TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ElderApe Archive

View 1 post and 333 comments by ElderApe on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You are whatever community you say you are. But don't pretend not to have purity tests. Also it's not in the subreddit rules or anything.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/11/20 01:03 AM
1

So purity testing is only ok with abortion. I see.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 11:27 PM
1

I've seen you ban two users for supporting trump and being pro life.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 09:13 PM
1

That is a common reaction in this sub if you even come close to defending trump. Moderators seem pretty much on board. I honestly wouldn't bother.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 04:48 AM
2

Why don't you actually make an argument as to why it is wrong? I mean you seem pretty dismissive of the idea but it's not an uncommon belief among MRAs. So take the chance to explain why you think it is bullshit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 07:44 AM
1

What after he was expelled from NCFM? I don't think it makes much difference. He was a bitter ex-member who had a personal vendetta.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 07:30 AM
2

No but I can't blame people or not basing what they believe as true around what they believe is productive for men's rights causes. I think this is exactly the hole that feminist thought fell into.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 03:16 AM
-1

I mean none of it looks good for ncfm or the Men's Rights Movement in general. What you have is one MRA apparently killing another MRA and a judge. That seems to be the most common explanation for what happened, it's not good optics.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 03:13 AM
0

Idk about no evidence. He was the prime suspect when he commuted suicide. Friends of Angelucci say he had a grudge against him. Of course with Hollander dead this will go unproven and we won't get too see whatever evidence the FBI had, but people will still read it as Hollander killed Angelucci and that NCFM is an unstable organization whose leading members are killed by the nut jobs they can't control. It's not good optics.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 03:04 AM
5

I like to believe this. However I have my doubts. It does seem to exist across all cultures, which suggests it's a little deeper than just cultural norms. My argument would be that it is less pronounced in more developed countries. So it is something we could get over if we pushed the right lever. But those countries seems to support ways of actively disadvantaging men instead. Perhaps part of feminism is to continue male disposability in the modern age, by recasting it as oppression against wom…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 02:56 AM
8

It's difficult to tell where Karen falls politically. I don't think she has ever really been paticularly left wing. But she has seemed to steer a bit clear of right wing populism in a way other male advocates have not. I met her a couple years ago and at the time she seemed very interested in the social structures of animals and implications that had for people. I think in many ways she is on her own journey. I think this mostly comes from her experience of being mistreated by the media and some…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 01:52 AM
5

On the other hand HBR have promoted the Ancap idea that 'welfare state=anti-men' for a long time now. I think they believe that male disposability is fundamental and unchanging. So any attempt at mitigating harm using public policy will focus more on women to the extent it is gendered. Maybe even if it isn't. I'm not sure I agree but I do admit it is difficult to imagine it being any other way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 01:44 AM
5

Did he? I don't remember that at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 01:42 AM
1

Idk man the Angelucci murder didn't exactly make NCFM look good. Wasn't it a disgruntled ex member who shot him? I am kind of glad they didn't try to spin it for victim points. I think she is more criticizing the media than supporting trump. I think MRAs should have some idea about how absurd the media can be.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 01:41 AM
1

In our country you can only have the former if you have the latter. Too simplistic. Please do even the most basic amount of research on the topic. Liberalism is a right wing ideology. Yeah I have. Liberalism is the dominant ideology and therefore takes up all mainstream positions both left and right. Which is why we have social liberals going up against civic nationalists as the main two parties. These are left and right wing versions of liberal capitalism. That’s twice now you’ve mentioned how …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/20 04:05 AM
1

So you’re cool with inherited aristocracy. No because aristocracy refers to political power, not wealth. I'm cool with inheritance. And you have every right to be. By all means most liberals are, so go for it, but don’t pretend you’re a leftist. Oh is this going to be one of those "You aren't really left wing if you aren't a socialist moments"? It's gotta take a lot of mental gymnastics to place the center so that 90+% of the population is right wing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/20 03:30 AM
1

Sorry I should clarify, they got rid of the issues surrounding rape trials in title nine courts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 08:00 PM
2

Our country has some of the worst economic mobility in the first world. The biggest determining factor of how wealthy you are is how wealthy your parents were. You really don't. I mean it depends who you ask exactly, but most people put the US kind of average. The list I am looking at now has them above Spain, Israel, Italy, Chile, Greece and so on. And I can give you a number of social factors that better predict your income than your parents wealth. That isn't difficult at all. you don’t think…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 07:58 PM
1

While I do think it's a factor, I don't think of it as an issue. I think it's unfair to an extent, but only in the way that nobody chooses their parents but we are effected by it. But i do believe we have good social mobility. If you are born poor, bottom 20% of household income, you will have a 60% chance of not being in that bracket when you have kids yourself. It plays a roles but nowhere near as much as social issues do imo.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 07:55 AM
1

From a very basic perspective we can see the financial harm that these things have and nobody denies that. We can also observe that throwing money at social problems doesn't solve them. I am curious how you substantiate the claim that poverty causes social problems more than vica versa.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 05:39 AM
2

Yeah it seems he lost a bit of that demographic to Biden.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 05:09 AM
0

What didn't work? The ban on training wasn't about VAWA. I mean I agree he could have done much more. But I just don't see anybody overturning VAWA do you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 05:08 AM
12

Well the GOP did put an end to title IX courts and get feminist training out of government institutions. Sometimes interests line up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/20 08:53 PM
6

Instead of looking at race why not just look at socioeconomic factors? Wealth inequality is a big problem and it affects every race, sex, etc. Or go a little deeper and look at what causes wealth inequality. Drugs and alcohol problems, family violence, high crime rates, offshoring of jobs and so on.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/20 08:51 PM
8

This is sarcasm right? I mean it is as sensible as saying women should be 50% of CEOs. Something is a miss when you only look at output and not input.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/20 11:26 PM
4

Oh you mean she went on Steven Crowder? I guess anybody who goes on a platform with somebody we disagree with should be written off, should they?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/11/20 10:50 PM
5

And no men were killed. A Katyusha rocket attack struck a residential home killing six civilians, all women and children, the night before. Initially, Iraq's military reported five killed, but one child died of severe wounds overnight.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/20 05:21 AM
1

Yet women are actually at a considerably lower risk of suffering violence within human society than men I agree. But this is mainly due to social roles. If those norms didn't exist it is pretty obvious they would be more vunerable to violence purely due to physical size. Plus I think men are generally less risk adverse when it comes to putting their bodies on the line. This comes back to evolutionary forces relating to male disposability. So to me these norms are almost certain to develop. Which…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/20 09:28 PM
5

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them women are afraid men will kill them I mean in my experience women are just as scared of being socially humiliated as men are. Being scared of violence makes sense to some extent, women are generally a lot smaller. But the idea that women have a comparable social advantage just isn't true. If anything I would say some of the feminist campaigning has been to attack male social groups to make this true. So maybe it's just wishful thinking.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/20 05:57 AM
9

"Men feel a sense of entitlement to women's bodies" makes money doing erotic photoshoot -shocked pikachu face- "How could men do this?"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 10:59 PM
1

Being liberals.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/20 12:32 AM
28

Interesting that liberals score higher. I wonder if sons from liberal families actually do worse or if we are more likely to problematize male behavior. Kind of worrying either way though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 02:37 AM
2

Now I do think that's probably the only instance of systemic discrimination going both ways and being pretty comparable both ways. But that's based on...... Evidence.... Maybe affirmative action counts as discrimination against white people but other than that I can't think of anything. How much have you looked? There are all sorts of disparities you can find. Yeah, researchers see a disparity and they wanna know what's causing it so they try and control for relevant variables That isn't what th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 09:03 PM
1

I have issues with systemic discrimination as a concept. I think it is so ephemeral that it cannot be found from any kind of positive evidence, like you could use to find plain ol discrimination. So instead it is assumed as the cause of any unexplained disparity between minority and majority groups (but only in one direction of course). Look at the evidence you have provided here, they all involve taking real world disparities and trying to control and predict variables in order to equate for th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 07:26 AM
1

The issue I have with both feminism and CRT is the seem to start from some very major assumptions. CRT assume black people are oppressed the same way feminism assumes that women are oppressed. From that point on it is really a matter of developing theories that prove how the central assumption is true in various ways. It never questions it though. And that means the theory is never really at risk. It is what Wolfgang Pauli would call "Not even wrong". Which is the most useless form information c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/20 01:48 AM
11

Because it isn't controversial here. Disagreement brings a lot more thought provoking conversation than agreement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/20 01:37 AM
2

it has no bearing on justified or unjustified killings by police as a percentage of population or arrests. This is a gross exaggeration. It has quite a bit of bearing, since the vast majority of police shooting victims are violent criminals. And since they are so disproportionately represented you have to assume there is a connection between violent crime and police shootings.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/09/20 04:40 AM
24

I think Jerry really hit the reason women hate it on the head. For most of them it just isn't good enough. And honestly I don't there is much women despise more than an unattractive man hitting on them. One thing though dating inequality is misleading. We can't expect equality from men and women in this regard because they aren't doing the same thing. Lesbians in this way have more in common with straight men and gay men with women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/08/20 01:55 PM
11

Because masculinity is a set of roles that men take on, not just that are placed on them. Feminists don't do a good job separating these two concepts in men. They will talk about toxic masculinity leading to violence in men, in male suicide, in all sorts of things. So we are used to seeing it used to target male behavior. Honestly not so much behavior towards males. When was the last time we talked about the toxic masculinity displayed by women? Well if we are talking about what is perpetrating …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/20 09:48 PM
1

Nah there are more small businesses with the advent of the internet and online shopping. Everyone owns their own specialty shop or merch store now. That or they run a podcast. Education has never been perfect but it has never gone backwards in legitimacy. This is what we are seeing now. The quackery of yesteryear was for the most part the best ideas we had at the time. Social justice plainly isn't. This is a unique situation and people already noticed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/20 09:24 PM
1

I think too big to fail is a self perpetuating myth. The fallout of these big institutions failing is good. Like a whale dying and sinking to the ocean flaw it gives the economic ecosystem new life. Assets are sold on the cheap, the market opens up to new competition, new workers looking for jobs. It's a world of opportunity. The backlash against failing universities is only beginning, but the need for higher education is more present than ever. This doesn't mean we need to go to university thou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/20 04:58 AM
1

Very true. I don't think many really believed it. It's like metoo. Just convinient mantras to get the real agenda through. Easily ditched when it is inconvenient, like we have seen with Joe Biden.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/20 04:35 AM
0

I do think I'm genuinely more optimistic than you are here. I don't exactly share your view of history either, I don't think. Not that I think that history is particularly meritocratic or that even today's society is perfectly meritocratic. But I do think you are confusing imperfection with lack of function. Schools are never going to be perfect. But what is their function, why do people go there? Not just because degrees are printed on nice paper, they are supposed to represent real world skill…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/20 10:47 AM
2

The future isn't female and people who say that are in for a life of disappointment. The schools will reform. Not yet, but in a couple more generations. Men are just more productive, feminists can't hold us down. If the school system fails to treat men fairly it will lose credibility as men who went outside of the school system continue to succeed. There is already a strong undercurrent against all the debt and BS involved in many degrees. And all the people who finished their critical transraci…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/20 05:09 AM
10

Ahhh see what you don't understand is the same results when they happen to women are the result of patriarchy and male domination. But when these same problems occur for men it's obviously toxic masculinity and male fragility. I'm being quite consistent you see, it's men's fault both times.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/20 09:47 PM
0

That has been your entire side of this argument. You have failed to provide any evidence or coherent argument this entire time. Now you are just literally saying 'no u'. I am not going to explain the entire thread to you again. Just re read it if you didn't understand it. If any part is incoherent you could bring it up but just saying "nothing you said makes sense" after responding for this long is just obvious avoidance. Pretty shitty to use ableist slurs to insult someone due to your lack of a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/20 11:20 PM
2

Family courts. Awareness is present. Action is not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 09:38 PM
1

Incorrect and dishonest. Nope. This is how a child argues. You might as well say 'no u'. You assumed this from the start and admitted you weren't here in good faith. You aren't here to argue just to sperg. Prove it. Look at the humans rights record if the USSR. They violated free speech, free movement, property rights, discriminated against gay and lesbians and Jews and black people, took political prisoners. Please learn some history. Sanders wanted us to learn from them and vice versa. Ok what…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/20 04:50 AM
1

That is a dishonest statement. You have repeated falsehoods several times. It's literally all you knew when this discussion started and you still assumed it. You haven't admitted when you have been proven wrong numerous times. Because you haven't proven anything you are just triggered and throwing shit against a wall. You have repeatedly failed to provide proof for your statements, because you know you're wrong, because you are dishonest. Dude the evidence is right there in your own article. You…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/20 03:12 AM
1

Yes, I am biased against dishonest people. And you think I'm dishonest because I disagree with you. Your real bias are those who disagree with you on certain issues, since that is how you devine my dishonesty. Thank you for admitting you are dishonest. Why would I admit to something I'm not? Prove it. Read your own article. Fucking duh. After decades of hating each other both sides need to be convinced the other isn't so bad so they can make peace. Except one side really was that bad and we have…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/20 02:15 AM
1

No, that is experience talking to dishonest people Right you assumed I was being dishonest from the get go. This is bias. Thanks for admitting it. You do understand that a basic concept in politics is you have to pretend to be nice to others to stay on their good side, right? He was trying to help end the cold war by improving US/USSR relations. He toured with a bunch of other politicians, none of them felt the need to praise an authoritarian dictatorship for the sake of politics. Say what you l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 07:16 AM
1

You said yourself, Sanders has said similar things several times. Don't blame me for not reading your mind on which quote you were thinking of. If you didn't know which one it is clear you assumed the context was wrong before knowing what was being talked about. That's bias. It is an assumption based in bad faith and bias. I said his statement would be logical if he accepted the practices of the system that provided it. Just like it's logical to praise the cotton production of the South, so long…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 02:10 AM
-1

You still neglected to post a source, but I was able to find one based on the information you gave Because I assume you had already seen it based on your earlier comments. It seems this was wrong. You were accusing me of getting it wrong before you'd even seen it. Which demonstrates an immense bias you clearly hold. This quote is from a 1988 trip Sanders took to the Soviet Union with a delegation attempting to foster peace between the two nations. This is during the period of Glasnost and Perest…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 03:40 AM
-1

That is pretty funny coming from the guy who said I didn't understand it. What is wrong, you hadn't read it? Here ya go There are some things that [the Soviet Union does] better than we do and which were, in fact, quite impressive. Subway systems in in Moscow costs 5 kopecs — or 7 cents. Faster, cleaner, more attractive and more efficient than any in the U.S. — and cheap,"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 02:48 AM
0

Here let me post exactly what Sanders said but replacing the USSR transit system with the southern cotton fields. There are some things that [the Southern States did] better than we did and which were, in fact, quite impressive. Cotton in Kentucky cost less than a dollar a pound. It was produced faster, cleaner, more efficiently and was of better quality than any in the Nothern states were — and cheap You don't think this statement is supporting slavery?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 12:45 AM
-2

We don't associate it with Fascism the same way Sanders associated the trains running on time with Socialism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 07:45 AM
-1

Yeah and if I was praising the agricultural production of the southern states at the time and saying they weren't as bad as people say, you don't think that would be at all suspect?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 07:42 AM
-1

her supporters aren't assholes. Oh but so many of them are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/02/20 04:12 AM
8

This is the first time I actually listened to the recordings, as I haven't really been keeping up with this case. What really strikes me is how aware she is of how these cases are perceived. How can she wrote an op-ed about how we don't believe the female victims of domestic violence, and then turn around and say to her husband "Well, they'll never believe you because you're a man". I guess it's pretty obvious that she was lying in the op-ed and she doesn't really believe that female victims are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 10:51 PM
9

Survivors have nothing material to gain by speaking up about abuse. When we make our stories public, we open ourselves up to further re-traumatisation as total strangers gaslight us and question our integrity. Sounds like what happened to Johnny Depp.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 10:37 PM
1

Except in your example the GOP are faking egalitarianism and the Dems are faking religous faith. Do you really see those as equal?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 06:35 AM
2

And yet you portray the GOP as racists hiding their anti racism by proping up black people. Isn't that exactly what left wing feminists say about MRAs? That they prop up women because they are misogynists. A bad tactic is a bad tactic and shows the partisan nature of your chosen comparison.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 03:52 AM
3

I think most people here are left wing. But that isn't the issue. You can be left wing and not completely partisan.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 02:00 AM
6

Ah yes the objective truth of comparing good parts of one party with bad parts of the other party. Not like you could talk about the token liberals claiming they support free speech but not 'hate speech'. Or the token RINOs who pretend to care about spending and small government. Nah. You probably think all good politics rests on one side and unironically think this is due to an objective analysis of the facts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 01:40 AM
3

Yeah you don't sound biased at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 12:49 AM
15

Meanwhile if you bring up a controversial feminist like Dworkin or Daly or a controversial feminist article, like this then they will accuse you of purposely misrepresenting feminism. Despite the fact that they give these people platforms.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/20 11:07 PM
3

Not just poor communities either. Divorce has ravaged the middle class. And on the high end hypergamy (and male sexual drive) leads men to leave their wives for younger women. It effects everybody.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 11:27 PM
4

I've seen some left wing groups claim that the rise of sexless men will lead to totalitarian governments, as beaten down men join radical, ISIS-like movements to strike back against a society that has abandoned them. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. Only if you relax social conventions to allow promescuity to become the norm. Hypergamy is relatively harmless in a society that is mostly monogamous. Because there's only so many high status males to choose from. However if we become more…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 11:10 PM
1

What are you talking about?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 10:01 PM
1

Right so people say the same shit about non-feminists. It's just gatekeeping nonsense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 11:42 PM
2

Are you a feminist? You might want to try Menslib.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 10:50 PM
1

People say the same gatekeeping shit about being anti-feminist. Get outta here with that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 10:08 PM
1

Clearly not because you are talking about how me being here means it's not for you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 10:01 PM
1

Socialism is the social change in America, not Capitalism. It's literally a reaction against it. Capitalism is emergent, socialism was invented. Only one of these can be a reaction to natural social progress. You support the US and they've done and are doing worse and more oppressive things than any Socialist Country. No they aren't Now you are free to disagree with me, but calling me disingenuous is a bit of a reach The disingenuous part is where you act all offended. As if you're allowed to de…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 08:57 PM
1

opposing political or social change." This is what you are doing. Socialism was a reaction to free markets. You're being disingenuous, you know there were many people who had similar views on slavery and colonialism as I do at that time. Karl Marx literally wrote a letter to President Lincoln commending him on abolishing slavery. No they didn't. Karl Marx was obviously more recent than colonialism. I disagree Like disagreeing about the color of the sky. China hasn't colonized Tibet. Yeah they di…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 08:26 PM
4

Honestly this seems like a plant from somebody more interested in courting controversy than actually promoting an ideology. This seems like it would be very effective at the former and not particularly effective at the later.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 09:14 AM
2

Doesn't sound like Socialism to me Because you are a reactionary who is worried about the progress that capitalism brings. Inequality is your fear so we all must suffer. The Leftists living during that time period, I literally mention them The term leftist is also fairly recent. No leftists throughtout most of history so I honestly don't know what you are on about regarding their standards. They weren't socialists. I mean yeah, but American Slavery, Colonialism, and Imperialism were all "fairly …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 08:21 AM
2

Do you know what Reactionary means, King? Oh yeah. Reacting against social progress out of fear. Capitalism is raising the masses out of poverty and this strikes fear into the hearts and minds of tyrants and authoritarians. I'm not. I'm using their moral standards. Whose exactly? You do realize Communists, Socialists, and Proletarians existed back then and were making the same criticisms of their contemporaries as I am? The terms are fairly recent. You can define them that way but they did not d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 02:21 AM
1

Nordic Countries as with most Western Countries gained their wealth through exploitation I think it's silly to wind the clock back and look at history with our moral standards. From the Incas and Aztecs to African empires in Zimbabwe and the West Coast. They were all exploitative. That isn't what made some successful and others not. Capitalism is successful in doing what it sets out to do, which is to create Capital. This would be fine if not for the fact that private ownership over the means of…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/20 12:16 AM
2

So basically you think all successful countries in the world right now are right wing. Interesting way to break it up. Gotta disagree though. I think there are successful left wing countries, like the Nordic countries for example.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 11:12 PM
1

All of your talking points are pretty much identical to what the far right in my country is peddling when they present their "friendly face" to the media. Welfare, taxes, state run healthcare, freedom from religion, support for unions, paying teachers more, investing in scientific research, changing patent law for pharmaceuticals, I could go on. You say you don't see caricatures but it seems like when people start to disagree with you on a couple of things you get all tribalistic. Now I'm far ri…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 10:58 PM
2

Left wing doesn't mean anti capitalist. If it did the left would only occupy the fringe. I'd rather it was a little more effective than that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 09:46 PM
1

Plus, if I remember correctly, she was the one who was born abroad. That still leaves the 3 others who were born on American soil. Oh yeah the squad. They are exactly the sort of people I am opposed to. If you can't call that at least a bit racist, then I don't know what to say. Does he literally have to burn crosses and put on a white hood? It's not racist to say to people who are blatently anti-western. Fuck they should leave, I support it. Along with anybody else who praises foreign dictators…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 09:35 PM
0

All of your points do not erase the fact that Trump is a science denier. Ok you cling to that. I'm looking at the big picture. This 'science denier' is more likely to effect Chinese policy in a positive direction, which is the biggest challange regarding climate change. Even telling US Congresswomen to go back to the countries where they came from (even though 3 out of 4 were born in the USA) Imagine caring about Ilhan Omar. I can't. I think your issue is that you take Trumps statements as facts…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 08:12 AM
0

In any case, I find your defense of Trump's stance on this matter incredibly weak, to the point where I'm really wondering if you're truly acting in good faith This is something i mainly here from people further left than me. That they disagree so strongly with certain positions that they cannot imagine how it might be in good faith. Ironically I've never found this to be a good faith criticism. I don't believe that you can't understand why tokenistic action on climate change that hurts jobs and…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 03:29 AM
0

But you can expect to be challenged when you are engaging in apologetics for a figure like Trump. I don't think of it as purity testing; your posts aren't being deleted and you aren't being silenced I'm honestly not sure what the point of saying you are left wing enough for this sub is then? Is it not to protect the sub from things you view as too right wing? I object to the dichtomy being used in that way. Left and right is ever changing and subjective. Opposing enviromental policy out of conce…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 02:10 AM
0

You mean, he's a liar. He cares about narrative over facts. Climate change is a Chinese scam get's the point across much easier. The left has been doing this for some time with the wage gap, BLM and much of the climate change rhetoric already. You can't be that suprised. Why the fuck would I go to the effort to understand a liar? What has Trump done to earn that trust? Why cut a brazen narcissist like Trump more slack than a guy like Bernie? Because he is the POTUS. Do you want to be left behind…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 12:49 AM
3

Because toxic masculinity is the go to excuse to not do anything about the issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 12:04 AM
1

Sure, but its tough if not impossible to say that anything new creates the gap, because the disparity isn't new. It's getting worse, for men especially
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 11:31 PM
0

Trump speaks in half truths. You have to understand what he means. Climate change policies enacted by the west do give China a large economic advantage. And due to this there are Chinese interests pushing climate change policy in western countries. Imo if you don't get China and India on board a lot of climate change policies are just tokenistic. And how much of our economy do we want to give over to the Chinese for the sake of tokens? We need somebody who will not just be about doing the right …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 11:27 PM
0

a right-winger who oppresses people equally I guess this is where we disagree. I don't see the right as universally oppressive. I think while I often disagree with more religious conservatives and find that libertarians don't take enough care of those in need, I find all sorts of moderate and liberal right wing people to be reasonable. I guess that is for me where the difference lies, I am more of a moderate than a left winger, even though I see myself as both. Trump is a buffoon. Orange man bad…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 09:53 PM
1

I completely and utterly disagree. If he did, he would not make speeches like this one on the national debate stage, despite being pressured by panelists to spout identity politics or face the wrath of the pundits and other vultures I agree with Bernie that it's a little self serving in that enviroment. He had no choice but to give that answer when his biggest opponent on the progressive side is a women. Improvement of a sort but he lost my trust long ago, he doesn't stand up to left wing identi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 08:33 PM
1

By no means am I saying that candidates like Bernie Sanders are perfect. However, I do believe that countries like the U.S. of A. lean too much to the right-wing libertarian side of the spectrum. In that respect, I think a candidate like Sanders is interesting for his commitment to universal healthcare and other democratic socialist/social democratic policies. Yeah I am from a country where I am happy with our healthcare system and it's basically an extension of medicare. A dual system with reba…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 08:05 PM
2

I think you underestimate what I mean when I say misandry. I am thinking about a society hostile to what men are. I very much see this as something that effects circumstance. In my country there are employers (govermental no less) with 'women only' job positions. This effects thr ability of men to get jobs and increases how long they are without one. Divorce is rather obvious. But it's the misandric family courts that make it this way, it's not inherit to divorce. I could go into education as we…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 07:46 PM
2

But rampant, laissez-faire capitalism leads to rampant runaway inequality I think some forms capitalism can cause greater inequality, although I wouldn't say the equation is that simple. Many monopolies are made by government regulation and high taxes too, as this creates larger barriers for entry and hurts smaller businesses more than larger ones. I'm all in favor of larger welfare programs but I like the Nordic model in this respect. They don't up corporate tax to pay for welfare they have a h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 07:36 PM
3

Honestly I don't think it's an issue with us not letting them talk or shaming men about having feelings were anything like that. I think it's mostly due to an increase in misandry in the culture. I see it everywhere from small interactions to governmental systems. From the Mum that I talk to you the other day that said that both her husband and her son's could never get ready on time and it was because they were men. All the way to family court system. I think overall large parts of our culture …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 09:04 AM
9

"omg men think they have problems and they think they can ask women to solve them!!!" The very next article. "How only men can stop the objectification of women"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 08:57 AM
3

Abolish Capitalism There has been no liberating force for men greater than capitalism. It enabled them to turn their productive labor into accumulated wealth in order to move up social heirarchies. Before that there was little way for men to move up socially, while in theory women could still marry into wealth. Honestly it is little suprise to me that feminism began not long after we liberated markets, all of a sudden women wanted to be part of the male dominated workforce. 🤔
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 08:53 AM
0

Posts like these can also help to differentiate ourselves from the more conservative and right wing libertarian-leaning men's issues subs. I'm curious as to which subs you are talking about here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 02:48 AM
5

The problem is simple. If you celebrate men for something intrinsic to masculinity it becomes exclusionary to women. This is why we don't hear anything positive about masculinity, because they don't want to discourage women from doing anything that men traditionally do. They know women don't want to be seen as masculine, so these things must be neutral or femine and only seen as masculine due to patriarchal social constructions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 01:04 AM
0

No capitalism is more than that. It's private property, it's free markets, it's allowing investment etc. But I feel like you are out of arguments and just defaulting back to talking points, so unless you have a response to one of my above points I guess we are done here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 11:24 PM
-1

but colonialism wasns't just because of advancing technology. It was also about imperialist and expansionist mindsets, akin to our focus on economic growth. Yeah it really was due to technology. Our mindsets weren't that different from the peoples we colonized. They expanded their territory into others and fought wars with them too. They just couldn't do it on such a large scale. I don't think that's true at all. Often the technology is far CHEAPER than the present way of doing things. Just look…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 10:15 PM
1

I think growing wealth inequality is a ramification of advancing technology. As more and more things are done by machines, the investment needed to start a business grows exponentially, as you need to be able to afford these machines. As you already alluded to this money isn't play thing for the rich and powerful it's how they fill that role in society by offering something but the rest of society needs, funding. I don't believe in democratizing this system because I don't think we are all equal…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 09:56 PM
1

If you can't make the point any other way it's content. We've been through this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 08:26 PM
1

Looks likely it worked, since now you mention a difference between "content and method", which I tried to highlight earlier. I agreed with the distinction then. I just correctly asserted that insulting generalizations are content not method.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 10:20 PM
1

You are adding a rule that increases the potential of the rules being exploited to silence speech, which is an anti-free speech stance. Neither of us believe this position, so why argue it? And it doesn't silence any given position. You can still argue for any of them. You just can't spam them. It is the original seperation you brought up earlier between content and method. Except it correctly identifies insulting generalizations as content and not method.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 06:10 AM
1

It absolutely is subjective! That doesn't mean it is political. That depends on the mods. If they are good it won't be. We can have as good mods as we like but if the rules themselves ban certain political positions the moderation will have to be political. It is fundamentally different from saying you can't take X position on this sub. Which is what both you and menslib are arguing for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 03:29 AM
1

There's a difference between a rule being able to be used to censor and a rule being censorship in itself Spam isn't a political position the way an insulting generalization is. please learn what viewpoint diversity is, it's not "subjective" in any sense It absolutely is. How many different viewpoints do you need before you have viewpoint diversity?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 08:42 PM
1

They explicity state that debating them on feminism isn't allowed in the sibedar As would your rule about making generalizations you find insulting make debating all sorts of things not allowed. Also it's not at all an answer to the question as far as I'm concerned. It's clear you can make rules banning certain types of speech because you think your sub will be more productive that way. Although obviously when it comes to political speech I don't agree. See the above Again not really answering t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 01:23 PM
1

This isn't what 'slib is doing, because there is a difference between basing choices on good and bad foundational principles: theirs was censorship to force pro-feminist ideological complacency among readership (goal A), while I want healthy viewpoint diversity in a big tent approach with some basic civility guidelines (goal Not-A). If I asked a menslibber which of these two best describe their moderation policy, which do you think they would choose? Because I maintain that the difference you ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 07:13 AM
1

Again, isn't this exactly what menslib is doing? They just see us and think we are 'pornographic'.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 04:47 AM
1

Ok how do you judge too far?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 04:13 AM
1

I don't think it is a trade off. I think that is a false dilemma. Do you think that the moderation around menslib is a trade off, that just goes too far?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 04:00 AM
1

The difference is the one of magnitude Is your argument that yours rhetoric is only slightly damaging to society? I would have thought the difference of opinion was more than just magnitude.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 03:54 AM
1

Yes. But I wouldn't say the arguments against them are the same. Also I'm not a big fan of either.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 03:12 AM
1

Isn't that the exact same argument that menslib makes?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 03:06 AM
1

No. Do you think it's comparable to expressing the opinion that 'all women are out for your money'?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 09:54 PM
0

You don't even understand my position. Even I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist because I believe libel and credible threats require intervention. As well as doxing or swatting. However this would not extend to unpopular political positions, because that is the exact type of speech that must be defended. We should have rules. They just shouldn't stop you from expressing any points of view.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 07:05 PM
0

Free speech is a noble ideal, which I'm 100% behind, despite your continued confusion of anarchist moderation policies with free speech Moderation is anti free speech. It's literally moderating speech. The confusion is that you think it's possible to support free speech 100 percent and desire certain speech to be restricted. You can't have both. Even I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist because I believe libel and credible threats require intervention. As well as doxing or swatting. Howev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 06:13 AM
1

Why is helping others dependent on silencing people? We can walk and chew gum at the same time. If anything I'd say the people who need the most support are the ones most likely to be censored also. They are the ones likely to go off on a rant about whatever angers them that includes some negative generalizations. Everything else I agree with I just think morally rightous positions hold up under free speech, while less rightous ones require shielding. To this extent some communities cannot exist…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 05:29 AM
1

Think about it sometime, the analogy holds I mean if you want to switch you real world implications for shit on a page, sure. I question the validity of that entirely though. Words on the internet are basically entirely harmless. Unless you are getting swatted or doxxed you can just walk away.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 05:14 AM
1

What is going to be the big disaster if you let people generalize? What exactly are you worried about? Lol at comparing police to forum mods though. As if protecting people from being mugged or raped is the same as protecting them from seeing words they don't like. Literally comparing langauge police to actual police. I'm not an anarchists. I just believe in free speech. If you think free speech is anarchy you obviously don't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 05:00 AM
1

Yes absolutely. If you cannot generalize that effects which opinions you can put forward. Not just how polite you can be. If I hurt your feelings it's only because I describe your positions in a way you didn't like. It is accurate though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 04:52 AM
0

Varying controversial beliefs that you select but not ones you don't appeove of. That is the issue and exactly like menslib in principle.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 04:29 AM
1

Sounds like you just want your controversial beliefs allowed but not other peoples.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 02:29 AM
3

So how would you feel about it, if I strawmanned the hell out of your argument to show everyone what kind of Satan-worshipping, American-flag-burning individual you are? This is like my everyday. But it's either I'm a misogynist incel or a bootlicking statist or a redneck hill billy or a joe rogan loving stoner bro. Like life is full of stawmen and it's your job to call them all out. Or accept somebody else come from on high and just remove the comment, but it will happen to you too and you migh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 02:22 AM
2

Yes and I'd hate for this sub to become like that. Healthy discussion turns to subjective decisions and end up with good faith participants continually banned in a way that coincidently lines up with the moderators beliefs. 'Healthy discussion' is just a stand in for people to insert their own beleifs in the rules. I think the only reason for rules should be practical. As in spam. And things that break the law. Like credible threats. None on speech you find offensive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 02:10 AM
1

Yes and I'd hate for this sub to become like that. Healthy discussion turns to subjective decisions and ends up with good faith participants continually banned in a way that coincidently lines up with the moderators beliefs. 'Healthy discussion' is just a stand in for people to insert their own beleifs in the rules.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 02:04 AM
2

Having standards is not censorship, it is having standards It is when they are standards regarding what people are allowed to say and you enforce those standards on others. The concept you have in mind is called "viewpoint diversity" No, it's free speech.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 01:57 AM
1

Watch out guys he has got an xkcd comic from last decade. You see free speech is a principle, the 1st only covers the government, but the principle extends well beyond that. You are defending one section of the community enforcing speech standards on everybody here. That is censorship.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 01:52 AM
1

You are defending censorship, don't invoke free speech. It just shows your lack of standards.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 01:44 AM
1

It wasn't me. I don't even know what the original comment said and I don't care. It's not up to you or any other redditor to decide what is and is not 'part of the conversation'. The only question is if people go here or somewhere else.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 01:40 AM
6

Why do we have to go down this route? Why can we not just let people speak?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 07:52 AM
2

Well supposedly identification although I'm not entirely sure about that either. People can be wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 05:35 AM
4

They can say they are ageless, genderless, spieceless, whatever. That doesn't mean the idea actually means anything. The concept has to actually be connected to something real.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 05:03 AM
2

Sure. I honestly just have no idea what people are talking about when they say non binary gender, in any real sense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 03:51 AM
4

I don't see the spectrum though. I can see a spectrum in how you express your gender identity. The clothes you wear, the way you do your hair or even your interests and hobbies. But as far as what gender you are, I don't see a spectrum. I see binary physical sex and those are the options that you have to pick from with gender. Now you can say you want to present as female but stay pre op, and in that way you could argue that you are a male by some criteria and a female by others. But you can nev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 03:47 AM
1

In quite a lot of ways actually. But that is neither really here nor there. I was more talking about the validity of non-binary gender as a concept.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 03:39 AM
3

Yeah. I think that they are just rejecting being put in either of the stereotypes I'm not sure it's just that. people can and do reject gender stereotypes all the time without claiming to be non binary. What they're doing is a little bit more. They are rejecting not just stereotypes around each gender but the genders themselves. They aren't just saying not all men or not all women act a certain way, they are saying I am neither a man or woman. Sure, although you are also saying that you don't re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 03:16 AM
5

Absolutely. I think a stereotype is like a poor resolution image. There is some truth in it and it takes the general shape of truth, but the detail is all wrong. In regards to gender I think that it is a real experienced phenomenon related to how we feel about our sex. Masculinity and femininity I see as a way to express that feeling. Gender stereotypes are a way we predict what other people view as Masculine and Feminine and to some extent a comprise made by people in order to have solid defini…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 11:07 PM
3

Do you think there is a difference between gender and gender stereotypes?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 10:39 PM
9

I'm not really majorly involved in the trans community but I generally support trans rights. However some trans people will view me as true scum or a transmedicalist, because I believe that essentially transgenderism is a medical treatment for a psychological disorder. Otherwise you can dress and act how you want but that doesn't change your gender. I also just generally don't understand non binary gender. I think there are two genders and at best you can be a little bit male and little bit fema…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 10:29 PM
3

Do you have kids?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 10:40 AM
3

I mean do these people even really count as liberals anymore? I'd argue that the vast majority of feminists are not liberal. Liberalism is a very central ideology, not radical. It's somewhat supportive of how things are now, the status quo. Feminists are mostly radical, believing that liberal capitalist democracy is patriarchal and oppressive towards women. This doesn't nessacerily mean they are marxists or socialists, but a lot of them are. Others might be black nationalists or something more f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 08:28 AM
7

What if you aren't in a relationship and don't get the benefit of combining all your household chores with another person. How many hours should that person work? What if you and your partner have seven kids and that takes up a lot of time at home, how many hours should you work compared to a childless couple? This kind of logic breaks down fairly quickly for pretty simple reasons, mostly that it's your private life and has nothing to do with how much your employer values your work.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 07:23 AM
7

So why do you compare somebody complaining about gender discrimination and a satirical parade about sexuality, with a complaint about diversity policies being anti white? I wonder what any of these things have in common. 🤔 Could it be related to the groups who are partaking in them? Seems like you are outlining exactly which groups you have enough prejudice against to dismiss the concerns of.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 06:18 AM
8

What part of either the straight pride parade or this gender discrimination complaint is related to white people? I think part of your narrative is showing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 06:01 AM
8

Because the straight pride parade was a parody of pride parades. This is a title IX complaint.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 04:47 AM
1

I love that the comments started talking about black people being disadvantaged on resumes. The programming is just too strong to break.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/12/19 05:39 AM
5

hardly reacting to things around them Sounds like they are physically helpless to me. Thats law and morality. It's hard to establish "physically helpless" as well. Not as difficlut and I think it is a lot closer to what we should be policing. Extremely drunk could mean all sorts of people. Making relate to peoples physical ability and not decision making abilities I think is crucial. This isn't perfect either because I've never been and seen people in drunken states where they are clearly absolu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/12/19 10:19 PM
3

So you think someone who is extremely drunk but can still walk can still consent? Depends what you mean by extremely drunk. If you just mean they are slurring their words and stumbling a bit, yes. If you mean they are passing out but can somehow still walk, no. Sorry but I don't think this is a good metric Ok but at least it is a metric. What exactly is 'too drunk' and how are we supposed to know how it is enforced? it also leaves out a lot of people who are clearly too drunk to consent by any r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/12/19 03:34 AM
3

The langauge is different. What is too much to drink? Physically helpless is a fairly easy to understand metric. Too much too drink, to my mother in law, is 2 beers. But nobody would say that person is physically helpless.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 10:34 PM
3

Strange position to take unless you're just against there being protections for drunk people. Here is where I think it is useful to be specific about who we actually need to protect. To me it's not everybody with alcohol in their system. It is specifically for people who are too drunk to consent. I think the standard being 'unable to consent due to being physically helpless' is a reasonable one. I don't think that just being drunk means you can't consent. I think that is what is infantalizing ab…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 10:21 PM
3

rape statutes one and three definitely allows a prosecutor who wants to prosecute rape cases, to prosecute It's really not a loophole. Read the statutes. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-rape-laws.html 3 Who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than 17 years old; 1 Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless Idk where Cuomo is even coming from tbh.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 09:03 PM
4

New York’s existing rape statute only specifically references situations where alcohol or other drugs were administered “without” consent, even though prosecutors have successfully charged and won these other cases for years. But Assemblyman Dan Quart (D-Manhattan), who is also a 2021 primary challenger for Vance, said current law already allows the DA to prosecute rape cases. “They’re making a separate disingenuous argument,” said Quart of the DA’s claims that his hands are tied. “It’s a bait a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 08:36 PM
1

Equality is an illusion. None of us are born equal. I'm not born the same as you; you're not born the same as your neighbour and so on. To expect groups to even out like statistically like the role of a dice is silly. We aren't the same die. It hurts to have values and assess them across different identity groups because no two groups could possibly represent those values in same amounts. But the only other option is to not have values, so we're going to have to get over. It doesn't suggest supe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 08:47 AM
1

But humans come with a pretty strong sense of fairness and repulsion to injustice. These terms are very vague, because the situations of inequality are always different, and thus our reaction to them needs to be flexible. This is vital for social interactions, but doesn't translate well into impersonal political institutions which demand rigid definitions. But we increasingly disagree about fairness and injustice. This is the issue. If we want to be able to talk about this I think we need to sto…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 08:08 AM
0

Because the left is much more than just socialism. If you want to give up every reasonable economic system to the right feel free, but I won't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 07:51 AM
2

Nah, you're being like a radlib feminist by conflating race and gender with class. I am fairly consistent with all three. They are all identiy politics and should avoided. If anything I find class the least useful lens for the exact same reasons you like it, because it is performative. Working class people aren't innately working class, it relates to what they contribute to society. To me that is a fairly legitimate axis on which to discriminate. It isn't entirely fair, in the sense that we are …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 07:48 AM
1

I just find it weird that people who see all the problems with feminism fall into the exact same traps when it comes to class or race or sexuality etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 06:01 AM
2

A democrat proposing anti male rape legislation. I am shocked. The party has a long way to go on gender issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 05:56 AM
0

I am no fan of circumcision, but I think you come off quite badly here. The idea that capitalism is an exploitative system is rubbish. And I genuinely feel uncomfortable that people could put me in the same catagory as you as part of the men's movement. We need to move past this oppressor/opressed dichotomy, if you haven't learnt at least this much from watching how SJWs operate you aren't paying attention.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 05:32 AM
7

While I don't really disagree with article, it was a stupid thing to say, I can't take anybody who says there isn't innate difference between men and women seriously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/12/19 10:59 PM
2

There it is again.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 10:00 PM
2

You find it offensive that people have different ideas of disadvanatge. That is fragile.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 09:49 PM
1

Except children might be hurt by prioritizing the rights of the parents in that way. I don't think it really makes up for it by saying "well they might parents too one day and then they can get to prioritize themselves over their kids".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 09:24 PM
1

but at a certain point you have to stop and think about everyone else in society, including parents In the context of what we are talking about, a lot of the time the wants of the parents are opppsitional though. Like with custody. Who do we design the custody system to benefit? Right now I'd say it benefits the mother, but I think we should focus more on the child and what is good for them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 09:01 PM
2

In many countries failure to pay child support could put you behind bars. There are men who don't want their children in their lives, but that is a seperate issue imo. That is related to mens lack of reproductive choice after sex.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 08:47 PM
3

Voluntary. You can always work for yourself if wage labor isn't appealing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 07:36 AM
3

The difference is between forced and voluntary labor. It's not like anybody pays you for either taking responsibility for yourself or being made to take care of another.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 05:49 AM
3

Even in the case of automation, those machines must be designed, produced, programed, maintained etc. It's not like automation will make all work obsolete. But at the moment, since the machines aren't ready yet, we have a choice between taking responsibility for our own needs and having people provide for us against their will. There is no doubt to me the former is a better option.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 03:30 AM
1

I think this is pretty accurate. Men's role was purposely undermined in order to give women greater personal power. They didn't like being stuck in bad relationships and not having power in relationships in general. Problem is this is a zero sum game. We shouldn't try to use to legal system to ensure more personal power in our relationships. They shouldn't be oriented around either men or women, but the wellbeing and production of children.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 01:50 AM
1

We've lived the last 300 years in a puritan work ethic culture that says 'he who does not work should not eat', as if you only deserve to get your basic needs met if you have toiled for it. That is because for all of history food has required work to be produced. We require work to meet our needs. Demanding your needs to be met without work is requiring others to work for you for nothing. Even in the case of automation, those machines must be designed, produced, programed, maintained etc. We mig…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 01:36 AM
3

I'm not saying that it doesn't soften the economic fall of divorced single mothers, but I don't believe it to be equal Kind of depends on how much the father earns right?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 01:22 AM
7

I was told I had too much energy. I was told I was too rough or rude. I wasn't allowed to play rubgy at my school, we could only play touch. I was told I was a trouble maker for defending myself in a fight and not just running to a teacher. Told I was overconfident, I guess they'd prefer me to be nervous. Fuck this blouse. If he thinks people who act like men are unfeeling morons he is misandrist. What is his issue with people who like physical sports, don't get super nervous, am not afriad of a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 10:05 PM
1

The whole point of that saying is that there is no objective way to rank them. It depends what you like, it depends on what you value.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 03:22 AM
1

It is a tough discussion to have (which is why I am downvoted even here) but I think it is crucial to gender relations. First of all, partly due to the trans movement, we have to figure out what men and women are. Both from a definitional point and from a descriptive point. It seems to be that we are so worried about defining anything in the first place because definitions are imperfect. For example you can't define a chair in a way that excludes all nom-chairs and only includes chairs, yet we k…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 01:23 AM
-1

Ironically what feminist theory, Western conservatives and Islamic fundamentalists all have in common is the belief that women are perpetual victims who need special protections from the ills of society (men), though their approaches/solutions obviously vary somewhat. If they all came to that conclusion independently, maybe it is something we should take seriously and not just dismiss. I mean obviously the perpetual part is a bit much, but maybe they do need special protections.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/19 08:04 AM
7

I think it is funny we don't talk about the other side of this. I see women all the time fawning over men way out of their league. Some will even try to get his attention so much they will throw themselves at him and he will oblige, fuck them and leave them. Then they turn around and say 'Why doesn't he like me, I feel so used'. Well you just never noticed that they weren't really into you like you want them to be. I tend to think that the pump and dump is like the female equivalent to the frien…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/19 12:51 AM
3

Dude I'm sorry but unless you can read minds you don't know what people cross posting are trying to do. All I did was presume you can't. Am I wrong?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/19 12:40 AM
1

You literally presume bad intentions of other people you have no way of verifying (I do cross posts all the time and see good discussion generated) and when called out on it accuse me of bad faith. Could you be any less aware?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 11:27 PM
1

You mean you assume it quite often? You aren't a mind reader as far as I'm aware.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 10:54 PM
2

That is quite an assumption.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 02:04 AM
1

I don't think we get enough posts for it to be an issue. If it was clogging up the front page of the sub I'd be more supportive. But generally I think less rules is better, if we can manage it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 02:01 AM
0

Sounds a bit like saying "if you don't approach me, you're oppressing me". Truth is it isn't women doing this to you, it's just that men and women aren't the same. Honestly you might as well be complaining about the oppression women face when they get their period.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/19 10:53 PM
1

The DSM certainly has issues, but which ones do you think this article points to, out of curiosity? I think it has a tendency to pathologize personality. I agree that these things exist on a spectrum and tend to think we aren't very good at drawing nessacery distinctions. The way I see it, the more therapists/psychologists you go to, the more conditions you are likely to be diagnosed with. Well, I don't know about functional heroin addicts. Heroin is pretty disabling. Not as much as you'd think.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/11/19 01:59 AM
1

Crime rates have been declining since the 90s. Pinker makes an argument that violence has been declining for most of our history. Has a lot of data to back it up too. https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/title-slide
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/19 08:32 PM
1

It is interesting and points to a lot of issues in the DSM imo. I am sure a lot of people live productively with Hypomania. I know more people than we realize are heroin addicts who are perfectly 'functional' people. As in they don't need any help to get by and will swear they are better off on the junk than kicking it. The question for these hypomaniacs is if they do it despite or because of their condition. Like a lot of this just strikes me as a fairly obvious inferiority/superiority complex.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/19 03:41 AM
1

I don't really understand how you can say it isn't inherently dysfunctional and yet you have only met one person who even remotely functioned while trying to sustain this state. Because to me that would suggest the opposite. The comparison with marijuana is something we can work with. I don't think it is healthy for people to identify strongly with being a stoner. Just as it probably isn't great identifying as a big drinker. In the end this is what it comes back to as this is how the conversatio…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/19 02:40 AM
-1

Class solidarity is divisive idpol bullshit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/19 01:33 AM
1

Idk man if the vast majority of people find that it isn't sustainable and comes with significant downside and a large portion of your clients still look to stay that way, I'd say that demonstrates exactly the misalignment that identifying too much with disability or illness brings. And exactly what you should be warning people about when they say they want to stay hypomanic. I mean there are people out there who claim their heroin addiction is worth it. I wouldn't say that makes it so. The natur…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/19 12:47 AM
1

I don't think Hypomania is sustainable or healthy. You should read this, https://www.bphope.com/blog/romanticizing-hypomania/ as it is from somebody with bi-polar and we were talking about the importance of personal experience. I understand why bi-polar people want Hypomania to be sustainable and healthy, it would basically mean they have more energy and confidence with no downside. Problem is I don't think it is true. They have to come to grips that they have an illness, not an advantage, despi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 11:36 PM
1

I don't know if men are less masculine now. I do know that we are all less violent now though. Violent crime rates have been steadily declining for the last 70 or so years I'm fairly sure. Source for that claim is Steven Pinkers book enlightenment now. Lot of interesting stats in the book.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 03:08 AM
1

After all this talk you still dont fucking understand my core argument. It would be no more legal to advocate for whites or Christian's to lose their rights than black or Muslims. It wasn't that I was accusing you of being one directional, when I say 'minority' group I don't mean that you are trying to enforce it to only certain demographic groups, but that you focus on the right not to be discriminated against as the sole right which you are not allowed to advocate against. I have a right to be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 11:17 PM
1

We are all extraordinary in some ways. People with disabilities included.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/19 04:50 AM
1

I am proud of my Moderate Autism. Why? Most talented people had Mental Disability No they really didn't. Some people are very talented was well as having a disability or mental illness, but most people with disabilities or mental illness need help and support just to get by.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/19 12:51 AM
1

Well, see, I think it becomes a sort of chicken-or-the-egg conundrum, because is that trait inherent in you or did the disability force you to develop it? I don't think it matters. You can say the same about any barrier people face. The key part for me if it did force you to develop it is that you developed it. And force is fairly relative too, you could always give up and die. But you didn't. I'm not talking about people with Bipolar Disorder who just can't accept the true nature of their illne…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/19 11:33 PM
1

Yes, go ahead and tell me where the dividing line is. Speech is action when your speech tells others what to do. That is why ordering a hitman to kill someone is still murder and why the president ordering others to break the law is still impeachable. You know I would understand your perspective if you were actually consistent about it. But the thing is, you only care about this sort of speech when it is discriminating against minorities. Revolutionary groups consistently advocate to upend our h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/19 03:42 AM
1

And you say my ideas are too subjective. That isn't the main problem with your ideas. It is that they are anti human rights that really matters. When that revolution explicitly includes oppressing or killing certain specific groups, what is the difference? Between speech and action? Again are you serious? All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well that and other people actually doing evil. Opposed to just speaking. Again we are talking about a conflict of values. I thin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 11:17 PM
2

I can understand how, after something—even something as objectively bad as a disability—shapes your personality over time, you eventually realize you wouldn't be the person you are (including many of your good traits) without it, you might lose your desire to remove it from your life I agree with this. But I think those positive qualities you develop, any you develop due to hardship, is what you should be identifying with. They made you who you were much more than the disability did. Sure you wo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 03:16 PM
2

I tend to agree, especially regarding defining yourself by a disability or mental illness. Just in general don't define yourself as something you'd rather not be. And if you'd rather have a disability I'd say you've spent too long identifying with it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 12:09 PM
1

What makes you think they are a leftist?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 11:56 AM
1

So you are okay with limiting free speech of people only if people are serious about what they say? If it is a serious and immediate physical threat. Wrong. Threats of violence based on politics is terrorism and that is illegal. That is two different things that you are combining. You can be a radical and believe in violent revolution and advocate for that. You just can't threaten people in that pursuit. Here the threat is easily separable from the political speech. One is political speech the o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 04:22 AM
1

Provided it was expressed as a reaction to the president's political actions and not personal reasons, it absolutley qualifies. If it was in the context of a comment about his policy and not a legitimate threat it would be free speech. People do actually say things like this fairly often. It's fine as long as it isn't a legitimate threat. In any case, this sort of speech is not protected by the 1st amendment It is if it is political speech. So I have to ask you again now, why not just allow all …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 12:32 AM
1

My whole post was this. I'm not sure what you're asking of me. You never actually explained what made it toxic, just what it should be instead. If you can't see the difference between those two things I am not really sure how I can help you. I find that sexist and insulting on a personal level being a gay guy who fosters such characteristics. Why, is there something wrong with a guy being feminine? A common set of traits expressed by mostly people who identify as male. Could you name the traits …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 12:14 AM
1

That is a toxic way of thinking. Are you going to expand on this or just throw it out there? None of the rest of your comments talks about why you have an issue with this sort of phrasing of masculinity. You just explain how you approach it. A strong, independent women not more "masculine". They kind of are though. Just like a guy that is pretty and graceful is more feminine. It's just a set of attributes. Toxic masculinity doesn't imply a two sided binary of good and bad masculinity. Masculinit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 09:21 PM
1

Oh I definitely was a "problem kid" That's part of why the misdiagnosis was pushed. Either I got a label, or I would get expelled as my parents have told me. Interesting. I was as well. I mean a really problem child too. I would steal, get into fights, swear a lot, leave school during the day. This all in early primary, starting around 7 or 8 and just getting worse until maybe early 20s. I was diagnosed with ADHD as well as a bunch of other things but honestly I think it is load of bull and I am…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 08:59 AM
1

So you don't have aspergers or what is the deal with that? A lot of what you are saying sounds like problems a lot of 'trouble kids' have in school. I was a trouble kid and certainly felt as though I was always under a watchful eye at school. This developed quickly into a distrust of authority figures in general, I really believed I would be treated unfairly even when this wasn't always the case (but it also sometimes was). This attitude certainly didn't help because it actually made it more dif…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 05:17 AM
1

Should I be able to threaten to kill the president? I wouldn't call that political speech Because arguing for the removal of that amendment would affect the sexes equally So you'd be ok with white supremacists arguing for taking away the civil rights act all together? If so in what way are protecting minorities from discrimination? Equal rights is well defined and not in the least subjective I don't think this is true at all. I mean we have spent the whole time debating if taking away people's r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 04:32 AM
1

