TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AussieOzzy Archive

View 0 posts and 139 comments by AussieOzzy on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

I'm not sure what you're point about 'all men' is but it would apply to all men and I'm not denying it. All men don't need to fit the role of a man that was prominent in history 50 years ago. All men aren't needed by virtue of the fact that they're a man. Same thing goes for women too. I'd say that men haven't needed women for over a hundred years, and now women don't need men too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 07:28 AM
0

What on Earth are you talking about? Why the sarcasm for something I don't disagree about you with? Yeah I think civil unions are stupid and an outdated relic of the past. Women don't need men any more and I totally agree that it follows that they don't need marriage or civil unions forced upon them - or really forced upon men most of the time. Yeah, they don't need alimony. I think that payments after divorce are stupid. The only way they could be reasonable is if I kid is involved and one take…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 07:23 AM
-7

What do you think the contention is that I'm saying in the long comment above - not my short one liner?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 07:14 AM
-2

If you mean being treated poorly as not being considered for dating, then honestly I don't really care that much - I don't even consider that to be being treated poorly. Women don't owe me a relationship even if I would prefer it. I don't see this as a moral imperative or obligation. If you're talking about being mean and stuff, then yeah I think there's a moral imperative against that in general, especially when it goes into harassment and stuff. Nevertheless what I said was just a simple descr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 07:11 AM
-1

I don't think they should have boxes to fulfill in a broad general sense in order to be a man, but to be in a relationship then you're going to have to be appealing to a partner and meet their standards which creates the description as fitting a role. If men want relationships with women, then the best advice is indeed to think about what women want and try to fit into that. But that statement above is presuming that to be a man you must be in a relationship, or that all relationships will be li…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 07:08 AM
-9

How am I inviting cross-sub infighting? When I mention a link to another sub it doesn't send a notification to all people subscribed to that subreddit to come over here, nor am I expecting everyone here to go to those subs and start arguments. I clearly stated in my comment that I mentioned those subs because they're women-focused subs and I'm challenging the idea men must be providers financially. I don't argue with the rest because I simply don't find it objectionable that men's role should in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 09:12 PM
-8

That doesn't invalidate my point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 09:06 PM
1

That's just her reaction to the joke. It doesn't mean she's making fun of them. There are plenty of jokes that I initially laugh at but when I think about, I disagree with the message of the joke. For example I can find humour in jokes about rape, murder and violence towards babies but that doesn't mean I actually condone those topics. She's not making fun of men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 09:05 PM
-4

You're comparison about fitting a role with immutable characteristics is dishonest. Sikhs and dark-skinned people already would have to assimilate to another culture if they were immigrants and would want to fit in, or they'd have to adjust based on the different cultures and code-switch. You still haven't told me which part of the article she treats men poorly or endorses it. I don't get what you mean by blame. Where does she blame men. She just says they're failing to adapt and that's just out…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 03:10 PM
-2

Your comment makes no sense because you try to make a contradiction but those two cases aren't mutually exclusive. Women can both hate men and want to want men. If they're still confused by the title, then there's a whole article they can read that explains it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 03:06 PM
0

Which specific person is she making fun of? EDIT: In response to "the link you moron" that's not a preson. I've read the article and fail to remember any individual being made fun of. Feel free to copy paste the quoted section like I have and I'm more than happy to concede the point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 03:04 PM
-1

I don't understand what you mean by treating men poorly. Where in the article does she treat men poorly or endorse treating men poorly?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:36 PM
-2

But it wasn't just "Men aren't needed anymore." It's "Men aren't needed anymore, and they're struggling to adapt to being wanted." Which is a pretty fair summary of what the article is about. It's implicitly saying that women want to want men. The latter is detailed enough that the former doesn't need to be rephrased.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:36 PM
-2

Like adding on, I sometimes laugh at jokes where the punchline is rape, murder, or hurting others. That doesn't mean I endorse the contents of the joke.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:34 PM
-2

That's like the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There are hundreds of reasons why someone might bring up an anecdote, and in this example it's being brought up as a reflection of women's attitude towards men of not wanting them. Talking about a joke is not the same thing as endorsing the joke. Heck she's even critical of it in the article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:33 PM
-7

> when the stats show that it's clearly other people rejecting men. I don't know what you're trying to contradict. Aren't we both in agreement that men aren't wanted like it says in the article. Men aren't adapting well to the role of being wanted and that's why we get the result of them not being wanted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:30 PM
-5

It really isn't poorly phrased at all if you have any sense of literacy. Any single sentence phrase is almost never going to capture enough nuances to be universally true to account for all the ways it could be misinterpreted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:18 PM
-4

