TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ailer Archive

View 14 posts and 305 comments by Ailer on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

Lysistrata is the Greek play... it's by Aristophanes, who also wrote The Assembly (what Athens would have been like if it was run by women - aka, proto-communism)
/r/MGTOW03/11/18 09:01 PM
8

Read about the "Flappers" in the 1920s. Womens sexual liberation predates the pill by a good bit.
/r/MGTOW16/10/18 11:41 AM
5

How many of the men flashed passing fishers to get food? I also don't remember the men making a wild boar a pet while they were starving....
/r/MensRights08/08/18 01:41 PM
4

Men with low IQs are destructive to their environment... the US Army considers anyone with below an 83 IQ to be counter-productive (they cause more issues than they solve). Women will get a free pass when it comes to IQ because a woman with a 140 IQ and a woman with a 10 IQ are both just as capable of doing the thing society wants them to do: get pregnant. Women in all female prisons do not get pregnant (which we want them to do) so they will have to behave in a significantly more destructive fa…
/r/MGTOW01/07/18 01:55 PM
1

Not working 80hrs a week may well be illegal soon. Ah, but they also want to close the gender wage gap, which means either men have to start working 30hrs a week like women, or women have to work 80hrs a week. Bachelor taxes (low probability - women earn the majority of income in the 20-30 age group) or state arranged marriages (high probability - older women are looking for "good" men) would be my bets.
/r/MGTOW17/06/18 11:48 AM
9

Dude, read the declaration of sentiments (written 1848). Women have been demanding rights without responsibility from the very beginning.
/r/MGTOW12/06/18 10:15 PM
1

Makes good sense, but there is an issue with this perspective that is born out in reality: how do you explain childless women? If the objective for women is to have children with the "best" possible partner, a childless woman must never have had any possible partners. This is an observable falsehood: most childless women have had a rather sizable number of former partners. Women's tendency to "date across and up" dominance hierarchies is the reason these women don't have children: they want to m…
/r/MGTOW30/12/17 03:49 PM
2

THIS study shows that while all women love money that relative to other women that Chinese love money the most. Ah collectivism. Nothing makes you want money more than living in a system where it isn't supposed to exist.
/r/MGTOW30/12/17 03:33 PM
24

Read about the doctor shortage being suffered by the NHS in Great Britain. What you fear has already come to pass.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 01:12 PM
2

The fact Warren wrote "The two income trap" pretty much ensures the democrats will not be touching her as a representative for the party. They'll turn against her in the same fashion they did Bernie. She's got "bad optics" written all over her.
/r/MGTOW07/12/17 01:49 PM
9

Here is a riding that, due to one womans easily offended nature, essentially does not have a representative in our national assembly. Seven words were enough to keep from her responsibilities... not threats, or actual violence, but an off-hand joke (repeatedly apologized for) was enough to break this woman. What's extra stupid is that this woman is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence. Canada has gone full feminist with this lady,…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:01 PM
1

It's a real problem because as Peterson points out, men have no effective way of dealing with "crazy women" His comments reminded me of an old interview with Sean Connery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXkbJwrN38
/r/MensRights13/11/17 01:19 PM
2

I don't think this is entirely true... It depends on what your career/livelihood is based on. Please explain the James Demore/Google memo controversy. Systems engineers are hardly public image or perception positions... and not particularly dime a dozen commodities given the academic requirements.
/r/MGTOW13/11/17 01:51 AM
6

This is probably why we're going to start seeing more of these articles. The reality you so succinctly pointed out is starting to be a bit too real to be ignored anymore, and as everyone here knows, nothing is ever a womans fault... as such, it must be mens labour force participation causing these problems. Of course, there's also the income inequality and separating of society into haves and have nots that comes as a consequence of dual income families as well, but we're still a ways away from …
/r/MGTOW29/10/17 12:52 PM
1

We're at about 4000% over the shock-proof carrying capacity of the Earth We also have some people living in a tin can floating around Earth. We are not constrained to one planet. What? Where? Most great philosophers, ranging from Buddha to Diogenes to Nietzsche Nietzche on marriage (he's for it, but suggests marrying ugly girls): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20797222.2009.11433997 Buddhism is neither for, nor against marriage. You are correct with regards to Diogenes though. My per…
/r/MGTOW10/10/17 08:42 PM
1

Gynocentrism and female nature are so deeply ingrained in the human condition, that men will pretty much suffer under any regime Yes. But, if humanity is to survive, there's no choice about this. Men are disposable, and women aren't, entirely due to the reproductive dynamic. Walking away does not suddenly make you in-disposable... if anything, it reaffirms your disposability. The reason MGTOW exists is because Men are not getting the respect they have traditionally (nor the respect they deserve,…
/r/MGTOW10/10/17 07:09 PM
1

For those who would prefer an audio-book version of the essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGluGB4JUFg&list=PLZxjlIa_Au5dG0SvR_aRYBKp67qzRkGf3
/r/MGTOW10/10/17 12:40 PM
1

While you're correct Gynocentrism has been with us since the beginning of time, you are missing how Feminism has changed Gynocentrism into what I like to think of as Gynocentrism- (something of a play on the old Atheism+ thing) For much of human history Gynocentrism has simply been "protect women from everything". Feminist demanded this change to be "protect women from everything except themselves". In the past, you could smack a womans hand away as they were about to put it in the wall socket, …
/r/MGTOW10/10/17 12:37 PM
4

If the age of consent was about the healthy production of children, yes, it WOULD bring up age of consent for debate. However, the age of consent has nothing to do with the healthy production of children, and is rather about women maintaining control over sexuality. So no, I wouldn't expect the age of consent to suddenly be brought up to debate... at least not womens age of consent. We may see something about mens age of consent... like maybe men always consent, regardless of whether they're a 1…
/r/MGTOW09/10/17 04:42 PM
4

Hold on, just to clarify... Are women hitting the wall at younger age nowadays ? Yes. I mean do their looks fade more quickly as result of increasingly more intense carousel riding ? No. Womens Menses is beginning earlier (used to be 14-15, today its as young as 11-12) so their window of fertility has slid back. A woman who begins to menstruate at 14 will begin to lose her fertility around 28. A woman woman who began to menstruate at 11 will begin to lose her fertility around 25. Women who are t…
/r/MGTOW09/10/17 02:34 PM
7

This one is from a couple of years ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/16/female-teachers-give-male_n_1281236.html There are a huge number of examples however, and it depends on what aspect of school we're talking about. Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a book about the trend called "The war on Boys" that attempted to get a "full picture" of the situation going on in public schools, though she was obviously looking at the public school system in the USA instead of the UK.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 12:59 PM
-1

ALL colleges used to be male only. To treat this college as atypical because it was a single gender college in the past is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 02:59 PM
2

Harvard was an all male school for the exact same amount of time. Strange that it doesn't have these gender parity issues.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 02:58 PM
80

The last few paragraphs, the ones that mentions MGTOW, are surprisingly fair. Mgtow aims for total male separatism, including forgoing children, avoiding marriage and limiting involvement with women. Its message boards are brimming with activity from Silicon Valley, Mr. Altizer said. On the Mgtow message boards, members discuss work (“Ever work for a woman? Roll up your sleeves and share your horror story”), technology (“The stuff girlfriends and wives can’t stand — computers, games, consoles”) …
/r/MGTOW24/09/17 12:12 AM
18

If you're going to link to this study, try something not quite as gynocentric as the BBC. For example, when PJ media reported on this a number of years ago, they correctly pointed out that female teachers give higher marks to girls, as opposed to saying all teachers give higher marks to girls. It also points out the boys are fully aware they are marked down simply due to the gender of the person marking them. From (god I can't believe I'm about to link to them) Huffington Post in 2012: "Addition…
/r/MGTOW19/09/17 09:23 PM
23

So... creating a non-existent person and using them to do business isn't identify fraud, and is something young women should think about doing. Apparently, according to a VICE interview done all of 6 months after the company was founded (how do you get that kind of publicity? By being family of course!) their fake man is on the payroll as a consultant. Nope, no fraud going on here, just vagina. We ended up creating a fake male employee named Keith Mann so we could avoid unsolicited advice on the…
/r/MGTOW30/08/17 12:13 PM
1

If you don't use social media, then you're anti-social and obviously not a team player.
/r/MGTOW29/08/17 03:14 AM
3

I... really like this post. And that New York Times article? Perfect. But... I just can't tolerate inaccurate statements. And this: Women hate it when there aren't female bosses. Just isn't true. Here is a link to a poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/178484/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss.aspx Even women prefer male bosses... though not to the extent that men do. There are any number of articles written about the phenomenon to try and explain it (bloomberg thinks women prefer male bosses be…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 09:58 PM
3

you're fucking retarded. Won't you tell me what you really think? The hospital management would thank him for dodging the lawsuit You are assuming they will agree with him that there was a potential lawsuit here, as opposed to agreeing with his co-workers that there was no issue. As no one has brought this up to the hospital management, this is very difficult to know. Now, as you've more or less repeated what the post I replied to did, nor have you given reasons why you think the hospital manage…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 09:36 PM
3

Why would you promote someone in 1950, the era of lifetime jobs, if the probability that they would stay at your company more than a few years was almost nil This question is still pertinent today. Why would you promote a woman over a man? Even if both are equal in terms of their capacity to do the job, but, as you say, she's going to quite once she has a kid, why, today, are we choosing to promote women over men? The closest thing to an answer I can find is "government fiat". No one in their ri…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 02:48 PM
3

and on women, who, the narrative goes, put their careers before thoughts of getting married and having a family followed by there are fewer good opportunities for young people, and especially men, in the country’s economy I wonder if the reason there are fewer opportunities for men is because those opportunities have been spent on women? I say this because, if true, it explains not just Japans birth situation, but also that of the entire western world. Women are spending their time on one job (g…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 01:01 PM
6

This... is unlikely to go the way you are obviously hoping it would. What is likely to happen, rather than chaperones being provided for men treating women to avoid accusations, is the men are likely to be fired for not being able to perform their job. If a man can deal with men alone, but not women, and a woman can deal with both men and women alone, then the hospital (and its management) would be fools to hire men. And since most "gender equality" laws have been shown to apply to women but not…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 12:39 PM
1

teaching young children has long been considered a woman’s job. Strange. Almost every teachers contract I've ever seen has a (long void, but strangely still present) clause about women losing their position with no severance if they were to ever change their marital status from "single" to "married". I wonder why that clause is there if, as so many names in the article claim, "teaching young children has long been considered a woman's job". Unless of course everyone, from the ancient Greeks all …
/r/MGTOW22/07/17 11:22 PM
3

fewer women here.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 01:02 PM
1

The article seemed to imply that she had tried (and failed) to become a lawyer. It also says that she pretended to be a lawyer at one point, representing people in small claims, despite "lawyer" being a protected title here in Canada. How this woman has a dime to her name is beyond me. Well, right up until the thirsty simp part of the article popped up. Former Beauty Queen -> Former lover gave her $100,000 and paid for her daughter to go to university. Of course, it also seems to imply she turne…
/r/MGTOW05/07/17 02:21 PM
1

You should. To some degree it explains why the court systems in western countries can't get anything done.
/r/MGTOW05/07/17 02:15 PM
2

That's... oh. I see. You have no interest in debating someone with a different viewpoint, nor do you have any sources to back up your own claims. You're trying (and succeeding) at wasting my time. Good job. Would you care to try another slur? Or is it my turn? (don't downvote him guys. That's some bad reddiquette)
/r/MensRights04/07/17 06:12 PM
2

Ok, but here's the problem with thinking "equality" means equal opportunity: If two things are not equal, they will never have equal opportunity, as they are different. For example: I'm quite fond of apple pie. Now, we know apples and oranges are not equal, but I should give these oranges an equal opportunity to take part in my apple pie making. So I use oranges instead of apples. And the pie I've made somehow ends up a fucking mess: not only does it not taste like apple pie, it's super runny, t…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 04:36 PM
2

"women are performing worse on the test", you are clearly pulling that statement out of your own ass. Yup, right out of my ass. (that's 6 different articles saying boys do better on tests) Actually, no. That couldn't be further than the truth, and in fact the article you linked as a source disproves you. Oh? Would you care to point out where? It is quite often that someone who is very skilled has low confidence, and someone who is an idiot is extremely confident in their abilities Yes, the Dunni…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 04:24 PM
3

