TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LacklustreFriend Archive

View 8 posts and 1,028 comments by LacklustreFriend on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,028 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

Thanks for looking into this. I was planning to do so myself at some point. I remember reading a news article saying something like '50 protesters killed' conspicuously not mentioning the gender breakdown despite what is being presented as a gendered issue of a women led protest for women's rights in Iran. My assumption was that the vast majority of those killed would be men, because that's how it always is. Well good to have my assumptions confirmed. Whenever something happens disproportionatel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/09/22 08:55 AM
17

Hate to be a pedant, but it's 40% of college students are men, not that 40% of men are college students. An important distinction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/22 07:06 PM
9

There's an appalling lack of empathy and sympathy for this guy. Firstly, I will say OP is a bit of an idiot for not knowing about common law marriages, which is effectively what he's decided to do without realising it. Which makes his whole point about avoiding marriage mostly moot. I don't expect everyone to know about common law marriages, but if you're at the point where you're concerned about marriages and divorce laws and making decisions about it, you think you would have done some researc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/22 06:28 PM
2

but to push feminism away from any lingering marxist roots it may have had in favour or a more capitalistic form I agree with your general point, but I would make a slight distinction. The aim was to use feminism as a tool to disrupt any materialist socialist movements (labour movements, basically). Feminism still is and was Marxian, just with men and women in place of economic classes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/22 02:43 AM
5

i.e. the group of people constantly derided as being not feminists or even anti-feminists by orthodox feminism. Steinem in had some interesting things to say about Paglia in particular. As much as I like them (I am particularly a fan of Paglia) I very much feel like they're desperately trying to hold onto a label of feminism that doesn't exist. They just have some personal attachment to the term even though their ideal doesn't reflect reality. I don't even think Paglia is even particularly attac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/22 02:36 AM
10

You forgot an extremely large and important argument against it. It would cost an extremely large amount of money, either to individuals or taxpayers, and increasing the overall burden on the heath care system.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/22 08:01 PM
6

Late to the party but there is three general points of rebuttal to this argument without going into too much detail: 1) Men in positions of power do not use that power to benefit men as a whole. They are more likely to use that power to benefit women as a whole. Men's outgroup/gamma bias. These men also don't just exist as individuals, but part of a family and community which includes women. Mothers and wives often have great influence over powerful men. Positions of power often come with duties…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/22 09:02 PM
7

Because, apparently, everyone involved in advocating for men is misogynistic. Of course they think that. When you believe that all the history of the sexes has ever been is men oppressing women, and that the relationship between men and women has only been and can only be antagonistic (until masculinity i.e. men themselves are deconstructed), then of course the only conclusion you're left with is that any advocacy for men is tantamount to a declaration of war on women. What's surprising is the f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 06:37 PM
2

The blacklisting of Earl Silverman's work by feminists. Numerous events discussing male issues being shut down by feminists. Actually one relevant case for the topic at hand is when feminists protested and disrupted a public lecture about men's issues given by the man himself Warren Farrell at the University of Toronto in 2012.(Sorry the original video is gone afaik).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/08/22 05:42 PM
13

I've previously made the argument (which you commented on at the time) that what is generally described as 'feminism' is actually two mutually exclusive ideologies. Liberalism (as applied to women), and feminism. To be more specific, what is often called 'liberal feminism' is just a form of liberalism, and what often called 'radical feminism' is really what makes feminism a distinct ideology. To reiterate - these ideologies are mutually exclusive and their conflation has been a disaster. You use…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/22 03:58 PM
19

I first read The Myth of Male Power quite a while ago, and while I occasionally have referred to it to revisit a choice quote since then, it's interesting to review the book again in full and see how my thoughts have changed since I first read it. I respect Warren Farrell's work greatly, and even though I have some disagreements with his perspective on gender issues, The Myth of Male Power remains the greatest introduction to men's issues, and tentative alternative to feminism, though Farrell do…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/22 02:14 PM
15

Copying an old comment of mine from another sub that is relevant here (it was originally about the Battlefield controversy): The criticism about the portrayal of women in war is only partially based on the literal historical accuracy of the event (this is not to say it isn't important). The other part is the greater social messaging that these portrayals are, to put it bluntly, propagandising about war, gender issues and progressive causes more generally. Rather than war being a bloody horrible …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/22 10:33 AM
18

Yeah, as many people around here have already noted, the female equivalent of the supposed 'best case' (which is bs) for toxic masculinity is internalised misogyny. Gotta love the double standard in framing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/08/22 06:29 PM
41

What makes this discussion more infuriating is that we’re talking about a group that religiously believe in the power of words. Yeah, this is the same ideology that thinks words like 'mankind', 'chairman' and even something completely innocuous like 'history' is so discouraging and even oppressive to women that they must be changed, but somehow calling the force of all evil oppression 'patriarchy' and using terms like 'toxic masculinity' is all perfectly fine, and actually it's men's fault for n…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/08/22 03:30 PM
2

Women also has power and influence in their societies - they also exerted 'control' too. To make this explicit - women are not, and have never been powerless puppets for men, and have always had significant roles in shaping and influencing their community and society. You'd think if a society truly believed in protecting women instead of just using/controlling them they would recognize things like domestic abuse and spousal rape. But that's actually a very recent development. That was also true …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/22 06:32 PM
3

People in power historically oppressed women (I hope we can at least agree on this part) Depends entirely how one defines 'oppression'. I think both men and women are victims of nature, of developing an effective division of labour that brought about the most material comfort for everyone even if it's not ideal. No, I don't think men were colliding to 'oppress' women in any real sense. By and large, men love women (and women love men), and want the best for them. Why are you so reluctant to ackn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/22 11:15 AM
4

