TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Capable_Sky_2637 Archive

View 0 posts and 185 comments by Capable_Sky_2637 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)
2

Fair enough
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 05:46 PM
3

It’s a demonstrative hypothetical. You are, of course, completely and entirely free to not join in
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 05:41 PM
5

If i have my car parked in my single lane driveway, and your car is parked directly behind my car (but on the street outside of my property), i figure i have three (ish) immediate (ish) options: 1) ask you to (or insist) that you move your car 2) go through the courts so I can move your car legally 3) take a sledgehammer to my own property, bash down and destroy my own house thus that I can drive my car forward and reverse out at a different angle. What do you reckon is the best course of action…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 02:38 PM
13

Mate, as someone who has been doing the exact kind of research you’ve been talking about, but I’ve been doing it for about 7 years now, you’ve got about the most accurate bead on it that you can, including the healthy caveat of, essentially, “more research is required.” What you can say, with some decent assurance, is that the claim that men don’t talk about their feelings or don’t open up is—as of 2026–sufficiently debunked that the burden of proof is no longer on the “disprover” (not that, str…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 02:33 PM
16

No, you don’t understand. If someone has been stomping on your throat for about 175 years you need to spend the few breaths you have complaining about the factory manufacturing the boot, not the person who has been stomping on your neck with said boot
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 10:12 AM
18

If you’re in Australia I’d be interested in linking up. Currently a mature age student in psychology aiming for clin-psych: long term goal is to be a clinical psychologist specialising in and with men and boys with a longer term goal to disinfect the study/practice/discipline of psychology with anti-male/feminist rhetoric and policy Male victims of IPV is of particular importance to me, so much so that it was the exact topic of one of my undergrad assignments (forming 30% of a grade for one of m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 10:10 AM
6

Specificity is required OP. Keep in mind that there are clearly some people here who know words but don’t know what they mean. I was basically accused of being a libertarian (with the implication being that I wasn’t speaking toward left wing politics) for daring to suggest that conscription is not a moral human invention—my point here being that what even constitutes left wing politics clearly isn’t that clear to some participants
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 11:36 PM
5

Something that has been kicking around the back of my mind for the past few years is delegitimising Movember itself, or at least, critiquing it with something memetic and highly visible, something that will catch, provoke conversation, and hopefully spark a dialogue that can’t be brushed over so casually. My idea is loosely this: The tagline I imagine as something like “Movember is nothing more than Lip Service” or “Movember is Lip Service” (play on words) The imagery and/or way to actually push…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/26 03:29 AM
2

Depends what kind of solution you’re looking for. Activism of all flavours, in my opinion, can broadly be split into two categories: polemical and principled. You can do the polemical thing and knowingly employ the same strategy that you’re seeking to critique, highlighting the sexism, absurdity, et cetera. Or you can take the principled approach and set and live the higher standard by not sinking to that level at all, even as you call it out for what it is. What is not the solution is to atone …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/26 01:35 PM
2

Hey mate, holding a rifle isn’t hard, that much is correct. Everything that comes after holding the rifle is much harder, but I digress. If the system is out to fuck your rights you have every right to fuck the system right back. Sincerely, an ex-soldier.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/26 10:41 AM
15

It is a small comfort OP, but this helps to calibrate me on my worst days, so maybe it will offer you something as well: I’d much rather be me, and suffer the abuses I suffer, than to be those who inflict those abuses upon me. In this, I find a measure of peace. I can rise above and move beyond that which is done to me, because it ultimately cannot harm me; but the people that espouse such hateful attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments will forever, and regrettably, harm themselves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/26 08:06 AM
84

Feminists exist, fundamentally, in a different reality to the rest of us. This is not an exaggeration, and so long as this point is not understood feminist ethics and morality will always seem bafflingly hypocritical and unsustainable. Further, feminists have a long tradition of redefining language to work in very specific ways, in the spirit of the Frankfurt School and tangential philosophies. One such example is the notion of racism, which these institutions have redefined from the intuitive, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/26 05:49 AM
12

The trouble with the Gramscian dialectic (insofar as Gramsci maps Hegels dialectic onto cultural and political hegemony) is that it isn’t a mechanism/tool for progress in any meaningful or objective sense. It’s not sacred. Whoever controls the institutions/hegemony dictates which direction and where the dialectic drags culture/society, and the worst part is that—contrary to the Platonic dialectic—contradictions need not be resolved by abandoning the hegemonic position. The cultural process of au…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/26 05:35 AM
8

Speaking to the example you provided, it is telling that she disapproves the man-vs-bear meme not because of any flaw in the logic itself, or in how wildly sexist it is, but only because she thinks it better applies to a subset of men—being known men, not strangers. She doesn’t contest the point of the meme, nor the rhetoric
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/26 03:36 AM
12

Unfortunately, breaking down the nonsensical man-vs-bear meme in order to debunk it is just playing into the feminist’s hands. As others have pointed out, nigh ad nauseum, it isn’t a serious question, even if the sentiment being expressed through the meme very much is. A great deal of feminist politic is a politic of provocation, insofar as the reaction is their real action. When you take the meme literally, and come up with all this reasoning and analysis to “debunk” the comparison between men …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/26 01:30 AM
6

Fair enough, I respect that you’re backing you’re stance I’d probably advise checking out the Declaration of Sentiments (1848) and then check out when men and women respectively actually got universal franchise but, still, respect that you’re backing your assertion
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/26 05:19 PM
11

Surprising is one word. Depressing is another. Agreed, either way The world would be a better place if all the various ethical systems were at least fucking consistent/non-hypocritical
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/26 05:02 PM
20

It was an equality movement?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/26 04:59 PM
20

I’d go with this: Is the Patriarchy willing to privilege men, but not able? Then it is not all-powerful. Is the Patriarchy able, but not willing? Then it does not privilege men. Is the Patriarchy both able and willing? Then whence come the men at the bottom of society? Is the Patriarchy neither able nor willing? Then why call it the Patriarchy at all?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/07/26 11:52 PM
6

Anyone with a weapon capable of being fired was considered an armed combatant. This ROE was so strict that the hostile forces figured it out and equipped men/kids with single shot rpgs. The moment they fired the tube on a convoy and dropped it they were officially an NC, and couldn’t be fired upon. Basically relied upon a combination of our ROE and hesitation to shoot kids
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 02:00 PM
4

I’ll take your comment as a criticism of my choice of words rather, and a nuance of the interpretation of those words, and grant you that I could have disambiguated between rules of engagement (ROE) protocols and how casualties are counted. My original statement is entirely defensible, and yours less so, because mine presumed a distinction between ROE and how casualties are counted and yours collapses that distinction. But, point fairly made, and criticism fairly taken: ROEs don’t presume to tre…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 01:57 PM
12

Oh absolutely, agreed, and I think that’s part of where some of my discomfort comes from. They’re doing some decent education, but I served in my country’s army (voluntarily) about 16 years ago, and it’s unsettling to think that what I take for common knowledge is… well, not. Even before I was an MRA, and during the ignorant part of my life where I thought feminism was about equal rights, I still knew that men between the ages of 18-45 (ish) aren’t counted as civilians in combat zones
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 01:32 PM
45