You understand the thing that gets you confidence is your skill level, yes? If women are performing worse on the test, then they are less skilled. You don't get to say women are doing worse on the test because "they lack confidence"... that's just making up a really silly excuse. If you can't perform because "you lack confidence" then you can't perform. They would not have attempted the engineering courses in the first place if they actually lacked confidence. And once you start reading about ho…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 02:34 PM
3

if they actually focused on programs to get little girls and boys equally interested in science then the number of women in stem fields would grow naturally For some strange reason, this is not the case. They can be as interested in the field as any man, but the second Calculus is required, women drop out like mad. Article for evidence: http://source.colostate.edu/calculus-i-factors-women-out-of-stem-degrees-researchers-find/
/r/MensRights04/07/17 02:09 PM
1

a percentage of women only jobs per company with no men allowed to apply And what makes you think this hasn't already happened? The Affirmative Action act was passed in 1986 in Australia. The only saving grace is it doesn't appear to have an enforcement method (unlike the United States or my home country of Canada).
/r/MensRights04/07/17 02:08 PM
1

It is easier for a male nurse to find a job for example. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh god. You're funny. I'm sure you think it's easy for male elementary school teachers or Early Childhood education providers to find work too. Have an article: http://everynurse.org/men-entering-predominantly-female-career-field/ and the most relevant bit: There are just far too many benefits that come along with nursing, such as a flexible schedule, a secure position, and high pay, and so it’s therefore…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 01:58 PM
3

"the dictionary says feminism means equality" Ah, so men and women are equal then? Women are just as tall, large, and strong as men. Men can obviously get pregnant. Women can obviously be drafted to fight in wars. Men obviously menstruate every month. Bullshit. There is no equality between the genders, in the same way there is no equality between apples and oranges. Sure, they're both human, but apples and oranges are both fruits. The only reason you'd lie down when someone brings up the diction…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 01:41 PM
6

You might add that effects like the "Woman are Wonderful" effect, and the in-group bias women have (but men do not) to your explanation: there's actually no need to blame the left/right paradigm. Though if you do want to blame the left/right political leanings, there's also the fact that women are both greater in numbers than men, as well as statistically more likely to vote to begin with, AND more likely to vote for left-leaning/progressive candidates. Additionally, if women begin to enter a fi…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 11:24 AM
2

Did you watch Computing Forevers recent video on how women entering the community is good? 'Cause it's basically "the skeptic community killed itself, but we got the girls now, so we're good"
/r/MGTOW27/06/17 05:44 PM
1

No, guys like Sargon, Computing Forever, and their ilk.
/r/MGTOW27/06/17 05:41 PM
4

Oh, you're missing the real fun of this. Old women got theirs too, and boy howdy do people hate talking about it. A lot of people here are on the right/conservative end of the political spectrum (I say this as an idiotic lefty) and have issues with things like social security. Personally, I'm quite happy to have things like welfare and social security, so long as they are not being taken advantage of... still, older women have definitely taken advantage of social security and, in particular, pen…
/r/MGTOW23/06/17 01:02 PM
3

No, Nihilism is that life is not worth it. I'm pretty sure most of us here are pretty sure our lives are valuable enough for us to abandon more or less anything else.
/r/MGTOW18/06/17 04:49 AM
7

Oh for fucks sake. Saying "Feminists get out of government" is not violence. Saying "I'm tired of Islam" is not violence. Saying "Feminism is a hate movement" is not violence. Maybe these are "hurtful" words as the university president says, but hurtful is not violent. Telling a child they can't have a sweet right now is every bit as "hurtful" as any of these statements. Maybe, just maybe, rather than chastising and criminalizing the people who say such things, we should, you know, talk to them,…
/r/MGTOW15/06/17 09:51 PM
2

You can actually go read their genocidal plans already: they aren't after just white men. They want to reduce the worlds male population to 10%. Which is to say they are looking to kill 45% of the worlds population. As genocides go, they are going to take it to the next level, and make Mao and Stalin look like amateurs. Seriously, when it's this easy to find such statements, one has to really wonder why people aren't screaming about these Nazis instead of the invisible ones in their heads.
/r/MGTOW13/06/17 12:20 PM
2

If you don't depend on women approval, you don't depend on society's approval, therefore you have no rules and you bow to nobody. This should be told to every young man, ideally over and over again until puberty ends.
/r/MGTOW13/06/17 12:05 PM
1

Great comment. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the perspective that MGTOW can actually solve the situation, I was pointing out why that perspective has come to pass. Many people here think the rest of the manosphere dislike MGTOW (and lets be honest, they kinda do) but when push comes to shove, there are good reasons they will come to bat for us. I was amazed when Karen Straughan made the video opposing Jordan Petersons comments about us. It took me awhile to figure out why she made the video…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 09:27 PM
3

I very much dislike MGTOW being considered the solution to feminism OK, but do you know why people are looking at MGTOW as the solution to feminism? And why not just MGTOW, but the MRAs and PUAs are starting to see it as the solution? There is a play called Lysistrata... very old. More than 2000 years old at this point. In it, it details a situation where, for lack of better words, men are behaving badly. And women, seeking to resolve the situation, find their usual method is unavailable: they c…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 12:17 PM
1

You make a critical point here. People have been saying "enough" with regards to government over-reach since governments have existed. Feminism may be a menance, but the goverments, extra-nation organizations, and institutions they have used to advance their ideology will suffer the brunt of the consequence, not Feminism itself. Much as communists can keep saying "That wasn't real communism..." so too can the feminists play the same game.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 11:31 AM
1

So, it turns out that in a roundabout way, western feminism is men's fault! Without husbands, those women would have been too busy earning the income they needed to survive to worry about frivolous things like launching the feminist movement. You added the sarcasm tag, but I don't think you should have. This is true, and is why things like /r/mgtow are popping up. Not only would those women not have had time/resources to commit to Feminism if they were not married, they wouldn't have been able t…
/r/MensRights18/05/17 11:13 AM
1

Incapacity for Love (unknown) She disowned her daughter for getting married and becoming a stay at home mother. Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature She brought the previously mentioned daughter to parties with Andy Warhol and the like when the daughter was still 14. Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency She lived in a mental institution with her mother during her teenage years. Steinem isn't an exploiter or a sociopath. She's an empty human being who appears to think everyone should…
/r/MensRights18/05/17 11:02 AM
13

This isn't the winds of change at all. This is her demanding the workplace change again to suit her needs as a mother. She wants to work part time hours and get full time salary and benefits and prestige. She wants to work when and how she wants. In short, she wants to live like an artist, but without living hand to mouth. And of course, if she was artistic, or creative, that is what she would be doing in the time she wants to fill with work, since it's basically the deal she has. And it is exac…
/r/MensRights16/05/17 02:01 PM
1

In my watching Peterson, I suspect you're mis-characterizing him here, though as I am not he, it is difficult to know. He's mostly gone after Derrida from what I've seen, and you do have to admit the SJWs love to quote both him and Foucalt. Peterson seems like an idealistic "pursuit of truth" kind of guy who has his tradcon hangups to me... which is to say, if you're looking for someone spouting the general ideas of philosophy (if none of the specifics) he's pretty good. If you want to get into …
/r/MGTOW15/05/17 09:47 PM
1

I think the pervailing culture is pessimistic. I disagree vehemently. Gone is my news hour with news, instead I have 50 minutes of human interest, feel good nonsense, 8 minutes of a opinion panel, and 2 minutes of headlines. We desperately medicate ourselves towards happiness. We believe in "preventative measures" that have no evidence behind them but our optimism. How many people believe that humans are intrinsically "good"? How many believe that people are "blank slates"? Both of these are inh…
/r/MGTOW15/05/17 07:07 PM
1

Because women are the more important gender. You're thinking this "guilty until proven innocent" is true just with regards to rape accusations: the reality is it is true any time a man and a woman face off against one another in court. This is one of TFMs "if you want to fix it, you need to take away womens right to vote" things. And while I don't agree with that sentiment (men are more than willing to give such treatment to women regardless of womens ability to vote) the number of female voters…
/r/MensRights15/05/17 11:33 AM
4

Backwards. You have this backwards. Let's see if I can fix it. Since the world is so complex, every opinion is as invalid as any other opinion. If every opinion is equally invalid, but in different ways, then there is reason to have meaningful discussion with people of different opinions. To do so is an attempt to discover the "right" opinion which, according to relativism, there is none... but you can get closer. And that unattainable "right" opinion is what we call the truth. Moral Relativism …
/r/MGTOW15/05/17 11:08 AM
1

All that matters to him is that men should embody the archetypal hero role, consequences be damned. He isn't even doing that. He's expecting men to play a specific archetypal hero role. It clearly isn't the role embodied by Jesus, a figure he talks about frequently but has made no mention of his bachelorhood - archetypally, Jesus falls into the sage or hermit role as a speaker of truth. My question is, what archetypal hero is Dr. Peterson seeing for young men? Is it some sort of warrior "die by …
/r/MensRights12/05/17 06:00 PM
1

Demarchy.
/r/MGTOW08/05/17 02:23 AM
2

I'd like to know how much economic damage has been done by women who by the age of 25 don't leave the work force anymore. You've more or less summarized the study of inequality in the west with that.
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 05:37 PM
4

It can be harder to discuss RP subjects with a simp than a girl honestly. Agreed! If there's anything we in the MGTOW community should be "having a conversation" (downvote me for that one people) about, it's how to educate people. Unfortunately, as an author I enjoy liked to say though, married men are stuck between the rock of feminism and the hard place of their marriage: they know they have to tow the line or be punished. On the other hand, the young, unattached guys are almost too easy: most…
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 07:19 PM
5

Simps may suck, but they are a redpill away from being you. They aren't the enemy.
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 06:32 PM
3

It isn't about society having the same interests as you, it is about the overlap between your interests and societies interests. It may be in the best interests of society for you (or me) to go get married, have 2.5 kids, and work our asses off for no personal benefit (fuck you society). But it is also to societies benefit that we simply live in it: we generate demand for goods we wouldn't if we went proper Hermit. It is also to societies benefit that we generate prose and products. You may find…
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 06:28 PM
2

I'm going to disagree right off the bat: Most men act in their own interests. Most women also act in their own interests. The reason people would act against their interest is either because a) they are unaware of what their interests are or b) their interests conflict with one another The first is pitiable. They will lead a horrible life without guidance. That guidance is a large part of why MGTOW exists. The second is a whole other bag of cats, and lies more in the domain of prioritization: Do…
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 06:23 PM
10

also look at the aborigines Only when they're older. They're like asian girls... just gorgeous when they're young, then bam! the wall hits.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 01:02 PM
1

I think we would see the birth rates more in favor of women than the current near 50/50 split we have evolved too. It's interesting you mention this, because when times are hard, our birth rate changes: we start having more male (disposable) children. The more comfortable, and less at risk we are, the more female children we have. Another possible reason that men always did the dangerous jobs may be that they are naturally stronger You may have causation backwards here. Men may be naturally stro…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 11:58 AM
1

Always happy to provide information to people! The unfortunately reality is that we're touching our income inequality problem in the west... the reason? deny male applicants Given that many women depend on men for their income, particularly when pregnant, denying male applicants in favour of women not only makes men worse off... it makes women, and children worse off as well. Which means we now need to do even more massive programs to get women working. If you'd like to know more about how femin…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 01:55 PM
6

It used to be the other way around Women have always been the more important gender. The belief that this "used to be the other way around" is a feminist narrative. 100 men and a 100 women can have 100 children in a year. 1 man and 100 women can also have 100 children in a year. 100 men and 1 woman can have 1 child in a year. You don't send women to do anything that could end up with them dying, ever, at any time in history. The second this happens whatever civilization was stupid enough to do s…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 12:27 PM
15

I have never been in a tech class where females haven't been treated as equal due to their gender I'm starting to think this may actually be the problem. Engineers actually do treat both genders the same, and, as per Ms. Yeungs research, are going to be considered sexist because of it. Her research can be found here. There's also a fair amount of evidence that, at least institutionally, women are treated better. See the hiring bias found in universities here. Women may not want to be treated equ…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 12:21 PM
6

I think you need an addendum: Male intellectual spaces are not allowed anymore. We're more than happy to have all male combat units, or fisherman crews, or rig workers, or, yes, even all male sports teams. Women appear when attention does. If you're a beer league type, they'll generally leave you alone beyond the occasional wife who inevitably drags her husband away early. Or makes a god damn scene of herself. My experience says it's largely determined by whether or not there are children in the…
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 04:03 PM
3

A link to the book (which after 30 pages, I cannot recommend. Fuck interview style books): http://bookzz.org/md5/F6B47C268FB988A220F26817D5885690 Many thanks to the lurker who sent it to me.
/r/MGTOW04/04/17 09:46 PM
1

Thank you for posting both pieces of the article.
/r/MGTOW04/04/17 07:06 PM
2

It was a single print run. Every copy you can find now is a used copy.
/r/MGTOW04/04/17 07:03 PM
3

The group in question is childless women under 30. Even Time magazine is willing to admit it, though the rest of the article is unmitigated trash: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
/r/MensRights03/04/17 12:00 AM
1