She's not making fun of men in general, she's criticsing men who deserve to be criticised and even phrases it in a way to ensure that she's not punching at any other men nearby.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:15 PM
-4

Yes. That's exactly what the article is pointing out, but I fail to see how this comment relates to that point in the article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:10 PM
-15

It wasn't a protected right. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974 is what made it a right for women to be able to access credit cards in the US, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia changed their policy in 1974, and later the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 made it a right for women not to be discriminated against. You are misinterpreting what I mean by 'can' and the way you use it is incoherent with regards to women's rights. The use of 'can' that I'm implementing is when something is allo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 02:05 PM
-19

That biggest complaint thing simply isn't true. Go look at the most recent posts on subreddits like r/TwoXChromosomes or r/GirlDinnerDiaries and you won't find not making enough or hustling enough to be common or big deals that they complain about. I've no recollection of any woman complaining about a man not having a hustle. If anything I'd suspect they'd have negative feelings towards it as you could be spending too much time doing that rather than being with her. EDIT: I looked at the 10 most…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 01:30 PM
-6

It's really not inflammatory. I don't get it. Women do not need men any more - to live well in society.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 01:19 PM
-4

Like actually this is hilarious now that I think about it. Is this supposed to be an echo chamber, because why else would disagreement cause you to doubt my position. That comment actually said nothing about my position but daring to disagree with someone means that I'm against the cause?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 01:17 PM
-4

Because I'm left wing... And I believe in advocating for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 01:16 PM
2

Especially when for many part of the job is socialisation with customers and having a human connection.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 11:35 AM
0

Okay??? I don't see how that's relevant to my comment or the article. Sure we could say women are necessary for certain tasks and men too for like reproduction as that's based on the biological reality, but bringing it back to gender roles women are capable of doing those jobs too. Again, let me be charitable and admit that if it's based on strength, then there might be less women capable than men on average, but it's not necessary for a man to fill that role. Am I understanding you comment righ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:28 AM
0

Which part of the article serves as hate-speech?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:24 AM
-6

What part of the article constitutes man-hating?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:22 AM
-19

Yes. That's because for many people they were pushed into it by the system in a way that's like a weaker arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is obviously a lot more forced, but when women can't open bank accounts and have limited job opportunities, then a man is more of a necessity in their lives.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:22 AM
-7

But you're misunderstanding what she's meaning by saying 'aren't needed.' You're correct in saying it goes both ways, but what she's getting at isn't that if you delete men things will be fine, she's saying that the role that men once had is no longer necessary. Men aren't necessary to fulfill that role in society. For example men used to be the providers and breadwinners by necessity since women had limited access to jobs and couldn't even open bank accounts or use credit cards, but now the rol…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:20 AM
-2

But you're misunderstanding what she's meaning by saying 'aren't needed.' You're correct in saying it goes both ways, but what she's getting at isn't that if you delete men things will be fine, she's saying that the role that men once had is no longer necessary. Men aren't necessary to fulfill that role in society. For example men used to be the providers and breadwinners by necessity since women had limited access to jobs and couldn't even open bank accounts or use credit cards, but now the rol…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:20 AM
-11

But women are perfectly capable of doing those things too. Saying men aren't needed isn't saying that we can get rid of men, it's saying that the role of being a man that society used to have isn't necessary anymore. So basically men aren't needed to fulfill the role of being a man in the relationship anymore, or rather that role of being a man has changed. For example, the role of being a man was to provide and be the breadwinner, but now this isn't necessary any more since women can work and h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:18 AM
-9

> Then she indulges in some "making fun of men who act like princesses" (hilarious). No she doesn't. She explicitly criticises those who make fun of men in this way. These days, women make fun of men who have abandoned chivalry, splitting the bill, sitting on their phones while their wives tend to 5 children and 3 carry on bags. Listen: some of these men deserve to be made fun of. For sure. But shouldn’t men feel chosen in their relationships with women, too? She specifically says that "some men…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:15 AM
-8

Because by saying that 'men aren't needed', they're not saying that each individual man is no longer needed for society, it's saying that men are no longer needed by virtue of being a man. Like being a man isn't inherently needed, just how women aren't inherently needed. But by needed I guess I mean needed in a woman's life since now women can open bank accounts, travel and get a job without facing (as much) discrimination.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:11 AM
-19

I don't really see how this relates to any of the points brought up in the article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:09 AM
-19

