~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
onceagainwehavethat
[–]americandreams100 192 points193 points194 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
Feminists love to throw around the words "systemic sexism" all the time... Well this is a perfect example of it. Very ironic how the things they complain about happen to men just as much if not more often.
[–]Shippoyasha 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Much much more nowadays. It's become hip to throw men (especially heterosexual) under the bus. Meanwhile the only press we are supposed to get about women are all positives. Never the gray areas or even the times they may commit evil.
[–]Maelshevek 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It’s been sliding that was for probably 25-30 years. Watching old TV shows with female characters—even early episodes of Cheers—show how men are dumb and women are smart.
If I may make a statement though—making it popular and okay to stereotype an entire class of people in a highly unfavorable manner is the very definition of evil behavior. It’s literally the definition of racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
However, it’s branded as good. People are readily calling good evil and evil good, and are making it popular and spreading it. It’s the same thing that women accuse Hollywood of doing when it portrays them! How the pendulum has swung in the other direction.
At the end of the day we just want to be treated as people, equally. What a world.
[–]yllennodmij 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Didn't you hear? Sexism can't apply to men and racism can't apply to white people
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This means both of those words and the concepts behind them exist solely for the denigration of a single demographic. Or, by the standards the feminazis have set, hate speech. And that's the end of that story.
[–]yllennodmij 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I try not to use words like feminazi, because you'll never get public understanding. I use the term modern feminism. Because originally, feminism was created to gain equality for women, who legitimately had fewer rights than men. I do not see modern feminism as working towards that as much as man shaming and calling everything rape. But we're no better if we same feminazi. I dream of a society where men and women can treat each other as brother and sister (metaphorically) and tackle real injustices together.
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then let me be more clear. As not all self identifying feminists (I work at a college, so I see a few) behave this way, there needs to be distinction. Feminazi, honestly, carries exactly the fascist thought and society controlling overtones I was looking for. Not all feminists are feminazis. This one surely is.
And what you are dreaming of already has a name. It's called egalitarianism. Please note the total lack of reference to gender or race in the name - as is appropriate to the desired result. Honestly a movement called feminism cannot be about total equality anymore than a group called maleism or midgetism would be. It's a farce.
[–]CeamoreCash -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"systemic sexism"
Hold up, before we dive straight into this and start using trigger words, don't you think we should make 100% sure this is intentional by trying more than just 2 words?
[–]ntr0py 189 points190 points191 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, google is clearly never manipulating search results to push an agenda. Try searching for "American inventors"...
[–]galtthedestroyer 61 points62 points63 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I found a white male! Thomas Edison
[–]NolanHarlow 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's because he's the only white guy to have ever invented anything. Duh.
........./s. If that's needed.
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Al Gore
[–]Ghost4000 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's weird... Just yesterday I told a friend "I started looking around the men's rights sub and it's kind of weird. But there's some good content."
He asked me "is it men's rights or white men's rights." and I told him it seems to be focused just on being mad at women all the time with a few reasonable people here and there, no racial component.
Apparently I just had to give it a weekend for the racial part.
Anyway you could have taken a moment to consider exactly what you were googling.
American inventor is similar to African American inventor.
Look what happens when you Google us inventor.
Woah
[–]MrCommotion 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Shut up, stop being rational here! /s
But yeah, it's still a bit weird that if you google "American inventors" you get mostly black people, although it's now mostly people talking about this. Bing gives somewhat differing results but still, there are more white people if you search that. I found it interesting.
[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Relax. I was just being flippant regarding the other comment. Ever since the James Damore incident there's been a lot of attention about Google making life tough for 'white males'. It seems to be true, and joking about it helps lighten the mood sometimes.
I'm actually one of the ones who tries to curtail all of the shitposts that aren't 'rights' related or that show single examples of women behaving badly rather than overall trends.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]nox66 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The irony. It's too much.
[–]assholeapproach 51 points52 points53 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's because the term "American inventor" is 2/3 of the term "African American inventor." Try searching for "US inventors." You get completely different results.