I think you need to stop talking to fringe feminists. I'm not talking about 'fringe' feminists. I'm talking about feminist academics, feminist activists, feminist institutions. I'm talking about feminist theory that I have actually bothered to read, and is influential on our society. It frustrates me to no end when people act like these ideas are just fringe when in reality they are the core beliefs held by the most important and influential feminists. That being said, it should be every person'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/22 05:09 AM
4

Feminism fights against telling women and men they should or shouldn't be like anything What a joke! What do you think 'toxic masculinity' is? Feminists are the last group to support a woman who choses to be a homemaker (she's a gender traitor!) By telling women they are becoming too much like men by what... having jobs and gaining economic power aren't you saying that it's men's role to have those things? No, I'm saying that feminism has failed to understand women on their own terms, despite al…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/08/22 06:55 PM
3

I always viewed patriarchy as a statistical overrepresentation of men in positions of power, as do most feminists (it's not so literal, head of the family). This is the motte and bailey. If all it is the overrepresentation, so what? That's literally meaningless, in the sense in that it doesn't say anything meaningful about society. No, the issue is that there's theories about it. It's not just that men are overrepresented, it's that that's inherently a bad thing and that it oppresses women. It's…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/08/22 06:03 PM
3

I think 'patriarchy' is a false theory. That is, it does not accurately describe the relationship between men and women either historically or in the present. Even worse, where as incorrect theories in some fields can be relatively benign, patriarchy theory has been incredibly destructive and has actually harmed the relationship between the sexes. Now, you can massage the definition of patriarchy into your own personal theory, deviating significantly to the actual feminist concept of 'oppression…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/08/22 05:39 PM
3

No, I'm saying that if you actually know what those various groups think, you would know that they have no lost love for MRAs. All you have is anecdotes and some dubious subreddit overlaps that aren't reliable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/08/22 03:45 AM
7

uncomfortable bedfellows of MRAs with overtly regressive, right-wing groups like The Red Pill This is just frankly untrue. The Red Pill and other PUA groups despise MRAs, and do not like them at all. This is immediately obvious to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about and aren't just repeating what they heard fifth-hand. Frankly you're just perpetuating smears from years ago about the so-called 'manosphere' that won't die.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/22 08:08 PM
5

If you are trying to define what it means to be a Christian, or what a Christian believes, perhaps the worst way to go about is to go up to some random person on the street, ask if they consider themselves a Christian and then take their word for it. Most of what they would say would be nonsense from half-remembered from sermons they barely paid attention to decades ago, if they could say anything coherent, logically consistent and meaningful at all that is. And a lot of what they would say woul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/08/22 06:17 AM
3

Isn’t the age of consent in Indiana 16? I believe the state is Louisiana, not Indiana. But regardless there is some ambiguity, because we don't have specific dates, and she might have actually been 17. We also don't know the circumstances: "She says he offered to take her home after a night out at a local restaurant with friends" is incredibly vague and it's not unreasonable to think he might have thought she was an adult. Edit: I've seen some unsourced claims saying she and her friends were (un…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/06/22 12:07 PM
13

When you actually look at the case, the details are very vague and not at all clear. It's perfect rage bait, however, because no one cares about nuance and the actual facts (or lack thereof) of the case. If you actually read the article, the father (alleged rapist) was gained 50/50 custody back in 2010. Then only in 2015 did the mother press rape charges against the father, alleging that she had been (allegedly not just statutory) raped by the father when she was allegedly 16 in 2005 (17 is the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/06/22 06:27 AM
7

I appreciate your comment and it is quite insightful. I have to criticize this comment, however: PS: Also, mother's milk is not better than formula. It would be if we were ungulates, but in primates milk doesn't play a role in the immune system. Human breastmilk absolutely does contain antibodies which boost the immunity of babies. This is a fact. This doesn't mean parents who have to use formula for whatever reason should be demonized, of course, but truth is important.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/06/22 03:46 PM
3

Yes, there was originally a link to a Menslib post in the original post. I can't link it here. You can still find it if you search Menslib.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/06/22 08:15 AM
9

Knowing Better's video on the MRM and Cassie Jaye's film was atrocious. I remember also watching a couple of his other videos ages ago, I only remember I was not impressed and he like many of these video-essayists are pseudo-intellectuals with poor arguments and only a superficial understanding of the issue being discussed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/22 07:35 PM
23

What I find the worst is the blatant hypocrisy of it. They would never accept biology and evolutionary psychology arguments against feminism. They just pick and chose what arguments to use to rebut MRA arguments even if it ends up an inconsistent mess when you put them together. This is pure rhetoric in the worst sense. Completely unprincipled and inconsistent. Edit: While it's already been said, there are just so many straight up falsehoods being perpetuated in that page. The most obvious and p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/22 05:23 AM
31

That post is everything I don't like about Menslib. Rhetoric and intellectual slight of hand, masquerading as rigorous discussion or even scholarship. Where are the OP's citations? This is clearly not an original theory by OP, and he's definitely not presenting it such, but instead presenting it as an orthodox or 'canon' and robust theory of patriarchy. Most of the citations are utter junk, citing blogs and the like (my favourite being the blog used as the citation for patriarchy only existing f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/06/22 10:48 AM
5

Roe v Wade should be overturned because it's an atrocious legal decision with the flimsiest of justifications. Abortion protections should have been past as federal legisation, they clearly had plently of opportunities to do so in the last 50 years. The ends should not justify the means.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/05/22 04:03 AM
11

Yes, the quiet part that is rarely stated explicitly is that they believe anything that appeals to male sexuality is circumspect. To calling something a 'Male Power Fantasy' I say - so what? Let men enjoy their fantasy, which fiction generally is. As you point out, women are certainly allowed to enjoy theirs. But 'Male Power Fantasy' and male sexuality is circumspect because they've convinced themselve it's evil and is driving men to oppress women or whatever.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/05/22 03:44 AM
13