I think it's more about the roles that men and women need to fulfill. So men had to fulfill the role of being needed by women and thus they were seen as providers and that's how they were judged. But now women don't need men any more so their role is to be wanted, but many men are failing in the role of being wanted. That's where the author is saying that they're struggling to adapt. They do in fact want men for companionship, but that doesn't mean that they want each individual man. They'll sti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:08 AM
-3

I find nothing much objectionable about it, having just read the article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 11:05 AM
1

> They claimed that MJ sexually abusing them when they was 7 years old to adulthood, but somehow they didn't know what it was until they watched Leaving Neverland, which is pretty laughable in my personal opinion. Whether or not you believe the truth of the claim, it would be laughable if not for how concerning it is that you can't understand that a child wouldn't fully understand the moral wrongness of being sexually assaulted, and that child might have to grow up a bit before understanding wha…
/r/MensRights22/03/26 08:02 PM
-28

Because many men know someone who has sexually assaulted someone and the culture they create among themselves doesn't allow for much prevention of that behaviour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uZFHpEh5So
/r/MensRights03/01/26 09:17 AM
1

I'm not really sure what this has got to do with the article or where this has come from. Can't you just say statements clearly instead of going on many tangents. All I wanted to know is whether you think that the study was p-hacked in some way? Also do you think that this study was done by some social science class?
/r/MensRights28/11/25 09:00 AM
1

Yes. I agree that that's bad. Are you suggesting that that's what was done in the study?
/r/MensRights28/11/25 07:56 AM
-1

I don't get what you're saying? How are those statements proven or disproven if not for using a study that analyses things neutrally? Also I've seen the opposite too from data like this showing that men and women both work roughly the same amount total.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:57 AM
1

> You simply claimed that the other guy was against it because he had the gall to criticize the study. I reiterate my earlier question: are you dense on purpose? Would you please clarify this a bit more because I don't understand the point that you're making here.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:28 AM
-1

E; > Bud, I provided clarification to you several times, about what the conversation was about and how I was using "net work" while you used "work per time" the entire time. I insulted you because you didn't figure it out. The reason I wanted the clarification is because the way you talk about more work then would lend itself to rather illogical results. For example if someone worked 8 hours and got paid 8 dollarydoors, then working 9 hours and getting paid 8.1 dollarydoors or 10 dollarydoos wou…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:23 AM
-8

> Women have access to the same extra hours that men do. I wouldn't say that this is the case. As mentioned in the article, the finance and construction industries have more opportunity for overtime and they're mostly done by men. > Working more overtime is just a good representation of men being willing to work longer hours than women. Yes thank you. You're finally getting it. And this article offers one explanation as to why that is. > There are only two solutions to this part of the earnings …
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:12 AM
-4

> I wanna know where you work where all the managers are dumbasses who will pay a time and a half for worse output than normal. When I worked at the warehouse and was asked to stay back for another hour, the managers expected that I (and the rest of the workers) would be more tired than at the start of the shift. When I worked on Sundays I'd get paid double, but the manager's didn't really care as much about doing the same amount of work in the same amount of time because the orders on Sunday we…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:05 AM
-20

> Sure, but you ain't gonna be getting much overtime if your manager sees you're notably less productive in the extra hours than you are in the standard ones. I wouldn't say that that's the case, and often I would say that it's the opposite. Overtime can often be given because of situational issues that need to be resolved quickly and a manager might allow some extra ineffeciencies in order to meet a deadline for example. > Nope, it's paying men for extra hours of work beyond that negotiated as …
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:29 AM
1

> No, that's exactly what it's doing, and you said so yourself, that it 'encourages a pay and work gap'. I don't understand what this means. The study is reporting the facts, the article is providing an explanation. > Most people don't think of work or pay gaps as benign but rather as an attempt to pay women less. You are misunderstanding again. When the data reports on the pay gap, it is not making any moral claims or judgements about that gap - it is only reporting that it exists. People can h…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:11 AM
-6

Citing a source is not a hidden meaning. I don't understand what you're on about. The sources are linked in the original article, which goes to the secondary article which links to the government source of the data, and then I read their methodology section. Each of these links has been provided to you. Citing these sources is transparent so I don't know why you're acting like these are "hidden meanings" like they're trying to hide something from you. You are also misunderstanding what I wrote s…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:01 AM
-37

Hang on, isn't that what overtime is? Overtime doesn't necessarily mean the person does twice as much work in those extra overtime hours. Overtime is simply paying men more for the same functional output. Now I'm not actually putting forth a solution here, and neither is the article. I don't think we should get rid of overtime because it is a good force that limits companies overworking their staff. All the article is doing is providing an explanation of why men are getting paid more than women.…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:54 AM
-10