[–]skipdo 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good catch!
[–]Novocaine0 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This
[–]umnikos_bots 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That.
[–]RhEEziE 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And the other thing.
[–]DAE_lyk_karma14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay, that's just literal indoctrination. Fine to sprinkle a couple of 'diverse peoples' in there for reasons of inclusivity, but this is patent dishonesty.
[–]R0FLC0PT3R3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
🤔
[–]htippetts 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My favourite is "historical European people"
[–]PffthbtMeg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's on duckduckgo also
[–]Ghost4000 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What exactly offends you so much about this?
Inventors
[–]MarcusAustralius 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
It's a bit more dramatic on desktop. There's only onetwo white inventors in the first two pages.
page 1: https://i.imgur.com/120LSRj.png
page 2: https://i.imgur.com/oh07W51.png
They're not being sorted by date, or magnitude of impact, wonder how this listing was picked...
[–]Ghost4000 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes it's a bit more dramatic on desktop I suppose.
Well, as I pointed out in another post in this thread. Try Google "us inventors" and you'll find many more white men.
I suspect that is happening is that "American inventors" is picking up many "African American inventors" hits.
Give it a shot and tell me if it's more what you'd expect to see.
[–]MarcusAustralius 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah that's more what I would expect. You have a good theory there.
[–]CounterfeitMemes 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeesh, confirmed it myself too.
[–]zulu127 76 points77 points78 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I checked some other search engines and found similar results using Dogpile and Bing. DuckDuckGo came up with no autocomplete for either query and Yahoo! had autocomplete for both sexes. Interesting.
edit: Quit using Google as a search engine.
[–]HiredMind 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Interesting related: On google, the query "why are women" comes up with autocompletes that I'd classify as neutral. But if you add the "so", making the query more negative toward women, the autocomplete is disabled.
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, confirmed.
[–]ttnorac 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
THE FUCK?!?
I just tried it, and its true.
[–]danielmd92 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think that's what the majority of people are searching for. Comes to say how the majority sees men? Either way mildly annoying
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But big point is that searching the same way for women comes up blank - Google protects women by not storing those results. They don't protect men the same way.
[–]danielmd92 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wth? https://imgur.com/gallery/tRavPbY
So, "so" ends the suggestions...funny how the previous image I uploaded said "why are women so cold"
[–]danielmd92 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
1st one... https://imgur.com/gallery/5esJlCG
My location actually shows it. So SJWs Google are only in the US?
[–]aerovado 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I usually don't believe these "screen shots" but call me a monkey's uncle, I was able to replicate it.
[–]hottama 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Google is not a search engine anymore.
[–]Cronyx 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's a Cultural Curation Engine.
[–]hottama 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Can you remember something else that was curated and failed despite having everything in their favor? Yahoo.
[–]aa2397 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn that hit deep
[–]clockworkGhost- 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
lol yes it is
[–]uniqueusername1190 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I honestly thought this was bullshit so I went to check myself but nope, it's real. Still bullshit in a different manner.
[–]GigaGrey9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The German variant
Eh. It is tougher on the men, but not really nice to the women either.
[–]MrCommotion 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unrelated, but it also happens if you search for "Islam is so," but not "Christianity is so"
[–]M8753 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This works on chrome but not on firefox..??
[–]CounterfeitMemes 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I just did it on Firefox and I had the same results as OP.
[–]clockworkGhost- 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Firefox might have suggestions on by default, I think it had for me. Although, I am currently using DuckDuckGo and I can't quite remember what it was like using Google.
[–]kuntslayer 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought this was fake and gay bullshit then I went and tried it myself, was totally legit.
[–]pennywaffer 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I got "why are women's nipples sore" as only result
[–]benbrum 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It just worked for me. (Deleting former comment.) It also worked for women but with supportive and positive results for them. The men had all negative results like the ones above. I wonder if it's Google's algorithms or the prevalence of what gets searched for men.