Reading this induced an unsettling sense of dissonance that I couldn’t make sense of until I got to the section on understanding the bias. The authors are doing decent educational work (insofar as too many people seem to think that women and children are uniquely or even primarily the victims of war and the authors are rectifying that disinformation) but seem to miss or undersell the point that modern militaries presume all men between the ages of approximately 18-45 (military fighting age) to b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 12:33 PM
24

We’ve already known for a long, long time that it’s at the very least a case of (1) if for no other reason than hospitals and other primary care cites report all self-harm as suicide attempts, and women tend to visibly and recognisably self harm more. And, while it is ugly of me to say, and not at all a diminishment of self-harm and the mental-emotional state one needs to arrive at to do such a thing, self-harm is far from a suicide attempt especially when the actor in question knows that their …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 11:20 AM
10

Anti-MRM/male activism comes from listening to and reading feminists. Ironically, anti-feminism *also* comes from listening to and reading feminists. It’s a strange ol’ world.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/26 05:22 AM
19

A couple of years ago I managed to bait one such person into asking me if I even knew any prominent feminists (this was in person). They were able to name four. I think I rattled off something like fifteen before they accused me of mansplaining feminism and stormed off. Great experience, highly recommend
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/26 01:36 AM
1

Rather than the notion of cuteness, you ought to look into neoteny, and how highly/lowly neotenised faces affect others’ perception of things like agency, power, and how they influence prosociality and trust. I won’t spoil it here, but I guarantee you’ll find it interesting
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/26 10:41 PM
7

I’m not the OP, but though OPs language is (I don’t mean this as an insult, only descriptively) somewhat imprecise, if you abstract the experience he is describing and his felt-sense of it, then it seems to me he’s describing the alienating effect of the phenomenon of male disposability. Consider that we can boil down OPs exploration of his concept of “coldness” down to this, maybe more succinctly: As men hit puberty and grow older (I.e., gaining all the outward markers of manhood), the inherent…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/07/26 09:25 PM
14

Of course, no problem, it was my pleasure. I’ll stress here that this is speculation, because the study itself was limited in scope, so all I’m doing here is spitballing some possible directions of thought/consideration. I’ll start with what I think is the most worthy observation made by the authors. General hostility towards men is a big one. I suspect an under-recognised moderating (possibly even mediating, depending on how steep the effect is) variable regarding the recognition of victimhood …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/26 01:27 PM
27

I’ve read the whole study. Didn’t spend a great deal of time analysing the data itself, as the authors demonstrated a great deal of responsibility and objectivity in their introduction and methodology sections, and neither did they make any conclusions from their data that seemed bold or at risk of overstatement (I.e., the authors were measured in their analysis and hedged a great deal). I take a minor issue with one claim that I feel merited a bit of unpacking, rather than a simple citation, sp…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/26 12:11 PM
23

What’s of particular contextual note is the UN’s monumental failure at Srebrenica about 30ish years ago. After fucking up that badly, anyone with any sense of shame or guilt would be absolutely terrified of marginalising or dehumanising men and boys again—and yet, the UN seems to be everything but outright proud of doing exactly that. So yes, I unabashedly agree: Fuck the UN.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/26 10:32 AM
10

They can compartmentalise, until they can’t. The OP will be his girlfriend’s “one of the good ones” until one day he suddenly isn’t. OP will be in for a rude awakening then, I bet.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/26 03:26 PM
10

Volunteers aside, even getting it past an ethics board would be a nightmare
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/26 12:06 AM
8

Yep, definitely is, but I’m looking at their long game. They did the same thing with rape—redefine it as a gendered crime, then construct a mound of incestuous academic and legal literature that cross-references itself to justify its own bias. It’s basically idea-laundering or concept-laundering at scale. More broadly, this is part of the reason there are so many garbage studies in sociology/social sciences: their real purpose is to basically create just another random paper that can be cited in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/26 12:40 PM
20

“Femicide” as a term is already doing the work even if laws about it don’t get passed. Post-structuralists are somewhat right that language shapes reality, and the proliferation of the term femicide is no mistake. The whole point of the word is to make the death of women some kind of special moral failure, unique and separate to the murder of subhumans or subcitizens like men and boys. Save the comment with a !remindme in ten years if you must. You watch. Ten years from now the conversations aro…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/26 11:15 AM
2

How soon in the movie does Skeletor say to “kill the women and children first”? Is it early on? (I know, random question, but bear with me) Edit to add: Is it in one of the first scenes we as the audience “see” Skeletor in action?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/26 10:49 AM
1

I can’t see the original comment, and I’m by no means “super invested” in this topic, but I’ve seen some abstracts of peer reviewed research that points toward microplastics reducing testosterone. Now, granted: I didn’t actually read the papers, so I don’t know how efficacious or trustworthy they are, but the idea that our dietary environment plays a role in testosterone production (or limitation) is not without some justified precedent (if only for investigation)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/26 10:46 AM
19

I’m a long-time fantasy writer, and have been involved in several writer’s groups over the years, and it’s sad to say (and something I wish weren’t true) but unfortunately just about any “queer” fantasy will involve some jab at men or masculinity. It’s a bleeding shame because queer fiction has the potential to explore some really neat non-partisan concepts like transhumanism (prompting questions like what is it that makes a human “human”?) but almost without fail it’s thinly veiled “revenge por…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/26 10:38 AM
8

Sorry mate, I wrote that late last night (minimal brain cells firing) now that I’ve had some sleep I can see that
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/26 06:19 PM
13

That’s a lecherous gaze, which is distinct from the concept of the “male gaze”, and also not a gendered behaviour either, just fyi As an addendum, the intra-feminist debate between whether capitalising on feminine sexuality is pro feminist or not goes back to at least around the 1980s, where the pro-sex camp argued it was women “taking back” their sexuality from men, and the anti-porn camp argued that women commodifying their sexuality was still giving power to men (etc, ad nauseum). In both cas…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/26 02:53 PM
36

It’s also inherently misogynistic too, and is actually objectifying women (in the correct sense of the term objectification, not the feminist meaning of it), insofar as it reduces women who engage in behaviours or present themselves in ways that make themselves more attractive to men as objects that have been acted upon, rather than agentic beings who are capable not only of choosing to display themselves physically in such a way as to be aesthetically appealing to men, but perhaps also wanting …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/26 07:04 AM
13

Sadly this song has been sung before. The most common fallback I see is to appeal to the female murderers being victims of violence themselves (allegedly), particularly at the hands of men, and for bonus victimhood points this alleged victimisation occurred in their youth—so the explanation becomes these boys aren’t victims of women or misandry so much as victims of the “gender-based violence” paradigm that hurt the women first
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/05/26 04:20 AM
8

If you ever find the study again I recommend looking at how they organised the data. When there’s a statistically significant (but practically meaningless) result, I.e., effect sizes that are practically nil, sometimes sneaky researchers desperate to find something will group data into bins (like quintile binning) and that can make slightly stronger relationships appear when there really isn’t one (i.e., the stronger effect size is just an artefact from the binning, or similar, strategy)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/05/26 11:15 PM
26