> No, the study is decrying how women's contributions aren't recognized. The study does no such thing. It just presents numbers as facts pretty neutrally. In the article I don't see anything about women not being recognised for their work. The main contention of the article is that the way salaries and stuff are structured encourages a pay and work gap. > We don't need a study to tell us this, You are getting confused the point of the article. The article isn't summarising the study and claiming…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:50 AM
-5

I think you're getting confused about what the source is. The first link was the link in the original article, and that article links to the source which is the second link. This is the source I'm talking about. An article isn't the source of the data, the abs source is the one. From that, I put the third link which shows you how the data are coded / categorised and that explains where working on a vehicle is. I don't understand how what you're saying is relevant. Nevertheless the actual sources…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:45 AM
-7

The fact that overtime will be paid more than not overtime motivates couples to distribute 80 hours of work, not as 40-40 (80 hours paid), but rather 50-30 (90 hours paid) and for the other partner to pick up lack of employment hours by compensating with doing more unpaid labour around the house. The result that you describe is being encouraged by how the system works.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:00 AM
-57

If you are complaining so much about subsidising women, then why are you opposed to feminists wanting an employment structure that would allow them to earn and work more, thus relying less on men to subsidise them?
/r/MensRights28/11/25 03:48 AM
-13

Hello, I seems that you don't understand the purpose of the statement that you quote here: > Also from the article: While men work longer hours, women are shouldering the bulk of unpaid domestic labour and care in the home. The purpose is to present a fact as evidence that ties in to point they make later in the article, that overtime bonus structures incentivise distributing time spent working more to one partner and for the other partner to balance out with domestic tasks.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 03:46 AM
-7

> Follow the link to see how of course they consider only 'traditional' domestic labor, and totally ignore home upkeep and repair and any work traditionally done by men, like maintenance of family vehicles. Hello, this is not true as the source for the data for how Australians spend their time does include maintenance of family vehicles under 'home and vehicle maintenance'. https://theconversation.com/unpaid-womens-work-is-worth-427-billion-new-research-shows-see-how-much-your-unpaid-labour-is-w…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 03:44 AM
0

And why would this person need to be talked down?
/r/MensRights27/11/25 01:32 AM
-2

I am talking about the actual conversation and I can show you in the original post: > "Oh, you mean now that we've built an entire political party on the core central tenant that masculinity is toxic? And that men are to be seen and not heard (and if they are seen they better be Goddamn well be 6-6-6)?" This was the part in the original post that I found objectionable - the point that men aren't allowed to speak anymore. The point of bringing up more radical spaces is that typically the features…
/r/MensRights26/11/25 09:24 AM
-14

Can you please explain to me the strawman fallacy that I commited?
/r/MensRights26/11/25 09:11 AM
-20

Did I ever say that men weren't being alienated? You comment like a strawman fallacy as if that that was my argument. I don't understand what it has got to do with the point that I was making which was that in spaces much more radical than liberal spaces men are allowed to speak and aren't just written off for being a man. Maybe stop with this change of subject and actually engage with the person you're trying to talk to.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 09:08 AM
-5

Nope. I've seen many arguments and disagreements about how things work. Whether what is or is not acceptable behaviour in the group, and also criticisms of the ideology in general.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 09:06 AM
-12

What makes you think that they're lonely. It really gives off the vibe that you don't want any constructive discussion and just want to talk down to women.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 07:37 AM
3

I don't understand the maths here. Why must the man earn over 100k. Shouldn't he just have to earn enough to cover the amount of lost benefits alone for it to be financially beneficial to the single mother? Also this graph describes only a single mother's income and doesn't describe dual incomes and relationships. I don't understand how you can arrive at a conclusion describing a couple's combined incomes when info about it is not present.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 07:13 AM
3

So I took a look at the graph here: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Short%20Testimony%2002-13-13.pdf And I don't understand what other conclusions you can arrive at from the data than to say that the benefits need to be restructured so that they taper off as you go up in income rather than completely going away. That way earning more income in a better job will be more advantageous to the people relying on benefits. Can you explain to me how you arrive at the man's income then, assum…
/r/MensRights26/11/25 07:11 AM
-4

No. What has this got to do with my point? I have no issue speaking with people 1000x more radical than liberals so I'm confused as to why you're trying to suggest otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 07:02 AM
-15