[–]AnAceAttorneyFan 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As HiredMind pointed out, it gives you pretty neutral results if you let it autocomplete from "why are women", but if you add "so", which makes the results more negative, then it disables the suggestions. It still works for "why are men so" though, which is some ridiculous bias.
[–]Ninagram 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You can report inappropriate Google search predictions (the link is right under the search bar when predictions are showing). My guess is nobody reported the "why are men so" search results, but did report the "why are women so."
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So nobody at Google thought, "Hey, since we're going to protect women this way, we should do the same for men?".
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I would think this is largely automated, I doubt they have staff sitting there reading the complaints. It could be like they have to receive x number of complaints in order to hide the results, or if they receive complaints they do some lexical/keyword analysis to see if it's a problem. I don't know how they do things, it's just a guess.
[–]mikesum32 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn visuals!
[–]kantomasterspencer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Bing does the same thing.
[–]WorkyMcWorkmeister 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't trigger the ideological commissars at the googlag, they'll kick you into their marxist memory hole. Which is now unfortunate since they control the entire internet...
I seriously hope they get eviscerated by anti-trust monopoly busters for their jackboot bullshit, ironically the EU is actually leading the way on this and I can't thank them enough.
[–]turbulance4 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
I tried dropping the word "so."
It didn't help much.
[–]imguralbumbot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/YV7gCGo.png
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks, bot. I fixed it
[–]imguralbumbot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
no problem
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme
[–]SmallFlyingPolarBear 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just verified. WTF???
[–]tiniestkid 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Confirmed. Done in incognito so no influence on autofill from account data. Also tried some other searches.
[–]Borgatbars 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Weird, Swedish Google doesn't do this, I would've thought it would...
https://i.imgur.com/Ax2DQGF.png
So, for males (left) it goes:
Women:
[–]fastfwd 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also does not do it in French
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
More fun: Search "Why are mras so" And "Why are feminists so"
Tell me what you find.
[–]FilmingAction 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why is the tag "unconfirmed"? I just tried it and it's the same.
[–]M8753 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's not clear to me how this logic works. I tried a few different religion names and don't see consistency in the results, some show suggestions, some don't. What browser did you use?
[–]brokedown 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For a good laugh, try it with "why are [men|women] such" instead of "so".
It's almost like they did it on purpose.. but I won't ruin the surprise.
[–]Akesgeroth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Pure coincidence.
[–][deleted] 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
What are you talking about though that men do all of the work and make most of the money? In 40% of US households with a child under age 18, the mother is the primary breadwinner.
[–]ifelsedowhile 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Single mothers.
[–]Wsing1974 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't think they're counting alimony or child support checks.
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
These comments seem more incel than MRA to me.
It was just a guess.
[–]Macdaddyfucboi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah this actually popped up I'm not surprised tbh
[–]MGTOWManofMystery 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just had the same results. The anti-male Goolag.
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You can "Report inappropriate predictions" on Google, so I reported this. Did anyone else? Probably nobody ever bothered to report it before. If you search for "why are <any-race> people so", it doesn't auto-predict either. If you search for "why are puppies so" it auto-predicts (cute) stuff.
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Is there any other possible explanation for this other than malicious intent?
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Well I stated an alternative explanation, which is that maybe nobody ever bothered to report the auto-predict results for "why are men so". Maybe the results for others were worse, or maybe people just got more offended, so they reported it. I would be surprised if more than a handful of people (if anyone besides me) on this thread even bothered to report the "why are men so" results. Another explanation might be that the auto-predict results for women or other groups might have contained terms that are automatically filtered out by Google algorithms, like explicitly sexual or racist terms.
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I tried to get auto-predict results from
and got none.
I also got 0 auto-predict results for "women are so" or "men are so" either.
How much can we conclude from just one search result not auto-predicting?
That's what I'm trying to argue in this thread...
[–]Ninagram 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't know which seems more likely. That Google, which is mostly men engineers, is ensuring that only men have bad auto-predict results about themselves, no matter how you type the phrase... or that some search phrases were reported as inappropriate by other groups, but men, who are not typically bothered by bad things said about them because they're used it, didn't bother to report unkind auto-predicts about men. The second seems more likely to me.