They did that: it’s called Fight Club. IIRC both the film and the book it’s adapted from are a kind of social commentary on male loneliness (before it was a “thing” people really discussed) and fatherlessness. Of course, not that it will surprise anyone here, it did not inspire empathy for men and boys
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/05/26 07:51 AM
10

“…assuming lightning doesn’t discriminate based on gender…” Now you’ve done it. I give it a couple years before some feminist academic somewhere manages to get something through peer review proving that the male gaze forces women to wear earrings just to turn them into lightning rods
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/26 07:12 AM
3

I think OP might be referring to the statistic of unidirectional violence that Whitaker (et al.) have corroborated across many large meta-analyses, being that mutual violence or bidirectional violence accounts for around 50% of all IPV, and of the unidirectional violence, women are around twice as likely as men to be the violent ones (~33% to ~17% respectively)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/26 07:08 AM
3

Hines and Lysova are fantastic. They’ve contributed a lot of research to male victimisation in general
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/26 07:06 AM
51

Fascinating. More proof that the ability to speak does not make one intelligent, I suppose
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/26 03:06 PM
70

I wonder if Reeves would dare say publicly that women should be MRAs, I.e., support the equal rights, opportunity of, and respect for, men 🤔
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/26 02:30 PM
27

Not a book, an essay called “The Future—If There Is One—Is Female.” And Gearhart proposes that the population of men must be kept at around 10%, not 30%. Which, if you think about it, means to Gearhart any given man is at least the equal of at least 8 women. And somehow we’re the misogynists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/26 06:11 AM
3

Good news, this is a recurring theme in Jim Butcher's more recent works (I haven't got around to Codex Alera). His primary protagonists often wrestle with that exact quandary, and repeatedly choose to acknowledge the harm, and do the right thing anyway without martyring themselves/without setting boundaries. (Key characters that come to mind would be Captain Grimm and Benedict Sorellin, as well as Bridget Tagwynn in The Cinder Spires and Harry Dresden in Dresden Files)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/26 02:41 AM
4

Sane take. I haven’t seen the sequel (didn’t even know there was one) but I actually thought TDWP was a low-key brilliant piece of work. Took a really unapologetic look at how womens’ interpersonal competition and dominance hierarchies can sometimes function, and Tucci was such a marvellous breath of fresh air as Hathaway’s moral mentor
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/26 02:32 AM
20

I think they know what they’re doing: moral quarantining. They knew they couldn’t keep denying male victims of violence exist, so they have gone to lengths to frame the problem as a gendered problem (see: “gender based” violence, femicide, etc) in order to let the messaging convey what they cannot explicitly declare: male victims of DV exist, but they are tertiary, secondary, lesser, collateral, and not victims of violence so much as they are victims of a paradigm of violence which is structured…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/26 01:55 AM
1

Close. Motivated reasoning, unfalsifiability/circular reasoning
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/05/26 11:36 PM
4

There's a lot to say here, and it depends what level we're talking at. I don't subscribe to dualism, so in the monist's sense literally everything is biology (if we're talking humans and the societies we create). Hot-Celeb is right, too, with how (so-termed) social justice movements today calculate equity across identity groups rather than individuals, which is one mechanism for why men's issues get overruled in the interest of "serving the under-served". I wouldn't be surprised if evolutionary …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/26 04:23 AM
3

I never said feminists were smart
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/26 12:57 AM
13

This may not be the phenomenon which you are circling, but for some time now I’ve found myself forced to conclude that the reason all of it is bad, and accuracy or truth in this matter isn’t important, is that any demonisation of men is wholly justified if there is some conceivable way in which it might *help/save/empower/liberate even one single woman.* It’s the only way the logic you’re noticing can remain “stable”, in my thinking. Though not a perfect model or parallel it reminds me of Blacks…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/26 10:43 PM
2

If one wanted to play somewhat facetiously into the stupidity, one might point out that Australia has technically been a matriarchy up until the queen’s death a few years ago (technically, they are the head of our government, not our prime minister)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/26 01:56 PM
7

Oh, that I know well—it’s more the hypocrisy in invoking the “non monolith” defence on the one hand while comfortably tarring all men with the same brush on the other. That specific angle is one I’d missed all this time
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/26 01:53 PM
12

Fuck me sideways, I never put those two things together before. Well spotted, well said.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/26 08:13 AM
3

Genuine question?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/26 11:58 AM
4

Great addition as always. The Woozle effect sounds very similar to what is oft referred to as the salience or fluency bias in psychology/cognitive psychology, being that the simple fact that the more we are exposed to some kind of information/idea, the more cognitively salient this idea/notion becomes, and in becoming more familiar and salient we are biased to start simply assuming or treating it as truth. Knowing this, the constant rhetoric around patriarchy becomes a lot more pernicious—I posi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/26 03:12 AM
8

I’m not a grammar nazi, but this is to help prepare you: systematic and systemic sound similar but they are not the same. Be cognisant of the difference between the two when you deploy them in a debate. Further, there is an argument to be made about feminist misandry that captures most feminist objections to it (the ones who accept that misandry exists in principle at all). The argument is predicated upon emergent properties, i.e., even if we accept that misandry is not a foundational defining f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/26 11:54 PM
1

A great place to start with answering this question is: You said men don’t report to the police for reasons that are derived from the patriarchy: what is the patriarchy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/26 11:44 PM
6

One of the key takeaways here, OP, is that a valuable approach is to make them defend their views, not you yours. Remember: society was here first, feminism here second, so it is the responsibility of feminists to justify their ideology/dogma, and so far, they have never proven nor demonstrated that The Patriarchy, as they conceive and operationalise it, exists at all, they’ve only ever assumed and asserted it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/26 11:42 PM
3

To echo other commenters here, you need to be very prepared, and to know what you are talking about. One of the key skills you’ll need to develop is learning to pick apart any claim for its constituent parts. If any one of your interlocutors makes a claim, then one of the first questions you need to ask yourself is “What series of things need to be true in order for that claim to be true?” Question for the OP: What exactly is the format of the debate, is there a moderator, will there be an audie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/26 11:34 PM
125

Everything is proof of The Patriarchy, especially anything that disproves it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/26 05:08 AM
4

An ideology that demands*, not allows
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/26 02:37 PM
14

You’re right. Feminism should go back to the core principles, like dealing with the root problem with society, being that the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/26 06:17 PM
16

Yep. The damage is in the accusation and the transmission. No one cares if it’s accurate, that’s not the point. The point is now that number is in everyone’s head
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/26 06:13 PM
9

My pleasure mate It is absolutely being taught, but not so crudely as a "Alright kids, this is how to win debates with the big bad meanie straight white men: accuse them of something ending with '—ist' and when they push back you can say that the fact they're pushing back is more proof that they actually are an '—ist'" It's being taught (edited to add: perhaps the best term to use here, rather than “taught”, is “transmitted”) primarily through the structure of the new pedadogical paradigm in aca…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/26 02:29 AM
2