> Women are just much better at gassing themselves up and putting lipstick on pigs, but it's the same pig no matter which way the coin lands. Is this the mens rights movement you want to create? Where you create posts that are more about shitting on women than uplifting men? 38 more upvotes than downvotes too. It's a sad state for the men's rights movement. No wonder shit can't get done.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 06:59 AM
-33

What are you talking about? I've been in places a thousand times more radical than a typical liberal party meeting and the men here are free to speak as they wish and people listen all the time.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 06:57 AM
1

Things like the way language is used to deny men victimhood. This was long ago but I made a post here about the definition of the word succubus (didn't know what it meant at the time) and it gave an answer to the effect of "a mythical woman who has sex with men in their sleep". I pointed out that having sex with someone in their sleep is rape and it should be "a mythical woman who rapes men in their sleep" and then got a bunch of downvotes for it. I thought that men not being considered victims …
/r/MensRights27/09/25 12:15 AM
-9

Because the movement alienates a lot of men that want to participate, ironically by not taking certain problems seriously and including a lot of woman-hating which turns people away from it.
/r/MensRights26/09/25 02:32 AM
-2

You are taking what I'm saying too literally. When I ask "Why on Earth would it include that?" I'm not asking a question about the reasons testosterone would be included in some circumstances, I'm expressing an exclamation that doubts the validity of your statement. A 'complete mens medical weight loss program' is overkill for general advice to give to someone. I'm not talking about the study or whatever in the abstract, I'm talking about it from the perspective of how it could be applied for th…
/r/MensRights23/09/25 02:03 AM
0

So you should get a dependence on drugs rather than exercise and naturally build up your testosterone?
/r/MensRights23/09/25 01:35 AM
4

Wait, you mean to say that women have a personality? I thought you just look at someone you find hot and then do the thing. Women are so weird.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 01:32 AM
8

Sounds silly to be honest.
/r/MensRights23/09/25 01:28 AM
2

Why on Earth would it include that?
/r/MensRights23/09/25 01:26 AM
6

If you don't understand what the scientists are saying then please don't try to draw your own conclusions that are separate from the science. Correlation doesn't mean causation. It's quite likely that higher fat mass causes your body to produce less testosterone, or that higher fat mass is associated with lack of exercise which is also associated with a lack of testosterone. Also taking testosterone will inhibit your body's way of naturally producing testosterone making your dependent on it for …
/r/MensRights23/09/25 01:26 AM
1

> So your whole point is bad things happen even if there are laws against them? No. That's not my point. My point is that the social factors and attitudes of inequalities are just as important as the legal factors of inequality are. For example, if I could live in a world where the murder rate is 1% of what it is today, but the rate getting away with it is higher or a world where the murder rate is higher, but every murderer gets locked up I'd take the former. This is because in this instance th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 05:57 AM
1

> All the bad things that happen to women are men breaking the law. They are doing illegal things. And either they aren’t caught or punished for it. But it is not accepted in society That doesn't really excuse the differences. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem, especially talking about rape and sexual assault. "Every rule has a story." Is what I'm reminded of what I see on a chainsaw it says not to start the chainsaw by holding the end between your legs. W…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 09:47 PM
3

Um, it kinda is though. Your desire for a relationship has been rejected.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 09:19 AM
4

Yes. Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and other Democrat officials have condemned the murder / assassination. How is what you say the opposite of what I said? I'm not defending the actions of the murderer or those inciting violence. The point that I'm arguing is that it's not reflective of everyone on the left, they're online extremists. I'm telling you this, not because I think the fact is interesting in its own right, I'm telling you a fact because I'm using it to support an argument. The argument that…
/r/MensRights19/09/25 09:08 AM
-3

I mean take the most extreme people of any group - even pacifists - and you'll find bad ideas that aren't representative of the whole. For example in response to the Holocaust, Gandhi suggested that the Jews should kill themselves in protest.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 08:26 AM
6

I mean what is there to argue here? You said it's obvious so case closed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 11:35 PM
–

> There's a lot of rhetoric coming from women and the bluepill about how men who are unable to get sex or girlfriends are being rightfully bred out of the gene pool as part of the process of natural selection. Where do you read this kinda stuff? What? I've not heard this rhetoric at all. Again. I said this in another post. For every hateful woman there is, there's 10x the amount of attention being spread about it by men than actual women spreading it. More attitudes of hate towards men are expre…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 11:15 PM
0

Similar to my claim before that I see more toxicity from men than women... OP didn't generalise to men. She said it was the men described as: "“The break up came from nowhere” guys, “Women nag over anything, ignore them” guys, and guys who think spending time with a woman besides fucking is inconvenient." Even about those men, she said that it was many of them that aren't doing well enough, not all of them. So she describes very specific types of men, and then doesn't even generalise about them,…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 10:41 PM
14