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Has anyone tried typing in any other word other than "women" and "men." On top of that has you tried dropping the word why and searching just for "women are so."
If you try this please tell me what you find?
Holy shit, I wasn't 100% sure this was real, so I did the same thing, and got the exact same results! Negative autocomplete suggestions for men, nothing for women. Fuck you, Google.
[–]JohnjSmithsJnr 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I just checked this and got the exact same thing
[–]FlagrantWrongsDotCom 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Would just note that because of how googles back end is designed it could have a lot more to do with the language used by people searching for those things than anything else. It could be worthwhile to just submit feedback regarding this, noting that the suggestions dont appear to be functioning correctly. From my understanding at least they are fairly responsive typically if there is a legitimate issue.
(For context Ive potentially made market observations for years regarding their stock that has had an immediate correlation with billions of value creation for them in minutes. Admittedly its a little weird I have extensive documentation of that though have the types of issues like some of you are probably aware of and the violations noted on the website re my ex. She sure as anything could pretty much never add value to markets nor add likely even a few mil of value yet at the moment i dont have google's people rushing to defend/protect somebody who has a history of adding more value to them for less than any of their IB's/many of their other counterparties they pay to just try to do that or less.)
[–]kantomasterspencer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is confirmed. I tested it on google and Bing.
[–]jantexES1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The key word here is SO!
[+]rainman206 -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Somewhere out there men are being falsely accused, and stripped of parental rights, or suffering in an abusive relationship...
but sure, let's talk about how an algorithm is sexist because we don't like what other people have been searching for...
[–]Barkalow 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Remember everyone: We can only pick ONE THING to be upset about! NO MORE
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Movements have their own unique challenges and criticisms (rightly or wrongly) to deal with. For men's rights that includes the idea that our issues are trivial and dramatized.
With that in mind, I'm always super careful to focus only on the most important and visible issues.
Everyone can say what they want, I just think posts like this are generally a set back for mainstream acceptance. Perhaps that's my goal, and my goal alone.
[–]Barkalow 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Or, we can talk about all the issues. Just a thought.
[–]rubixd 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are there bigger issues than how google delivers content? Yes. However the way google delivers content is part of the problem.
[–][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Barkalow 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
...yeah, I know. He implied that the sub should be relegated to only high impact, visible issues. I said that it should be for all issues.
[–]firegodjr 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm an idiot, sorry
[–]LimbRetrieval-Bot -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You dropped this \
To prevent anymore lost limbs throughout Reddit, correctly escape the arms and shoulders by typing the shrug as ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ or ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Click here to see why this is necessary
[–]yoshi_win 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We could talk about how sexist those people are who type that stuff in?
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Don't confuse being the most cynical with being the most right.
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's not about my perspective; it's about controlling the conversation and not legitimizing the fucked up way that feminists portray the movement.
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If it's not about your perspective, then why are you trying to convince everyone that your favorite men's rights issues are the only ones worth talking about?
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm not really sure what you're getting at...
If you're asking why I care, it's because the media controls public perception and the public perception of men's rights is REALLY bad.
I'd like for that to change. I can't do it myself so I come here to try to influence folks to stay focused and positive. Basically I call out outrage-porn and misogyny when I see it.
Is that what was behind your question?
I think you might have misunderstood this post. It's not about google search results being anti-men because the users are anti-men and complaining about those users pointlessly. Google is actually preventing negative search suggestions about women from being displayed, despite our assumption that such searches are performed.
[+]3R3B05 -35 points-34 points-33 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
It's not like Google decides what results show up, those are just the most searched terms.
[–]mendokusai99 61 points62 points63 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Not like Google tweaks its autocomplete algorithm or anything...
[+]SoapKing -64 points-63 points-62 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
So you think someone at google maliciously changed the autocomplete? Because they don’t like men? It might be time to pull your head out of your ass son.
[–]desderon 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Yes, you can clearly see how Google has blocked the results for the women but has no problems with the results for men.