I'm coming to the conclusion I will always upvote a Jordan B Peterson link. I'm really waiting for him to mention the link between Assortative mating and the GINI coefficient, but he's in enough trouble as is.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 11:51 AM
1

Higher crime with higher unemployment rate seems like a pretty obvious progression Except it actually isn't. The link to violence isn't based on employment/unemployment, it's actually linked to inequality and the GINI coefficient. Which makes your UBI suggestion pretty good... except for the animosity that comes from being taxed in such a fashion your dual-income family really only has a single income, while the no-income family is now getting money for nothing. UBI does not deal with "idle hand…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 11:37 AM
4

Which part are you looking for a source for? The 15% thing is just something generic I picked up: it doesn't really hold for every situation, and there are a number of confounding factors (not least of which unemployment not really being tracked before the beginning of the 20th century). Hence the "nearly." But, if you poke through the last 100 years, you see that number get passed, and yeah: war. If you're really cynical about the situation, it's societies getting rid of excess population. The …
/r/MensRights28/03/17 04:33 PM
5

Very theoretical option taking into account that even talking about theses things can, and often do, lead to censorship and even banning in the mainstream media All of which leads to even more interest in everyone else. "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Look at Jordan B Petersons popularity since he spoke up. There are any number of people willing to vote for someone for no reason beyond the fact that they do not represent "the mainstream." If no one gives them that option, if when you v…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 04:18 PM
24

Anyway, my sincere belief is that women tend to advance what's good for women and girls even more than men. This is true for men as well. Everyone has a bias towards women. It isn't even a human thing: it's true for every sexually dimorphic species. Females are the bottle-neck of reproduction, so advancing their interests is the most likely pathway towards increased reproductive success. And I see right now no mechanism that could turn this development in western democracies. It's an interesting…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 12:46 PM
9

He kept playing games with who he was endorsing: he was constantly pointing out how great trump was at garnering attention and was saying the right things, while at the same time pointing out that saying he supported anyone other than Hilary amounted to suicide in his community.
/r/MGTOW27/03/17 08:28 PM
23

Yeah, Scott Adams is a fun personality in his own right. Watching him through the election with his running endorsement gag was fantastic. And once you hear about his stories of losing out on promotions thanks to PC culture at Bell in the early 90s... AND the divorces, it's not surprising he's as red pilled as he is.
/r/MGTOW27/03/17 04:52 PM
3

How about a report from the American Air Force? The relevent bit: A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false. As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false. Of those women who later recante…
/r/MGTOW24/03/17 09:19 PM
0

Considering how desperately we in the west need to have our birth rate to rise, I can't be surprised legislatures are spending time attempting to get abortion banned. If you had something else to do to increase the birth rate (like kicking women out of education) we could try that, but that's even less likely to happen than banning abortion. Nothing to do with "Tradcons", just wanting humanity to not die off. No one trying to ban abortion has ever turned around and said "It was just a joke!"
/r/MGTOW16/03/17 02:15 PM
17

"You need to take our issues seriously! We're not joking!" proceeds to waste the legislatures time with 'joke' bill
/r/MGTOW16/03/17 12:58 PM
11

And if you aren't looking at the feminist movement (perhaps you're concerned about suicide), and instead it is showing up in your face and screaming at you about your toxic masculinity, who do you think you are dealing with? The extremists? Or the more moderates? Most people don't go out of their way to deal with extremists. But extremists certainly go out of their way to deal with people.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:48 PM
2

I wasn't attempting to turn the discussion into an argument. I was pointing out the first thing you did in this post: That at best, HR is just another form of management duplicating the efforts of the other forms of management. At worst, and particularly given the censorious nature they and others like have taken of late, they are actively changing peoples behavior for the worse by doing things like promote based on race/gender over merit. The brainwashing comment came from what my work is (some…
/r/MensRights05/03/17 12:34 AM
2

Did I explain myself better on that? Not in the slightest. Management keeps the business running by ensuring that tasks are completed by people I agree HR, as it's name (Human Resources) implies, directly manages the people filling those roles I'm pretty sure thats normal management. I see someone from HR maybe once a year. I see my manager every single day. HR does not directly manage shit. They don't concern themselves with the job the person is doing, but the person themselves In that case, w…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 11:10 PM
3

Now it seems their role is to agree and side with the SJW. That was always their role: they are the SJWs. Many people forget the first thing they asked for were jobs. They started with "Hire us or you're sexist." and when it was pointed out they had no marketable skills it rapidly transformed into "Then find a place for us, or you're sexist." That was happening in the 70s. We've got another 40 years of this nonsense added on top. And we've made plenty more useless positions in organizations in t…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 10:19 PM
2

It is. /u/ykaa does a much better job explaining the situation with regards to the history.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 08:25 PM
10

But you seem to misunderstand HR's role in a corporation, so I'd like to help clear that up for you. HR exists to manage people Then please, explain what management is for. and cover the business' ass. The history of HR is actually really interesting: it largely didn't exist in the 70s, started to appear in the 80s, and become standard in every organization in the 90s, and as you say, largely came to exist to cover the business' ass. The inevitable question is "Cover the business' ass from what?…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 05:22 PM
3

This can't happen. Now that they're "strong empowered women" they don't have anyone to dump the kids on except other women.
/r/MGTOW07/02/17 03:28 AM
6

I was asking the question precisely because I have never been able to find information on who is calling the police, only on who the police end up arresting. I DO know that it's white women who call the cops on white guys because that's how domestic violence calls go. The same is true when it comes to domestic violence calls in the black community. A hypothetical for you: You're walking home, and you see someone buying marijuana. Do you call the cops? I know I wouldn't. But I know my sister, or …
/r/MGTOW02/02/17 02:10 PM
3

If you look at the laws that were enforced, primarily by white officers, you will definitely see MG, but not MGTOW. Law enforce was heaviest upon young black men, removing them from the homes as fathers and providers. Drugs have been a scourge on that community. I've always had this question with regards to the black community and incarceration: Who the fuck is calling the cops? All the black guys ain't gonna snitch, so who is it? Is it some little white family who is making all these calls to t…
/r/MGTOW02/02/17 01:08 PM
2

They still posted nudes. They just took an hour to download. It's kinda the magic of "Tits or GTFO." Screech in text how your opinion matter more because you're a woman? Better prove you're a woman.
/r/MGTOW01/02/17 04:47 PM
3

The reality is it's likely much older... male spaces (like iRC and BBSs were in the early 90s) have pretty much always had something to say or do to women to make sure they know they aren't welcome. We used to just back-hand them... now we make backhanded comments.
/r/MGTOW01/02/17 01:50 PM
31

"Tits or gtfo" is much older than 4chan. That's from iRC and bbs days.
/r/MGTOW01/02/17 02:26 AM
3

I'm now going to be talking about my country, because with regards to this problem, it's the only one I know what happened. I live in Canada. The highest legal documentation in our country has a very clear "no discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc." clause. Obviously quotas violate this clause, so the quota legislation (the Employment Equality Act) was brought before our supreme court. Who upheld the Act, despite it's violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Right …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:32 PM
3

Gender Quotas are "a thing" where I live in any organization with more than 100 people. They are "a thing" if you live in a western (North American/European) country. Companies with more than the given number of employees are fined if the makeup of their organization does not match the make-up of the general public: which is to say, 51% of your employee had better be women, or you are going to be fined. The OP suggests that in order to ignore this requirement, simply telling people to claim a di…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 02:23 PM
1

It's hard to find graphs of cost of living over the appropriate time period, largely because "cost of living" used to mean cost of food and shelter in 1945 and today "cost of living" means having food, shelter, insurance, utilities, and a whole mess of other stuff. Inflation rates have also largely flattened out, though they were enormous when women first began entering the labour force. I don't have a graph, but you can have some data instead: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/cons…
/r/MGTOW23/01/17 08:14 PM
2

I saw the above quotation as part of the whole womens day protest, and it reminded me of this. "The rise of the woman" has been a huge fuckup when you look at it in graph form.
/r/MGTOW23/01/17 06:38 PM
1

Men can be gynocentric. It's a problem with society not one particular group. This is not a problem: it is a necessity for a sexually dimorphic species to survive. The problem is when it over-rides all other issues that are also necessary for the species to continue to propagate.
/r/MGTOW20/12/16 04:15 PM
1

The reason people are blaming Feminism is because it is gynocentrism given form. It is a collection of individuals who actively believe gynocentrism is the future, and ultimately all that matters. It is a group that believes the better off women are, regardless of consequences, the better off society is. Gynocentrism is part of every sexually dimorphic species. Feminism is the belief that Gynocentrism is the only thing that matters. If Feminism disappeared tomorrow, women would lose the right to…
/r/MGTOW20/12/16 03:00 PM
3

I could respond to any other comment in the thread, but yours is the most fun, so it gets to be to you. Full employment is 60% labour force participation rate. We are currently at 65% labour force participation rate. We do in fact have full employment. BUT that employment is not evenly spread across society. When married women did not participate in the labour force, 60% participation meant every family had an income, as well as the single people. With the introduction of dual income families, 6…
/r/MGTOW19/12/16 09:34 PM
10

He is attempting to say that CHS is still an opponent of Mens Rights, likely based on either the fact she calls herself a feminist, or simply because she is a woman. For some strange reason, some people feel compelled to say such things whenever someone like CHS, Karen Straughn, or, less seriously, shoeOnHead speaks. Generally best to ignore.
/r/MensRights05/12/16 10:18 PM
1

And men are massively over-represented in executive positions. There must be some conspiracy! And blacks are massively over-represented in sports! MORE CONSPIRACIES! /sarcasm
/r/MGTOW05/12/16 08:52 PM
3

I now believe Cosby is close to 100% innocent It's hard not to believe he's innocent when you compare when the accusations started appearing and when Cosby started saying that maybe blacks are responsible for their own problems and should stop blaming whitey.
/r/MGTOW01/12/16 10:49 PM
1

Jokes are only funny when they're true.
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 03:33 AM
2

yes there is a bit of a "tilt" in both urban (tilted female) vs rural (tilted male) regions -- but the difference is not major. Considering the margins Trump won the election by, that minor tilt makes all the difference. the support of unions was in and of itself largely support of "urbanites" VS the provincial farmers. And moreover unions themselves were really just another "establishment" mechanism for pitting one group of quasi-cattle against another, and profiting off of the skim/scam. I hav…
/r/MGTOW28/11/16 09:29 PM
2

The divide is between urban & rural -- between "cosmopolitanism" versus what I suppose can best be called a tributary "provincialism" An excellent reply, so thank you, but I'd like to expand the above point. Urban vs Rural also happens to be the fight between Rich and Poor, as well as the fight between Women and Men. One of the reasons that, despite being left leaning, I cannot tolerate the most left leaning political party in my country (the NDP) is because they gave up supporting unionists in …
/r/MGTOW28/11/16 08:08 PM
2

I agree that the short term is longer than a human lifespan, but given the factors that have led us here, patience and violence are the ways out. And since choosing to wait instead of act is just waiting for someone else to commit that violence... well, we're fucked. We're looking at either some sort of civil/revolutionary war, or we're looking at being invaded by a culture that has not made the same mistakes for nothing but a short term fix. You can go try the soap box, and tell people what is …
/r/MGTOW28/11/16 06:24 PM
2

The "agenda" is self defeating. It's almost pointless to discuss because of it. I take part in the "manosphere" because some ideas are simply unacceptable in the wider community. My particular interest has to do with inequality... a far more left leaning political position than most here have. To me, much like your comment indicates, women are just pawns: we convinced them to enter the labour force not so they could "be free" or "independent" or whatever... we did it to lower wages. It also incr…
/r/MGTOW28/11/16 04:18 PM
5

It wasn't Romes first emperor... it was during the split that things like bachelor taxes began to appear. Not at the peak of Rome, but during the fall. Bachelor taxes also had a brief resurgence in 1920-1930s USA, so they have most certainly been tried since. We got out of them that time because some guy was smart enough to point out that if bachelors were to pay the tax, then so too did bachelorettes.
/r/MGTOW23/11/16 12:56 AM
3

They think their vaginas are made of gold, or something. This is exactly it. And here comes story time. So, somewhat recently, I had a friends girlfriend suddenly start coming on to me. Now, I could kinda understand where she was coming from (my friend was going through a mtf transgender operations... despite encouraging this, his girlfriend was unprepared as to what my friends genitals would look like post-operation) but I wanted no part of it. But she was bringing it on hot and heavy, so I foo…
/r/MGTOW23/10/16 01:36 PM
2