It’s entirely plausible, it’s been five years since I last buried myself in postmodern texts—but intuitively it passes the sniff test. The fathers of postmodernism could probably see feminism for the power-hungry religion it always was, and their Marxist heritage probably informed a degree of their frustrations with feminism, too. Credit where credit is due, though: if Derrida said that, he’s absolutely right Edited to add: there’s nothing much more worth learning about postmodernism, really, an…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 11:36 PM
17

Technically speaking, the mechanism of the kafkatrap is just circular reasoning/unfalsifiable claims, which have been known in the discipline of logic and philosophy for a veeeery long time. No one really “created” it. The term kafkatrap itself arose not in the political sphere but was coined after the fact in reference to Franz Kafka’s writings, particular The Trial. That being said, Adorno and Marcuse (Frankfurt School) did formally adopt an unfalsifiable heuristic as part of their project, ba…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 10:57 PM
1

Rigorous postmodernists are probably rare, and primarily interested only in its political expression. I would have some respect for these postmodernists if they had the spine and intellectual gumption to follow their ideas and beliefs all the way through. Feminists and other traditions aligned with the Frankfurt School (being the majority of those who play with postmodernist ideas) are worthy of contempt, though, and genuine postmodernists would be justified in condemning them. They’re quite hap…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 10:21 PM
4

Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard and Rorty are all pretty dense. Some are easier to get through than others, certainly, but the theory is difficult because postmodernism isn’t an idea that tries to explain anything, only deconstruct through rigorous, cynical criticism. Frankfurt School critical theory is essentially masturbatory though because it denies the need to provide any answers—hence the self-indulgence. A practising postmodern is basically throwing rocks through windows and doing absolutely no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 02:08 PM
1

In postmodernism, knowledge is just an expression of power. In fact, the concept of knowledge is so inseparable from power that Foucault called it powerknowledge. Theories aren’t tools, knowledge and the production of it is just the powerful instrumentalising their power Are you sure you’re a postmodernist, or do you just like to dabble with critical theory?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 01:19 PM
10

If you’re genuinely a postmodernist then you definitionally cannot be a feminist. Postmodernism rejects meta narratives on principle, patriarchy included
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/26 01:06 PM
32

Can we just pause for a moment on The Atlantic’s article title on slide 9? “The bots women use in a world of unsatisfying men” What a strange, roundabout way to say “the bots dissatisfied women use” Unless the point, of course, is that the women are perfectly a-okay, and that it’s the unsatisfying men that are letting them down
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/26 11:40 PM
5

What’s particularly interesting is that the women under 25s score might even reflect a social perception bias, which most research surveys of this nature normally try to get around (by asking indirect questions). It could simply be the case that the majority of those women don’t care, of course, or it might be that those women indicated they have a dim view of men because it’s socially desirable to do so. In any case, the outcome is rather damning to narratives built upon the so-called patriarch…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/26 11:11 PM
15

It's possible theaustralian might be referencing this article from Western Sydney University
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/26 05:42 AM
5

Holy Orwellian Batman.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/26 03:01 PM
1

Hardwired? Point me to where I said anything was hardwired. I'm not sure how changes in law and social norms during the 70s refutes any of what I said. Unless you're looking at history anachronistically and super-imposing what you think the majority of women would want/prefer/think *today* onto what the majority of women seemed to want/prefer/think *back then*. It seems to me that, broadly speaking, societally and culturally men have always pedestalised and cherished women. Edited to add: I mean…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/26 12:04 AM
1

I'm uncertain what you're referring to, could you elaborate?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/04/26 11:48 PM
25

"It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for the women and girls..." UK Supreme Court Judge Baroness Brenda Hale
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/04/26 11:32 PM
2

Hopefully you have your notifications turned off, but I wanted to add one more closing thought to build on your reply, and fold it into my reply above. Hopefully it's another interesting point. You covered many of what I agree are the primary drivers of how society organises itself, mostly through feedback loops and incentive structures (some top-down, some bottom-up, but all diffuse and emergent in various ways) and I agree. I think this, along with the relative impunity with which feminism ope…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/04/26 10:27 AM
5

My initial response is that you and Karmaze have the right of it, really. Society can’t really be controlled through the conspiring of any one group because that would require a degree of omniscience that we just don’t have. Schala seems to be talking past you, at least to some degree, because he appears to be less concerned with whether there actual is conspiring going on, only that feminist influence operates widely, effectively, with relative impunity, little to no scrutiny, and certainly lit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/04/26 10:47 PM
13

Exactly. The survey questions aren’t designed to capture men’s groups attitude towards violence against women. Survey questions for that would be easy: 1) VAW should be illegal. (Strongly disagree <-> strongly agree) 2) VAW, outside of proportionate self defence, is morally abhorrent. (Strongly disagree <-> strongly agree) And so on. The questions provided in the OP tip the author’s hand. They aren’t questions to determine men’s groups attitude towards VAW, they’re questions to determine men’s g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/26 11:27 PM
11

Vet here too. Seconded wholly and without hesitation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/26 09:53 AM
17

You skipped over one of the best parts, the shift of chivalric virtues from simply proto-male-disposability to the “patriarchal” institution of romantic chivalry (I.e., the codes and expectations for how men were to treat women) was pulled off by, drum roll please, women! Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter, (whose name escapes me at the moment), principally, who shifted the culture by hosting events and patronising troubadours and poets, being the O.G. “influencers”
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/26 11:59 AM
1

… I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I said
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/04/26 12:07 AM
3

Hehehe, yeah, this is part of the reason why I personally have a massive distaste for the term (slur) “reactionary” in political/cultural discourses: everything is a reaction to something I’d argue the only way Tate and similar phenomena could ever be anything not explicitly engagement farming is if the relevant movements earnestly and directly engaged with the actual intelligent, reasoned voices in any given ideologically disaligned/unaligned space—feminists engaging with George of The Tin Men,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/26 11:55 PM
3

Tangentially, and to your point, to many of us in Australia it is completely unsurprising that the orange man got elected. The American “Left” has been failing people miserably for a long time—failing men in particular—and it seems clear to us here that orange man didn’t win because the majority over there actually trust or even like him, they voted for him purely as a middle finger to the democrats. Feminists, likewise, should look at Tate and company and genuinely pat themselves on the back. F…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/26 10:51 PM
2

It’s only antithetical to those of us firmly situated in reality, not the superstition/grand fiction that feminists espouse. To feminists, who definitionally believe that society is The Patriarchy, the feminist movement must be a female advocacy movement in the pursuit of total equality, and this solely female advocacy is necessarily being anti-sexist. The reason feminists will never admit this dichotomy in values is because they are conceptually incapable of dichotomising the two: Patriarchy de…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/26 10:42 PM
18

Appreciate you putting this up Holbrook, and thanks to the mods for approving it
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/04/26 09:02 AM
15

