But I do agree to a certain extent with the people on the other thread who pointed out the double standards of being furious about men mocking MN threads when plenty of MNers mock them as well,
Surely it depends on what thread is being mocked? I don't think anybody would object if a football forum pulled the 'screaming in the Sistine chapel' thread and had themselves a good time at the OPs expense ... everyone here was as well - she was well and truly BU.
But if it's just an innocuous thread filled with innocuous replies and they're pulling the replies apart as well ... then that suggests what they're doing is using their free time to rip apart and belittle women for no reason other than they enjoy doing it - which is far more sinister.
Unfortunately, I didn't read the thread the football thread was laughing at so I don't know whereabouts on the scale of ridiculous - innocuous it falls.
I tried to look at the football forum but - unless it just wasn't loading on my computer - it's really not a user friendly forum. So I can't see whether their thread is lighthearted and friendly or... the other thing.
complaining about men's forum threads rating women on their attractiveness, when there are plenty of MN threads rating men in a similar way.
We don't have 'minx or minger' threads on MN - and we don't 'rate' men. There are sometimes 'who do you find attractive' threads where people post pictures of celebrities (sans a score) they fancy. Yes I suppose that is objectification - but it is a completely different level to having a bantzy alliterative title where you pull a picture (and this doesn't even have to be a celebrity - who to a certain extent enter into and agree to this when they choose their career - it's not like 'heart throb' is a brand new concept) and then rate whether they are hot or not.
'here's a picture of a famous person I fancy' is a completely different thing to 'here's a picture of a random person - tell us what you think, using cruel or objectifying language.'
Snakes with tits is horrendous though - and doesn't leave me willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who use it. It's a phrase that dehumanises women by calling them an animal (like so many of our women only insults) and then adds crude sexual objectification on the top for good measure.
Over on the other thread people were trying to defend this because women here call men bastards - and say LTB, as if that's somehow comparable. No - inventing an insult that calls a woman an animal with sexualised body parts is not the same as calling a man an incredibly generic and fully human swear word.
But I really couldn't be bothered taking the time trying to explain it to posters who couldn't work out the difference for themselves.
There are certain men who are threatened by MN - and we all know why and we see what they do. Saying 'well it's a double standard to complain because not all women on MN are perfect all the time either, they do x, y and z ' is ridiculous (and sexist - women can only complain about mistreatment if they are 100% above reproach in all things). The fact is: MNers don't trawl male dominated websites to find innocuous threads they are posting, bring them back here and then laugh at what all the men have got to say for themselves. When we do have threads 'laughing at men' they tend to be like the Fat Balls thread, personal funny stories about men we love, teasing them for a moment of idiocy. That is not even in the same universe as taking posts from a stranger, removing context, deliberately misunderstanding or just plain being a dick by making fun of what they said (possibly whilst referring to this stranger as some kind of sexualised animal.)
Some men do choose to trawl MN and do exactly that, though - and any man that does, you can just write off as a misogynist. Which is handy, I suppose, but probably quite upsetting if you find out you're married to one of them.