? You're all on board for woman who choose to not shave their legs.
Well, you and most people I've seen using the term (and by most I mean every single goddamn one person) sure use it like a slur. I've yet to see a person referring to themselves as a neckbeard. So, if it quacks like a duck...
There are tons of self-described neckbeards on reddit and they have their own subs as well.
This is not a social issue, just like #gamergate is not a social issue but that doesn't stop them from decrying slurs against "gamers."
Now I'm wondering if 4chan is branching out because gamergate has been discredited. This is some grade-A trolling and brigading.
Sometimes there is justice in the world and stupid shit gets downvoted. That doesn't make it a brigade.
I swear to god, the shit I have to explain...
"Being a f[slur] isn't about homosexuality, it's about being something I don't like."
It's played out. Expand your vocabulary.
Almost as played out as deliberately misrepresenting what people say in order to manufacture a weakness you think you can exploit.
Do you seriously think "neckbeard" means "a man with hair on his neck"? Because I'm assuming you aren't first-day-on-the-Internet kid, but you sure sound like it.
It's body shaming. Stop it.
Neckbeard was old when I finally got around to signing up here, and that was three fucking years ago.
Seriously, get good scrub.
THREE YEARS? What are you, some kind of elder dragon? Perhaps a timeless god? An ageless elf? Did they even have the Internet back then?
Yes. More butthurt for the butthurt god pls.
Oh my gawd. Being a neckbeard is a choice. Being homosexual is not.
[deleted]
> equally offensive, too!
Showing how two situations are somewhat similar doesn't mean you think they're equal. Analogies must be fucking exhausting for you.
[deleted]
Has this thread helped you understand how analogies or simple comparisons work yet?
[deleted]
Again, Google the word neckbeard and tell me what images you see? It doesn't matter that you or anyone else thinks of it as a state of mind. It has its roots in body shaming. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics people go through to see it any other way.
If you make fun of people for their appearance then you aren't better than the people that you seem to think you are. Call them a South Park Republican or Red-Pilling Woman Beater or whatever just don't belittle people for their appearance.
Is "f[slur]" somehow less offensive than typing out the whole word? Because I would think that people still see and say the word in their head when they read it.
I'm a woman and a regular poster on TrollX (if it makes a difference) and I've lately realized that simply saying it doesn't remove the sting for those who physically fit the stereotype. May I suggest cheetogrub?
I just get more like an SJW every day.
I mean... calling someone a neckbeard or a cheetogrub may be shallow and superficial (just as wishing for a "beautiful girl that wears makeup, nice dresses..." is superficial), but it's hardly a term of oppression.
Firstly there's no historical or institutional system that oppresses people identified as neckbeard; neckbeardism isn't relegated to any particular race, culture, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), sex or sexual orientation. It's a relatively novel appellation for a subgroup of people who have traditionally called themselves (and by others) nerds or geeks.
Let's not turn this into something its not.
Something can be bad without it being oppression and you can be an asshole without oppressing people.
True. However, in the context of this post, everyone's coming down on the OP of the post for having used the word neckbeard as if it were a betrayal of larger ideal: a woman using an insult as if it were some kind of sexist slur. It's not. It's not a slur; it's not sexist; and there should be no expectation that she should grin and bear it when receiving unwelcome, unsolicited "advice" about her legs or grooming decisions especially from people who have significantly distorted ideas of female beauty and normative behavior.
Do you not see how shaming people for their appearance doesn't play into the same inotion? Sure it's not institutionalized, but I would say it's damn near systemic on the internet.
You also chose not to shave your legs as a woman. Should it be allowed for me to comment on that?
A:Hey Linda, your leg hair disgusts me!
B:Woah, that's very rude to say and you should keep that to yourself!
A:No it's fine, because having hairy legs is a choice and makes implications about your mindset.
B:Oh fine then, I guess that makes it right.
There's constructive commentary and then there's "Eww that is disgusting and vomit-inducing" (paraphrasing); it's obviously a comment meant to demean and send a message to the OP. Nobody's suggesting only certain types of comments are allowed.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Both behaviours are not good. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with anything. But if you use insult based solely on appearance in order to make a statement against comments that condemn a certain type of appearance then you aren't being much better. Especially considering they don't even throw those statements at the people, they just make a blanket statement about ALL neckbeards, which is even more questionable.