I think it's important to understand history as a record, typically written. The things that needed to be recorded - treaties, tax payments, accounts of dramatic events such as battles - make up the bulk of the historical record. These things also fall within the domain of men. The domain of women - childrearing, the hearth, relationships and community - are things that are not typically recorded, simply because it is unnecessary. This falls into the typical public/male private/female division. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/22 08:55 PM
1

Yeah, I always think there's a hidden racism in how people conceptualize Indigenous Australians and other indigenous groups, especially in the name of anti-colonialism etc. They see them as frozen in time, as if Indigenous culture is static and they can only ever been hunter-gathers in the Outback under the guidance of elders. Moreover, it's often explicitly codified this way, that Indigenous people and culture must remain in this separate and primitive state in perpetuity. And then people wonde…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 08:24 PM
1

No, I mean I think it's ridiculous to claim that the current plight of Indigenous Australians has to do with land rights, and not that the vast majority of Indigenous Australians live in remote locations with little access to education and health services, and economic opportunities, and that hyperfocusing on issues of traditional landownership (custodianship) is anyway a productive way to dealing with the issue. Frankly, I think it's just a free pass for government and organisations to absolve …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 08:06 PM
1

Not on the issue of landownership. And I'm pretty sure there there are groups of people alive today who would rather there be less Arabs in the Levant.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 07:32 PM
3

I agree, why not? That's why I'm in favour of Arabs leaving the Levant, and returning it to the Assyrians and 50 other ethnic groups. I demand the Bantu and Xhosa leave South Africa and return northwards. I demand the Latinised Germans aka the French return Gaul to the Celts. They should acknowledge the rightful owners of the land, from which they stole with no treaty.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 07:20 PM
3

I strongly disagree. I think a lot of problems with sexual relations and the relationships between the sexes we are currently experiences is specifically because a breakdown of sexual norms as a result of 'free love' or sexual liberation. No rules make it harder for everyone to cooperate and is making everyone on edge. In an anarchic system the optimal strategy is generally either be hyper defensive, or a Machiavellian scumbag exploiting everyone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 06:47 PM
1

This seems like an odd claim to make, given the West s the most accepting of homosexuals of any part of the world.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 06:41 PM
1

The simple reason is that those people have absolutely zero perspective, knowledge or understanding of history. Ironically those people who decry Eurocentrism so muchcontinue to perpetuate it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 06:35 PM
4

In my opinion the very idea of "native" itself is very arbitrary and inaccurate, used primarily as a political bludgeon to try and imply that those groups designated as native have a moral right to the land that the "settlers" don't. Hilariously resulting in ridiculous claims like "The Sami are the only indigenous people in Europe."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/22 06:27 PM
3

I've seen a few of A24's films, including Ex Machina. I don't think it's a terrible film, especially in the context this will be many people in the modern audience's introduction into the ideas around AI, if you're familiar with them already yeah it's not as interesting. However, given this thread has highlighted how much of A24's catalogue is women/feminism/misogyny oriented (or social justice stuff generally), it makes me wonder it that was actually the intended theme of the film. Like a 'wome…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/22 05:47 PM
5

It seems to me you already understand the limitations of using anthropology to generalize to human societies. There is a lot of debate over what anthropology is even meant to be, and how it differs from sociology. Historically, anthropology was strongly associated with the colonial mission. Europeans encountered a whole range of new and very different cultures while colonizing, so anthropology was the field of study dedicated to them, as opposed to sociology, which was the study of the Europeans…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/22 12:46 PM
12

I've never understood this argument. Feminism is apparently too broad and diverse group to criticise, yet apparently cohesive enough to be an useful political label or self-identification. If feminism is such a 'huge bag' then what exactly is uniting them to use the same label?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/22 06:29 PM
6

A little bit old but I always love this example for how distilled it is: “Yemeni women and girls are the ones who are truly paying the price of war,” says Suha Basharen, Gender Specialist with CARE Yemen. “The situation for women is extremely difficult. They are now having to step into roles that are traditionally filled by men, because so many men are now being killed or injured or are forcibly disappeared.” Source
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/02/22 01:35 PM
1

Yeah but I think it's a moot point, because in non-Western countries men are also seen as providers, more so. Unless the argument is purely 'material circumstances always trump cultural norms' which is not necessarily something I agree with. There's also a question of single-income vs dual income household. I would assume dual-income household would be more common in the west, though I'm not completely sure how this would affect gender norms.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 02:02 PM
2

Don't you think 'gender equality' is a cultural idea in the West? Don't you think traditional gender norms (culture) is the weakest in the West compared to the rest of the world?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 12:25 PM
2

This is not true. Read the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls convention of 1848. It is essentially patriarchy theory.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 07:42 AM
14

It's just a euphemism treadmill. The name was never really the issue. It's the breaking from feminist orthodoxy. Change the name a hundred times, you're going to still be smeared a hundred times.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 06:08 AM
1

I was being a bit facetious. I meant more that they would never really seriously engage with these ideas, or never understood them. Every undergraduate philosophy student knows of Plato.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 06:04 AM
3

This argument falls apart when you have 'patriarchal' countries like Iran having a higher rate of female STEM graduates than Western nations for example. Unless the argument is that the culture of western countries is somehow has a more patriarchal/misogynistic/bad word culture than Iran or other states, which is seems like a ridiculous argument prima facie.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 06:01 AM
1

Perhaps a case of what is sometimes called a 'luxury belief', i.e. a belief that does not conform to reality but can be entertained due to a high socio-economic status.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 05:58 AM
1

Derrida probably had. Though his work is completely incomprehensible. Foucault, probably not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/22 02:55 AM
2

What do you think about the Frankfurt School, Neo-Marxism and Critical Theory?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/22 11:16 AM
5