Ah, finally. I know most of you are against this, but I'm quite happy: knowing the actual going market rate for a child is fantastic. Think about all the jobs for women this can make that will get them out of the rest of the labour force! Reading the other comments, it almost seems the other posters missed the comments about "paid surrogacy", or don't understand that it is straight up paying women to get pregnant and have a kid for someone else. I wonder how many women will jump at the opportuni…
/r/MGTOW20/10/16 06:13 PM
8

Not the original poster, but the source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-judge-overturns-doctors-will-that-would-have-granted-scholarships-only-to-white-heterosexual-students
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:37 PM
8

I think Mr. Adams is a wee bit uninformed when it comes to voter statistics. Women have decided every presidential election since 1980. They've managed to avoid the blame thus far. Why would he think a woman who has always thrown others under the bus for her failings will suddenly be held responsible?
/r/MGTOW13/10/16 02:56 PM
2

She's been singing for forty years. I know it doesn't sound like singing when a landwhale makes those strange body positivity noises, but I'm pretty sure....
/r/MGTOW13/10/16 02:50 PM
6

Not young children, young (20-30) women. They're all girls at a certain point and you know it.
/r/MGTOW10/10/16 08:38 PM
3

Then why is feminism not worse in communist societies? This depends largely on which communist society we're talking about. The USSR had feminism in droves before Stalin. power and money go hand in hand Yes, but the question is which way the causation goes. Do you get power because you have money, or do you get money because you have power?
/r/MensRights10/10/16 11:46 AM
6

One has to wonder how much of her work at Google was thanks to dating Larry. And whether the megalomania was always there.
/r/MGTOW08/10/16 03:18 AM
0

In the Ontario pilot project, yes. I already indicated my disdain for that project. My question was if I were giving you an extra 30K a year regardless of how much money you were making at your job. That's what guaranteed minimum income actually is.
/r/TheRedPill23/09/16 01:46 PM
0

You need to be paid a minimum of 2x the universal basic income or there is no point in working Huh? The idea of a basic income is you get it no matter what. If you need a few extra dollars in a week, you work. If you don't need the money, you don't. So if you're dating a girl, and you want to get her something nice, you work for a few hours that week so you can afford it without touching the basic income you received. All it does is move the floor for "pride" in such a society so that being able…
/r/TheRedPill23/09/16 12:35 PM
5

Basic Income, if instituted as an actual guaranteed minimum income, will actually decrease labour force participation. Which will decrease the pressure of the wage squeeze. Women going to school to get married (80% of women with post-secondary degree plan to be married at home with kids by 35) may actually have the ability to do as they desire with a basic income in place, and with the decrease in participation, wages can rise, and people who are unemployed right now can find work at the now uno…
/r/TheRedPill23/09/16 12:00 PM
1

Why would a proto-Hitler ever care what the UN said? I'm relatively sure one of Hitlers first acts was to go against the treaty of Versailles, actively ignoring the international community.
/r/MGTOW20/09/16 10:06 PM
2

You are half right: with women putting off pregnancy, their intrinsic value drops... but only if everyone believes they are never going to have children. If there are cultural norms that women will inevitably have children regardless of what women say, then the only thing that will drop their intrinsic value is menopause... more commonly referred to as "the wall" in the manosphere. If anything, as young women are less and less prone to get pregnant, the societies they are participating in will s…
/r/MGTOW20/09/16 01:35 PM
3

I'm speaking to point number 4 since it's by your own admission why you're posting it here, and you have a rather glaring error in your summary. I felt this was unfair, because women have no more intrinsic value than men This is untrue. Women are the bottleneck to reproduction. They do, in fact, have more intrinsic value because of this: 100 men and 100 women in a year can have 100 kids. 1 man and 100 women in a year can also have 100 kids. 100 men and 1 women are only going to be able to have a…
/r/MGTOW20/09/16 12:22 PM
1

Past generations believed the mother was imperative to bring up stable happy children Nope! That's actually a relatively recent (historically anyway... last 200 years) change. When women were running a 50/50 chance of dying during pregnancy, just how many of those children were being raised by single fathers do you think? And why is it that most religions agree children are the property of the father? Things changed with that Tender Years doctrine. It is constantly amazing just how much pull wom…
/r/MensRights12/09/16 01:29 PM
7

Don't know who downvoted you, but you're absolutely correct. Women not only make up the majority of voters (in countries where they can vote) they also make up the majority of the un-elected positions within the government, as well as the majority of public sector workers. Government exists for women, and it has since women became the majority of the voting populace in 1980... if you're in the US anyway. For some reason, other countries weren't keeping track of when this happened. Canada for exa…
/r/MGTOW28/08/16 09:28 PM
6

I know she's not popular around these parts, but Elizabeth Warren actually wrote about exactly this phenomenon in her book "The Two Income Trap." Now /u/New_Banana_Republic may have some good advice in general, but the reason these families are so over-spent isn't because they have credit cards or mortgages: child minding and that second car are the real killers. Families have come down with a serious case of "Working Women."
/r/MGTOW27/08/16 11:57 PM
11

While I agree with the sentiment of your comment moreso than the original implication, there is an interesting aspect of the question that impacts your statement. Social media gives women more access to other women. So if, as you imply, women are shitty by nature, social media has given them the ability to be shitty not just as individuals or small groups of friends, but as large impersonal organizations. They can also encourage shitty behavior to a far larger audience, while receiving ever more…
/r/MGTOW06/08/16 05:45 PM
1

Yes, but choosing not to means choosing to not have children, and consequently, choosing to have no future beyond yourself. And as a surprisingly large amount of this sub-reddit shows, choosing to be hounded incessantly for making the "wrong" choice. For example this nice little self post. I'm not even going to bother linking to a "Where have all the good men gone" article... they are far to numerous to imagine any reader hasn't encountered one. Being the initiator is not necessarily a position …
/r/MGTOW25/07/16 10:04 PM
2

I made the case to the opposite in the comments on the article. Women already went their own way: it was called feminism. Society simply followed them since society needs them to continue existing/breeding. Women can try to go their own way, but men will follow and offer free stuff to them regardless for the opportunity to breed. As you point out, women have taken advantage of this situation.
/r/MGTOW24/07/16 08:12 PM
1

One of my favorite bits of biology I've learned about is an attempt to explain this particular bit of behavior: The red queen problem. Evolutionists like to be able to figure out why a creature has developed a certain trait: claws, eyes, venom, etc. But they got a little stumped when they tried to explain the peacocks tail. Here was a trait that had no possible purpose: it actually made the creature less likely to survive. So why did the peacock develop the tail? And why were females choosing ma…
/r/MensRights02/07/16 02:18 PM
5

Because she's depending on big daddy government for her living.
/r/MGTOW06/04/16 08:07 PM
3

See, you're making assumptions. Why do you think men are better then women? Because they perform better at jobs at the such in all likelihood, and that's certainly one way to determine such a metric. Another would be their importance to the continuation of the human race... and women beat men hands down on that front. As another poster pointed out, the equality nonsense started with a valid enough premise: Men and women are good at different things. The problem is no one bothered to check the va…
/r/TheRedPill05/03/16 05:36 PM
7

Most of your comment I agree with, but... this, is almost entirely backwards to my understanding: What happens when you lump men together? It turns men against one another. Every beta male starts thinking that the majority of other men are assholes. They work as a group more often then not. You see it time and again whenever it comes up in work-force productivity, schools, as well as any number of survival situations. Even in the sexual marketplace, there are wing-men and group activities that a…
/r/TheRedPill16/01/16 03:13 AM
1

only until it's time for the (nonexistent) next generation to take over. Then your good society is every bit as dead. The first none mythological event in roman history is them confronting this very issue when they decided to rape the Sabines.
/r/MGTOW09/12/15 12:55 PM
0

Pure fiction. The math adds up the other way: we're out of arable land and clean water to keep feeding humans. The growth of humans exceeds the growth of land-area to live upon and clean water to drink and food to eat. This is the heart of Mathus' prediction: populations grow exponentially, but farmland efficiency grows linearly. Unfortunately for Malthus, Norman Borlaug came along in the 60s and caused farmland efficiency to grow exponentially. Malthus has been proven wrong. This is provably fa…
/r/MGTOW09/12/15 12:47 PM
4

I'll quote one of the greatest minds of the past generations in response: "Humanity has no future... on Earth." Limiting humanity to one planet is stupid. You are not thinking big picture enough. There is more then enough space for trillions upon trillions. Being worried about over-population is significantly more likely to ensure our doom with the fights over who gets to breed and who doesn't then any concerns about resource scarcity. Even now we make more then enough food to feed everyone, hav…
/r/MGTOW06/12/15 06:59 PM
7

Women had something more important to do then creating the world: creating more people. If women focus on altering the world around them in the way men do, they will fail to have the children who will benefit from the altered world, and the species will die.
/r/MGTOW06/12/15 04:27 PM
11

The problem here, and the motivation behind white knighting, is that without it society dies. It is an unfortunate truth that for humanity to continue, women are simply going to be considered more important then men. 100 men with 100 women can have a 100 children in a year. 100 men with 1 woman can have 1 child in a year. 1 man with 100 women can still have 100 children in a year. If the continuation of the species is in any way important, women will always be considered the more important sex. …
/r/MGTOW06/12/15 03:27 PM
1

The automation thing always gets me, largely because I do not believe it. 40 years ago we were all told there would be no more jobs in factories, it'd all be robots. That sure happened. The better question when it comes to nurses is where the hell did they come from before women entered the labor force? And as near as I can tell, they were charity positions. People were nurses for free. That's how valuable nurses are. Replacing work that people will do for free with machines that cost money to m…
/r/MGTOW21/11/15 03:22 PM
1

As an aside: Doctors do not need to strike. There is a reason they never unionized. Unlike nurses, and teachers, and all those other unionized laborers, Doctors are actually clever. They restrict the supply of doctors via their schools, which only graduate a set number of students each year. If Doctors want to increase their wages or get any of the things unions ask for, they just lower the number of graduates. No need for a strike. Medical Doctors are a surprisingly good modern day equivalent o…
/r/MGTOW21/11/15 03:05 PM
3

You know, women did this once. In fact, they've done it in a lot more places then just Iceland. And everything still worked: shops were open, as were banks and factories. They're just long days, what with all the women suddenly trying to buy shit in the middle of the day. Now compare this to... oh, I don't know, more or less every strike action men have ever been involved in. There are plenty of documentaries about them. Did the factory stay open? What about the mine? You don't need a documentar…
/r/MGTOW21/11/15 12:19 AM
1

And it isn't important because Women don't (or won't) commit violence to protect themselves. They depend on men to do it. Rome had plenty of women when it fell. And the more men are shuttled to the edges of society, the less safe that society will be... heck, those neglected men may strike back. If even the paltry number of MGTOW guys decided "fuck it, violence" western society would crumble in the face of the action. You can already see it happening with the response to terrorist actions. Women…
/r/TheRedPill20/11/15 12:32 PM
2

You are correct. Unfortunately, there is a "but" as to the evidence for the whole conspiracy thing. Where the heck did they get the money for the whole thing? These ladies had magazines and books and all sorts of interesting things going on that the civil rights movement had to fight for. They had institutional support from the get go. And there are a lot of contributing factors as to why. One being that, philosophically, people being equal is kind of a big thing, so any rich liberal would have …
/r/TheRedPill17/11/15 12:22 AM
3

But the government isn't dominated by women This... this I have issues with. Women make up the majority of the public labour force. Women make up the majority of the population. Women make up the majority of spending. Women make up the majority of voters. Saying the government isn't dominated by women just 'cause the folks at the top have in the past been men requires a serious case of brown numbers.
/r/TheRedPill04/11/15 10:40 PM
8

You are missing a sign of the times: as the progressives have become more and more powerful, the personal has become political. The fact the manosphere exists is a political statement at this point, similar to the way my recently elected prime minister has been caught talking about gamergate, despite it's attempts to be apolitical. It wouldn't be nearly as upsetting to existing political views, both left and right, if the personal philosophy weren't a political act. I'm with /u/popthatpill here.…
/r/TheRedPill27/10/15 09:20 PM
2

Thank you very much for the response! I don't think I've ever encountered that particular take on empathy, and have most often seen it used as a synonym for kindness. I'm a little confused by your extension of the "short-term" duties though, since you've more or less described molly-coddling; something generally associated with underachieving children. I could stop there. I probably should. But I desperately want to confront and generate the contrasting picture between "real" love and "chemical"…
/r/TheRedPill26/08/15 01:13 AM
1

Alphas may have adapted, but if women haven't then there are a lot of bastard children out there. Where do you think all these single mamas come from? And who do you think ends up married to them? The Alpha? Don't make me laugh. This isn't to say in the past such conditions didn't exist. Pretty much every religion exists to reward the "good dad." But religions don't have anywhere near as much sway as they did 50 years ago... let alone 100 or 200 years ago. The real problem is procreation is ever…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 08:14 PM
10