I'd argue that a big part of the opposition would be religious purity culture, much of which sees men as innocent and women as temptresses who have the moral blame.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/25 11:02 AM
6

Seeing as there's very little actual explanation here, I'll give my two cents. 1) Society is becoming extremely atomised, especially after COVID where people lost their people skills and the world became ever more adapted for atomised people. 2) I don't think men gather as often in restaurants. Typically they join together over a shared activity that's somewhat stimulating (sports, video games, etc.) and eating food isn't one of them. It's bit ironic because I met up with two of my friends over …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 11:00 AM
1

You know something I've noticed, is that I hear more negative attitudes of men from men complaining about women rather than actual women. The main criticism OP was providing was partners who ignore complaints in a relationship and don't address them, but rather than argue that point, or ask for clarification, you immediately jump to the conclusion that lack of height and attractiveness is the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 10:49 AM
0

One part that was specified is not ignoring your partner when they complain about a problem in the relationship - you should address it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 10:48 AM
–

> Western women complain about 3rd world men having high standards for women when they do the same for men Never heard of any "western women" complain about the high standards of 3rd world men. Is your point that women are hypocrites? > women in western countries have such high standards for men that most young women are forced to date the same few men(60% single rate compared to 30%). Where do you get these percentages from? It just seems so off. > When women got the power to have standards the…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 05:18 AM
–

What sexism is there against men in the dating market? The fact that women have preferences and are pickier than men? That's not sexism. I still don't understand the point that you're making. Please tell me: 1) Your argument. 2) Evidence 3) Explanation of the evidence 4) how it relates to your argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 05:06 AM
–

> Whenever any 3rd world country is pointed out most women start saying how it is bad for women and so on . huh? No. Whenever I talk to women and mention Sudan for example they typically don't go talking about how bad it is for women. > But dont women in western countries have such high standards for men that most young women are forced to date the same few men(60% single rate compared to 30%). What does this statistic even mean? Where is the contradiction. You're just swapping out terms. When I…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 04:52 AM
-1

I think that there's a significant amount of people in this sub that don't actually care about men's rights. For example I once posted about language being used describing "a woman who has sex with sleeping men." and corrected it to be "a woman who rapes sleeping men" and then I had dozens of comments disagreeing with me. Idk, this sub can be weird some times.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 06:22 AM
-15

I genuinely don't understand the point of this post.
/r/MensRights14/09/25 06:45 AM
30

> I asked ChatGPT And now I know you have nothing useful to say. ChatGPT will just agree with you on almost anything and always supports whatever you want it to prove.
/r/MensRights06/09/25 08:19 AM
0

Communists believe in a society without an upper class on owning production or money. Libertarians believe in individual rights and sovereignty. Anarchists believe that free individuals should come together to work towards a society that doesn't have any hierarchies, appealing to the libertarian sense of freedom and the communist sense of a lack of an upper class.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:55 PM
2

I'm not a tankie, I'm literally an anarchist. You're arguing with a fictional opponent not the actual person. Exploitation of labour is a neutral term which even economists use nowadays. It literally just describes how much value is extracted from workers which gets turned into profits.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:51 PM
0

It's not contradictory - an anarchist.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:21 AM
-4

pretty much.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:16 AM
-1

What? Can you please actually engage with what I'm saying. I ask you a question and it goes unanswered and then you go off on more tangents. What you're saying is almost completely false. You're arguing that for women to prioritise personality of a man, the man must have a lot more money but this makes no sense. It's the super rich people who can get away with having shitty personalities because women will put up with it to gain the benefits of their money and you'll get a lot of gold diggers to…
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:15 AM
-8

> "go after what is missing" Doesn't this go both ways? Traditionally the man was missing someone to look after and provide children and then woman was missing someone to provide money to support her in doing those things. The man too is also "chronically dissatisfied" with not having someone to look after his kids. Your perspective can be applied both ways coherently as they just fit with the gender roles at the time. What do you mean by women have destroyed the idea of stability in a marriage?…
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:08 AM
3

I'm an anarchist btw. Also your comment makes no sense. Even if we were more prosperous than before, that doesn't mean that you're not being taken advantage of nor that exploitation of labour isn't occuring. Do you even know what exploitation of labour is?
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:55 AM
1

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZfZseKmHNwo TL;DW 1957 less than average wage could support a house and retirement. I mean just look at median house prices vs median wage ratio. It's completely sky rocketed.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:52 AM
-3