The most succinct explanation is Sylvia Walby's 1990 Theorizing Patriarchy. To summerise, Walby believes the identifying social structures of patriarchy are as follows: 1) Patriarchal production relations in the household – “Housewives are the producing class, while husbands are the expropriating class” 2) Paid work – women are excluded from paid and better forms of labour 3) The State – “systematic bias towards patriarchal interests” 4) Male Violence – “male violence against women is systematic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/22 05:46 AM
4

Honestly I would prefer if that comment hadn't been removed, I didn't get to see what as said, and I prefer to engage with these individuals even if they're hostile. The only thing I can tell is /u/breeze_the_traffic wanted a source for what Camile Paglia said - you can find it in a number of online lectures/talks she's give up on youtube, but if you can hold your nose and handle it, here's a discussion she had with Jordan Peterson where they discuss this very topic. As for vague accusations tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/22 06:43 PM
13

A couple years ago I did (critical) overview of feminist patriarchy theory. I think I have come a long way since then, but I still largely stand by what I wrote at the time. I recommend the in-depths posts of /u/oncefa2 or /u/problem_redditor if you want some more rigorous stuff, though philosophy is not their focus. If the problem is with more organised feminist thought, the question becomes: what is the academically rigorous alternative to exploring gender's impact on society? Because feminism…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/22 01:35 PM
13

This is a very complex question, and frankly this subreddit isn't the right place. But I'll make some suggestion. For feminism, the way Camile Paglia tells it (and I think she makes a good case) is that in the 60s and 70s with 2nd wave feminism, college administrators were desperate to get more female professors and students to appear progressive and "good". To this end, they basically conjured up the "women's studies" departments out of thin air, with little oversight and vetting. A significant…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/22 12:04 PM
5

If this was true, it would also apply to postmodernism, right? "Nothing is truth, including this sentence". How is such framework useful for anything at all? This is unsurprisingly the most common criticism of postmodernism - it's self-referential and ultimately self-defeating. Well, the most common criticism is actually that the prose of postmodern philosophers is insanely obtuse, as if to hide the fact that they have nothing really of substance to say. Imagine that! So they discovered there ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/22 02:17 PM
5

Your argument breaks down when you jump from "revealing and challenging power structures" to "critical theory must start with a predetermined ideology to work. Because to "challenge power structures" you must first must have a means of determining what those power structures are. That means you must have an ideological or philosophical framework to use to determine these power structures. This was classically Marxism, but over time this became feminism, black liberationism/nationalism, among oth…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/22 01:55 PM
51

Just in case you were unaware, it is already the case in India that legally a man cannot be raped nor can a women be a rapist. Rape in India law is explicitly a man-on-woman crime. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. §375. Rape. A man is said to commit "rape" who, except case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman in circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- Firstly. –– Against her will. Secondly. –– Without her consent. Thirdly. –– With her consent…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/22 12:18 PM
6

Okay, I'm going to give a highly simplified, abridged explanation because I don't want to spend too long on this, but also because I think a lot of alleged depth and complexity that critical theory and postmodernism has is incredibly superficial and are simply using jargon and obtuse language to obfuscate what is really quite simple and often bad philosophy. Critical Theory The "original" Critical Theory refers to a philosophy closely associated with the Frankfurt School (1970s), which were a gr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/22 05:31 AM
57

Any social scientist worth their salt knows about the social desirability bias, which is particularly prevalent in self-reported preferences. With feminist concepts and ideas being in vogue (men should be more vulnerable/toxic masculinity) even among those who do not call themselves feminists, then there is obviously going to be bias toward that as their reported preference. This works both ways - women saying they're totally fine with vulnerable men, and men saying women like vulnerable men bec…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/22 05:33 AM
31

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the wildman Enkidu is civilised after the temple priestess/prostitute has sex with him. Pretty interesting symbolism if you ask me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/22 07:14 PM
10

Maybe a bit of a cheap shot, but I always found that "I'm a woman so that's why MRAs don't like me" card to be hilarious because it clearly betrays a lack of genuine understanding/familiarity of the MRM, when argubly the most influential MRA is a woman, and there are many prominent female MRAs (or sympathetic to the MRAs) to the point where prominent female MRAs possibly outnumber prominent male MRAs.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/22 05:49 AM
14

More than this, it's seriously ridiculous to me how the atrocities of war get pinned solely on men and how women are exempted completely from their role in it and their often open encouragement and enforcement of the situation. Real convenient isn't it? The Vikings can go raid, murder, loot and pillage and bring back tremendous wealth back to their communities and families, wealth that their wives, sisters and daughters benefit from and are happy to enjoy. But these women never asked or wanted t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/22 04:01 PM
13

But there are definitely also a great amount of circumstances where we can maliciously commit atrocities specifically targeted at men with the specific intent of causing harm, as long as it's the men of an out-group we're attacking. Most definitely the case. But often women of the outgroup get excepted. If you look at the great atrocities of human history, one group commiting an atrocity against an outgroup, the focus is primarily on men. At the massacre of Srebrenica, thousands of men were line…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/22 03:50 PM
10

It's also important to consider that doctors, nurses and other professionals are usually trained to critically examine women's injuries as DV and report it, but generally this is not the case for injured men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/22 04:06 AM
3

I'd been meaning to reply to this for some time. My advice for staying sane: 1) Actually take breaks from Reddit/social media. I know this is just the generic advice, and is often easier said than done, but just push yourself to avoid the site for a week or so. Combine with next point so you don't just "stew". 2) Find non-political, but like minded "hobby" groups. While they're harder to find than they're used to, there's many online communities who still have what I'll call the "old school" int…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/01/22 03:26 PM
10

I think it's still the case, it's just he's empathetic only towards her, which makes their connection and his empathy just that more special. From a cynical point of view it's easy to see why this is "adaptive" or preferred, you want your husband to be willing to take from others (literally or otherwise) to enrich himself and you, but also to be responsive to how you feel and what you want.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/22 06:54 PM
16

I probably could have phrased that second section better, maybe because my thinking has evolved. I think "women's fetishization of men's emotions" is actually women seeking men capable of empathy. When a man cries at a funeral or at the end of Titanic, what he's really demonstrating is he is capable of understanding the (emotional) plight of others and is moved by it. As a potential partner, this is really attractive because it means that he is going to be receptive to the emotions and emotional…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/22 06:01 PM
5

Bad jokes aside, what is essentially being claimed here (and by the vast majority of feminist academics) is that women were slaves, and that marriage was in effect a slave contract. They will rarely (though you do see it sometimes) make this claim explicit, even though it is the logical consequence of their claims of women being treated as property. As to why they rarely make the claim explicit, my best guess is that it is obviously an absurd claim, and results in hilariously large discrepancies…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/21 04:36 AM
2

Anyone know of a pawn shop that has good trade in value for wives?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/21 04:19 AM
1

They're just pretty standard reactionaries.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/12/21 06:37 AM
4

Not to nitpick but: Falsely claim that the bills will make courts place children with violent parents because they "just said 50/50 without thinking" It's violent fathers not violent parents. As if NOW ever has any concern that there are violent mothers that children could be placed with.
/r/MensRights13/12/21 04:01 AM
0

Does it really matter that the specific historical transcendental criteria are not met? Yes, absolutely. The same way conservatives have called everything from liberalism to social democracy or anything left of centre "communism" has completely muddied the waters of politics and worsened understanding of public understanding of politics, so to will constantly throwing around the term "fascism".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 09:59 PM
2

To repeat myself, fascism is quite specific. The spirituality or transient nature of fascism is not that of a traditionalist or Christianity. A pithy slogan and conception like MAGA falls hilariously short of anything that could be considered fascism. Honestly, I doubt Trump is even mentally capable of formulating a fascist philosophy even if he wanted to. Reddit is not really ideal for deep discussion of political philosophy, and most people haven't even read basic texts seminal to the politica…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 09:18 PM
3

I'm not saying I want it lol. When did I ever suggest that? It's just a far more likely outcome than fascism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 08:44 PM
1

Fascism isn't just authoritarianism. It's a quite specific ideology. It necessarily emphasises a national rebirth (specifically rebirth and a new order, not just a veneration of the past). Spirituality and the transcendental is primary in fascism. In fact, Mussolini frequently used terms like 'spiritual' and 'transient' to describe fascism in "The Doctrine of Fascism".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 08:43 PM
2

I am talking about contemporary Latin American-style corrupt democracies (Argentina, Peru etc), not Peronism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 08:30 PM
2

Good news, your wish has been granted and your statement is indeed hyperbolic. If we're talking about a potential failed state scenario for the US, the most likely scenario is a Argentine-esque corrupt democracy, not fascism. The term fascism is thrown around haphazardly now, despite virtually no one understanding what it is. In the words of George Orwell: "the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/21 07:06 PM
8

Even assuming that is true (and that's a big assumption), a society largely run by computers and robots also presents a huge challenge for society in the changes it will bring, and would only exacerbate the social issues mentioned even if it resolved the economic issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/21 02:06 PM
48

At risk of being a "doomer", this is one part of the larger elephant in the room. Virtually all industrialized countries are on their way towards demographic and societal collapse. People aren't getting married, they're not having sex, they're becoming increasingly socially isolated and atomised, the fertility rate is far below replacement rate. It's been trending this way for decades but it's still taboo to acknowledge, perhaps because doing so is admitting that the great liberal project of the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/21 01:55 PM
47

The recent increase is almost certainly due to the increase of "dating" apps and the increased use of social media.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/21 01:48 PM
19

The simple answer is that Mother Nature doesn't discriminate. But really the reasoning that they apply is something along the lines of "women earn less than men, therefore the increased expenses from climate change will disproportionality affect women". The article even cites it in reference to poverty, claiming the majority of people living in poverty are women. The issue with this reasoning is that men and women don't live separate, isolated lives but live in integrated and mutually beneficial…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/21 05:35 AM
2

TheMotte is mostly "grey-tribe" tech-libertarian types (though it's probably a plurality not a majority at this point), so it's not surprising that many people there don't find parenthood appealing. It is a couple of generations removed from Scott Alexander's community, if you're familiar with him. Still, there's a lot of heterodox opinions and good discussion that you find basically nowhere else on reddit, which is why I enjoy it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/21 06:57 PM
55

The biggest difference in my opinion is quality. There are generally more insightful and discussion based post here than on r/MensRights, and MensRights tends to be plagued by low-effort content. Many people point to the differences in moderation, and I'm sure that has some role, but I honestly think it's largely due to population differences, more people generally lowers quality. As for political and ideological differences, I think many people here tend to view gender roles as something almost…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/21 06:40 PM
16

If you accept idea that it's only a modern phenomena, then the logical conculsion then women just started abusing and raping men for some reason recently, presumably in the mid 20th century when credible research began. An absurd question and something I've never seen addressed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 09:20 AM
22

Societally, we’re accustomed to hearing about women being abused by men. Unfortunately, history has given us ample reason to see this as an unpleasant but real possibility. The oxymoronic nature of these two sentences is never acknowledged. They acknowledge that the narrative of just men abusing women isn't true today. It would then logically follow that the same narrative in the past is also not true, or at least circumspect for the exact same reasons that they are today. But this is always con…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/21 08:06 AM
2

The issue is that men don't know how to deal with conflict with women, or female forms of conflict to be more specific. Historically when a woman accuses or demands something from a man, it's a means for other men to take notice and deal with the issue. But when this is placed in the context of public, political conflict, instead there is no way to adequately respond. I've said it before but literally every society judges each other for how they treat their women. Both Western progressives and c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/21 03:04 PM
2