All I could think reading your comment was... "Look at this guy thinking about the future!" And yeah, it's a shitty future, but it's one we all share. None of us get to be part of it, we'll all be long dead before it arrives. Our children are really the only link to the future any of us have. To constantly have a sword of Damocles hovering over our heads, threatening to sever the tie is an absolute perversion of the concept of incentives, let alone justice. The question is why. Why disincentiviz…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 07:58 PM
0

However I am kind, honest, confident and I like discussing things, and those things are mostly nurture There is a surprisingly large body of information that has indicated those are NOT the product of nurture, but rather nature having to do with where you fall among your siblings. A better example of "nurture" would be you being bitten by a spider and developing arachnophobia.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 06:54 PM
3

motherhood starts with short-term duties Agreed. Does it ever graduate to long-term duties though? Or once that kid can feed/cloth/shit by themselves, is mom more or less done? Meanwhile, it's also worth noting that women are starting from a very different baseline on empathy Source please. There are entire genres of film and literature that indicate the "baseline" empathy of women is worse then men. Read a few stories about girls boarding schools and get back to me on this one. but they get dop…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 06:38 PM
2

I love it. The first mate is even in charge of the mutiny/divorce!
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 06:24 PM
1

Well, thank you for providing the article... but I have a hard time reading this as anything other then alpha fucks, beta bucks. Given the distribution of who has children (80% of women have genetic offspring; 40% of men do) I've got to question whether the "good dad" actually has any genetic children, as opposed to be responsible for children his wife/girlfriend had from a previous relationship. The comments on the article seem to agree with my analysis....
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 06:21 PM
1

I'd be very interested in reading the economist article, if you can find it.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 04:40 PM
2

But ultimately the question with regards to addiction is two-fold: Why are they addicted in the first place? This is biological, not something we can do anything about. As you said, not black and white. Who is providing the "drug"? We can do A LOT about this one, and it's quite straight-forward. It involves shaming, punishing, and providing people validation. Which was largely my point with those questions: oxytocin/dopamine are something traditional communities provide to individuals who work t…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 03:16 PM
58

I'm actually with you on this one. You need both short and long term planning... you need both the immediate and long term care. But lacking either one is going to cause problems, both within families and society in general. However, in the mother and women friendly state of the west, where their concerns over-ride those of the men/fathers, the balance between the two has long since been lost. Convenience is the watch word of the day.
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 02:37 PM
6

The correct response to that line is: "And neither can you. Your opinion is just as invalid as mine. So either we both shut the fuck up, or you let me speak, and I let you speak, and we apply logic and skepticism to our claims."
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 01:52 PM
6

Here's my countering questions: How much status do traditional Romanian mothers garner through their children? How much of their social "fix" do they get because of those kids? And possibly most damning of all: do those mothers have a favorite child? If the kid were a drug addicted violent psychopath, is she more, or less likely to abandon them then if they are a top in their field doctor? The mothers can be "top quality" and still have the same addiction to oxytocin/dopamine, so long as someone…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 01:39 PM
10

I'm someone generally more concerned with the social impacts of red pill truths then the personal, and this article in particular has two things I see as incredibly important. The first is the "love" angle. I can't count the times I've read "Men love Women, Women love Children, Children love puppies" in the manosphere, and this research directly questions that assumption. What the situation actually looks like is an interesting question: do Men love women AND children? Or do they really only lov…
/r/TheRedPill25/08/15 01:27 PM
2

And here I'm going crazy because even after reading the article, I still can't find access to the actual numbers to confirm what the words would seem to indicate. The abstract to the research I found went into some nonsense about gender as a social construct. No numbers.... There is an interesting question as to the cause and effect of single fathers higher incomes. Do they simply have higher incomes to begin with, and are as such, in a better position to take care of children... or is it when t…
/r/TheRedPill24/08/15 01:17 PM
9

The single most important line from that article is this: For nearly every demographic and background characteristic that we measured, single mothers were disadvantaged compared with single fathers Notice that the study attempted to adjust for family income and education? Single father families, with less access to government subsidies and alimony should have less income... except they don't, 'cause dad actually works full time. They definitely have less education then single mother families, th…
/r/TheRedPill24/08/15 12:34 PM
1

Or you know, not. Like with the Emancipation Proclamation. I'm sure that's why this happened: "On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves" so Lincoln freeing the Southern States slaves was immoral? The southern states sure thought so. Probably why there was a civil war that included an awful lot of killing... just like communist revolutions!
/r/MensRights12/08/15 02:23 PM
1

Freeing serfs was stealing if it wasn't the serfs feudal lord who freed them. Same thing happened with slavery: to free the slaves, nations had to pony up a whole bucket full of cash to buy them first. To simply free them without doing so would have, yes, been immoral.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 10:34 AM
1

Well technically that's capitalism / feudalism. Under communism it is returned to the workers. Giving something to people who didn't own it anytime in the past is not "returning." It is stealing. Which is probably why, as you correctly implied, you would have to kill the elites to take it in the first place. In feudalism, the only people who had a right to property were the elites, and as such, everything belonged to them. They couldn't seize what they already owned. In modern capitalistic/socia…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:49 AM
1

No, Communism doesn't mean destroying all productive property Right. It is about the seizure of productive property (aka capital), and the (theoretical) distribution of it's ownership. Whereas socialism is about the seizure and distribution of income rather then property, given the near universal right to own property. Either way, both ideologies are centered on capital and what to do with it, meaning capital continues to dominate the political landscape. No amount of Communism, Socialism, or re…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 11:36 PM
1

Well I said they'd kill the capitalists and all means of production would be seized so, you know..... that's something.... that's not "capitalism holding sway" Except the means of production ARE capital, and if you're doing something to grab hold of them, then yes, capital is absolutely holding sway. And then the question becomes who controls this newly acquired capital... everyone? Sure didn't work like that in the USSR, nor does it work like that in modern day China. Well... except in theory, …
/r/MensRights11/08/15 10:12 PM
1

Socialism and Communism are NOT the same thing! Marxism and Socialism are NOT the same thing! Marxism and Communism are NOT the same thing! These are all competing ideologies with regards to human power structures. Communism was Marxism "spiced up" by Lenin (or Mao for the Chinese variant) and existed in direct conflict with the variant of Marxism that Trotsky proposed (the variant you seem to support), which was still very different from what "socialists" proposed... that "intermediate stepping…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 09:28 PM
1

They were promoted as a (rather dangerous and uncontrollable) defence against Socialism. Communism, not Socialism; A defense against Communism, and the competing empire. Not unlike today when western elites talk about China. Socialism doesn't mean killing the elites or taking their wealth. That's communism, or, to a greater degree, anarchy. That's what elites fear most. Socialism is the elites giving up a bit (not too much mind...) to make sure that doesn't happen. Maybe they throw out a grant t…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 08:50 PM
1

The only real other reason I can think of to "drive" women back into the workplace beyond feminism is because the Soviets were doing the exact opposite at the time with the "New Soviet Woman" campaign, and there was a certain "do whatever the reds don't do" mentality going around. As for elites believing "socialism" was ever a threat (as opposed to the competing empire the USSR provided) I have to ask how many of those elites supported the "National Socialists"? I know Henry Ford did. So did Geo…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 07:50 PM
1

You repeatedly ask this question Why do the elites support feminism? so here is my answer: because organized labour, something the elites quite actively loathe, is impossible when there is an oversupply of labour. If you compare, over the past 3 or 4 generations, who you compete with in your own family, the number has increased significantly enough to account for things like stagnant wages, and the new found necessity of dual (or more!) income families. Women entering the workforce also encourag…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:33 PM
1

If enough men are voting, what men want will show up on the politicians docket. It literally doesn't matter who you vote for. So long as men start voting in numbers greater then women, or vote as a bloc with greater consistency, Men will get what they want. If every man entered a "no confidence" (empty) vote, there'd be a lot of questions. Even if they all just voted third party, Men would likely cause a vote split, and the third party candidates would end up winning. As I said in my original po…
/r/TheRedPill27/07/15 12:31 AM
2

I'm with you on this one, and have some suggestions in reply to your original "how can we change this?" First off, individual sacrifice? Bad idea. Guys have lit themselves and burned to death on the steps of family courts and had it black balled from the media. If anything is going to happen, it will happen because of a group. For example, with regards to the sperm case: what if the "cup" a nurse received had multiple mens sperm in it, instead of a lone donor? Sperm banks are private institution…
/r/TheRedPill25/07/15 09:16 PM
1

Getting children away from shitty parents is a laudable goal. Having those children not exist just because their parents are shitty people is not. So you're for eugenics, while at the same time being for people overcoming setbacks. What an interesting life philosophy you must have.
/r/TheRedPill18/07/15 06:11 PM
1

Do you support everyone, regardless of their situation in life, having 3 children? People who do not have the finances to support children or people who have other problems in their life that would make them a poor parent. Do you think everyone of those people should have 3 children? Every woman, yes. Their ability to actually raise the children doesn't matter: there are any number of people who are able to raise children, and there have been orphanages and foster families since the beginning of…
/r/TheRedPill18/07/15 05:59 PM
1

And if EVERYONE had 3 children, even the people who would raise those children poorly, it could still prove to be detrimental to society Is there any particular basis for this belief? Because at the moment, the people least capable of raising children are the ones most likely to have large numbers of children. The use of the word "could" in your claims is also rather suspicious. Large parts of this sub are about getting OVER being raised poorly. Being raised poorly is no indication you will be a…
/r/TheRedPill18/07/15 05:13 PM
1

3 children was/is the standard Catholic requirement for women. If a woman has fewer than 3 children before reaching menopause, she is a shitty Catholic. The minimum was set in place because that is the number of children a woman is required to have for society to grow, and generate the demand for labour to keep all the men employed. If fewer then 3 children are had, we end up in a state of over-supply of labour that causes unemployed men... a group that has, historically, turned to banditry and …
/r/TheRedPill18/07/15 04:10 PM
5

If you're still curious why you're getting your downvotes for claiming 2nd wave feminism is fantastic, I'll help clue you in with a question: Which wave of feminism got us no-fault divorce?
/r/TheRedPill18/06/15 12:37 PM
5

I have had a similar question with regards to academia, and I have something of a theory I'd like to share. For much of history, when it came to post secondary education, there were two choices. What we today think of academia, the colleges and universities, and a second set of schools that... aren't talked about very often: Finishing Schools. And as more and more women decided Finishing schools were somehow "patriarchal" or bad, many finishing schools simply changed what they called themselves.…
/r/TheRedPill13/06/15 11:03 AM
1

Stalin... in the name of Lenin though, so close enough.
/r/TheRedPill06/06/15 03:21 AM
7

I had a political science professor once tell me that the difference between the left and right was that the left blamed the system, and the right blamed the people; I see you are also a proponent of this idea. Personally, at this point, I'd blame the system and the people who made it in the first place. And I most certainly wouldn't trust them and their ilk to make a replacement system, despite an earnest belief that people should fix their own mistakes, and take some personal responsibility. W…
/r/TheRedPill04/06/15 01:31 PM
1

I don't know if you know this, but alcohol was hardly the only thing being crusaded against during that period. Is prostitution legal again? What about Marijuana? The moral crusaders were significantly more effective than you seem to think... and anyone who takes a long hard look at MADD knows the anti-alcohol crusade is still alive and well.
/r/TheRedPill04/06/15 01:08 PM
1

Trotsky. Trotsky was the libertarian leftist. You don't really hear much about him anymore. A lot of Anarchists would likely fall into your libertarian left too.
/r/TheRedPill04/06/15 01:05 PM
1

I'm not trying to move goalposts, I was trying to point out that depending on the books to critique a situation that NEVER HAPPENED IN THE BOOKS is a little... dishonest. Show Sansa and Book Sansa are very different characters. I could tolerate book Sansa. Show Sansa is, as my sister called her until she finally learned the characters names, douchebag Stark. In the books you got to watch her grow as she played Alayne. You got to see how she suddenly was aware of Baelishs plans with the Vale with…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:19 AM
1

Well then jeeze, how does Sansa feel about being in Winterfell in the books? Oh... wait.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:09 PM
0

You would think she would have taken the Hound up on his offer if she thought her luck might run out. Or maybe Lord Royce. Or maybe Brienne. Or maybe when you escape dire circumstances via outlandish plots you were entirely unaware of, you start to think yourself invincible.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 07:19 PM
0

Joffery taught her how much power she has in this situation: despite the atrocities he was willing to commit against the rest of her family, the worst that ever came to her was Trant almost hitting her. Bad shit doesn't happen to Sansa. If anything, she damsels her way out of EVERY situation she finds herself in. Oh no, it turns out Joff is a monster. Oh look, Margery saved me! Uh-oh, Joff still wants to treat me like a toy. Oh look, Tyrion saved me! Uh-oh, Tyrion is about to be accused of murde…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:29 PM
-1