People who are racist are stupid niggers. When I say niggers I mean people I don't like, not black people though.
Edit: Wow, I'm being downvoted? Looks like the niggers have come to /r/subbredditdrama
You're so astute for noticing all these terribly rustled jimmies
I thought my intense fury at your stupid comment was a well-kept secret. Damn!
Jesus Fucking christ...did she just actually refer to people as 'neackbeards'? The chick with hairier legs than me?
The lack of self awareness is absolutely hysterical.
This is interesting. /r/subredditdrama loves to go on and on about "women's preferences". Whenever the "no short guys" thing comes up, all the biotruths about tall men being evolutionary better and being selected for by women comes up. Well, hairlessness in women was selected for by men. The "legbeard shaming" is going to become the new "fat-shaming". Any preference for an undesirable trait in women will be considered "shaming".
Don't act like the shaming hyperbole is used by women only. What about creep-shaming or pedo-shaming? Both genders on Reddit are guilty of this.
Both genders do everything, pretending anything is exclusive to one gender is "problematic". The only "-shaming" that is widespread in mainstream culture (as far as I know) is "slut-shaming", followed closely by "fat shaming" (or maybe it is the other way around). The "creep-shaming" thing was a portmaneau that was built as a response to "slut-shaming". While it may be used by both genders, it used much more by one "side".
But I was talking about [physical] traits, not actions.
Fat shaming doesn't exist
I don't really understand how you could possibly say this. /r/fatpeoplehate , and there is even a post on the front page of SRD with a bunch of people making fun of someone for being fat in /r/trashy.
Neither creep shaming or pedoshaming are really things, much less bad things. It's not like you can just slap -shaming on a word and then suddenly it's bad - what's next, nazishaming?
I don't know why you guys haven't realized this, but SRD will always be contradictory to whats being said in the linked post, no matter what itis. If something was linked featuring someone talking about how they disliked all short men, then SRD would be the first to stand up for the little guy, so to speak.
I think it generally depends on which agenda-toting group gets to the comments first. "Gender war" comment sections can definitely swing either way.
That article is not a research study. Hell the title even makes it clear with "Zoologist claims sexual preference led the naked ape to lose its hair" The article is full of "claims" and then ends with the fact that this dude says all sorts of things that contradict common theories.
Here's the last paragraph:
> The currently accepted theory, that the hair was lost under the tropical sun, relies on the fact that sweaty fur is a poor way of losing heat. Without the large, heat-exchanging ears of the elephant, or the ability to pant like a dog, humankind relies on sweating to keep cool, and this requires large areas of naked flesh. Consequently, the theory states, fur was lost when humanity moved from the forests to the plains - about two million years ago.
Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection, Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest, it then became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans, bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness.
Those theories are not in conflict. Once hairlessness happened, it was selected for by males. This source has yet another explanation. A quick Google search will give you many more results.
Either way, this has as much validity as the biotruths about tall men being evolutionary favored due to their dominance.
First article: you pick one theory out of the many that are suggested. Again, not a research study, but a collection of suggestions, many of which I find way more plausible than the sexual preference one.
Second article: are you shitting me? Have you even read it yourself? How hard can you miss the point of the article?
No doubt hairlessness was selected for, but it was not merely in males and if it happened more for females, the common explanation seems to be a practical one, not a sexually attractiveness one. This also all talks about the early stages of evolution, where we were, like, super hairy you guys. Not our situation right now where one woman has a bit more hair than another.
Seriously, it's not equatable and so irrelevant. And, yes, I do think the biotruth about tall men is irrelevant in general discussions about women's preference for men. I think the social pressures and influences, in both cases, are a much bigger influence.
The whole point is that there are multiple theories, this being one of the prominent ones. We don't actually "know" yet. Same with the "tall man more powerful" explanation for finding tall men more attractive - it is one possible theory, not the only one.
The second article supports what I am saying - that sexual selection played a role. Combined with this article regarding parental selection, it makes a lot of sense. Both articles mention sexual selection. A simple search for "sexual selection hairlessness" all leads to the same thing, it was selected for in the female of the species.