But no matter how friendly to women's psychology the workplace has become, there's only so much that can be done. I think the area where this issue is most prominent is politics. Politics, by necessity, is an adversarial system. You have to be willing to openly criticise your political adversaries. I believe this is why politics is generally unattractive for women, who are more agreeable. I also believe that it can system will be corrupted if we attempt to move away from an adverbial approach. J…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/21 07:39 AM
2

The problem is that colleges and universities still remain our knowledge institutions. The corruption of these institutions is going to, and has already, seriously diminished the capacity of political and social institutions to function. Part of the reason for the madness we're currently seeing is we have a entire generation or two of college graduates who have been fed this ideology with no real pushback, and then these same college graduates go on to fill positions in government, corporate and…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/21 07:15 AM
5

A lot of scholars, probably a majority, aren't full time though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/21 09:25 AM
3

Given that the overwhelming majority of academics are left, it's not surprising. The right are still overrepresented in relation to the number of right academics.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/21 07:58 AM
2

I agree with the broad strokes of your hypothesis/analysis, but like always the devil is in the details. I realise I am going to say many things that are obvious to you and I, but I will say them anyway for posterity. I have thought for a while now that there is some fundamental socio-biological reason for our willingness to care, protect and provide for women, and related phenomenon (female neuroticism, male stoicism etc). I do think evolutionary psychology, and by extension evolutionary anthro…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/21 12:03 PM
1

I intent to reply to this asap, but I need a bit more time to process and think about it first to come up with an adequate response.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/21 07:04 AM
18

I have said many times before that I think the term 'manosphere' is a ridiculous one as it conflates many different groups with vastly different philosophies, and simply adds to misinformation and miscommunication (perhaps deliberately on some people's part). An analogy I've made in the past is describing a 'femosphere', where you lump both Andrea Dworkin and Phyllis Schlafly into the same 'femosphere' on the basis they are both concerned with the rights of women, even though they have completel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/21 04:01 AM
23

Some of those comments are hilarious. This subreddit is not leftwing because there's little mention of unions (despite the fact our focus is on gender issues which unions aren't directly related to)? I see no mention of unions on AskFeminists either, am I meant to assume they're rightwing then? One of the comments tactically admits this subreddit is LGBT friendly, but we just hate women anyway... for some reason, and that the friendliness towards minorities is just a cover to make hating women e…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/21 02:58 AM
16

I have two comments. Firstly, specific instances where women have been asked to downplay their assault for various reasons is no more indicative of rape culture as instances where people have helped cover up or justified a murder is indictive of a murder culture (or theft culture and so on). I'm sorry, but you frankly need to set a higher bar to define something as a 'rape culture'. We, as a society (that is as a culture), absolutely think that rape against women is one of the worst things imagi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/09/21 05:26 PM
3

They'll do the stupid motte and bailey argument again which relies pointing to the fact that the majority of those in positions of power are male, and pretend that proves that the "patriarchy" exists (the motte). They'll ignore how most feminists use the term patriarchy to describe a society how men are unfairly placed in positions of power and primarily act to serve men's interests (the bailey) and how this colours people's interpretation of the term. They'll stick to the motte (men in overt po…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/09/21 05:05 AM
4

Also, I wonder how these people aren't aware that meat and fat carries more calories than vegetables, thus looking at who brings back "more food" on a superficial level is misleading. One word - Protein.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/09/21 04:19 PM
2

Yeah, New York Mining Disaster 1941 by the Bee Gees. There was no actual mining disaster in 1941 in New York, but it was inspired by other mining disasters.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/21 06:41 AM
8

Nice work. It's good to acknowledge that sometimes that law is really messy and not necessarily (or even often) clear cut in any direction. It's fairly common to see feminists assert that while conjugal rights were technically non-gendered, marital rape was very much more of an issue for women than men. The claim is a general historical one from what I've seen, generally encompassing all pre-modern societies. In my comment to your previous post, I said that in pre-modern societies, impotence on …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/09/21 02:54 PM
7

I think part of the issue is how we conceptualise marriage in the past compared to the present. Historically, marriage existed for two practical purposes (ignoring poetic and romantic views for now): 1) An economic partnership between a man and woman 2) A stable social arrangement in which to have and raise children It's pretty obvious from 2), that this requires sexual intercourse. This combined with the fact that sex in pre-modern societies (with few exceptions) was only socially permissible w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/21 05:34 PM
3

In the event of something happening to me, There is something I would like you all to see. It's just a photograph of someone that I knew. Have you seen my wife, Mr. Jones? Do you know what it's like on the outside?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/21 05:19 PM
5

Sorry, I've been meaning to respond to this for a while, but I felt I couldn't do it justice while I was busy. Probably where I differ the most from people on this subreddit (and I suspect you may agree with me), is whether abolishing gender (sex) roles are possible in the first place, and even if assume it is possible, is it even something that is truly desirable in the first place? Many people here are adamant about abolishing gender roles, or if that is not possible, strongly weakening them. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/21 05:17 PM
14

Someone's been down the rabbit-hole before you. https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4h1yff/looking_for_mcdowells_1985_study/ The reason it's so hard to get access to is specifically because it was commissioned by the Air Force. "Forensic Science Digest" doesn't seem to be a general academic journal, but some type of internal military publication (?). It's really not clear.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/09/21 11:56 AM
21

My answer is no. I have previously made a comment where I outlined my objections to intersectionality on a more philosophical level. That is, my objection to intersectionality isn't that men aren't included or that it's "misused" (although that is certainly part of it) but fundamentally it is a flawed idea. I think the idea that different "forms of oppression" are comparable is an incorrect one. There are also objections that others have made where intersectionality is just individualism that ha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/09/21 08:14 AM
27

Yeah it's funny how many comments I see from people that are some variation of: "Now I really want to be clear I strongly disagree with MRAs but [proceeds to take a standard MRA position]" It's virtually the exact opposite problem with feminism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/21 07:46 PM
5

My point is you're minimizing the negative impacts on men. It's not just "men works". It's "men place themselves at in an extreme risk of death or injury". You recognize that there is a trade off of security or liberty, for women, but you fail to recognize there is the exact same tradeoff for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/21 05:06 AM
7

Yes, and men aren't offered a choice either. They don't have a choice to not go out and risk getting shot, or blown up by a landmine. From that article: Muhammad Wali, an adult cousin: Villagers were instructed by coalition forces to stay indoors for three days as they conducted an operation, but after the second day drinking water had been depleted and Wali was forced to venture out. He was shot. Was he not also oppressed? Living in rural Afghanistan is a horrible and inhospitable place to be, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/21 01:34 AM
7

I am simply saying it is alleged because many Afghanis, men and women, don't see traditional gender norms as oppressive. That's all I'm saying. There's no relativism when it comes to people's basic human rights and I can't see how the men in the Taliban respect a women's natural rights. We need to be specific. The Taliban don't respect men or women's human rights here. Which is worse is a matter of perspective. Men are certainly being deprived of their right to life and security of person, and p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/21 01:12 AM
4

I'm not the biggest cultural or moral relativist either, but I think realistically you have to accept that people operate under, and prefer to operate under different values system. Moreover, my objection was more specifically the idea that the system Afghani women inhabit is one purely imposed on them by oppressive patriarchal men, and that they see no benefit or have no support for the system. Even if we agree that, yeah living in rural Afghanistan is a pretty shit life, making the best of a b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/21 11:34 PM
16

Great article. It is certainly the best of the sex-and-Afghanistan related articles I read. It covers most of my major issues with the coverage and conceptualisation of sex issues of Afghanistan. Acknowledging that men make up the overwhelming number of causalities, their dehumanisation, callous violation of Afghani men's human rights, demonization of Afghani men as oppressive misogynists just waiting for the chance to abuse women. However, there is one thing that does remain unsaid in the artic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/21 09:44 PM
7

"50 villagers were killed in the attack, including 10 women and children"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/09/21 08:01 PM
50

I recommend the Prim Reaper's two video series for those interested in this topic: The Hijacking of Higher Education My White Whale (APA Men Guidelines). Prim was a psychology grad student who covered how much anti-male and feminist ideology has corrupted the field of psychology.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/09/21 04:57 AM
1

The 80s and early 90s were a weird time for feminism. Firstly, I have to question how much of the "mellowing" was really due to the success of "non-radical" feminists. I'm sure they played some role, but remember at the same time you had a resurgence of traditional conservativism/Christian right at this time, including figures and events like Phyllis Schafly, Reagan Revolution among others and to say nothing of non-Americans. This probably had a more substantial effect in challenging radical fem…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/09/21 08:05 PM
25

I think there's two separate points here. The first is that men are expected to be stoic. To be more specific, men have to be stoic about their own situations. Men are allowed to display some limited range of emotion, but only in reference to the plight of others (typically women). The classic example is anger at a slight against a woman. A man displaying some emotion over someone else's situation is likely to effect change and therefore useful. A man who is displaying emotional concern about hi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/09/21 07:46 PM
9

Women have problems, men are problems.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/21 02:11 PM
2

This is basically true for most vapid "because capitalism" arguments you see online. The other prominent one is "capitalism is destroying the planet", except planned economies or other forms of communism/socialism weren't exactly known for their environmentalism either (see: Soviet Union and the Aral Sea).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/21 05:04 AM
2

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pdrcfy/what_are_your_hardest_hitting_stock_resources_to/hatxqvl/?context=3
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/21 03:26 AM
2

It is true that generally more men are anti abortion and more women are pro choice, but as you point out the percentages are not THAT different. No it's not. The split is pretty much as close to 50:50 you can get for both sexes, often within the margin for error. If anything, men are slightly more in favour of "pro-choice" then women. I've seen surveys/opinion/polls that show as much. What is true is that women tend to have much stronger opinions on abortion then men (i.e. more likely to strongl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/21 02:53 AM
5

I wish when people discussed abortion they actually stated the specific position they hold upfront. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just really lazy and often inaccurate ways to describe someone's position. I want people to be specific about where they think the limits are. By "pro-choice" do they mean up until the due date? Generally not. By "pro-life", do they mean no abortion even in extreme cases, like life-threating heath issues, or incest/rape? Generally not. Very few people actually hold …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/21 06:56 PM
2

The idea that the fetus has value conditional of the mother wanting the baby is a really fraught and weak position, so much so that I'm almost willing to say it's wrong prima facie. One of the underlying principles of human rights is the fact they're universal and inalienable. Regardless, this isn't actually resolution to the issue, and merely is kicking the can down the road. If the only condition we hold a fetus' personhood to is whether the mother wants them, then this position implicitly sup…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/21 01:13 PM
10

The fundamental issue is that there is no objective, empirical definition of when life (or personhood) begins. Everyone likes to dance around or ignore this fact (usually because it's not convenient politically) despite the fact it is so central to the issue. In my opinion there can be no objective definition, as the question is fundamentally a normative one. We can objectively determine the wavelength of light that corresponds to a particular colour, but we can not objectively determine when a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/21 02:21 PM
3

Do you just want images of campus activities? There's plenty of quotes from feminist (academic) literature that I've read that I can go back and get if you like.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/08/21 08:24 PM
3

The classic left-right political spectrum has always had issues, but I think particularly in recent years it has become increasingly irrelevant. We're entering a brave new world with vastly different economic, social and technological rules, where the philosophical ideas born in the industrial revolution struggle to apply to the information age. Just as new philosophies and ideologies had to thought up to account for the changes in society in the Industrial Revolution, we are waiting for our own…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/21 05:46 PM
3