But she knows the Boltons can't do that to her: the entire north would rise up against them. The whole reason they want to marry her is to avoid that fate. If anything, it is Sansa who has the power of Coercion on her side.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:16 PM
-2

Bullshit. We've got Brienne waiting there to leap into action sending her messages through the actual people of Winterfell who all stand beside her. She's said numerous times she isn't afraid of anyone or their threats since returning to Winterfell. She isn't afraid of the Boltons: the viewers are.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:08 PM
1

And again, HOW was it a rape. It passes both "no means no" AND "only yes means yes." Is it something to do with the age of the characters?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:02 PM
2

A man who people are starting to think Sansa is playing herself, particularly after she defended him in the Aerie... why go out of your way to deny Sansa agency by saying someone who isn't even around is forcing her to do it? Because he told her the situation she is in, and how dangerous it is, the same way he always has? He even went so far as to say he trusted her enough to deal with the Bolton situation herself, without his involvement, when she pleaded for him not to go!
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:40 PM
3

I... seriously need someone to explain how Sansa was 'raped'. I'd ask somewhere else, but am pretty sure my comment would be removed in a hurry. She never said 'no' anywhere in her scenes at the end of the episode. She DID say yes... "I take this man." She said no to Tyrion... not Ramsey. How was this rape? Is it because of the look of fear on her face, as she was about to have sex for the first time? Or are people really complaining about Reek being put through his bully showing up and fucking …
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:55 PM
7

And you gave me the opportunity to do so. THAT is the power of MGTOW, RedPill, DarkEnlightenment, or any counter-culture. Interesting encounters with different perspectives that expand our own. I would have never written that on another part of reddit... but I would have never found the words "I am proud to be a man" anywhere else on reddit either.
/r/MGTOW16/05/15 03:12 PM
16

I am proud to be a man because I am disposable. No one will stop me from trying something stupid or insane, I am free to make mistakes. It doesn't matter if I succeed or fail, and it doesn't matter what people think of me. I am free in a way that people of societal importance can never be, no matter how hard they try. What I do matters to me, and that is enough: I do not have to impress anyone else, unless I want to. I can see the silver lining in the dark cloud, and can look at a situation from…
/r/MGTOW16/05/15 01:17 PM
3

Then you're going to be keeping your number of employees low. In my country, the moment you touch 100 employees, the fines begin to appear if you don't have any women working for you. As I'm not sure where your business is located, I can't really speak as to the situation you'll find yourself. But if it's the USA, Canada, Great Briton, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and so on, I'm afraid you're not going to have a choice. Though maybe you're in Thailand, or Mexico, or one of those …
/r/TheRedPill15/05/15 02:43 PM
7

Do you have intentions for your business to grow? Because once it does, you will be legally mandated to hire that woman you do not want to. AFTER you've been successful she'll swoop in to claim the rewards. There's a lot of rhetoric around companies with more women on their boards being more successful, but the numbers mostly indicate the above. The company becomes successful, then women join the board, then the company turns to shit. I'd almost hate to bring her up and give her any exposure, bu…
/r/TheRedPill15/05/15 12:49 PM
6

You've more or less described the plot of the South Park movie there. People who are to blame for the problem doing their best to not be blamed, and all hell breaks lose because of it. My favourite line of logic against 'social' justice is how exactly is it different from normal justice? Normal justice has rules and procedures: social justice has the mob.
/r/TheRedPill13/05/15 03:56 PM
10

I always preferred Generation V(igilante) myself. Not only is the world a dangerous space, it is a dangerous space only they can fix, regardless of any mechanisms already in place. They don't trust existing methods and organizations... it's them vs the world. It'd sorta be RedPill if it were bettering themselves instead of trying to change the world. Missed it by that much.
/r/TheRedPill07/05/15 05:06 PM
1

The question is whether feminist interests can successfully brainwash them into going against their own interests or not. There is no "question." Feminists have consistently been successfully brainwashing women. All they've ever needed to say is "you're a victim" and then point to a group. So long as it isn't their fault, women have no fear of finding themselves responsible, and can continue to manipulate and make demands of others.
/r/TheRedPill22/04/15 12:41 PM
2

If you've ever wondered where the over population/consumption rhetoric comes from, this is it. If we're running out of space/resources, you need to have fewer children. The fact that we are not running out of anything (with the possible exception of water) will be wholly ignored so long as society wants women in the workplace. If anything, we'll make up the lie that we ARE running out to get them to participate more readily: more or less a threat that you work or have a shitty life with none of …
/r/TheRedPill21/04/15 07:26 PM
3

Its interesting you bring up the communists. While you're right, and very early on they made a number of attempts to push women into the workplace, they ended up backtracking on the whole thing thanks to doctors. The USSR ended up with the majority of their medical profession populated by women, and, thanks to maternity care, ran into a HUGE under-supply once the first generation of them reached their mid 30s. That isn't even beginning to mention the hit to the birth rate, which Stalin's "New So…
/r/TheRedPill21/04/15 11:03 AM
1

How is "there are skills and attributes required to do some jobs, and gender is a good indicator for some of these attributes" not logical? Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth astound me. Where did I say deny them the job based on sex? I GAVE EXAMPLES of women who your father would likely hire to drive. I also pointed out where this "sexism" stems from: an actual, well studied difference between the genders! Claiming I'm bad, a sexist (and now a racist! What wondrous goal-posts you …
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:51 AM
1

So me judging men to be incapable of childbirth is morally reprehensible!? My god! I must be some sort of monster! I must be chastised on the alter of equality! Men and women, all races, we're all exactly the same! I repent! Repent I say! There aren't diseases that target one race and not another! There aren't any number of medical differences between the genders! I'm so sorry for my heresy! I apologize! You win! I'll give up my morally reprehensible semantics and logic! Anything to not be calle…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 11:23 PM
1

And the strange notion that you can judge people without judging them you seem to be sending is still very foreign to me, and somewhat separate from morality... more the territory of logic. How can you "pre-judge" someone? Isn't that just normal judging?And isn't that the entire point in the hiring/promotion process? Same to you. High hopes the downturn out west isn't hitting you.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:45 PM
1

What I am saying is your fathers "sexism" has some basis in reality. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts he'd hire Danica Patrick to drive in your imagined scenario. He'd also probably hire someone he had trained himself, regardless of their gender. But some woman off the street? He's right to refuse her the job: insurance statistics say she's more dangerous. We have things like degrees, and licensing precisely TO pre-judge candidates. And what kind of racism are we talking about? Racism in the …
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:47 PM
12

So I know most of the sub is more interested in the dating implications of these studies, but personally I'm more interested in the political aspects. The study from Hartpury in particular is fascinating to me, since it showed that women who were actively looking for commitment were more attracted to men who displayed narcissistic qualities. Think about the impacts of that on, oh, I don't know, what kind of politicians we elect. We want people who are committed to us as our politicians, but half…
/r/TheRedPill16/04/15 03:03 PM
1

My dad is sexist as fuck. If he ran a company that required people to drive, you can bet your ass that he wouldn't be hiring women, no matter how qualified. Even this has some basis in fact. Women pay less for car insurance not because they get in less accident but because they drive less. Their accidents per kilometre driven are higher then men, and if you are going to be paying them to drive, they're suddenly a lot more likely to get in accidents since they will be driving more. Given a choice…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:46 AM
1

Because there are a nearly limitless number of other things that it IS perfectly acceptable to discriminate against those individuals based on, like hours worked, level of competence, social skills, and so on. You don't get to say it's discrimination based on sex alone when there are all of these other differences between people: there are no two employees who are exactly alike except for gender, and claiming that employers are making choices between manufactured cogs with the exact same specifi…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:59 AM
1

Strange to start this up again after a few weeks, but you've more or less stated my case: the onus is on those who are claiming "bad sexism" is happening to show it. And they haven't. Until they do, I'm going to believe HR is doing what is in their job description. In fact, now there's actually evidence in the opposite direction with regard to hiring. It starts to seem like the things we do to combat "bad" sexism are really just to promote other forms of special treatment based on sex. Fortunate…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:46 AM
1

It would be somewhat interesting to see malpractice suits against doctor by the doctors gender. Something tells me that most malpractice suits are made against men, as men are more likely to be doing something serious, like surgery, then a woman, though without the data... who knows. I would guess women ARE favoured outside of STEM. At least, my male friends who have attempted to become nurses/schoolteachers definitely felt so.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:51 AM
1

Nothing about live-in boyfriends or anything? What about recently divorced fathers? "Anyone with a caring responsibility for the child" could be used to justify denying a working dad with a stay at home mother paternity leave, if I'm to read it legally as opposed to more colloquially, since his responsibility is financial, not caring. I feel I should likely restate my question: Who IS actually covered by parental leave? If grandparents are, then suddenly even post menopausal women are potentiall…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 12:48 PM
4

Women past menopause and men who refuse to have anything to do with women become preferred employees. The article doesn't comment as to whether or not the "paternity leave" is only available to married men. If someone knows, I would be interested, since if it IS limited to married men, suddenly there is yet another reason to avoid marriage.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 06:25 PM
1

No, but they are able to mitigate it so it doesn't effect the entire organization. The entire company doesn't pay just because someone sexually harassed someone else. Even then, some of what you or I would consider "bad sexism" will happen, it will just be of the socially mandated variety. X% of you workforce must have such and such a quality. AKA "benevolent" discrimination.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 12:06 PM
1

You are dangerously close to repeating the mandate of HR in every company I've ever worked at with prevents all bad sexism from happening HR can promote certain kinds of sexism, but they are almost always the socially mandated variety. And you're right HR doesn't pay everyone the same amount: not everyone has the same value. Which is why they obsessively track things like hours worked, performance reviews, dollars in sales, lines of code, etc. Your salary negotiation is like talking to a lawyer.…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 06:28 PM
1

Which, again, is why HR exists. They probably don't even know you're a man, just an employee number. Proving the people who make your pay decisions made them based on your sex is nigh impossible, and as they likely don't know your sex, a pretty improbable situation to begin with. It's a bit different with hiring/promotions, but similar. By doing things in this fashion, the company avoids wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 12:17 PM
1

And I thought I did: if it happens, it happens on an individual basis, not an institutional one, and when discovered, the consequences happen to the individuals, not the institution. Which, put another way is: You will encounter assholes in life. The institutions can't and won't be associated with them the moment it becomes disadvantageous to do so.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 11:14 AM
1

Benevolent sexism is not malicious or bad. It can certainly be off-putting if you aren't the one receiving it, but it's... more compartmentalized, and personal, so it isn't a risk for the business. It's a risk for the individuals involved. And doing something because you like person A is very different from doing something because you hate person A, which is still different from doing something because you hate their gender. Only one of those three is "sexism".
/r/MensRights27/03/15 10:44 AM
1

Large companies are hardly perfect, but they err on the side of caution. The vast majority of the sexism you find within is the "benevolent" variety. So and so gets paid more because they're sleeping with the boss, or were hired because they're attractive, as opposed to what we've been talking about. And you're helping me prove my point about HR. Your boss is like a living resume or reference letter for them (and for you). He is doing the information gathering for them, and then reporting to the…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 10:25 AM
1

They are who your boss will direct you to. They are who your bosses boss will direct you to. And they will direct you right back to your bosses in a very pleasant fashion. HR chooses who gets what in a business. They do TRY to be objective about it too, which is admirable, and part of why you see so little of them... all of those employee evaluations aren't for your boss. Your boss can see what you've done.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 11:58 PM
1

They are called Human Resources, and since they're 90% women we shouldn't call them such things. Cat jokes instead. To your first point, companies are risk averse: the reason they cut inspections and safety checks is because they have found a cheaper way to deal with the problem wink wink, nudge, nudge know what I mean? Companies will do whatever is in their financial interest, and if it is opposed to that interest, they will mitigate it in whatever way possible. Personally, I very much oppose "…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 11:11 PM
1

The only sexism you will see in an employer, a large (100+ people) one anyway, is the socially mandated variety, which, obviously, society is a-ok with. The level of financial liability it exposes them to will sink them, if over time. Once the first lawsuit is successful, they will be targeted, both externally and internally until they bleed out. Small employers are a different situation. They do not have the same liability, or responsibility towards their employees as a large company, and even …
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:06 PM
1

Please tell me what definition of sexism I'm to be using... because if I'm to guess from the rest of our conversation, and were to paraphrase, I'm going to be answering "Do you think men and women encounter assholes in life?" I suspect the answer to my paraphrasing is self evident.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:44 PM
1