I genuinely do not understand the point you are trying to make.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:47 AM
4

The communist isn't demeaning the worker for selling their work, it's just explaining that when they work there's exploitation of labour occuring and the working class needs to sell the work to subsist whereas the owning class doesn't need to work to subsist. In essence working class people are being taken advantage of, that doesn't mean that something wrong with them as people.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:32 AM
-1

You could get by and have a comfortable life, a house, raise kids and send them off to uni only on one median full-time income. Do you think that the fact that this is a lot harder to do nowadays explains better the problem or do you think it's because of women?
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:25 AM
16

If you could still get by on the median one person income and raise a family then it'd be a different story. The real reason why women - and everyone for that matter - are miserable is because people have taken advantage of the two income household and raised prices accordingly. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 10:22 AM
56

Smoking is good for you says smoking company. AI girlfriends are popular says ai girlfriend company.
/r/MensRights26/08/25 10:37 PM
0

Men have been bragging in comedy about banging women half their age for ages. It even reminds me of a routine where a guy mentions it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oBUwFUSsWk
/r/MensRights13/08/25 11:31 AM
0

Same could be said about you and this post. The top comment said that legally they agree that he doesn't have to have any commitment, but they're still judging him morally speaking. How do you know that the mother never demanded responsibility from the guy? Lots of men who have kids they don't want get paid under the table so that they pay less tax and don't have to pay child support. He's blamed like he's the main character because it's an AITA post, so he's the person that's going to be morall…
/r/MensRights11/08/25 11:45 AM
-1

Women at the front and men in the kitchen at fast food has always been the case. This is nothing new and if anything it's less so now than it was years ago. EDIT: can someone tell me if my profile looks like clippy?
/r/MensRights11/08/25 05:19 AM
-8

Source?
/r/MensRights09/08/25 07:13 AM
-12

Sure, but if there was a school with 100 students and a school with 1000 students and both got a grant of a million dollars, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the smaller school got more funding, in the sense that they got proportionally more funding and not in absolute terms. That's what the person was trying to say. Nevertheless the total funding is in fact irrelevant when you don't account for things such as population size - there are more men so that should favour men's funding - …
/r/MensRights09/08/25 07:09 AM
-1

Why so combative. I think it's really getting in your way of understanding the other person's arguments. It should be a really simple task to explain why they called it the national institute for example when I think of it I immediately come up with: 1) They don't know what country you're from, so they either had to guess or use the information as general information of a more prevalent pattern. 2) They called it the 'National Institute' because that is in fact what it's called. It's called the …
/r/MensRights09/08/25 07:06 AM
-3

Where do you get that $10,500 figure from? Nevertheless breast cancer typically affects women at a younger age than prostate cancer affect men. So all else being equal it makes sense to priorities breast cancer over prostate cancer. EDIT: adding on, many women die of breast cancer compared to men who often die with prostate cancer, not from it.
/r/MensRights09/08/25 05:38 AM
-5

Why is "ignoring" the dollars spent ridiculous. Meaning you balance the dollars spent with how effective the treatment is? If you had $5000 to spend to save only one life out of three, who would you pick? The 10 year old, the 30 year old, or the 70 year old? I'd pick the 10 year old. If it cost $10000 to save the 10 year old, $9000 to save the 30 year old, and $5000 to save the 70 year old, then I'd still choose to save the 10 year old as for the amount of money I could spend, I know that it's g…
/r/MensRights09/08/25 05:32 AM
-4

What's feminism got to do with this?
/r/MensRights08/08/25 11:36 AM
1

The reason is because the term slur is taking on a shift in its meaning where it's being understood as discriminating or shaming for some general arbitrary feature. Like racial slurs, or gender based slurs which attack a whole group. For example if you use 'small dick energy' to insult a man, you're not only insulting him, but all the other men by body shaming them. In a similar way bitch and hoe are slurs in that respect - though I disagree with cunt being a slur. Personal insults are just that…
/r/MensRights08/08/25 11:34 AM
2

You walk into a room and see a man wielding a knife and 3 dead repeatedly stabbed bodies. If you decide to 'nope' out of there, run and call the cops does that make you prejudiced against that person? When it comes to safety, you can discriminate assume people to be guilty. That's not the same as assuming them to be guilty in a court of law. It's entirely possible that that person was attacked by three people and defended himself against all of them, but that doesn't mean you have to seriously c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/25 01:10 AM
-12