[+]SoapKing -90 points-89 points-88 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
How terribly oppressed you must feel. Maybe you need a safe space. When did men get so whiny and pathetic?
[–]EricAllonde 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How terribly oppressed you must feel.
Good rule of thumb:
As soon as someone starts going on about anybody "being oppressed", you know you're dealing with a feminist and thus they can be safely ignored. They have nothing factual or rational to contribute to the discussion.
[–]desderon 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not complaining about the results of men. I actually agree with you that society is becoming too sensitive. I'm pointing out the double standard.
[–]bufedad 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wow... feminists using gender role insults against men. Surprised? Not really.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Every single thing the feminazi says is designed to mask their man hate behind a thin veneer of intellectualism.
[–]maceurt 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Targeted discrimination against a group of people by a website with a near monopoly on the search engine market with no real alternative. Wonder why people would be angry.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is amazing how easy it is to get you feminazis to let your masks slip.
[–]WithBothNostrils 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
thanks cunt
[+]LeafFallGround -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I like how you told someone to stop being a bitch because it makes the cause looks bad and your karma got shit on. Didnt know this was r/menmakeexcusesforeachother
[+]SoapKing 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seriously. Shit like custody issues I can totally get behind. But judging by this post, this seems like a place where men go to become little boys.
[–]mendokusai99 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My head isn’t so far up my ass that I can’t do a simple google search to find that there are numerous articles on “google alters search autocomplete” as far back as 2011, upon a cursory view.
[–]bufedad 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
maliciously
Maliciously? Not according to them. Protecting women is a righteous and noble endeavor.
[–]Daktush 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They did do this for sure yes, with whole HRC server fiasco top results regularly disappeared
[–]majortom22 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah. Grab'em by [insert Trump comment] doesn't come up. And, in my view personally, I think that's right. I don't think that should come up in Google's suggest search. Anybody seeking that knows what they need to do.
Does anybody think that Google extends such decency if its about grabbing men? Nope. Says it right there. That's really something you'd want your daughter to see.
So nobody has ever searched "why are women so _______"? Today is the first day anyone ever typed that in the search engine?
[+]randezvouswithrama -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Then again nobody knows how Google's algorithms work, not even Google itself. Though they naturally know more than the rest of us whom they tell very little. What we do know is that there are thousands of employees who tweak the results based on secret rules.
Soon they're gonna change the name to Godle. But until that happens I'm with you: making men feel bad can't be high on their list of priorities.
[–]bufedad 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
making men feel bad can't be high on their list of priorities.
preventing women from feeling bad, however, IS surprisingly high on their list of priorities.
[+]3R3B05 -15 points-14 points-13 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I'd guess preventing anyone from feeling bad while they're on your site is a high priority for any online company.
It's not like they don't want your money because you're a man.
[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Not anyone... just women, minorities, trans... pretty much anyone other than cis white males... read up on the internal communications revealed by the James Damore fiasco. Google's internal culture is horrible bigoted against men (white men in particular)
[+]3R3B05 -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I am aware of that scandal, but I am 100% sure they will still take your money regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc.
[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you are aware of the internal communications related to that scandal, you realize they feel completely justified discriminating against men.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A klansman may take a black man's money. What does that prove?
[+]3R3B05 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're not getting no service or worse service because of your gender/race/etc. with Google. From a pure business standpoint, it's just stupid not to accept a certain customer because of his race/gender/etc.
Your comparison seems to be pretty far fatched, Google is not plotting to kill us.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You contradict yourself. Either they simply don't want customers feeling bad (in which case this would extend to men), or they only care about women (in which case, you would get the evident result).
Everything you feminists say is an ever-shifting rationale for your bigotry.
[+]3R3B05 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I do not know how Google's algorithm works. I do not know why the results are showing up as presented. Neither do you.
All I am saying is that there is no particular reason for Google to make you (or me) as a man have a bad time on their website. It's just illogical.