No, I am not. And the fact that there are already laws in place to prevent that situation from happening makes me wonder why the heck you think it is. The evidence we've both provided has shown the gap develops over time, not right at the time of hiring. AKA AFTER the man and womans capability and commitment to the job have been quantified.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 01:27 PM
1

... I think paying someone who is less intelligent less is acceptable, if the job requires intelligence. As for women being less intelligent... on average, they are more or less the same as men. In the extremes of intelligence (very high, or very low) you find more men. Same average, different variance. No part of that says I assume a woman I've just met to be dumber than myself... if anything, she is likely closer to the "norm" than a man, and as such, less likely to have any of the strange tic…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:41 PM
1

My answer to you question is "yes" with a "but". You cannot say something is solely because of gender when gender impacts an ungodly amount of things, many of which are relevant to paying people... such as the amount of time available to work, physical strength and dexterity, and, much to the chagrin of people who believe in equality, intelligence. If the genders were actually the same, and none of the differences existed, in all likelihood, neither would the discrimination you are seeing. You a…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 11:32 AM
2

Cheaper, and with less hubbub than firing someone... no drawing on employment insurance, no golden parachutes, and no right to challenge the dismissal in court. Much easier for everyone... Mr Summers showed he knew how to play ball, finding more lucrative employment quickly, and the organization got to keep playing its game of make believe. Sounds like a win/win to me. Well, except for people who are interested in the truth, since no one ever bothered to actually counter his argument....
/r/MGTOW20/03/15 03:43 PM
27

He was not fired, he resigned. And yes, the take-away message is if it will hurt a woman's feelings, you do not say or do it. Don't wear an inappropriate shirt, don't point out that women entering the workforce has caused wage stagnation, and don't point out that women are the ones causing the meltdown of marriage. Oh, and don't you dare point out that her age has something to do with her childrens health-problems. Political Correctness is the closest thing to a modern religion there is: it abso…
/r/MGTOW20/03/15 01:43 PM
2

If you've never read about The Two Concept of Liberty, I highly recommend doing so.
/r/TheRedPill17/03/15 05:34 PM
4

It wasn't necessarily you who did the down-voting, and beyond the point I made (somewhat bluntly), I didn't have many complaints with your comment. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Though I have to say, your last point about Maternal tendencies being on the rise is something I find troublesome, since mothers do what is good or right as opposed to doing what is best. You talk of churches and charities, but in my country both of these have, in the past, made some pretty horrible mistakes in attem…
/r/TheRedPill17/03/15 02:51 PM
15

Covert power by its very nature is more difficult to control No. You punch it and it goes away. But that's against the rules now. edit: down vote as you will, but overt power most certainly trumps covert power. An example from some modern drama: Tyrion Lannister: The Tyrell army is helping us to win this war. Do you really think it's wise to refuse them? Tywin Lannister: There's nothing to refuse. This is a plot. Plots are not public knowledge. And the Tyrells won't carry this one out until afte…
/r/TheRedPill17/03/15 11:24 AM
1

The problem, and the reason you can't describe my logical misstep, is because I have not made one. I have acted in a sceptical fashion towards the data you have provided, and it turns out, little of the data you have provided says what you have indicated it does. You are the one who has made the claim that gender discrimination happens: I asked for proof. You provided a number of legal cases, all of which were ostensibly about gender discrimination, but on investigation, were actually about hour…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 09:47 PM
1

And I think YOU misread it. Those 9000 women were simply offered to join the suit. We still don't know how many did. And the statistics disregard for hours worked, something maternal leave has a huge impact on, still leaves them suspect. And maternal leave doesn't have to be a complete explanation for the gap. Regular hours worked explains the rest, as that study you and /u/dellsharpie discussed pointed out. edit: I know this is an edit, and you probably won't see it, but I just noticed somethin…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:42 PM
1

Except for the fact the statistician hired conveniently forgot to include it. Except for the fact it was the thing all the women had in common. It isn't that I believe maternity leave is what causes the gap: it is that the evidence points to maternity leave. Men say the reason they don't take paternity leave, even when given the opportunity, is because they know it will hurt their career. Many women put off having children for this same reason. This is more evidence that parental leave is the ca…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:12 PM
1

No, I am doing what an arbiter is supposed to: I am being skeptical of the claims being made. The plaintiff claimed it was gender discrimination, and attempted to provide evidence to support this. Upon investigation, the evidence discounted six months of the plaintiffs life, and as such, I discounted the evidence. If there were evidence that DID include those six months, I would be significantly less prone to ignore it.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:57 PM
1

Now you're getting closer to my position. You can't simply discount six months of some ones life. And the fact that they ARE ignoring that six months is what makes me assume it's probably not gender discrimination, but rather some other form, possibly an acceptable form. Add the fact that I have to dig a fair amount to find that they have failed to include those six months as a factor makes me suspect they are ignoring the data maliciously, and my assumption starts looking less like an assumptio…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:35 PM
1

No, I am saying it is unlikely gender discrimination is occurring, not that there is no discrimination occurring. There is most certainly discrimination based on the hours worked, and level of competence of the employee when deciding who gets promoted or not. That is how you decide who to promote, and who to leave where they are normally. If I understand the implications of this case (and a number of the other ones in all honesty), businesses are no longer allowed to do this, or, at the very lea…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:13 PM
1

If I am looking at these cases with a biased view, so too are you. Though you're definitely right with my numbers: math pre-coffee is a terrible crime. Should be closer to a thousand hours of work. But that's still a sixth of someone with three years of tenure total time there. And I have EVERY reason to believe maternity leave creates the gap when feminists themselves are claiming, as per the economist article I shared, that if men spent more time around the house (aka, take more paternity leav…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:29 AM
1

Except the legal system works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, so I HAVE to start with the assumption that they weren't discriminated against. The statistics that "prove" they were discriminated against do nothing of the sort, thanks to the difference between tenure and hours worked, so their mention has little to do with the case beyond swaying the judge, who it appears had a similar understanding of statistics as yourself. Hiring an "expert" witness is fraught with such dangers, p…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 10:34 AM
1

Uh no. It's because tenure is time since you started working somewhere: something rather different than number of hours worked. Especially when KPMGs maternity leave policy is upwards of half a year. And, since you live in a country that gives paternity leave (obviously not the U.S.) you would know just how much less likely men are to take paternity leave then women are to take maternity leave, and likely know the reason they give: IT WILL HURT THEIR CAREER. When they DO take it, they do so for …
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:35 AM
1

It's also the one where all of the women involved had taken time off work for pregnancy (chose kids over career) and completely ignores the impact of that on "tenure". I had pointed this out in my original reply. They are not being punished for being women: they are being punished for taking maternity leave. You could make the case that punishing someone for taking maternity leave IS being punished for being a woman, but as some women never take maternity leave, and some women don't take materni…
/r/MensRights15/03/15 12:48 PM
1

And none of the cases you provided were a case where they were passed over for promotions or paid lower wages because of their gender. The cases of them being passed over for promotions the women in question didn't even get in the running (the defendants did have SOME female managers) to be passed over for gender: in fact, many of the cases you provided ALSO made the claim that it was because they were minorities. And the cases where they claimed to be paid lower wages they were doing different …
/r/MensRights15/03/15 11:24 AM
1

Wrongful termination is not getting paid less, nor is it being denied a promotion based on gender. If there were gender discrimination going on, none of these women would have been able to get a job in the first place, and THAT would have been their complaint. In fact, all of these cases are, unfortunately, evidence of female privilege: if they had been men, white men anyway, they would have had to depend on the civil rights act and had to file their suit within 180 days, as opposed to the three…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:51 PM
1

That's right guys: you have 180 days to claim wage disparity. Women have 3 years. Minorities have 4 years. Privilege right there.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:30 PM
1

I wish people would stop down voting your evidence. These cases may not be showing what you think they are, as the others didn't, but they're still information relevant to the conversation. Burying them achieves nothing. OK, I've read the articles, and you're right, the second one is a duplicate. The BestBuy one there looks nearly identical to the CostCo one from your original set too, though at least CostCo admitted fault. BestBuy appears to have gotten away with saying "we did nothing wrong" t…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:22 PM
2

let's just see here: from 1979, so 40 years old now. I'll skip this one, despite the external arbitrator who determined the plaintiff was under-performing compared to her co-workers, and her pay suffered because of that, and not her gender. Second one is mostly a complaint about hours worked, and the jobs women end up working compared to men. Cashiers and fry cooks don't make the same, I'm sorry. Third is a complaint that taking time off work to be pregnant hurt their career (well duh) as is the…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 03:30 PM
1

At least one that doesn't have a sexual assault charge involved too. Come on. Show me one instance of the pay equity act being invoked in the past 20 years.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:32 PM
1

The study is dealing with averages. The variance around the average american income is something like 20%. Six percent means NOTHING. It is in no way evidence that that 6% is because of discrimination either. If you want me to believe the wage gap is because of discrimination, you'll need to provide some evidence. A woman actively being told she's not getting the job because of her gender, the way, say, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame was when applying for management positions at Bell, or the origin…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:14 PM
2

Or if it's even discrimination. It could be education levels, it could be hours worked, it could be the particular jobs women take have ludicrous over-supply and as such, are paid less. Economists talk about "life choices" to explain the gap, not "discrimination", because it's almost impossible to know. The fact that so much of it disappears when we take hours worked in to account though definitely implies the "gender wage gap" has been debunked, but like so much of science, it's very difficult …
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:53 PM
2

They nowhere say that they think it would drop to zero This is because they are actual scientists: conclusions come AFTER evidence. It is possible it could drop to zero, it's possible it COULD be 5% and discrimination abound, but it could also be -5% and MEN are actually earning less per hour then women, and making it up by working more hours. Interestingly, when looking at part-time workers, instead of all workers, that last case is what happens, and, to some degree, we expect it to happen. Wom…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:27 PM
3

Proving a negative is one of the foundational aspects of math and logic, and is very doable: that is not what they are saying. What they are saying is that, thanks to the sheer amount of information necessary to actually come to a hard conclusion, it isn't worth it when they've already explained away the vast majority (23% down to ~5% gap) of the gap.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:13 PM
3

That second quotation there says its impossible to tell if the gap is because of discrimination by gender. You do know that's the opposite of your point, right?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:03 PM
4

/u/dellsharpie has already provided you with such a study. I do not need to because of how blatantly idiotic the report you shared is.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:52 PM
9

Your "statisticians" didn't take one of the single most important pieces of pay into account: hours worked. And he, in this case, happens to be you. And your congressional report doesn't site any economists, or statisticians: it was prepared by Carolyn Maloney a former school-teacher and secretary turned House representative. It cites articles and papers by political scientists and social aid workers. It does not have a single citation or section written by someone from a field that is actually …
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:45 PM
13

No where in your wonderful government paper does it ever mention annual hours worked. Gee, I wonder if THAT could explain your wage gap: I mean, it's not like women work fewer hours over the course of a week, let alone a year once we start taking sick leave and other medical absences into account. Your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad for repeating them. No one with even the most basic understanding of labour OR statistics would dare generate the nonsense in the report you've shared.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:15 PM
7

... you do know that government IS women at this point right? The majority of unelected government positions are filled by women, and women, being the majority of the electorate, also get to pick your politicians. Looking for government to fix this sort of thing is expecting women to ignore themselves....
/r/TheRedPill14/03/15 11:59 AM
6

I find myself agreeing with you, except on that darn last point. Of course you can be left leaning and redpill. You can be right leaning and bluepill too. Anyone can deny reality, regardless of their political leanings. To the point at hand: marriage, at least the traditional variant, had a number of advantages not only to the individuals taking part, but also to society at large. Modern marriage has few to none of these same advantages. Instead of getting two well off families from two doctors,…
/r/TheRedPill13/03/15 01:41 PM
6

To me, this is hitting the nail on the head. The real reason companies target women, and by extension feminists, is that they are the ones who make the purchasing decisions, and make up the majority of the consumer market. Asking for companies to not pander to them is like asking a thirsty man not to drink. Actually, it's probably a good metric to tell if something is bluepill or not: Is a company doing it? If so, it's bluepill. It needs to appeal to women first and foremost.
/r/TheRedPill11/03/15 08:15 PM
2

This is, hands down, one of the single most aggravating things about the modern layout of society to me. What you are asking for IS possible today, just as it was in the past. The reason it doesn't seem like it is, is because wages are so comparatively low, and haven't kept up with inflation: if you can answer WHY wages have gone down relative to most other thing (which is straight-forward given an understanding of supply and demand*) we can go back to single income families... assuming your wif…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 07:15 PM
2

Unless of course such positions are mandated by the government. Can't fire someone just because they have a kid, unless the lawsuit is going to cost less then the pay. If eletheros is correct (and I would assume he is) with regard to highly educated workers suddenly leaving the workforce, and then returning to the workforce part-time, there would be a very easy thing to blame: Maternity Leave.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 01:20 PM
3