I don't believe that the apps made for men were genuinely about their safety. Women can make their own spaces, and so too should men. I'd like to see these apps you mention. I mean those problems you speak of could be applied to reddit too, and even youtube. I mean I think there are a lot of women concerned about their safety when it comes to dating, but also it would attract a lot of bad actors. I think there should be more safeguards on the app, but I don't have a problem with the idea of that…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/25 01:45 PM
-11

So you'd agree that this doesn't prove that they're innocent. They're just not guilty. This is not judged as a false accusation like OP described.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/25 01:36 PM
-6

Yeah I get how this can be damaging to people's reputations, especially false accusations. But I believe in free speech and that unfortunately means that in allowing free speech of women to protect other women from sexual harassers, some women are going to misuse that and make false allegations. Where I'm from, pepper spray is illegal but I think it should be legal even if the consequences mean that there are going to be men who are falsely pepper sprayed. Women can make their own choices with r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/25 01:26 PM
-13

> Likewise, the recent Canadian hockey scandal, which is similar to the Duke lacrosse hoax, has recently been judged as a false accusation. Have you got a source for this?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/25 11:09 AM
-2

This is just a nothing burger imo. I can't think of a single interaction that I've had with women that has been affected by any of what you said. Just live your life.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/25 10:56 AM
1

No I'm not saying that. I literally said they can measure it. What I'm saying is that they can't prove a causal relationship through statistics alone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/24 04:21 AM
1

For example, you can take data from smokers and non smokers and notice a higher rate of cancer to a significantly significant degre, but it doesn't mean that smoking causes cancer from these studies alone. You have to account for things like reverse causation such as cancer causing smoking, placebo, and also 3rd factors that cause both that could be ruled out.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 01:11 PM
1

You can't do this. These tests do not provide proof, just correlation. They tend to be good, but you need a deeper scientific understanding to explain and prove why. All you can do is measure, and make confidence intervals and determine whether or not you are confident - statistically speaking - that something is correlated, but it isn't proof.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 01:09 PM
2

Studies like those I'm pretty sure aren't meant to find any causality, all they do is find correlation through the data and then that needs to be investigated further.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 03:10 AM
2

I don't know, maybe my degree in statistics is relevant.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 03:00 AM
2

You'd have to have some measure of health, but quantitative measures are easier so let's stick with height as it's easier to understand as opposed to maybe a sliding scale 1-10 of mental health which wouldn't capture the full range of how people can experience mental health or lack thereof. In practice you might do this for the different aspects of mental health. Okay, so let's say that you measure 50 men and 50 women and their average height is 155cm. Then you measure a factory workplace of 50 …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 01:40 AM
3

Exactly. So in a male dominated area, the general result will be an approximate estimator for the male result.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 01:10 AM
3

Let's use an illustrative made up example. Assume that men are average 160cm and women 150cm. You measure the average height of a factory worker. Is the measurement going to be roughly an average of 155 or is it going to be higher or lower? What would explain the discrepancy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/24 01:00 AM
5

That study was fifth for me on google scholar when putting in those quotes. Nevertheless the reasoning is actually rather simple. Since most factory work is done by men, their results will be reflected in the general population. But for information about women you'd probably need to specifically seek them out to get a large enough sample, thus the need for studies focusing on women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/09/24 07:15 PM
-17

I mean is it really that surprising when one side of the political spectrum is trying to remove abortion rights that women would be used more often, especially with a candidate that is herself a woman.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/24 12:51 AM
2

Still don't get it...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/24 04:26 AM
3

Am I the only one who hasn't seen the movie? What movie are you referring to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/24 01:51 AM
7

I think lesbian relationships are also somewhat fetishised.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/21 12:15 PM
20

and is funded by lobby groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/21 11:29 AM
13

I find it strange that where I'm from, there's a clear lack of help for men in abusive relationships. I've heard of people who phoned up helplines, only to be turned away coz they were a man, and there's definitely little acknowledgement that women can be abusers too. Notably the domestic violence hotline used to only mention women as victims and the men's hotline was for men who felt that they were abusive and not the victim.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/21 05:18 AM
1

I agree with the way that white women have been racists towards black men, but what the fuck is this shit??? I want to ask every woman who complains a big cat called if she wants to be ugly and I'll bet you she'll say no because she gets way more benefits for being beautiful than she does disadvantages.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/11/20 08:43 AM
3

I didn't see any sources... The wage gap is real nonetheless at around 10% not 23% as most people like to exaggerate. Also the fact that women are expected to stay home is a problem, just as it's a problem that men are expected to be providers. Because of this, women earn less and men don't spend much time with their kids. This still doesn't explain the 10%.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/06/20 04:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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