> Whenever the "no short guys" thing comes up, all the biotruths about tall men being evolutionary better and being selected for by women comes up
Like granted I don't go on SRD every day but I don't remember anyone saying this.
It usually happens when /r/short is linked. It is the explanation for why tall men are favored, it is the way it is supposed to be "evolutionarily" according to some people.
Did you even read the paper you posted? It said "zoologist claims", there was no research done to prove any of what you said. Reading comprehension, get some.
Look up "sexual selection hairlessness", I've already linked two other scientific articles. Brain, use it.
I always get this "men are not welcome" vibe from trollx. Maybe it's just cause I usually only see it when it gets linked here.
Men are welcome, they just have to kiss the feet of women and never criticize anything a woman does, ever.
dude you might want to talk to somebody, this is sad
You're projecting like IMAX dude.
men are perfectly welcome in trollx, nobody cares what gender you are. if you go into a post about something and act like an asshole you'll get downvoted. same as in any other subreddit. regardless of gender. trollx has a different feel to it than most other subs, sure- because it's (mostly) a bunch of girls joking around- but the general etiquette isn't any different than any other sub.
It's more like, why would you click on a title that talked about period shits/period sneezes/leg hair/any other woman thing, then come in the comments and complain about how gross that is. Usually happens once one of the above reaches /r/all.
Also the "what do you mean women like butts??" thing that's come up a lot in the comments on TrollX once it hits /r/all.
I think it's more an 'our space, our rules, if you don't like it then fuck off' vibe.
sooo...would it be okay for /r/OneY to have the same attitude towards women redditors?
It certainly wouldn't be ok in trolly, I think all thise guys castrated themselves to be "less intimidating' to women.
No, because apparently "everywhere else" is men's safe spaces which is why women need safe spaces and men don't (this is actually seen in the real world if you live in Canada). Which if true, is weird, because women seem to everywhere too.
> misogthrow
Pls go
I'm actually asking seriously. I want a serious answer.
Can oneY or any other sub hold the same views regarding women.
This is serious. No, they cannot. Look at the mods, and then look at the subreddits they mod/frequent. Criticism of feminism is not allowed. There was actually some drama over it, some was even posted to /r/subredditdrama.
Hi! Mod of /r/OneY here. We are enforcing a rule against graceless generalizations of groups because every thread was turning into a gender wars thread.
Now you just can't rant about MRAs or feminists without good context for it. That's it! :)
I'm sure you could find people in /r/OneY that do take that attitude.
I have no idea, never seen it before, but if a woman came on to that sub going 'eewwww uncircumcised dicks are weird and gross' then I imagine joyfully telling her to fuck off and not let the foreskins hit you on the way out would be entirely appropriate.
whoever's downvoting /u/beardslap, please don't. They are participating in a discussion and are civil.
on that note I agree with the trolls who just come in and just say eww or generally to stir shit shouldn't be granted much warmth. But what about the general attitude of the sub? It's pretty common for trollX to be unwelcoming guys. Would it be okay for trollY also to be unwelcoming to girls?
Personally I don't think either should act in that manner. But then you can't do both be welcoming to every single group yet still cater to you subscribers, sometimes one side likes stuff that may make the other side feel uncomfortable. And the sub is tailored to these people. So you either have to decide between your main subscribers or visitors. And that decision is pretty straight forward.
I mock people when they feel like their opinions are special because they're a man.
Usually TrollX gets super defensive and trigger happy when a post makes it to r/all. It pisses me off. The rest of the time the men who post are treated like any other commenter.
> whoever's downvoting /u/beardslap[1] , please don't. They are participating in a discussion and are civil.
You're not my real dad you don't get to tell me what to do.
It's a woman's space talking about women's problems. If a man has something to contribute other than 'as a man' great. There are lots of men who do that, just the prolifically down voted ones are just really obvious so it seems disproportionate.
> Lol bodily excretions can make other people sick. You can get pinkeye if you get someone's poop in your eye.
You can get pinkeye from a lot of things, including getting poked in the eye with someone's leg hair.
edit: I see plenty of people here don't understand what pinkeye is.