You know, as a somewhat interesting aside, you are correct that people can have identity crisis at any time, but mid-life crisis are an actual studied thing, and somewhat different. And while they too can happen any time in a mans life, as you point out, there has been some research showing they have more to do with the age of his wife/girlfriend than his own age. Which is to say, your wife gets fat and ugly, and suddenly you need to show the young girls your status, THAT'S when you start buying…
/r/TheRedPill12/02/15 06:46 PM
2

Charles Grenfield Nicolay was forced to resign from his position of Dean at Queen's college over the belief that women failed to perform if the Socratic method that was popular at the time was used. I can't seem to find an online copy of his biography. I apologize.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 10:09 PM
10

Ah, history repeats itself. I have a question for you: why do we expect students to raise their hands? I mean, given that class participation is part of a students grade, you'd THINK taking it out of their own hands, and letting the teacher pick who gets to speak would be a bad thing, wouldn't you? The Socratic method was used for millennia before "hand raising" suddenly became a thing, so where did it come from? And the answer? The same damn place as this sort of thing. In the mid 19th century,…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:19 PM
0

Almost all of Adam Curtis' documentaries are fantastic. As a programmer, "All watched over by machines of loving grace" is one of my favourites, and the fact it beats on Ayn Rand (the queen of selfish behaviour) just makes me love it more. If you're in any way interested of the strange political machinations happening in the western world, try to watch anything Mr. Curtis puts out.
/r/TheRedPill11/01/15 04:12 PM
1

And the person making 50k, who then decides to work half as many hours would now be making how much...? You actually thought of a way to have every family have some income, which I hadn't, but the situation still ends up the same: the sum total of the families is half as well off as it was when they all abided by the single income rule. And, yes, globalization has similar effects, but I am attempting to make the case it is far less problematic then things like child labour or dual-income familie…
/r/TheRedPill24/12/14 11:12 PM
1

You ignored the 100 jobs limitation: the size of the population hasn't increased, so the demand for labour hasn't either. So you get: A = 100 families, 100 earners, each earner makes $100,000 B = 100 families, still only 100 earners, but 200 people in the labour force (100 looking for work, but none available), so each earner makes $50,000. The families that have two earners are as well off as they were in the single income situation. The families that have NO earners, since the jobs were all oc…
/r/TheRedPill18/12/14 11:52 AM
1

And how many of those 100 families now have no income?
/r/TheRedPill18/12/14 10:27 AM
2

I've seen promises of "million robot" factories before... they didn't happen then, and I see no reason they would happen now, as the only thing I can really say has happened 'technologically' in the meantime is that everything is a hell of a lot smaller. I've also seen promises of "machine learning"; it's been 40 years of being on the cusp of something big, or so they say. Ultimately, I see these not as automation, or technology, but politics: both of these groups have a certain amount to gain w…
/r/TheRedPill13/12/14 03:51 AM
1

I'm sorry but... you just reached 200 years in the past for your (good) examples. A pop machine didn't kill anything: corner stores still exist, as do restaurants. No one lost a job because of it: there wasn't anyone sitting next to the fountain machine in any store, and chances are, they didn't even have a fountain machine: they had pre-bottled servings. And no one lost a job to a BOB... heck, the battery operated sex toys probably made a few. I can agree with your wealth distribution point tho…
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 09:44 PM
1

I hear this one a lot, and while I agree in theory that automation eats into demand for jobs, there... doesn't seem to be much automation going on. Manufacturing seems to get outsourced rather then automated... so where is this dropping demand? What I can see is the demand for goods (and as such, labour) has stagnated in the west, thanks to our falling population growth. There are going to be the same number of buyers tomorrow as there are today; we are only having enough children to replace, no…
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 07:32 PM
2

The surge in participation rate was fed by two things - women entering the workforce, but more importantly, the baby boomers entering the work force. The fact that all of these people found work and thus were able to participate was because the economy was growing on roids. Yes, some baby boomers will be retiring, but given the fact that wages haven't increased in 25 years, this probably wont be voluntary. Participating in the labour force does not mean you are working: looking for work counts a…
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 07:12 PM
3

I feel its important to correct one minor aspect of your post. Increased labour supply relative to demand doesn't drive down employment: it drives down wages(price). It's part of why it takes two people working to have the same standard of living as a single-income family in the 50s/60s.
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 05:32 PM
3

Here is your labour force participation rate. See how it suddenly shoots up in the 60s? See how that's where it's headed back to? See how much further down it still has to go? And less people working does not mean less consumption. Stay at home parents still need to eat, cloth themselves, shelter themselves. They still generate economic activity. Their involvement in the workplace has little to nothing to do with their access to money. And, right now, despite the labour force participation rate …
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 04:52 PM
9

I loathe reading articles like this, if only because they do only the vaguest information gathering. It's nothing but an appeal to tradition for men. Want to know WHY there are so few high paying jobs? It's deliciously red pill: there are too many workers. That's right, the article is actually evidence that wages are going to RISE as more and more men leave the workforce, since that's what happens when supply drops and demand stays the same. If men start running back to the labour force like the…
/r/TheRedPill12/12/14 01:33 PM
2

Whether they are not "gender-based by design" does not make them gender based in practice, as your second paragraph takes the time to point out. Women have tried to shoe-horn themselves into even small, local male sports and been kicked out for whatever reason, making male sports teams a "male dominated space". This isn't to say they don't have some issues with regard to gender. I have distinct memories of my team having our fees increased to help support the womens side (who did NOT have a simi…
/r/MensRights04/12/14 04:16 PM
1

SPORTS! How many co-ed rugby, football, or hockey teams have you ever seen?
/r/MensRights04/12/14 12:50 PM
1

I actually think Rhybon might be on to something. If you look at this graph and this graph, it is entirely possible there are 65 employed, unmarried men for every 100 employed, unmarried women. Particularly if you look at the same data for the 16-30 age group, instead of the 16-65 group as those graphs do.
/r/TheRedPill24/09/14 09:28 PM
2

Please post here so everyone can read....
/r/TheRedPill20/09/14 02:17 PM
1

Women 'experimenting' with other women would account for the change though, would it not?
/r/TheRedPill03/09/14 11:42 AM
2

Wouldn't logic dictate the opposite though? Men were doing WELL economically in 1946, particularly in comparison to how well they were doing during the great depression/WW2. And THEN women jumped on the provider boat. Anyway, the reason I had asked my original question was that I had run into some sideways information at some point that indicated marriage was still popular in the upper half/quartile of society, and that the drop in marriage participation has been almost exclusively in lower inco…
/r/TheRedPill06/08/14 06:35 PM
3

Somewhat off topic, but I would really really like to see a graph like that broken down by income groups....
/r/TheRedPill06/08/14 01:23 PM
1

Meet Valerie Solanas.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/14 12:56 AM
1

They did the reading thing for a while in the late 80s/early 90s here in Ontario. "Whole word reading method." It was a bit of a disaster, and we're back to a variant of phonics now, but there's still a generation out there whose literacy is questionable.
/r/TheRedPill14/02/14 07:56 PM
1

I see you've found my primary source. Notice how it doesn't mention increasing wealth, and that a 'country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is known as' wealth. AKA EVERYTHING is wealth. This still has not generated a link between work, wealth, and economic activity either.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 09:34 PM
1

Wealth isn't money. Money represents wealth So talking about money means we're talking about wealth. If I ask you to show me wealth in real life, you're either left pointing to everything, or explaining it's an imaginary concept. If it's the former, then there's a finite amount of wealth out there. If it's the latter, wealth is a grand delusion we all play, and the problems are as simple to fix as saying they're fixed. For the moment, I'm going to assume the former, since no one has said the mag…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 09:10 PM
1

I guess I don't understand how, when we're looking at the past, the total number of jobs ISN'T fixed. The number of people who had jobs in 1980 isn't suddenly going to change. The number of people who had jobs in 2015, that I can see as being not fixed... but the number of jobs in the past? Not so much. I'm also a little spotty on the whole 'wealth creation' thing, since the creation of a good or product doesn't increase the money supply (or demand... most of the time). Selling something doesn't…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 11:59 AM
1

OK, so the first bit is really that women entering the workforce gave us a little 'jiggle' room with regard to employment that enabled more people to enter higher education? And since more people were now skilled labour, the value of low skilled labour dropped? See, my problem with this is I'm basically looking at it with nothing but an understanding of supply and demand, which says increasing the number of workers without increasing the demand for those workers is going to end up with lower wag…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 01:11 PM
2

Thank you very much for the response, but I don't understand this part The effect of increasing female participation in the workforce was to mute the effect that this had on students continuing into higher education. Without the increased female participation, greater participation in higher education would have allowed the labor market to respond more effectively to the changes in the employment environment. Does this mean that women entering the workforce somehow stopped the need for a higher …
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:43 PM
1

It absolutely IS neo-liberalism, with neo-conservatism thrown in to the mix too. AKA what we've done in response to getting rid of traditional gender roles, which you, and I, and most of this sub, support to some extent. The question is, what other than neo-economic theory is there that doesn't restrict people into gender roles? Other than that greater demand tends to reward the richest, more so than the work force. Stagnant wages are a problem whether demand is up or down. A national increase i…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 02:35 AM
1

I don't disagree, business doesn't work that way. But that's the difference between micro-economics (businesses) and macro-economics (what we're talking about). Businesses do not do anything to generate demand... beyond paying their employees. But they most certainly CARE about demand. It's what facilitates their decisions... most importantly to this discussion, how many employees to have. Generating demand is the business of individuals and governments. Most people aren't super happy when the g…
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 06:43 PM
1

the era of child birth he's referring to has an average age in the early Twenties This is not the average age of childbirth any more. A large part of this sub is pointing out how many women are hitting "the wall" Early twenty year old individuals in today's society have done none of the things you refer to as satisfying desires and in many cases, they have just begun saving for their life If they are saving, they are not generating demand. The only thing I'm referring to as 'satisfying desires' …
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 06:14 PM
1

They drain your work force's attention from their jobs They are often the reason the work force has a job in the first place they require your work force to spend their money on the child versus themselves At the point in life where couples are having children, they have sated many of their demands, and would likely be saving if they didn't have a child generating a seemingly never ending supply of demand. When companies complain about a 'lack of demand' they are lamenting the fact western socie…
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 05:07 PM
1

No worries about the latin, I was just pointing out that is was the failing in your logic. And I'm not necessarily disagreeing. There most certainly was an increase in demand... just not anywhere near the same magnitude as the increase in supply, at least not that I've seen statistical evidence of. It was why I pursued your original post: I would very much like to see such information. The other part of this is of course the inequality that has been a hot topic in the media of late: more workers…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 07:05 PM
1

Right, but there are things that can be done to mitigate that effect. Aggressively seeking trade is the big one that we as a society have decided to follow. As I stated in my original post, giving more money to women (since they make up such a large chunk of spending) SHOULD counter-act this to some degree. The problem is that none of these are what societies have more traditionally done cough gender roles cough to generate the necessary demand, and they're a bit sketchy because of it. Of course…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 06:54 PM
1

Only if there is an equivalent increase in demand, more or less negating your use of latin. If there is an enormous increase in the amount of available labour, but no increase in demand for that labour, then there won't be any economic growth... there may actually be stagnation in fact, since there will likely be overproduction. Even more, all other things being the same, if the supply of labour skyrockets, but the demand stays the same, then the value of labour is going to plummet. If a single …
/r/MensRights13/01/14 06:18 PM
1

You've been downvoted for some reason (I'm assuming people disagree with you) but you've made a statement I'm curious about. On a purely economic front, the giant influx of women into the workforce in the late 19th century in developed countries was a huge cause of growth. So yeah, historically, "putting women first" had a positive impact on men, as significant economic growth tends to raise everyone up, if not at the same rate. My understanding, with regard to the "influx of women into the work…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 04:03 PM
2

The price thing really bugs me actually. I've have had the chance to compare how much the organization pays the contracting company and how much I am paid, and I can't help but wonder why they (the business) put up with it. I mean, I get pay in lieu for benefits and vacation broken out on my pay stub, I know how much I would cost as a full time employee even keeping my full current pay, and it's still less than half of what they pay out for me know. It's ludicrous. Though it's also keeping the p…
/r/MensRights20/09/13 01:08 AM
1

More or less, yeah. And as a contractor, I'm not about to be making any waves by talking to HR.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:35 AM
12

Thank you sir. White papers are so much more illuminating than huffington post articles....
/r/MensRights22/11/12 11:27 PM
1

In the 20 to 30 age group, I would definitely suspect that's the case. Maybe not so much in the age groups above that.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter