TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JasonWaterfall Archive

View 0 posts and 54 comments by JasonWaterfall on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I think this actually looks relatively convincing (from the article, the Freakonomics podcast which also talked it and the fact that John List is a well-known, respected researcher, I have to admit I have not read the paper) and I'm normally very much on the nature side of the nature-nurture debate. Some issues I see: The sampling issues pointed out by femdelusion. Is this one experiment really enough to make broad statements about competitiveness in general? Maybe the gender in charge of the fi…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 02:43 PM
3

Higher education is not a right. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 26: (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 01:04 PM
1

Ok, well if you are actually willing to read the whole book if I listen to the podcast, then I will. I just don't think it is a really fair deal for you, it's seriously a huge book. Edit: Oh, and the book is "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:21 PM
1

The book is like 1000 pages long, but I did give you some of the arguments in it, I didn't expect you to read it. However, this discussion ends here. I've got things to do. Sure, no problem.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:15 PM
-1

Huh? Yes, I am saying "paraphrasing", and yes I rewrote it. I see nothing dishonest about that, I pointed out that I was changing it, mentioned that it was originally about democracy, and I think it's famous enough to assume someone interested in questions like the one being debated here is familiar with it anyway. I was just saying, I feel about governments in general like Churchill felt about democracy, to make my position clearer (since many are already familiar with Churchill's)
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:10 PM
-1

If people opted out, there would be no government, things would be done privately. I mean, if a few opted out, that would be freeriding. But ultimately, if everyone did, then yeah, no government. Correlation does not imply causation. It could mean that something is worth looking into, but that doesn't prove anything. People have also gotten better access to information and communication. Is this fall in interpersonal violence consistent? We know that in some regions of the world, the government …
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:31 PM
0

Ok, I'm honestly not sure anymore what exactly your position is. If your point is that tax evasion is not literally theft, then I guess that's semantics. If your point is that tax evasion is morally justified, then what I'm saying is that if .)the government is necessary for all our well-being, and .)taxation is necessary for the existence of a government, then paying taxes should be seen as a moral duty, since not doing so is free riding on others' contribution. If, in fact, you would call taxa…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 06:03 PM
1

What? I explicitly outlined what the services of the gangster are. They force you to pay up and in return, you don't get attacked by others, or by the gangster, unless of course, you miss a payment. Which is pretty much how the state works. Yeah, I'm just saying what gangster operates that way? Also, if there was a gangster like that in a completely lawless society, I think that would be a good thing. But we already have someone to play that role, and one that is democratically elected. So no re…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 04:45 PM
0

A gangster doesn't really protect you, you just have to pay them so he doesn't do violence to you. And the state can't just make its services optional, because mostly they are public goods, meaning you can't exclude anyone who doesn't pay. For example, if the state has an army that keeps others (states, tribes, ...) from invading, thus protecting everyone's property and life, you can't have people getting out of paying for it by saying they don't need it, because then everyone would try to do th…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 03:12 PM
2

No it's just that he didn't explicitely say that the gap was because of discrimination (though he heavily implied it). From your link: Ultimately, we decided that Obama’s statement that "women deserve equal pay for equal work" was aspirational rather than a part of his statistical claim, so we’re judging him on his claim that women "make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" And that statement by itself is pretty uncontested. Though I think it's no accident that Obama said it like that - it let…
/r/MensRights30/01/14 07:24 PM
2

I see some parallels here with Roy Baumeisters work on sexual economics. But the author is very wrong, I think, about the consequences of making sex a commodity to be traded like any other: As Baumeister shows, it is women who benefit from traditional sexual morality, because it prohibits establishing an efficient market for sex. Instead there is a kind of sexual cartel where if you undercut the agreed upon minimum price for sex, you are ostracized and slut-shamed (or prostitute-shamed, I guess)…
/r/MensRights29/01/14 06:45 PM
2

It's not mentioned in the article, but there is a statistical method to account for all these other factors (multiple regression analysis), and when you do that you get an upper bound of a discrimation-caused gap of between 2 and 8 % or so (depends on the study, it is an upper bound because you can only account for factors for which you have data, so there may be no discrimination at all). The Wikipedia article on the wage gap cites a source from the dept of labor that puts the gap not explained…
/r/MensRights29/01/14 05:45 PM
2

The European Court of Justice ruled a few years ago that you can't discriminate based on gender in cases like this, which applies both when this ban favors men (e.g. car insurance) and when it favors women (pensions etc.). I think if the risk is different, different rates should be allowed, but at least the ruling didn't protect just one gender. Though now that I think about it, men probably lose out overall - pensions are much more economically significant than car insurance or any other kind o…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 09:38 PM
1

Biology seems to have a stronger influence than people think...have you ever heard of the John/Joan case ( http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/13/local/me-reimer13)? After a botched circumcision, a boy was raised as a girl by his parents, operated on, put into dresses etc., but he showed stereotypically male behaviours from the beginning down to little details. This is just one case of course...there are lots of studies on the subject as well. Steven Pinker cites a lot of them in the chapter on…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 11:08 PM
2

I have heard the 80% figure from feminists before and if the article is right, it seems to originate there. That said, I have definitely seen MRAs use it to claim that women have more power than is generally said. Moral of the story: Untrustworthy sources are untrustworthy even if they support your argument.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 04:12 PM
4

Haven't seen the movie, but if it's anything like the book, The Road is a great one
/r/MensRights25/11/13 12:19 AM
1

There is one problem with all this research: It does not establish causality. Fathers and mothers who break up often do so because of certain problematic personality traits that may be (genetically) passed on to children. This could explain the results even if fathers have no effect themselves. I am not saying that it's just fathers that don't matter. The fact is, there is a vast amount of literature (often using twin and adoption studies to filter out the influence of genes) that says parenting…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:14 PM
0

The 10% figure may be true "in some populations", but generally it seems to be closer to 4%: " For studies based on populations chosen for reasons other than disputed paternity (table 1) median PD is 3.7% (IQR = 2.0%–9.6%). While this is not a measure of population prevalence it does suggest the widely used (but unsubstantiated) figure of 10% may be an overestimate for most populations. " (http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long) See also the wikipedia article on misattributed paternity: http:…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:20 PM
1

Right, so it actually primarily hurts men. The article claimed that it hurts women, implying that the fetus is a female victim somehow. The notion that a fetus has a right to life is hard to square with being pro-choice.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 06:02 PM
10

It's not that women are less capable; they simply have different preferences. Fewer women want to work the crazy hours it takes to get to the very top. Board members are selected from the pool of the very motivated and competent. For women, the pool is smaller (see above) One possible outcome is that the board members will not be as good (because the best candidates in a small pool will statostically and all else being equal be worse than the best in a big pool) Another, which I have heard of ha…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:04 PM
2

Evolved behaviour doesn't need to benefit the group to be selected for, it needs to benefit the individual or even more precisely, the spreading of the genes that cause the behaviour
/r/MensRights27/07/13 11:45 AM
2

Noticed that too, another dodgy one is paternity: Men who test for paternity probably already have reason to be suspicious, so the percentage is meaningless for wider society.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:02 PM
2

You're very welcome. I'm not going to say too much about the interpretation of the imagery. It really is somewhat subjective and though I think there are certain psychological principles that would make a lot of men feel about it the way I do, I can't really prove it without a poll. Just one thing: Considering the fact that a HUGE proportion of other advertising celebrates male sexuality to the point of exaggeration, I don't see how an exaggeration the other way isn't appropriate or why we shoul…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:52 PM
3

One of the main criticisms that this subreddit levels at (most) anti-rape activism is that it makes rape out to be not something that a small fringe of sociopathic people do but something that is inherent in male sexuality or at least easily follows from aspects of male sexuality. This leads to campaigns that demonize male sexuality without even achieving their stated goal. This poster is so perfect an example of the phenomenon that I (and other commenters here) thought it was a parody at first …
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:08 PM
1

The original paper by Baumeister et. al. which the article is based on is also very interesting (and a pretty easy, fun read especially for a journal article).
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:46 PM
0

I don't know if he counts as famous, but the psychologist Roy Baumeister has a fairly long Wikipedia article, is an "ISI highly cited researcher" and has made important contributions to many fields of psychology. He has also written the book "Is there anything good about men?" (the answer being a resounding yes) and papers about sexual economics, the content of which seems pretty MRA-y. I don't think he identifies as an MRA, but his ideas fit with the movement.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 02:48 PM
16

Personally, my dislike has nothing to do with the MRM. It's just that most things I've seen from sociology have been unfalsifiable assertions that ignored Occam's Razor and seem opposed to the (in my mind) self-evident truth that culture is the sum of the behavior of individuals. The one sociologist I've had in college was a postmodernist thinker (seems quite popular in the discipline) that was more concerned with the political implications of any theory than its truth-value. When you get into t…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:55 PM
2

How about prostitutes? Or simply single women -- that would make sense actually, the more attractive guys get married and have some singles on the side -- polygamy of a sort.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 09:27 PM
3

There's an anonymous survey by the Kinsey Institute (don't want to look for it right now, but you should be able to find it on their website) that turned up a cheating rate per relationship of about 19% for women and 23% for men -- so men seem to cheat more, but not by all that much. That's relationships in general, but I'm guessing the gender ratios don't change too much for marriage.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 09:24 PM
3

On sex drive, there is a very interesting literature review by Baumeister et. al.: http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf Abstract: "The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking fo…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 10:38 PM
2

"The dating site [AshleyMadison.com], which targets married people looking to cheat on their spouses(...)" Not just any dating website, one specifically for cheaters. This isn't even intended to be representative. And the estimates about the numbers for the general population vary wildly -- I've heard 1% mentioned recently. Still, I'm all for paternity tests.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:51 PM
89

no, that's what would have been implemented, but was blocked.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:34 PM
2

Men do have a stronger sex drive. Here's a literature review by Baumeister et al: http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf
/r/MensRights07/06/13 02:35 PM
2

"But this relies on the false assumption that sexual assault is about sex. It’s not; it is a violent crime that is about aggression, domination, and power." Ah, that old chestnut (can't find a good debunking online at the moment, but Steven Pinker writes about it at length in "The Blank Slate") Interesting article otherwise.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 09:57 PM
2

Most rape victims in the military may be male, but there are far fewer women. As far as I know, the risk for an individual woman is considerably higher than for a man (though probably not by orders of magnitude).
/r/MensRights05/06/13 08:57 PM
1

Might not be much of a paradox; maybe the headline should be : Few kids, therefore strong measures to encourage having them. Which aren't working, apparently.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:26 PM
4

Well, I don't think this is necessarily proof of promiscuous women being lower quality partners. Women and men with only one partner before marriage are probably much more traditionalist / religious on average, and people with those values tend to take marriage more seriously -- the catholic church, for example, does not even recognize divorce. A woman with such views is also likely to marry someone with similar values. In the end, this might just amount to "traditionalists divorce less often". …
/r/MensRights07/05/13 04:55 PM
1

That seems to be the most accurate interpretation considering he explicitly says what he means. Well, no, he doesn’t really say why he wrote the article. He definitely said that there are these women, but he doesn’t say he wrote the article just to prove their existence, and that’s not all he says. Also people rarely explicitly word their most offensive points. Feminists don’t say that men’s issues are unimportant, but it is implicit in many of their articles. The title of the article might be a…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 12:09 PM
1

Well it seems we agree about everything regarding how abusive and none-abusive rape victims should be treated (and I have...diminished sympathy for the former category), but disagree about what message the article conveyed. You seem to be saying that Elam just wanted to prove that cases exist where the rape victim is partially to blame in a moral sense. But I think that the article is implying that that kind of thing happens in a significant proportion of rape cases. You say he is "winnowing it …
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:25 AM
0

I haven't read a softer world in a long time, but from what I remember, it's mostly depressing. So I think this comic is positive about men's rights, saying how tragic it is that society doesn't care about the problems of men. The other interpretation doesn't fit with the style of the comic.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 11:27 PM
1

So which way should we go? Less sympathy for sexual abusers who get raped or more sympathy for our callous jock who got raped? Less sympathy for sexual abusers is fine with me, as long as we acknowledge that this behavior causes a small minority of rapes. As I said, the article is conflating malicious women and women in general, so rape victims who are not malicious would also get a decrease in sympathy. What? Can't really respond to that. Maybe you have another explanation for why Elam focuses …
/r/MensRights26/04/13 11:18 PM
1

I agree, and I'm not one of those people. I have nothing against teaching people how to reduce their risk of being raped. But while Elam did not say that they deserved being raped, he did say that they were raped because they were committing acts that are morally wrong, which seems to me to be an important distinction from the common not-locking-your-car-in-a-bad-neighbourhood scenario. Even if we say they didn't deserve being raped, there is a certain primal feeling of "justice has been served"…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:26 PM
1

The part about men having higher average IQ does not seem to be true any longer. What's interesting though is that it used to be true, but was (deliberately, it seems) obscured in test scores. Can't find the original article about hiding the gap, but here is a source that says there was a gap that's no longer there: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight I agree with your point about the extreme ends of the curve.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:43 PM
3

Maybe you should have included the second part of that second sentence. I acknowledged that there are women that are malicious like the jock, and then went on to say that they are few in number (especially since to taunt in a dangerous situation, you have to be malicious and stupid). I know that Paul is referring to those women. But those are a tiny sliver of rape victims and not the women feminists are talking about when they say women aren't asking for it, so Elam is essentially strawmanning.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:17 PM
-4

Meh, I don't think the comparison with the jock really holds water. For one, that jock is actively malicious. I'm sure there are women who get off on sexually taunting men, but I don't think that that is a common enough cause of rape to be all that relevant to the overall rape discussion. The women Elam mentions in his article who exploit lonely men for beer money? Yeah, they are not the ones being raped, because they are never leaving the bar with those men. And those who go to some guy's place…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 08:47 PM
3

So instead of looking at the circumstances of the individual men who do those things, she just lumps the whole gender together and assumes that they all must lead cushy lives (while being inexplicably violent)? That would be bad logic even if men were as privileged as she thinks.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 08:27 PM
2

Sweeping conclusions from a sample size of one. Actual studies come to different results: "Jeffrey Mogil, Ph.D., is professor of pain studies at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He explains that while not all studies have found sex differences, those which have all point in the same direction that contradicts conventional wisdom. "Females are more sensitive to pain, less tolerant and more able to discriminate different levels of pain than males," he says. This is true in studies of both hu…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:24 PM
3

No, that's bad too...there are a million possible ideals of male behavior. How about "women like (justified) confidence"? It's true, if not the whole story, and it's useful to society and individual men even outside of romance.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 10:01 AM
5

Will we? Dominance is kind of a zero sum game. I don't think a world where all men are desperately trying to out-alpha each other is that great.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 11:00 PM
2

Suffering in silence does not equal strength. And there are large sex differences, but the genders can be different while still being equal in worth. You seem to want to turn back the clock by a century. I don't think the past was some golden age for men. We can do better.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:57 PM
2

Many disciplines are inherently soft, and that doesn't mean studying them isn't important. However, hardness should still be striven for in things like falsifiability, Occam's Razor, etc. The problem with many sociologists, feminists etc. is they want the same respect and unassailability of their theories as in physics, but instead of actually making their methodology better so they are right more often, they just take superficial aspects of hard sciences (such as being hard to understand / havi…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:27 PM
1

Well the gay thing is clearly ridiculous, but the post about "slutty" feminists doesn't win any prizes either -- rape culture is a term defined by feminists, and in their mind it has nothing to do with girls dressing revealingly, so accusing them of hypocrisy for it makes zero sense.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:54 PM
8

Because this stupid has a structure, and understanding it provides insight into gender relations and the way they are discussed in wider society.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:47 PM
0

He said the same thing to men? Do you have a link for that? That would be really interesting, since the whole point of the complaint seems to be that women are "reduced" to their appearance in a way that men are not.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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