Because they are taking it away entirely from others. You missed that part. Slightly restricting one group's free speech to protect the entirety of the rights of another group is the lesser evil. Why don't you just not restrict anybodies political speech? That is not at all what I said. You can argue against the 1st, 19th, or any other part of the Constitution. You just cant argue a group should be excluded because of their race, sex, sexuality, or religion. How could I argue against the 19th wi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 02:16 AM
2

Yeah diagnosing high functioning individuals is a whole different issue and honestly related back a problem with our diagnosis in the first place, especially as it relates to autism and mental health. Sometimes the issue is that there isn't as clear of line as we think and things like personality play a much bigger role than most people know. And once you get into that stuff it becomes very difficult to determine how much of any given behaviour or outcome is driven by the disability. For some ve…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 01:55 AM
1

It's not really about how you look but what condition you were diagnosed with and what help you ask for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/19 08:10 PM
2

It depends on what they(the government body who runs the program) deem your needs are. But it isn't difficult to get funding if you are having problems and have a diagnosed disability. Basically you are given a whole lot of 'disability support dollars' that you can spend on services that meet goals that were set by you and are inhibited by your disability. So somebody with aspergers would not get as much funding as somebody that was high on the spectrum and therefore would not be able to access …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/19 04:53 AM
1

A wide variety depending on what people are asking for. We do cooking, IT, financial literacy, diet & nutrition etc. These are more traditional class environments. Then there is social life skills, which is more practical and puts people in a wide variety of inclusive social activities with groups of people at similar ability levels. Workers help participants in the program engage in healthy social interaction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/19 02:43 AM
3

Males. And autism is probably under diagnosed in women, but even taking that into account the answer is still men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 08:43 PM
1

Social support is the most common type of support we provide. We work with companies and organize specialized disability employment options that focus on ability over disability. We run life skills classes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 07:34 PM
1

Ah I see, I don't know much about the UK disability system. In Australia there is no difference between the amount of support most people get at 17 compared to 18. It is allocated based on need, not age. In what way do you think this primarily effects men though?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 05:33 AM
1

I am arguing for preserving the 1st for everyone, not just the majority like you are. Except the people you are explicitly taking it away from. Correct. Right so why should we allow you to argue against the 1st amendment, but not people to argue against the 19th or the civil rights act? Sounds again like you are picking and chosing. Unlimited tolerance just allows the intolerant to destroy the system you seek to protect You might as well be arguing about why you should yourself be censored. This…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 05:27 AM
1

I have worked with people who suffer from disabilities for over half a decade. I don't recognize the phenomenon you are talking about. I'd interested to hear what prompted this post though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 03:25 AM
1

Didnt say it was. That is one example of many exceptions to free speech. And there is no exception for what you are arguing for either. Hence why you are arguing against the 1st. Incorrect. The 19th is gender neutral, so opposition to it would not qualify as discrimination based on sex. So is the civil rights act, so opposing that would be fine in your opinion and not subject to censorship? I am advocating protecting the 1st amendment. You are arguing in favor of censorship and taking away peopl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 03:03 AM
1

For example free speech rights do not protect threats of violence. Which this isn't. I never argued it should be illegal to argue against the 19th, not the 1st or 2nd. You are saying it should be illegal to argue for legal discrimination against people due to protected class status (sex, race, religion etc.). That is making it illegal to argue against the 19th, no matter what you are discriminating people from (other amendments included). You don't think your argument should be banned, even thou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/19 11:55 PM
2

It is the price of being capable of greater violence in general. This game was never designed to be fair and equal and this often makes us chose between two imperfect solutions. We need to find a sweet spot between men's suspicion and women's safety. We can't have both completely, so we have to trade off.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 07:19 AM
2

They certainly can be. Although I think there are a couple of ways in which women are more at risk. In the past I think there was even more ways. But if we are looking at differences in physical size or differences in sexual desires, I think in general women require more protection.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 06:15 AM
2

I think it is mostly a symbolic gesture of support and protection. The reason it appears in such a gendered way us a recognition if the risks traditionally invoked with dating and sex that women faced that men were not as vulnerable to. I don't think many people actually want to make people chose between their daughter and a barrel of a gun. And despite the cliche I don't think the idea is to scare guys off. I have dated a Texan in senior high school and while they gave me the spiel and even sho…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 05:38 AM
4

They only sound like that to people who are really far left.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 02:41 AM
6

All so busy talking about why we need to tear stuff down we never thought about what was going to replace it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 01:44 AM
1

I'm trying to make it illegal for the majority to deny the rights of a minority. This is entirely consistent with the purposes and ideals of the rest of the Constitution. No it isn't. Did you forget what the 1st amendment is? You are arguing against a consistutional right and trying to take it away from people. I am saying that it should be illegal to argue for the restriction of any right (2nd A, 19th A, whatever) based on race, sex, sexuality or religion. I know. You just restated your positio…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/11/19 11:45 PM
3

I would guess so. Even if this is not the case it certainly is true that men commit much more serious violence. As to why men get defensive about this, people don't like facts that speak badly about their group. Black people don't like hearing that they are disproportionately represented in violent crime. Women don't like hearing that most people with genius level IQ are men. Gay people don't like hearing that they are disproportionately represented in the child abuse community. We could go on a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/19 04:28 AM
1

Yes I think a lot of masculinity is related to various forms of strenght. Although I think there are a few that don't fit as neatly into that paradigm that I would say are masculine; intelligence, humor, honour etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/19 03:32 AM
4

Masculinity as a concept has always been defined by good traits. Strenght, independence, leadership, these are all good things. Toxic masculinity as a term should ideally be focused on the negative ramifications that often come about due to not living up to the standards of masculinity. Like when somebody get's violent in order to make up for being seen as weak. Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, it's a fill in. To me the question is, when it comes to ideals, what is negative masculinity?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/19 02:31 AM
6

By feminist men. Yes. This was a very different men's rights movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 04:27 AM
5

And toxic masculinity imo is very obviously enforced by a lot of women, at least in my experience. They seem to sometimes be incredibly unsympathetic and clinging to tradition and rules in a way that is harmful. One example is a middle-aged woman who told me that "men are just different" and argued that they don't need emotional support. When was the last time you saw a feminist publicly criticize women or a woman for encouraging toxic masculinity? It seems to me that a lot of men cop this criti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 04:18 AM
1

Marxist in the sense of dialectic materialism. Ok sure. It is, more or less, communal--->hierarchical hunter-gatherer---->hierarchical horticultory (matrifocal)/pastoral(patrifocal)----->chiefdom ("patriarchal")------->statist Yeah I basically agree with this. How do you see this relating to male disposability and prosperity? Because I see a direct link between the amount we value men's contributions in terms of property innovation and fatherhood to be directly correlated to our rising prosperit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 04:13 AM
1

The idea of the fatherless children that existed in the past that Engels talk about is a myth. See this how I get confused. I thought this is what you were basically talking about. Funny how a term like Marxism can cause all sorts of preconceptions. I think of it as a scale. More conditions on marriage and more paternal certainty and role for the father. Less conditions more male disposability. Nonono. Fathers move into the women house. Ok well now you are talking about societies that have priva…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 12:23 AM
1

Private propierty and semisedentarism in collector hunter-gatherer societies. Sure but this doesn't take full advantage of these concepts. If this was the extent to which they were used they might never have reached global cultural ascendance. Marriage exists in almost every society. Not the marriage we are used to. Pair bonding is going to occur naturally (part of why I think the idea of community raised kids is unlikely), but this doesn't mean that the conventions of marriage like monogamy or …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 11:33 PM
1

Both private property and semisedentarism were only useful things due to the power of agriculture over hunting and gathering. They were nessacery adaptions to take advantage of this new technology. They did know who the father is. I mean, as much as in the present day. In any case, if children are grown comunally, then the mother is also "just a woman of the tribe". We can test for paternity today. Not to mention the institution of marriage was designed to give men responsibility over their kids…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 09:53 PM
1

Many of the societies that I mention that are inegalitarian are nomad. That includes hunter-gatherer and pastoral societies Sure. There are other reasons to not be egalitarian. But agriculture does seem to move us in that direction. Fathers were deeply involved with their children. Well... technically speaking the children were grown comunally, but men were part of it. You don't know that if you don't know who the father is. But more importantly the father doesn't know, so he can't take on the r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 09:20 PM
1

Why not just say that you don't like certain parts of the culture? Sounds like you just want a a word to validate your complaints.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 09:13 PM
1

Best answer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 09:12 PM
3

I don't actually see much of what you said as marxist. Most of the egalitarian societies you are looking at aren't developed in terms of agriculture, which is why they don't value land ownership. It all stems from that. The issue is that the industries that arose from private property are hugely productive. So even while it creates inequality it also creates much more wealth for those at the bottom than models without it. Also you don't mention this but it is implied that paternal certainty in p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 09:07 PM
1

You keep failing to engage with my argument and setting up your own strawman. I am not and never have been talking about making all racist speech illegal. I don't think I am, the issue isn't that you are trying to make all racist speech illegal but that you are trying to make any speech illegal for being racist. If it is based on restricting it based on race, sex, sexuality, or religion, yes. That isn't what the second amendment says. Why is the 19th amendment more important to you than the seco…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 08:00 PM
2

Not all groups are protected equally by the Constitution. It isnt possible. Are murderers rights being infringed when we punish them for killing? Every right has restrictions to protect other rights All individuals are. This includes freedom of speech for all people, not just opinions you find palatable. You don't have a right to censor somebody in the same way a murderer doesn't have the right to murder. A censors 'right to censor' is not protected and is not a right. A racist's speech is prote…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 12:26 AM
5

They are still radical in the sense that they want to fundamentally change how society is structured. Not every radical needs to have the same radical changes in mind to be a radical. I think TERF is a fairly accurate descriptor.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 11:35 PM
4

You are advocating for restricting a consistutional rights of a group, because they are advocating for taking away the rights of a group. Just seems like you don't really care about universal rights, you just want to protect certain groups rights above others. This is I think the difference in our positions. I care about racists rights to advance whatever policies they want as much as black people or gay people. What purpose does that serve other than to subvert the purposes of the Constitution …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 11:30 PM
4

I agree with the 'fighting words' doctrine but to extend this to people who advocate certain policies is way past the pale. Our freedom to advance any policy is integral to democracy. Defining them as incitement automatically creates political censorship. This can be extended indefinitely. If sexism or racism is incitement, why not defense of capitalism? As long as you hate the position enough it can be seen as incitement in the same way. We have to separate politics from personal danger in a mo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 04:42 AM
2

A solid character reference if I ever heard one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 04:34 AM
4

Not just one thing. A trend over time and a struggle to balance their progressive goals with their principles. This is a good article explaining some of the issues - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-aclu-gives-up-on-free-speech-and-the-first-amendment
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 04:28 AM
10