I’d argue MGTOW never died, it just went silent. No need for MGTOW to argue with anyone beholden to the status quo, and certainly no need for MGTOW to advertise or recruit: family courts have that aspect covered perfectly already. MGTOW is just what’s waiting for all men and boys once they’ve reached peak disillusionment
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/04/26 05:23 AM
3

I think it’s certainly plausible. What’s really interesting (to me at least) is that this idea might explain the low-key paradox of why men commit way more suicide than women do, but women report lower overall happiness and life satisfaction (with women’s satisfaction being on a decline at the population level since 2nd wave feminism started making strides). It would make sense that women would overall be less happy if they are not only more susceptible to interpreting events as negative, and ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/26 11:08 PM
3

XD
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 02:45 PM
4

would you love it more if it were a cockroach?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 02:39 PM
2

Ah, ta, I got it now... I think. Idk maybe it's just because it's super late here, or my brain is stuck operating in a certain lane of thought and I'm missing something. I think you and Karmaze are just pointing out that "woke as religion", like feminism, requires one to either adopt the priors or step outside of them entirely--they're both closed systems--in which case I agree. My confusion is genuine, I promise you, I'm not trying to be difficult or obstinate. I just think I'm missing somethin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 02:38 PM
9

My point exactly
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 09:54 AM
12

Big agree. Kafka’s and Camus’ absurdism is quickly becoming one of the only “sane” ways for men and boys today to survive modern society
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 09:08 AM
9

Just to go to your point, in Australia, it’s far more often the case that what US-centric lens might call “conservative-leaning” people tend to be far more tolerant of “gender” expression than what the US-centric lens might call the “progressive left”. That being said, I suspect this is largely influenced by the “live and let live just don’t yuck my yum or piss in my backyard and we’ll be fine” attitude, which js a big underlying quality of Australian culture broadly speaking. Most “normies” I h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/26 03:56 AM
5

For what it’s worth, I’d like to extend this branch: The day that you were subjected to that abuse, justice would have been it not happening at all. Justice is something that looks to the present, not the past, for what ought to be, and what ought not to be. Today, the best justice you could possibly experience is to live your best, most fulfilling life. That you were a victim of that abuse has not harmed or stained your character, but it absolutely stained the character of the woman who perpetr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 11:01 AM
1

CONTINUED: So, socialisation must play a role in ones capacity to process an experience as traumatic (up to a certain point, of course, after which even the most stoic, non-reactive man will know he has been traumatised). The West is absolutely saturated with narratives that erase male victimhood and male trauma, and simultaneously signal boost female victimhood and female trauma, such that even so-called micro-aggressions can and are considered to be traumatic. This, I suspect, is highly signif…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 10:25 AM
1

edited to tighten some logic and clear up potential confusion/misinterpretation Good question. Let’s break it down. Trauma in the clinical sense is usually distinguished from stress by severity/intensity, and is usually associated with life-threatening events. Stress is more mundane (that’s not to say high or persistent stress doesn’t come with its own implications to health) but it is an umbrella term. If the question is phrased “do women get more easily traumatised than men by a comparable lif…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 09:58 AM
1

Edited to move comment: responded to the wrong person, sorry lol
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 09:52 AM
4

(S)He who controls the null hypothesis is as god
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 12:20 AM
24

It really is fascinating that feminists can proclaim, without even holding back a giggle, that violence against men isn’t normalised in society, even as it feels normal to us, whereas violence against women is normalised in society, because violence happens to women at all
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 11:47 PM
5

I swear my eyes roll so hard sometimes I worry they’re going to corkscrew right out of my head lol
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 10:27 AM
9

And then they hit you with the “Oh, you’re talking about reverse sexism”, lol And then you have to debate whether it’s worth the time to try and explain to them that the very concept of “reverse sexism” is, in and of itself, sexist…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 10:18 AM
15

The Narcissist’s Prayer: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. Misandry doesn’t happen, And if it does, it isn’t as bad as misogyny, (see: women are oppressed, men are privileged, etc) And if it is as bad as misogyny, it’s not as big of a deal, (see: misandry irritates, misogyny kills, etc) And if it is as big of a deal, that’s not feminism’s f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 10:11 AM
6

So, when it comes to defining Feminism, there’s a few things we need to know about how ‘definition(s)’ work(s), first. What needs to be established out the gate is that dictionary definitions are neither composed nor designed to be comprehensive or precise. They are lexical definitions in the sense that the dictionary merely tracks how words are commonly used. This is (one reason) why relying on the dictionary definition of Feminism is woefully inadequate for any productive discussion. If one kn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 09:57 AM
3

Good write up, but I think the point that is being missed isn’t so much that intersectionality is incapable of recognising the ways in which a male identity can face marginalisation/oppression (etc.), insofar as the first principles of intersectional analysis is arguably neutral. The barebones notion of:identity category (a) + identity category (b) =/= identity-derived experiences (a+b), But rather,identity category (a) + identity category (b) = identity-derived experiences (c) With (c) being a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/26 07:26 AM
2

Of course, welcome to it
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/26 01:09 AM
7

Very true. Broad tent lends a shred of legitimacy to the idea that there is any association between us and Tate. The only thing that could be said to unite us is that feminism doesn’t approve of us, which doesn’t merit “broad tent” at all. Probably better to think of the manosphere as a Scarlet M that feminism-aligned culture warriors desperately try to stick to the breasts of anyone they don’t like
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 12:45 PM
8

Yeah. My understanding of the “manosphere” (though I haven’t given it a lot of thought, and could be totally off-base) was that it is best understood as everything that is oriented towards men-as-subject and plays outside of the feminist Overton window. In mainstream discourse, as I understand it, the purpose of the term isn’t to delineate between any of the actual groups [edited to replace: broad tent] but rather to lump together any male-oriented thought or organisation that is not feminist-ap…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 12:34 PM
2

Absolutely, thank you for the sources!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 07:21 AM
1

Anti democracy large scale, sure, but (again, been a long time) I vaguely remember thinking it almost like democracy at micro scale—but I yield to your expertise on anything anarchism related, you’re clearly much better read/informed than me on that
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 07:12 AM
4

It’s been a long time since I read up on anarchist theory, but if my memory serves me right Le Guin’s brand of anarchism is probably most compatible with mutualism, a rather niche subtype of anarchism that might be characterised as democracy-but-without-all-the-flaws. A big inspiration for Le Guin in her work was absolutely gender-anarchism though, she even reflects as such later in her career that her characterisation of her male characters was, to paraphrase, puerile That being said, I can see…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 07:00 AM
12

I’ve said it before (elsewhere) and I’ll say it again: hooks isn’t some feminist saviour out to rescue men, she is out to rescue men from themselves That feminists can’t (or refuse to?) see this is a source of endless frustration to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 04:14 AM
7

If it’s true that hooks had relationships with her students then I’ve never seen evidence for it, nor even heard the claim being made before. That said, if that shocked you, then you should probably look into Beauvoir’s attitude toward minors.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 02:32 AM
20

Ursula K L Guin suffers the same problem. Reading Tales of Earthsea is excruciating. In the writing community there’s always talk about “men writing women”, but by golly it hardly holds a candle to “feminists writing men”
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 02:30 AM
5