Ah countering "body shaming" with "body shaming". This neckbeards/legbeards comes up often and I can no longer tell who is being serious. And let's be honest complaining about shaving standards for women and then insulting men over shaving standards has a tinge of hypocrisy.
Serious question - Do you think a "neckbeard" is "a man with hair on his neck"?
Do you think that when someone calls someone else a "neckbeard" that they are trying to shame them for their grooming habits?
Because this thread and the linked one seemed packed with people committed to pretending they don't know what "neckbeard" means so they can play the victim of body shaming where none has taken place.
You have to think everyone is very naïve if you want us to believe that "it's about the neckbeard in their hearts" when it just-so-happens that everyone featured in /r/justneckbeardthings fit a certain physical stereotype of nerd/socially-inept man.
Do they all have hair on their necks, and if so are they being made fun of for having hair on their necks or something else?
Do you think that "skinhead" insults a person for being bald, or for being a white supremacist?
Do you think by framing your constant questions in a biased manner will get you the response you so clearly crave?
Can you answer my questions without exposing your complete lack of coherent understanding of the terms? Because that's my point.
I wasn't even the person you were harassing, so no, I wont give you the (wrong) answer you're looking for. Screaming that nobody understands hasn't worked for you thus far, and it won't now. You and E Pluribus Shithead are wrong on this one.
It doesn't "work" when I get agreement or up votes, but thanks for putting this in the proper context of me harassing people, lol.
I feel like most of you will eventually realize that you were arguing on the wrong side of this one. Google neckbeard and tell me what images you see. Are you still going to argue that the term has no basis on physical appearance?
The neckbeard (hair style) is popular among nerdy, chubby male teens and twenty-somethings who think it makes them look mature and maybe obscures their double chins. Such men are known for holding certain ideas and eagerly sharing them on the Internet, such as how unfair it is that women won't fuck them and how important video games are.
That's where it came from, but like "skinhead" the term has changed to describe the set of beliefs held by people who often wear that hairstyle moreso than the hairstyle itself.
Do you seriously think that men with beards are a maligned or oppressed class of people? Do you think "skinhead" is an insult to bald people?
> Do you seriously think that men with beards are a maligned or oppressed class of people?
This is irrelevant. Why would a group need to be oppressed for it to be wrong to mock them?
The rest of what you said actually seems to support the argument that it's a body shaming term. That should be enough for people not to use it.
Having a shaved head was actually part of skinheads identity. It's not really comparable to neckbeard, which is just the result of low social awareness or bad fashion sense.
It's more comparable to the term hamplanet. The fat hate movement would argue that it refers to a state of mind, but it's clearly deragatory to fat people. I could never justify using the term. Neckbeard is no different.
You're never going to get it.
I'm never going to agree. That's true. I get the excuses for using the term. I just think they're shitty excuses. Why even use the term when you know people consider it offensive? Just pick a different word. Is it really that hard?
Generic insults do not tend to fit situations perfectly. They still are based in something. If I call someone a whore then that insult is still based in their sexual behaviour, if I call someone a bimbo then that insult is still based on the appearance. Even if I am criticising someone for something else, It still is highly hypocritical to apply an appearance insult to someone because they have an issue with appearance.
Nerdy looking males with fedoras and poorly groomed beards have been under criticism for ages now. And if the idea of that subreddit's users is true and everyone can dress how they want, then they really shouldn't attack someone with an appearance based insult.
There ya go. Nerdy looking males known for dressing a certain way and holding certain opinions.
Not men with hair on their necks, for having hair on their necks.
Therefor not body shaming, and not analogous to attacking women for not shaving their legs.
Remember the linked thread isn't "neckbeards vs legbeards", it's "neckbeards vs a picture of a woman's hairy legs, and by extension the idea of women not shaving their legs". That distinction is important.
I admire your perseverance to go down fighting. Never give up the ship!
I agree, but it's really obvious in context that they're not criticizing someone's appearance, they're criticizing their attitude.
Kind of like how "legbeard" is now a term for a woman who has an opinion you don't agree with.