The ACLU is already giving into the idea of hate speech. They are slowly turning against right wing protesters as their progressive members turn up their noses at being asked to defend the rights of far right speech. They aren't the principled organization of yesteryear. They are just another hub of progressive double standards and excuses.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 03:10 AM
3

is something Feminists spend a lot of time willfully ignoring. It's quite intentional imo. If you want to indoctrinate people going after children is a rather obviously strategy. Look at how they go after schools too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 09:31 PM
1

I can link you some pages but most say similar things to the wiki page. You can also look at the page on Caroline Norton. If you want something more substantial you might have to buy a book. I'd recomend "Until They Are Seven: The Origins of Women's Legal Rights" by John Wroath.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 08:46 PM
1

If somebody told me that I don't think I could resist fighting it. I'd stand before the judge and dare him to put me in prison for being stabbed. Idk if there is more to this story, but if that is it I'd feel to righteous to do anything else. I'd publicize the shit out of it. Guy who was put in jail for being stabbed, prime example of the issues with DV in Canada. That is if there is nothing to muddy the water.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 04:45 AM
3

Idk, if I had a therapist that told me not to refer as people I thought were cunts as such I don't really think we could make much progress. I mean if they don't even agree that these people are cunts, how are they supposed to help me deal with the cunts?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 04:39 AM
1

Patriarchy theory is bullshit and men and women are equal. You tell me if I am a feminist or not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 04:16 AM
6

So, even without a dominant feminist influence in my field How do you know that all of the examples you cite weren't caused by feminist influence? Child support in general came from women's rights activists pushing the tender years doctrine. Before then the rights and responsibilities of parenthood were a package deal. The women who had to bring up women being more often victims of rape sounds fairly solidly feminist and motivated in that action by a feminist narrative about women as victims tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 04:13 AM
5

So you admit this is about support or lack of support and not opposition? I want to make sure we tie up all loose ends here before we move on. Still waiting on your answer btw.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/19 03:23 AM
3

He says specifically that his problem is people supporting women's rights, LGBT rights etc and not men's rights. Not opposing but simply not supporting. That is the hypocrisy they are talking about. Read it again. Still waiting on your answer. 3 comments wait now.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/19 03:01 AM
3

The OP isn't about objecting to men's right, it's about not supporting it. I don't see the left looking at this with any sort of veracity. Take your turn now pls.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/19 01:50 AM
6

How about the right to genital integrity, just to start off with. Your turn.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/19 12:05 AM
3

What rights do black people lack?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/19 11:40 PM
1

I think it is more a criticism of capitalism. It isn't that monetary power is the only power they acknowledge, the issue is that it is the only power they criticize as illegitimate. It is highly correlated to capitalism because under capitalism your labor is valued by the market and feminists felt the market didn't give them fair value. Hence all of these ideas about unpaid women's labor and emotional labor etc. Problem is it's not really work unless somebody offers you money to do it, it's just…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/10/19 07:44 AM
18

When you say you are worried young men are turning away from your movement but you refuse to even slightly modify your language to be less vitriolic towards them. It is just another sign that they are right and the movement really isn't for them. In fact it despises them and will not even make the slightest concession in order to keep them around, while still demanding they stay.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/19 08:52 PM
13

It's all projection. She fears patriarchy (men) and she can't get over it. This is probably more common in women than most of us like to admit. The thing that annoys me about it is that men are the primary reason she is safe, not just from other men but women and mother nature too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 09:04 PM
1

The issue is that the politics is being placed before principle. Tolerance in and of itself is not a value, there are plenty of things we know we should not tolerate. But it becomes centered around the group, instead of what actions we feel are most productive for society. This is why it is inconsistent, it places tolerance before values. It's values are dictated by their results and who they effect or else those values themselves are racist, sexist, homophobic etc. This is in contrast to the no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 08:42 PM
1

That is such a brilliant python skit. One of the best descriptions of a common left wing political issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 08:30 PM
12

This is what happens when you accept the social justice hierarchy. Everything has to be fit into these neat little boxes of intersecting oppression and privilege. It's such an obvious political narrative, not designed to explain the world around us but to form an alliance of minority groups. For example imagine thinking that BLM being focused on men was a sign of male privilege but being focused on black people was a reaction to discrimination. When you look at the data both men and black people…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 06:21 AM
2

And what high school teachers are encouraging teens to transition? Heaps, I've met many personally. But it isn't just the teachers but the programs that activists push through that encourage an unscientific understanding of gender. Basically telling kids there are million gender and they can pick whatever one they want. Without any of the information about how these identifications end with people changing their minds as adults. Where did you get that? The first words out of your mouth were not …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 11:39 PM
1

Well at least you aren't pretending to be interested in asking questions or having a conversation anymore. If you think everybody who is left wing has to be on board with every single social cause of the left I am surprised you are here. It's not a feminist sub after all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 10:38 PM
1

> It's not exactly "when did you stop beating your wife" > why are you taking up the cause of a transphobe? Dude stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 10:11 PM
1

>guidelines >Specific Try again. > And now we get to the problem. This is just more prejudice masquerading as free speech just like this sub pretends to be left wing. De-transition rates generally hover around 60-90 percent for kids. That is just something unacceptable to encourage in children, like encouraging them to play with fire. Don't believe me about the de-transition rates, look at the research. I am left wing, I am a social liberal. That doesn't mean I have to support unscientific ideol…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 10:06 PM
1

Do you always ask loaded questions or is it just now?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 09:41 PM
1

There are things teachers cannot say. That is different from having compelled speech, which would be mandating that teaches have to say specific things, in specific ways, especially that has nothing to do with the content of the class. Like if your teacher had to say they liked coca-cola, instead of just not swearing. I seriously don't know how and why people confuse this. It is not complicated. > What you're asking is for personal prejudice to be protected when working with kids. Not at all. I'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 09:38 PM
1

Or maybe a movement isn't the best way to fix any of these problems. I mean it hasn't been great at fixing these issues in the black community.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/19 11:44 PM
2

More than they need to make a profit, which was my initial point as it is based on greed Well that is your opinion. But it doesn't mean much in terms of stopping universities from rising the price when they get these customers with blank IOUs. What are going to do, call them greedy? I don't think they care. See in my country you need a college degree to so much as breath. Takes at least 4 years of college to be in that profession. Where do you live? I know most places in North America this isn't…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/19 08:34 PM
1

No it doesn't. There is no reason to if the school is getting more students, thus more money from them as well. When you are getting gov loans you can have more students and charge them more too. The reason is obvious, to make money. And those people deserve what they get. But they aren't the general rule There is no general rule. But in my state alone there are hundreds of positions available. You would think some people out of the thousands of doll applicants would be able to do it. You can be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/19 06:52 AM
1

The problem is that it has been noted that much of the debt is unethical and mostly done out of greed than the actual price Prices are a function of supply and demand. If the government increases availability of university by funding loans, that increases how much universities are able to charge. Have you ever been born poor? Where you had to work 8-12 shift where you couldn't eat because you had to save money? I have been laid off. I have had to scrape to get by. Not eating at work is only a mi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/19 08:47 PM
1

Poverty being linked to crime doesn't explain why people commit crime. It just offers one statistical correlation. Any expert you cite would admit this. Why not invest in your own people? Why not invest in yourself? I mean why would you ask your countryman to take on a debt you wouldn't? If you really are worried about the interest and how long it will take you to pay back, I'm not sure that who is paying is the issue, it is the size of the bill. But I guess that doesn't matter if you aren't pay…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/19 10:48 AM
1

So you don't think it's right to say there is a reason, yet the one reason given to you must be bunk? Not bunk exactly, just seriously lacking depth. I mean think about how many people in poverty never break the law. And think about how many white collar criminals steal massive amounts of money despite being very well off. To attribute the main cause of crime to poverty is to be completely unable to explain these things. To treat every poor person who commits a crime as a victim of circumstance …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/19 03:14 AM
1

I think people with disabilities being treated with any respect at all is a relatively new and mostly western thing. It could be that minority communities are taking more from their traditional culture and less from modern westernized culture than their majority brethren.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/19 12:18 AM
1

I think they are just generally less inclined to see things as oppressive. Take abortion and LPS. A lot of left wing MRAs argue that men need greater reproductive rights and contrast this with a women's ability to have an abortion (or drop off etc). While people on the right are generally more comfortable with the idea that consent to sex is consent to be a parent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/19 12:05 AM
1

Poverty and lack of education? What do you think the reason is? Nothing that justifies the decision to commit more crime. Elevating the reasoning to the point of being the main cause only removes human choices, which I don't think is appropriate. Unless they don't know how to elevate themselves, and/or lack the financial means to access a higher level of education to get the requirements needed to obtain a job that raises them out of their situation. They don't know? Because there is a lot of in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/19 09:08 PM
2

Medicine is not politics. How we are able to refer to people is political. And medicine is quite often political. Not that I am convinced this is right way to treat trans people. Teachers have an imperative to follow medical guidelines for the betterment of their students' lives. No they don't. They have a duty of care to ensure that they are not causing harm. For example, if your kid has a mental illness they don't have to change how they teach to accommodate that. Generally we allow them to te…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 05:09 AM
2

While I agree the teacher came to some kind of compromise, I don't think it's enough. Refusing to use third-person pronouns for a particular student isn't something a bunch of kids are going to miss, and every time it happens it'll be a reminder to everyone present that the teacher is making an ideological stand against a particular student's lifestyle Same can be said about using the opposite pronouns to the person's biology. Either way you are reaffirming your beliefs. The question to me is wh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 03:08 AM
2

He is using gender neutral pronouns already, so it isn't like he is using the 'wrong ones'. I think compelled speech is entirely unreasonable, perhaps that is where we disagree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 07:39 AM
1

I somewhat agree, in the sense that I think it is partially because we told women they can have it all. But when you give women access to the status and security they sought in attractive men it isn't difficult to imagine why they have trouble. If we simply stop trying to bend over backwards to force women into every workplace there would be more balance here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 08:55 PM
2

Human rights tribunal.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 08:43 PM
0

He avoids the wrong pronouns and uses neutral pronouns and names. If this isn't good enough for you, you might as well admit that you want to control the exact words that people say. You want compelled speech.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 08:41 PM
1

I don't think people chose who they are attracted to. You might as well say that men are wrong for prefering 20 year old women (on average). I agree that it there is damage being done to society, but I believe it is the relatively recent and artificial drive for equity/equality that is causing this, not a sexual preference. In the end it is a matter of what you have control over and what you don't. I don't think forcing women to date guys they aren't attracted to due to complete lack of options …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 10:02 AM
0

Except in Canada you would be put before a HRT instead of just fired. Same principle though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 03:25 AM
4

Because he doesn't believe that to be the truth. He is still making an effort to avoid misgendering them, he just doesn't want to go against his own beliefs either. Is this really so unreasonable?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 02:49 AM
2

I think this is an interesting case between free speech and trans rights. Personally I don't think the man should be fired and here is my reasoning. He was perfectly happy to not misgender the student, he just didn't want to use their preferred pronouns either. Honest I think that is an acceptable compromise solution that protects the trans student from being misgendered and also protects the teacher from being subject to compelled speech.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 12:47 AM
2