Thanks for the tag in mate. I agree with what you wrote, but I would also go a little further. It’s not just an issue of what happens when analysis interfaces with advocacy (i.e., collapsing the vacuum of theory upon contact with reality) it’s also that not all frameworks are created equal. Writ large, some sociological frameworks are scientific (positivist): these frameworks are grounded in empiricism; seek descriptive and analytic power; and are morally inert. Some are critical (see: Frankfurt…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 02:16 AM
3

Brilliant, thanks mate, I’ll start looking into it. I have a sneaking suspicion this stuff is going to scratch my brain in all the right ways
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 02:01 PM
4

Yeah, my choice of term (bracketing) seems to be operationalised the same way as your term subtyping, and I totally agree that how feminists maintain that split is fascinating in a purely psychological/academic sense. I mean, you gestured to the basics, but eventually that split has to face pressure to collapse when the abstract meets the concrete. I’ve heard it said elsewhere so it’s not mine, but I think it’s true that we as humans are less rational creatures and more rationalising creatures, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 07:58 AM
4

I don’t have training in systems theory, is there somewhere you could point me to in order to learn more about it? (I’m guessing it’s a mathematics-related discipline?) If I may ask, given I think all of us here are in broad agreement (with me working through gaps in my understanding/my naivety) is there any real benefit to giving “the system” primacy of consideration when, at least to me, it seems that the emergent property is more relevant? Off the top of my head I can of course see a certain …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 06:20 AM
5

Right, and the part that struck me as particularly salient is Karmaze’s observation that very few people actually apply the lens to people they care about. That’s not controversial, plenty of feminists have boyfriends/husbands/brothers, for example. Some even have sons, and for the most part they don’t seem to experience any cognitive dissonance. But what this inconsistent application of the lens does mean is that all those same individuals are bracketed as separate to the so-called patriarchy. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 06:13 AM
2

Right, that all makes perfect sense, and I think the why you outlined demonstrates another epistemic limitation of “systems” talk. The moment we start talking about “systems” we are abstracting from reality, and that abstraction is necessarily limited in scope, definition, and complexity. This is a mistake epistemically, as the practice requires flattening nuance and individuality. That entails that the practice of identifying a “structure” is a practice of construction, not discovery, and the h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 03:37 AM
5

I never considered that angle, but it strikes me as salient. Let me test my intuition. Pointing at something and saying it is an oppressive system necessitates one (or both) of two underlying assumptions: 1) the system is being wielded by the out-group against the in-group, and or 2) the system produced by the out-group is reflective of some kind of quality (or suite of qualities) essential to that out-group, and that quality produces the system even absent conscious will or overt/malicious coop…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 02:52 AM
13

I’m inclined to agree with what I think your point is: being that systemic doesn’t really point to anything in particular. A system can be microscopic or global, and is fractal in nature, or put another way—everything is produced by a system of one kind or another, therefore everything is systemic. This parallels my loathing for the feminist obsession with vaguely gesturing at or critiquing things that are “structural”. First problem: just like systems, everything is inside of and producing some…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/26 02:19 AM
16

Fair, I guess I was taking “addressed” in the sense that something can be addressed helpfully or unhelpfully. Blaming boys falling behind in education due to toxic masculinity, misogynistic hostility to female teachers, or to “woo-woo manosphere”—and attempting to “fix” boys by showing them how not to be toxic misogynistic privileged little shit-lords could be counted as “addressing” the gendered issue of boy’s performance in education.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/26 09:38 AM
46

I’d include an addendum to the corollary: issues that disproportionately affect men are rarely addressed as gendered unless men or masculinity can be blamed for it
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/26 08:06 AM
2

facepalm Thanks, it took your comment for me to realise Holly was conflating feminism with leftism. Kind of obvious in retrospect, my bad.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/26 12:27 AM
2

The word doing the heavy lifting in the difference between radical feminists and non radical feminists is obviously radical, not Marxist or Anarcho, so I have no idea how you’ve arrived at the opposite. The usefulness of “left and right” in politics is not settled. I think it isn’t useful, but that’s just my opinion. Many, or most, other people here probably think it is useful.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/26 11:36 PM
2

In the sense that all rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles, yes: a radical Marxist feminist is a radical feminist, but a radical feminist is not necessarily a radical Marxist feminist. The distinction is mostly in the suite of beliefs/frameworks any given individual feminist adopts. Any feminist will share some core foundational assumptions, being the non-negotiable priors of feminism. “Radical”, in terms of politic, is better understood per its less well known meaning of “p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/26 08:01 PM
14

Great find, OP.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/26 07:37 AM
15

I suspect part of the issue is that "pro-male" feminists (or at least not consciously "anti-male"), like all feminists, are constitutionally incapable of even questioning whether feminist priors are reflective of reality, or even useful in explaining it. Patriarchy as a meta-narrative about the organising of civilisation/society in line with an asymmetric power distribution between the sexes (where men are considered dominant, causal, and primary, and women as subjugated, derivative, and seconda…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/26 03:42 AM
7

Undoubtedly. Feminist theory didn’t generate patriarchy, after all. Feminism started with contempt for men, then backfilled the justification for it
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/26 12:56 AM
29

I mean, strength doesn’t mean a damn thing if the victim is asleep. Women are also entirely capable of arming themselves with just about anything you could find in a kitchen or shed. What’s of note here is that even though covert incidents of DV (poison, proxy violence through male friends/lovers/relatives) are far less likely to be picked up in DV data/analyses, women still manage to outstrip men when it comes to perpetration. On first principles alone this tells me that we are still grossly un…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/26 11:31 AM
27

“If a man falls on hard times it's his fault, nobody else has a responsibility to help him… He had patriarchy and male privilege on his side so I guess he must be the problem” I just wanted to highlight this briefly because it’s not just that, per feminist logic, that when men suffer it’s our fault, and since we have so-called “male privilege” and “patriarchy” on our side that means we must be our own problem—it also means that when men fail or fall on hard times we did so despite having these s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/26 11:09 AM
1

Appreciate it! Good question. On its face there would certainly appear to be room for an argument that fragging would be a form of self defence, especially given the state has compelled the conscripted man to risk life, limb, and to commit state-sanctioned murder (warfare), which is not a small thing psychologically. My answer to this probably won’t be satisfying though, because I subscribe to a classic branch of virtue ethics. That the state has acted wrongly in conscripting any given individua…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/26 09:18 PM
14

I can understand why you might think all ideologies and all movements will necessarily end in the same place, but that’s only because of the modern saturation of movements that are based around identity politics, which necessarily and inherently possess a “friend-enemy distinction”. It’s the difference between partiality and impartiality, put another way. Crucially, the only movements which are resilient against spiralling into extremism are the ones which are resilient to identity politics, or …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/26 11:38 AM
40