Maybe, but you you wouldn't go on to call someone you accuse of slut shaming a whore/prostitute/slut and so on. It's just absurd to go onto saying, NO I didn't mean it like it sounds, but different. This is the not all blacks are niggers nonsense all over again.
It's amazing that you've found a way to defend the term neckbeard while also demonizing the term legbeard, which is literally meant to be the female equivalent of neckbeard.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What's so wrong about saying something is unattractive? Neckbeards on guys and hairy legs on girls just are unattractive. That's not shaming anyone, its just the way things are. That may change over time, but at the moment it isn't. Deal with it.
> a tinge of hypocrisy.
Its hypocrisy in its purest, rawest form.
more than a tinge. the fedora/neckbeard/m'lady thing is so beyond played out at this point. i don't like when someone calls me a feminazi or an sjw so it's not like i'm gonna do the same thing back.
this thread has made me realize that i'm sorta over-critical of how men groom their hair though (speaking as a man). i could give a flying fuck if a woman has leg/armpit hair but i still make fun of my friends if they have some scruff going and kinda look down on it. never on the internet, but regardless it's something for me to consider
It's just that it's a really easy way to win an argument the same way that punching a stranger from behind in the kidneys is an easy way to win a fight. "You're a fat/skinny/white/black/man/woman therefore you're wrong" is the sort of argumentative shortcut that makes it really easy to get assholes who agree with you* to not listen to someone and assert that any photo they post to prove they're not what you say they are is just shoop the wooped.
Calling them ugly just adds fuel to the fire, because then you can assert that any feeling they have is just them being sexually frustrated and sad about being unloveable. It feels stupid to point out that it's just namecalling to win because addressing someone's actual points is hard and takes thought and effort, but that's basically why lazy dicks in any fringey movement do it.
*not you specifically, the hypothetical ur-asshole that does this regularly
All I can get from this is that TwoX probably should have never been defaulted.
This is /r/trollxchromosomes, a different, non-defaulted sub.
Good lord, non-defaulted? I think what we need to take away is, whether it's a default or not, all subreddits on this site are terrible.
It's not reddit, it's redditors.
yeah people talk about smaller subreddits being good. they're not good, they're just not as bad yet.
I've seen several previously high quality subreddits get awful when they get too big. Case in point: /r/TumblrinAction used to be a place for moderate liberals and feminists to make fun of otherkin and TERFs, and now it's a gender wars battleground full of MRAs who call anyone with vaguely progressive views a "SJW".
Apparently I'm a neck beard for not liking hairy legged women...?
Body acceptance for some people seems to be telling people what they should find attractive. I don't care what you do with your body, but it could affect whether or not I find you attractive
IMO men who nit pick on tiny things like leg hair or armpit hair are ridiculous. If you have a drop dead gorgeous woman in front of you and you dismiss her because of some body hair, I just think you are shallow and haven't been around the block enough times with women.
I was a teenager once too, I didn't particularly like leg hair. But after countless relationships it matters as much as fucking dirty finger nails.A hot chick is a hot chick....the only deal breaker for me is bad hygiene.
and I would say the same thing to women who dismiss guys with beards.
You have within your right to dismiss women based on body hair, but i'm in my right to call you shallow.
IMO men who nit pick on tiny things like bad hygiene are ridiculous. If you have a drop dead gorgeous woman in front of you and you dismiss her because of some bad hygiene , I just think you are shallow and haven't been around the block enough times with women.
I was a teenager once too, I didn't particularly like bad hygiene . But after countless relationships it matters as much as fucking body hair. A hot chick is a hot chick....the only deal breaker for me is dirty finger nails
and I would say the same thing to women who dismiss guys with beards.
You have within your right to dismiss women based on bad hygiene , but i'm in my right to call you shallow
The girl's legs in the picture weren't even that hairy.
Here's my position on bearded ladies. Including leghair, pit hair, whatever.
Seriously, though. Living in a long-term relationship has made me used to a bit of leg-scruff.
Oh god i hope this doesn't become a trend, the patriarchy won't fall if you stop shaving your legs. Imo both women and men should take care of themselves, or they have no fucking right to complain about "shaming" because people don't find their (hairy)legs/armpits/untrimmed man-nails attractive. I mean i wouldn't be fucking offended if a girl thought a gigantic bush in my pants is unattractive (best comparison i can do since men usually dont shave in many places except the face)
If you don't want to shave your legs don't do it, but don't expect people to like it.