From my experience it depends on the context where you express it. Lyrics about heartbreak are relatively normal. Talking with a close friend in private about your relationship issues is generally not shamed (depending on the friend though). Talking about it at lenght to a bunch of strangers maybe less so. It exists along a sliding scale. The amount of people who give you sympathy due to this is probably more relative to what people feel you have to give them more than anything else. For most wo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 11:58 PM
1

It'd be a result of the outrage merchants trying to sell news. It is marketing but it's not from the film.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 09:23 PM
2

There is no set definition for the term I suppose. I see being anti PC culture as being red pilled, at least to some extent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 09:19 PM
1

There isn't anything wrong with wanting a rich or strong man, if that is what floats your boat. The only person you could really hurt is yourself by having too high standards. But if you feel the majority of women have too high standards maybe are making a mistake in how you look at it. They can't all be wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 09:14 PM
10

More like "the justification for any time men could be seen as victims for being men".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 03:23 AM
14

The director is more 'red pilled' than you might expect. Asked why he moved from comedies like the hangover to movies like this he basically said that the woke crowd get offended too easily and that our culture is no longer welcoming to comedians at large.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 02:13 AM
6

I don't think it is that needy. He talks about being mistreated and lied to. Men have never been expected to put up with that. He isn't crying about it, he isn't getting angry about it, he is writing a song asking for women to treat him better or they don't really love him. I see this as a form of self respect. I think seeing self respect as neediness is a dangerous thing. It really lowers yourself. Although there are some people out there who might try to portray self respect as a form of needy…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/19 01:24 AM
2

Most people still take it to mean hating women. Their tactic is only effective because their definition differs from most people's. Also it goes kind of deep since women's oppression is also something different to a feminist. If we were all speaking the same language I don't think most people would care that they are "misogynists" it the feminist sense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/10/19 12:12 AM
4

Ironically this would be a disastrous attempt to control language, since the old meanings are already so solidified. All you would do is end up removing feminist and merging it with 'normal person', which I am more than ok with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/09/19 11:24 PM
3

I agree. Unfortunately it seems like dissenting voices aren't respected anymore, unless they are pushing the envelope further. I think we were too quick to give the humanities to the post modernists and now they are migrating. I hate to sound extreme but I think the only solution is a purge of the censors.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/19 09:48 PM
3

For sure. Althought I don't think we should to back it seems there is a lot lost their that maybe should not have been due to the political events of the 20th cent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/19 10:51 AM
3

It's missing the value of utility. Social systems that provide the greatest advantage for the members of that society will outcompete and ultimately take over other societies. Individual power is one thing, but it isn't great if your whole civilization crashes. Keeping a society running is the utility of social systems and it often doesn't work. Also for some reason we seem to apply the power motive to people in power much more. As if those very same radicals who wished to redefine hierarchy wer…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/19 05:28 AM
2

Barstool sports ey? Sounds alright, guess I'll have to check it out.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/19 01:22 AM
2

Ok but my point is still correct. Us crime rates have been falling for 20 years while income inequality has been rising. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-years-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Could be other factors in those countries explain it much easier, like the corruption of the police and the courts in those areas.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/09/19 07:15 AM
2

But its saying that women, especially them, are limited. If it was "everybody is limited", it wouldn't be gendered. Women are limited in specific ways men are not. This doesn't mean the reverse can't also be true. You mean doing what their family planned for them, going rogue and doing something like mercenary work, or dying? I mean that if they did their job well, they were given greater opportunities for them and their families to prosper. This isn't the same for a housewife, which is what the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/09/19 07:03 AM
2

Is it? From what I understand inequality has been going up for the last 20 years while rates of burglary, robbery, larceny and grand theft auto have all gone down.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/09/19 01:33 AM
2

It is, yes. Or it wouldn't be gendered. Nah that is fairly simplistic. If I say women have limited options in X,Y & Z that doesn't mean men have options in A,B & C. We can identify separate issues that each genders face or have historically faced without making it a pissing contest. Maybe, but that didn't even come up once in the post Except as a response to how women are in fact 'singled out by nature'. Although this really just means different from men biologically. The point was "men had opti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 10:55 PM
2

No it's not. Vast majority of poor people are not thieves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 10:34 PM
4

The one only mentioning women Not mentioning men is not asserting something about them or comparing something to them. That is something you are reading into it, for what reasons I could only assume, none of them are great though. They weren't, even by nature. Not sure what you mean by this. Women get pregnant, men don't. This is just one way men and women differ biologically. Only the wealthy had options. Wealth tends to help people with options. Although I would say that the poorest people tod…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 03:37 AM
5

WE SEE YOU AND LOVE YOU. In a completely platonic way. (And we are fairly shit friends).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 12:05 AM
3

The part that says women were singled out in having few options Sorry which part says that? I don't think they were singled out by anybody, unless nature counts. But seriously, historically men have had a much greater influence in their own prosperity. A women can do everything perfectly at home but if her husband is a drunk who loses his job you are in the poor house. This is not true to the same extent the other way around, due to the hierarchical structure of the family.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 11:48 PM
3

Which part of my comment are you refuting? Because it seems to me you are arguing against something I didn't say.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 09:01 PM
1

I think it is useful in preventing re-offense in so much as you can't re-offend while you are locked up. I also think overly light sentences can encourage people to re-offend. Otherwise I think it is more about what programs you engage in during the stay. Getting high schools certificates or even higher will give you a good shot. And is this a reason you have for wanting people to face such punishment? Not primarily. The main reason is the pursuit of justice.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 08:58 PM
2

abstinence only education has been proven to be ineffective for use as a birth control. Why then would pushing it purely to men be seen as acceptable? I didn't say we should push abstinence only education on men. I said chosing who you have sex with is a reproductive right men have, where you were saying they can only chose condoms. Other barrier methods are also options. And I don't honestly think that it effects black people more So why are black people committing more crime? But saying that p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 08:52 PM
6

Yeah, I mean this is a problem with any group of a activists who claim to represent a demographic. It isn't like they have been elected.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 08:07 AM
1

What sort of evidence shows that women are discriminated against in the workforce?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 04:16 AM
1

It means that for millions of years a major consideration for women in chosing a mate was how well he could support a family. Or at least that is how I see it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 02:50 AM
7

Remember that most women aren't feminists. Most feminists I have spoken to are fairly consistent in this (in what they say), they just don't represent the average women. Although many also married guys that earn more than them. Honestly I wonder if there isn't a little bit of self awareness lacking there. But I think we will have about as much luck changing this as feminists have in stopping men from prefering young attractive women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 02:39 AM
2

There is no limit to how open you can be with your emotion imo. I could cry every time something doesn't go my way, but that obviously would not be an improvement to my character. I think it is all well and good to be honest, but the issue is that finding that right line is more difficult than people give it credit for. You could feel at the time that you are fine and you have no need to open up about something, only to find later on that you really did. Or you might find that you made a bug dea…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 02:28 AM
3

Problem is this create legal inequality. Now a women can commit crimes against a man knowing that their punishment will be less than the man's, if he were to retaliate. I am honestly not sure what the appeal of generally lighter sentences is either. There are things I disagree with regarding the legal system, but for those things I do agree with, like theft or physical assault, I'd like to see real punishments dished out and would certainly feel let down as a victim if the person so infringed my…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 02:18 AM
6

Yeah I tend to agree with you. I feel that women are given quite a bit of space to voice their emotions, especially anger. Meanwhile men who act in similar ways are seen as either not being masculine enough or dangerous.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 12:29 AM
3

I think traditional roles didn't give women many options. For the majority of women, doing anything other than starting a family wasn't really an option. And once they started a family they were completely dependent on men (or at least a man).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/19 12:26 AM
2

Life can be difficult, but it doesn't negate the choices you make. I'm not sure I agree with each assertion you made here, for example I'd say the ability to give consent is a reproductive right that men can use or not use to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But let's assume everything you are saying is true, why would it effect black people more?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/09/19 10:40 PM
1

Poverty is highly connected to life choices. In the USA if you don't have kids before marriage, finish high school and get a full time job you are pretty much guaranteed to be well above poverty. I'm not saying historical inequalities like red lining didn't exist and don't have an impact, they do. It just pales in comparison with the effect individual choices can make to a persons life. To say they are the reason black people are shot by police at higher rates is a really long bow to draw. A lot…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/09/19 08:45 PM
1

I agree with your friend, in so much as I think men's rights is like 'white lives matter'. They are counter to common cultural myths, like that women get paid less than men due to sexism, not differences in hours, danger, field of study etc or black men get shot more by police officers due to racism and not inflated crime rates and increased interaction with police. I think it is really funny when people get 'red pilled' on one issue but for some reason don't draw parralels to similar issues. Yo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/19 10:49 PM
2

Well you need to be more specific, I'm not a mind reader. Here you go
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/19 11:42 PM
2

Well that's not what I was going for at all. Ok, so men will still be paying more into the system and getting less out of it. So how is it benefiting men? Certainly not been my experience It is well established in psychology Well, that's not really something we can hash out in the scope of this thread Sounds like you have already decided. A lot of that also is impacted by the gender biases taught to both genders at a young age. Not likely, these differences are noticible across all cultures, fro…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/19 09:43 PM
2

It's not just that. It is that women also use far more services. Also I'm not sure that taking pressure off men to be breadwinners would cause men to earn less than women. I think in part that is caused by agragate differences in personality and taste, for example men are much more disagreeable and disagreeable people are paid more. Men are also interested much more in things and women people, this causes men's skills to be more scalable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/19 09:12 PM
2

Better question, why? Did you just not like your last name, was it bonerman or something? Or did you just do it because your wife cared about it? If the later, why did she care?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/19 12:16 AM
12

Rewriting history isn't doing feminism any favours. It seems to be working ok for them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/19 12:13 AM
2

It's pretty funny when you think about it. Hasbro is going back to the well in making monopoly a left wing social commentary again. Except they are still exactly the kind of corporation I'd expect people on the left to oppose. Hasbro is a testament to the board game market still being closer to the toy market than anything else. And that means marketing is superior to playability, this game seems to follow that formula fairly accurately.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/19 11:55 PM
2

I am generally in favor of less government services because don't think these systems benefit men. For example, I think being a breadwinner for a family is a power and a privilege. That isn't to say that it isn't a lot of work or well earned, just that it does come with benefits. When the government compels child support from men it takes basically all of that benefit and leaves them with all the responsibility. If there is no man to provide for a women and her child the government will do so, b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/19 11:10 PM
2

A stronger social safety net and social programs would help get homeless, which are 75% men, off the streets. Men already pay much more in taxes than women and receive far less in programs. Why do you think increasing the social safety net would help men, overall, instead of hurt them? It would also reduce the burden on men to serve as breadwinners I'm not sure it would. After all men pay a more in taxes and receive less in services than women on average. And women don't just want a breadwinner …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/19 10:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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