Just about every time I read a well constructed and highly insightful comment I look to see who wrote the comment and, as a result, I am becoming less and less surprised to find your username. For the sake of other readers, I want to highlight this line of yours: “… and then you’ve got radical feminists who believe the only acceptable solution is to dismantle everything.” This is important and bears highlighting—the pluralism of feminism as an umbrella term is not highlighting important differen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/26 10:48 AM
6

I suspect part of the problem is the presumption of “necessity”. To borrow your language “down-thread”, it is arguable there is a “necessity” for men to be thrown into the war-meatgrinder in the interest of a given society to defend its interests, in the non-arbitrary sense that men are physiologically more suited to war than women are, and for a multitude of reasons—but this is only true in the descriptive sense (I’m bracketing for now the critiques of this position that involve how technologic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/26 07:55 AM
4

Pleasure, any time :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/26 04:26 AM
19

Menengage more like Men-In-Gags
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/02/26 02:07 PM
64

It’s even worse. See this line in the final paragraph (emphasis mine): “…that ignores or pitches men’s experiences against the realities of women and girls…” That’s gaslighter language right there, nothing will convince me that juxtaposition is anything other than intentional.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/02/26 07:56 AM
11

“The Personal is Political” [TPiP] is very much a feminist slogan, though IIRC that phrase was coined after the fact. TPiP emerged circa 1970 to capture feminist consciousness-raising [CR]. Second-wave feminism borrowed heavily from Marxist/Socialist tradition of CR, taking the Marxist “logic” and supplanting class with sex, and the feminist CR practice followed. TPiP then, is best described as the slogan and justification for feminist women coming together, sharing personal grievances, and look…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/26 08:19 PM
3

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/02/26 07:22 AM
8

“The school's leaders have also seen the hit TV show Adolescence, which caused the prime minister to ask his cabinet: "What do we do as a society to stop young boys being dragged into this whirlpool of hatred and misogyny?"” The quoted section above undermines any faith I have in what could have otherwise been a step in the right direction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/02/26 04:26 AM
15

My thoughts have followed this line for a while, too, and I suspect the phenomenon of what men are expected to “give up” is broader than the material, i.e, men are being told to give up social capital, political capital, moral capital (insofar as they even possess any), et cetera. Widespread social anxiety in men and boys becomes a stable, predictable, and resilient phenomenon then, and it is unsurprising to me that many of the attempts to fix (or profit from) this orbit around the same central …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/26 11:04 PM
26

Actually, it’s not true that women make more suicide attempts. This is a tired myth, long debunked. In western hospitals, any self-harm is flagged as a suicide attempt. Talk to any nurse. I earnestly believe this practice is to ensure the people suffering get the maximum amount of help and support they can possibly receive, but it does have the unfortunate effect of inflating the number of suicide attempts. It also makes it completely unsurprising that women would appear to attempt suicide more …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/26 10:47 PM
5

Not to forget that male and female actually have entirely different etymological histories. Male is derived from masle and masculus (Latin) and female is derived from an entirely different branch (French), being femelle and femella. It’s so tiresome to keep seeing these ahistoric contributions to LWMA discussion. I really wish more people here did their bloody research
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/26 11:19 AM
7

It’s not even true in English. Man (or mann) was the original word for, essentially, human. Wifman/wifmann was what one called a female human, or woman. Werman/wermann was what one called a male human, or man. Women retained their designator, the male designator was erased. The OP’s problem is he’s looking at aspects of history through a modern lens instead of taking history as it was at the time. He means well, but he is uninformed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/26 07:51 AM
5

Absolutely not a conspiracy theory, and that research has already been done at length (though not specifically regarding the gender war.) If you’re interested, check out psy op research around revolutions conducted by Cold War/Post-Cold War researchers. Names of particular note: Gene Sharp, Hannah Arendt, Theodore Adorno, Erica Chenoweth (each contributed something different, but important, to the body of research) The short of it is their theories and research converged on the idea that surest …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/26 02:36 AM
4

The shift from a focus on class to other identity categories happened outside of feminism first, when Marxists during the mid-to-late 1900s realised that Marx's predictions (about how Capitalism would eventually alienate the working class so much that the revolutionary spirit would overwhelm the proletariat) failed. Marxist philosophers had to figure out a way to evolve, and that was to develop critical theory (precursor to critical race theory and postcolonial theory), which informed Intersecti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/26 12:05 AM
12

And at least some of that influence is formally organised: https://cfde.emory.edu/resources/teaching-pedagogy/rewriting-wikipedia.html
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/26 01:32 AM
2

Maybe I wasn't clear, the article is absolutely fine. It's just the case that the title and subheading usually signal the content of any given article. In this case, the title and subheading is: "Designed to discriminate: how the UN’s Gender Inequality Index always finds women worse off Only women's health is measured—male health is always considered to be 100%." From that, we can infer the article is exploring how the finding that women are worse off than men, and never the other way around, is…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/26 12:33 PM
34

The only critical feedback I have to offer is that your article's title and subheading signal that the content of your article is going to be a structural/technical critique of the UN's GII, and while that is true for your intro and body paragraphs, it shifts in the final paragraphs to a morally weighted question about the logical implications of implementing insights from a poorly constructed index. Mind you, this is totally fine, and ending an article with a thought-provoking prompt for the re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/26 05:06 AM
7

The logical conclusion of a non-biased, non-corrupted notion of intersectionality is to do away with the broader categories altogether. The notion of intersectionality as a model to understand how class, sex, race, and so on, intersect to alchemise unique oppressions or experiences—if taken to its intellectually serious conclusion—necessitates that the model defeats itself. This is largely because society, and the experiences of any given person, cannot be limited to one axis (sex), nor two axes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/26 03:47 AM
1

2/2 Part 2. On the level of argumentation, I suspect, you want your logic to be as unassailable as logic can be. Part of good logic is not just the formal rules of classical logic, but the facts upon which that logic insists, whether in priors or conclusions. There are a not-insignificant number of truth-claims within your arguments that are, on their face, false or incomplete. That’s not to say they are substantively incorrect, but only that they appear so to casual reading, which means with cl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/26 02:42 AM
1

1/2 Groovy :) Here is an overview of what I have read thus far. It is difficult for me to give anything more "complete" without reading the whole thing, so this is limited to the introduction and section 2. Broadly speaking, you have a clear voice, and a good instinct for how to structure a creative non-fiction essay. Stating at the outset that you are here to convince the audience you are right signals honesty, and I think that does a lot of heavy lifting in setting a tone of self-awareness. Pa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/26 02:42 AM
5

Very, very, true. Painfully so. Getting even a cursory grounding in formal logic and epistemology is eye opening in the worst of ways. More people than not, when you scratch at what they believe and why the believe it, don’t actually have any robust reason for what they believe other than “idk man, I just think it’s that way”. And then you turn that examination upon your own beliefs, and you realise you’re no better—and then you’ve got a choice to make: do you do your best to educate yourself, w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 04:55 PM
3

It’s not just a valid strategy to be earnest, honest, well informed, and to focus on presenting facts: it means you need to be clear and educated on your own position and open to arguments against it. Broadly speaking, you are going to encounter two key forms of counter argument: 1) counter factual arguments, and 2) counter principle arguments. Counter factual arguments are when your interlocutor poses facts that disagree with yours, or are intended to disagree with yours (important to remember …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 04:37 PM
3