Ew. That is NOT a normal amount of body hair on a woman.
You're precious.
Oh honey.
Bro. Come on.
Nah man, she's preparing for the winter months, my ex did the same thing during january since she never had a reason to show her legs in the freezing temperature
I am of the north so the not shaving legs begins in mid October and lasts until March except in special occasions. I shaved for Thanksgiving. That and Christmas is probably it.
I looked through the controversial comments because, well, I wanted some context for the drama.
>I can't go more than 3 days without shaving. I need my legs smooth. Not to mention The Lady bits. I can't believe girls can handle having the hair. Personally love feeling smooth.
is in the double negatives and being called a special snowflake lol. How can you be in a thread that jerks about breaking social norms and then call someone who conforms to them a special snowflake?
I'll be honest in saying that that comment was made by me. I'm fine with her conforming to whatever she likes, it's the tone that her comment was written in that was very smug and judgy of other womens choices that made her seem like a very special snowflake to me.
Kind of an odd insult though.
Why would you call someone a special snowflake who was conforming to gender norms?
Her mentality is what made her seem like a special snowflake. Not her conformind actions, those were fine, that's her choice.
Fucking tone police
Wah.
Saying "I don't know why you like [thing]" isn't smug or judgy.
Had she said that, I would agree. But she didn't, she said she literally said she can't even believe people don't do things they way she does. That's pretty cunty.
No that's not what she said. She said:
>I can't believe girls can handle having the hair.
She's saying she can't handle it and she doesn't understand how others are capable of handling it.
It's the same as a man saying he doesn't understand how other men can handle having beards because they're itchy. The man isn't judging other men's choice of facial hair just explaining his choice.
It's not that hard to understand is my point. So she's being judgemental and rude, when there is no need for it. Other people have echoed her sentiments but they said it less rudely, and their comments were fine. I see no explaining there tbh.
And I still firmly believe that you're being overly sensitive. There's no intentional rudeness there.
If there's one thing I'm known for, it's my oversensitivity. /s A+ in your beliefs though, stick to 'em, I'm sure they'll get you far in life.
That was very smug, judgy, and rude.
I learned from the best.
Maybe it's because of the part 'I can't believe girls can handle having the hair'? Maybe some people saw it as an attack? Idk man.
Maybe some people should learn to deal with differing opinions.
not in muh safe space people shouldn't
Someone perceiving a completely innocuous comment as a personal attack generates 60% of this subs content.
On Trollx, special snowflake=girl I don't agree with. And I'm saying this as someone who likes the sub and the community, for the most part. It does have flaws, though. One of them is that they claim to be accepting but are actually quite harsh towards women who don't share their views (ie feminist, liberal, independent, anti-shaming, very sex-positive, etc)
As some one who hates image-macroy circlejerk subs with a passion, TrollX has days that make AA look decent by comparison.
In what way? I've seriously never been there... and now think I don't want to.
Here's a list of sentiments that TrollX upvotes heavily:
I'm emotionally parasitic on my significant other, but let's play it off as me being sweet and feminine and vulnerable.
I hate kids because women liking kids is cliché.
Look at my ass. This sub is totally just for women but loooook at my aaaaaaasssssssssssss.
Upvote me for having been in an abusive relationship!
I drink to the point of physical danger! Isn't that quirky?
Be passive aggressive towards people who think they're pretty by comparing themselves to other people. When asked whether this is because they have a positive self image or because they are being antagonistic, politely decline to answer.
Get super fucking married you dumb whore, ignore the thing about babies from before too.
My family member has a disease. Make me feel better with upvotes.
I eat unhealthily!
Something about catcalling because New York.
Obviously cherrypicked for shittier ones, but still.
I think they just laugh about, satirize, and subvert girly, feminine, confining gender expectations about What Makes A Good Woman, mostly. It's hit and miss, but all humor is hit and miss. I think they kill it, mostly; I love to lurk there.