If you think it's problematic that there are these suggestions, there's a "Report innapropriate predictions" button. Maybe this is a reason why the results show up like this. Because there were more people who typed "why are women so" and thought that the shown results were inappropriate than there were people who typed the sentence with "men" and thought the results were inappropriate.
Also, why are you calling me a feminist?
[+]Donnough -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
This might be the dumbest fucking post I've ever seen on this sub, I was hoping it would be satire or something but looks like you're serious. Why didn't you include the autocomplete results for the women search? I'm sure they exist as it is an extremely common phrase to search for.
[–]Zalaiya 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
There aren't any autocomplete results for the 'Why are women so __', try it.
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Does this lead to only one solution, or could it be possible that there is another reason why this happened?
[–]agree-with-you 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
this [th is] 1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): e.g This is my coat.
[–]Donnough -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Cool, but this proves literally nothing and this post is a waste of space and time.
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not malicious. It's coddling women, and indifference toward men. Par for the course, old chap.
I tried typing in "why are <any race, religion, or nationality> so" and got nothing...
Does this mean that all these terms, like "why are Mexicans so" and "why are Buddhists so", were all removed by Google?
That seems like a reasonable conclusion.
[–]Donnough 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok cool, it still proves literally nothing and I'm not sure why this post even exists here.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]americandreams100 192 points193 points194 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shippoyasha 35 points36 points37 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Maelshevek 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yllennodmij 12 points13 points14 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]yllennodmij 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ntr0py 189 points190 points191 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]galtthedestroyer 61 points62 points63 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]NolanHarlow 38 points39 points40 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ghost4000 9 points10 points11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrCommotion 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nox66 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]assholeapproach 51 points52 points53 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]skipdo 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Novocaine0 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]umnikos_bots 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RhEEziE 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DAE_lyk_karma14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]R0FLC0PT3R3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]htippetts 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PffthbtMeg 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ghost4000 -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]MarcusAustralius 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ghost4000 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MarcusAustralius 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CounterfeitMemes 27 points28 points29 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zulu127 76 points77 points78 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HiredMind 26 points27 points28 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ttnorac 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]danielmd92 18 points19 points20 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]danielmd92 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]danielmd92 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]aerovado 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hottama 37 points38 points39 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cronyx 17 points18 points19 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hottama 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]aa2397 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]clockworkGhost- 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uniqueusername1190 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GigaGrey9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrCommotion 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]M8753 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CounterfeitMemes 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]clockworkGhost- 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kuntslayer 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pennywaffer 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]benbrum 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnAceAttorneyFan 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesum32 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kantomasterspencer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WorkyMcWorkmeister 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]turbulance4 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]imguralbumbot 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]imguralbumbot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SmallFlyingPolarBear 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tiniestkid 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Borgatbars 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fastfwd 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FilmingAction 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]M8753 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]brokedown 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Akesgeroth 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ifelsedowhile 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Macdaddyfucboi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MGTOWManofMystery 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ninagram 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JohnjSmithsJnr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlagrantWrongsDotCom 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kantomasterspencer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jantexES1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]rainman206 -12 points-11 points-10 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Barkalow 26 points27 points28 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Barkalow 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rubixd 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Barkalow 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]firegodjr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LimbRetrieval-Bot -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yoshi_win 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nelsonblaha 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]3R3B05 -35 points-34 points-33 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]mendokusai99 61 points62 points63 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]SoapKing -64 points-63 points-62 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]desderon 44 points45 points46 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]SoapKing -90 points-89 points-88 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 48 points49 points50 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]desderon 25 points26 points27 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 28 points29 points30 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]maceurt 28 points29 points30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WithBothNostrils 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]LeafFallGround -10 points-9 points-8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]SoapKing 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mendokusai99 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Daktush 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]majortom22 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]randezvouswithrama -6 points-5 points-4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 21 points22 points23 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]3R3B05 -15 points-14 points-13 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]3R3B05 -9 points-8 points-7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]3R3B05 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]3R3B05 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Donnough -7 points-6 points-5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zalaiya 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]agree-with-you 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Donnough -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeamoreCash 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Donnough 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link