Well said, and you’re absolutely right, part of the belief-as-identity problem comes from when people attach moral value to it, because if belief in that idea made them a “good person” then for it to become something that is wrong…. Well, you see the issue
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 03:18 PM
2

Fantastic. Please don’t read into what I said above as something critical in the sense that I’m judging what you’ve written, or what you’re trying to write. I’m an aspiring author myself (genre fiction married with lit fic) and a crucial part of giving beta/alpha reader feedback is knowing first what the work is going for. That it is an intersection of essayistic form with some intellectual rigour tells me it is a non-fiction essay in the tradition of Michel du Montaigne. Not strictly academic, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 02:25 PM
2

Totally fair mate, if you like I’ll keep it constructive toward the delivery of your key theses and the justification for them. I can’t speak for the guy with the doctorate, but tone notwithstanding he was probably trying to be helpful within his domain, and in philosophical literature anecdotal evidence is… not evidence, really. So for the sake of my clarity, what is the target audience and the intended purpose of the paper? Is it essentially your own meditation and a personal essay on the subj…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 02:09 PM
6

Can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. All I can do is be patient and objective. Directly challenging their ideas puts them on the defensive. My sister was a diehard feminist for most of the past fifteen years, and she used to parrot a lot of feminist talking points. When the situation arises around friends and family you don’t need to convince them of anything, when something arises that pushes the feminist narrative, offer an interesting tidbit that challeng…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 02:01 PM
3

Can you elaborate? Not sure what you mean.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 01:53 PM
20

You give them too much credit, because that assumes consistency. Positions on the very same phenomenon can and will flip based on the priors of the given conversation. The classic example for what I mean is the issue of child custody: that mothers are broadly given primary custody of children is assumed to be a patriarchal norm enforced upon women, but this only arises in the context of conversations where the burden of motherhood and the loathsome weight of maternal drudgery is highlighted. It …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 10:53 AM
2

I will have a chance to read this in detail tomorrow morning (it’s evening where I am) but when I do, what kind of feedback are you seeking/welcome to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 09:59 AM
13

Some gentle pushback here (or pushforward, perhaps): In any political movement, it isn’t simply a good idea to examine how paper theories act in the real world, it is imperative to understanding the political philosophy itself. Imperative, underlined, bolded, italicised. Any analysis of sociopolitical academic theories absent their social and political influence is fundamentally and definitionally incomplete. We can isolate theoretical models from the feminist movement and broader ideology of fe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 07:34 AM
25

Feminism always projects.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 07:21 AM
22

The above is a particularly relevant and important observation that I hope folks pay attention to: all first year psychology undergrads learn about a simple neurological mechanism where, essentially, familiarity promotes cognitive salience, and that cognitive salience becomes a cognitive shortcut for accuracy or truthfulness. Put succinctly: the more familiar any given concept is, the more likely it is to be assumed to be accurate/correct/right. It should be of no surprise, then, that feminism h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 07:20 AM
1

Forgive the cursory response, but it’s late here and I’m about to retire. I encourage you to look into Ellen Pence, the history of VAWA and White Ribbon, and how Pence and her team of fellow feminists developed the Duluth Model. Suffice it to say for now, the Duluth Model is about as explicitly a feminism-informed, feminism-derived, and feminism-informing model of domestic violence (edited to complete thought) as one might expect to find. Regarding the topic of whether humanitarian aid should pr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/26 02:42 PM
8

It also lacks construct validity. Did the gay black man not get the job he went for because he was gay and black, or because the specific recruiter was homophobic and racist? Which of those has greater explanatory and predictive power? It could well be that the gay back men got 100 other letters of acceptance, but lost that one job because of a prejudiced recruiter, so blaming that loss as something due to his sexuality and skin colour, while somewhat instinctual, would actually be fallacious: t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/26 12:30 PM
16

The WFC is a salient example historically, but we don’t even need to speak to history for examples of this. What else is it but leveraging the male role to protect women when feminists charge men with the responsibility to police other men with regard to “rape culture”? What else was it other than leveraging the male role to protect women when, in the wake of Roe v Wade being overturned, that feminists berated men for being silent about this, the tone at the time being overwhelmingly of “male si…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/26 12:24 PM
5

Agreed. I wonder if the study would be conducted something like a multi factorial questionnaire that measures rates of perceived threat and degree of alignment with feminist attitudes… it would take some work, and the sample size would have to be gigantic to even begin to be worthwhile, but I think it could be done for sure.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/26 12:50 AM
3

That’s the thing with groups that have been “historically oppressed” needing constant reform and special privileges in the present: historically oppressed groups, like women, will never not be historically oppressed. The cheque writes itself, annually, and forever.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/26 12:04 AM
5

In political philosophy, and politics in general, an explanation upon which policy is predicated must possess two qualities to be considered a good or suitable explanation. The first quality is that the explanation has, almost definitionally, the highest explanatory power out of all available/considered explanations. The second quality is that the explanation must be able to adjust and adapt to new evidence, rather than adjusting or adapting (or outright erasing) new evidence in order to fit the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/26 11:58 PM
14

That’s a great critique of intersectionality theory visa vis its first principles, put shorter it essentialises immutable categories such as sex and race and flattens environmental/external factors and context. The other key criticism to levy at intersectionality theory is less about the abstracted first principles and more about the praxis, in that intersectionality theory manifests in reality with an a priori conviction that at the top of the oppression hierarchy is Straight White Men—so what …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/26 06:14 AM
43

“I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, author of one of the most influential books of the 20th century “Sisterhood is Powerful” (an anthology), founding member of New York Radical Women and W.I.T.C.H., co-founder of the Feminist’s Women’s Health Network, the National Battered Women’s Refuge, Media Women, the National Network of Rape Crisis C…
/r/MensRights22/09/25 12:42 PM
33

In the early 2010s there was an article that raised the “issue” that the rate of women dying on the job had risen. Of course, the news at the time wouldn’t have it. Women were dying at a higher rate than men? Perish the thought!! But the key word was rate. It took Karen Straughan (girlwriteswhat) to point out the fact that the rate of women dying only rose because the rate of men dying decreased during the same period. Yes, that’s right, quintessentially this means if men aren’t dying at a high …
/r/MensRights14/09/25 02:33 PM
11

Forest for the trees, mon ami. The traditional format is entirely voluntary now, and has been for decades. (I mean, it always was entirely voluntary, but I digress.) Defaulting to giving the state power to divest men of resources in the event of a divorce has no business being the norm. If women are entirely capable of making choices and looking after themselves (which they are) then good—let them.
/r/MensRights01/08/25 07:15 PM
22

I’ve wrestled with the same dissonance of values for a while now. Best I can logic is that marriage isn’t really a presumed joint venture anymore, at the very least not like it was. The idea of sharing resources after a divorce now is kind of applying a fix to an imbalance that no longer exists
/r/MensRights01/08/25 10:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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