And sure, they like to poke the bear a bit:
>Why are reddit dudes so quick to take offence at everything? It's like if you don't positively coddle them at every step they fall apart at the slightest jibe.
But that bear is SO pokable, SO predictable, and SO ridiculous. Who can blame them?
Some of those things are not like the others...
[deleted]
> Look at my ass. This sub is totally just for women but loooook at my aaaaaaasssssssssssss.
You aren't even looking yet! I said LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK AT IT!
You forgot "hey girls I'm a dude and i think you're cool lolololol"
nah. that's TrollY
In the reddit femisphere, special snowflake=girl I don't agree with. If only 'auntie Tom' was an acceptable dis.
They're obviously not "anti-shaming" if they shame a person who chooses to shave their legs.
No that is well reasoned criticism though I can understand your confusion. The difference is feelings.
Definitely, I love trollx because it's the one place on reddit that I can go where the majority population are women, but I also hate that you have to be a specific type of woman to be accepted there.
Only on some days and when some of us aren't around. Ugh I am TrollX defending but seriously we try to be awesome all the time and only manage it about 70% of the time.
The same thing happened with askwomen and twox (before it was all dudes) as they got larger
TwoX accepting default status was probably a mistake. You aren't going to remain a community for women when 60-ish% of the new accounts that have it as a default will be men.
Special snowflake is what you're called in trollx if you break the jerk.
I hate people telling me what to shave and all (particularly from reddit's biotruth crowd. I mean, biology put that shit there). But, neckbeard is pretty much the worst insult to throw out in this situation.
[deleted]
Your comments on this subject are just about the only ones I actually agree with.
So many opinions. Such little reading comprehension.
[deleted]
You are making a strawman, just because the stereotype of the neckbeard doesn't line up with any sort of institutional discrimination doesn't mean it isn't a shitty thing to perpetuate.
[deleted]
So anyone who has a scruffy beard and dresses a certain way conform to those set of beliefs? There isn't any possibility of variety in who they are?
[deleted]
They will never choose to understand when ignorance grants the illusion of being right and your opponent being stupid.
The only way to objectively win an argument online is for your opponent to admit defeat. People would rather act stupid than be thought of as having lost.
It mocks cishet white men, why would they have an issue with it?
"Insults and slurs are totally ok and 100% free speech and lol just jokes until they come up with an insult or slur that resembles me."
- reddit
I love these mental gymnastics, because the same people who make these arguments shit all over other applications of the same logic (and rightly so).
"Nigger isn't a derogatory reference to black skin, it's a derogatory reference to a particular character of person, which just happens to appear most often among black people."
"Faggot isn't a derogatory reference to sexual orientation, it's a derogatory reference to a particular character of person, which just happens to appear most often among gay people."
I get it. Men with poor hygeine and social skills don't experience institutionalized discrimination like black or gay people, and therefore the use of neckbeard doesn't cause harm in the same way that the use of nigger or faggot does. That's a good point, and absolutely true. The thing is, that has zero relevance on whether neckbeard is a derogatory reference based in part on physical appearance.
"I don't hate neckbeards, just neckbeard culture"
Granted, that was a very, very poor choice of words in a thread about body hair... Has anybody here had a stroll through the downvoted comments in the parent thread? It's jarring how many people are offended by her legs. And half the comments are deleted now - can you imagine what they must've said?
I find it curious that many men who browse reddit expect women to be perfect, BUT they can't be high maintenance or leave any evidence of their beauty routine. So you have to wear enough makeup to be pretty, but you can't look like you're wearing it (i.e. "I prefer girls with no makeup"). You have to have silky smooth hairless legs all the time, but you can't take too long in the bathroom. You have to be thin and fit, but I want a woman who can eat, not somebody worried about keeping a trim figure.
I want to say most of them are just young, teenagers or so, but I can't help but think of that "pointy elbows, would not bang" meme. These are adult men who basically want android (gynoid?) girlfriends and are disturbed when they learn women are human, too.
Which means we are, to varying degrees, hairy.
I don't care about the leghair nonsense. I read trollX because it's generally funny, but good grief they had about 10 posts per day in November that were nothing but "LOL LEGHAIR NOVEMBER". Like, dang, we get it.