There's alot of women that would use sex robots giving the chance. Sybian
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 08:20 PM
11

In other words, sex bots are largely a replacement for masturbation and casual sex, not intimate relationship (outside of the fringe). Though, even simply replacing some casual sex is enough to upset some of women's power in the sexual market. Online dating/Tinder etc is know for being brutally in favour of women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 08:19 PM
29

It's pretty straightforward in my estimation. A significant portion of female power comes from their role as "gatekeepers" to sex. Sex robots provide an alternative, however poor, which can weaken women's power in the regard, if only marginally. Of course, this is not how most people would understand it or internalise it. For most people, their aversion to sex robots. is largely instinctual, disgust. Nor is it solely women who have this aversion, though certainly feminist women get the spotlight…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 06:16 PM
3

Yep, though in this context I was generally referring to it in a historical time frame, i.e. in comparison to the 1970s
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 03:53 PM
17

That's only one indicator. Another point is that one of the biggest predictors for divorce is the man losing his job or income. The women losing her job or income has very little predictive power.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 01:52 PM
24

There are actually more and more woman willing to take the provider role. There are more and more women who are working full-time, but does that mean more women are taking on the provider role? They are not the same thing. Consider the fact that even high income women want to date up, leading to ironic cries of "where are all the (good) men?" because women are struggling to find men who outearn them because they are already in the high income bracket.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 01:43 PM
8

Reading through the comments in that thread, there are some good criticisms, but I still think many of the MensLibbers fail to acknowledge and issue criticism on a more fundamental issue. For example, Chuck's assertion that men are physically stronger and dominant therefore they aren't victimised (paraphrased) was criticised on the basis that it excludes weak, disabled men etc. It's as if they don't actually disagree with Chuck's central premise, but are merely critical of his failure to conside…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 08:33 AM
21

It's funny, because this whole incident hasn't revealed anything that people here or feminist critical individuals haven't already said. I guess the difference is they can't handwave it away it as "not real feminism" or "a strawman" when it's coming straight from the horse's mouth.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 06:51 AM
23

I couldn't believe it. Not only is it incredibly ignorant and bad science to have such a narrow focus, it's also incredibly insulting, given how underreported and under-discussed female perpetrated domestic violence is. It seems men's issues are allowed - but only through the lens of academic feminism. Emphasis mine. Are they just figuring this out now?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/21 04:01 AM
15

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The empathy gap towards men means people aren't going to care as much, or believe in the empathy gap towards men. There's also probably a more fundamental socio-biological driver of this behaviour.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/21 06:56 AM
34

The way the situation in Afghanistan has been gendered by the media and the public infuriates me. It is the perfect storm of everything wrong with how we view the relationship between the sexes. Things I've seen that make my blood boil: 1) The failure to acknowledge men are just as much victims in this situation. Men being shamed and called cowards, that it is all the male Afghan army's fault for the situation the state finds itself is in, the constant calls for men to sacrifice and get themselv…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/21 05:56 PM
11

It's also to say nothing of the young boys who are prostituted out and raped, which was tacitly supported by the US government to get the warlords who commited such abuses on their side. But remember the US is there for human rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/21 05:13 PM
7

My other guess would be that of the women killed or injured, the overwhelming majority of them have been caused by indiscriminate methods (e.g. IEDs, missiles etc), while all those who have been killed by discriminate methods have been overwhelming men. Some of the data from the report does suggest this, though its difficult to parse what various definitions mean, making it hard to conclude anything in particular.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/21 04:55 PM
4

The linked report specifies civilian casualties in this case. My guess would be that 75% number would actually be higher if you counted all the men who aren't counted as 'civilians' for the flimsiest of reasons.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/21 04:42 PM
48

I've previously mentioned that at least 75% of all civilian casualties in Afghanistan are men. It's actually hard to get data on this, because data on bad things happening to men is rarely collected. In this case, I have to infer from the data in the linked report, which says 12% of civilian causalities are women, and roughly a similar amount are children (the ratio between boys and girls is also similar to that of men and women, it's mostly boys being killed and injured). How many women are kil…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/21 03:48 PM
3

But it’s another claiming incels or mgtow have nothing to do with men’s issues . It comes down entirely to how you define "having nothing/something to do with" or "associated with". I personally hate the term "manosphere" as it conflates many different groups with vastly different philosophies, and simply adds to misinformation and miscommunication (perhaps deliberately on some people's part). An analogy I've made in the past is describing a 'femosphere', where you lump both Andrea Dworkin and P…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/08/21 07:45 AM
5

"We have no problem hammering into boys from the day they can speak that women are not just body parts" is arguably an evolutionary artifact. Paternalistic attitude and prioritisation of women's wellbeing has been cultural universal, which suggests a biological basis. Sure, it might manifest different, but I think this "willingness" isn't a complete social construction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/21 07:03 AM
2

This behaviour is older than you might think. I remember a while ago I was reading about the conquests of Alexander the Great. Early on in his conquests he lay siege to the city of Tyre, in modern day Lebanon. Tyre was a trading city and had a weak military, though strong defences. When the Tyrian learned that Alexander was marching towards the city and had to prepare for a siege, they send all the women and children of the city to Carthage for safety, while all the men stayed in the city to def…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/21 02:47 PM
3

This reddit post remains one of the more comprehensive analyses of the issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e6w4yc/i_call_bullshit_on_the_false_rape_accusation/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/21 09:20 AM
9

The 2%-10% are proven false allegations of those that are reported to police. The vast majority of allegations (we're talking about 70+% of allegations) are never prove true or false either way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/21 09:19 AM
8

The FBI did adjust their definitions at the behest of MRAs back in 2012. I believe this is wrong, unless you're referring to something else. The FBI changed its definition of rape in 2013 largely due to the petitioning of feminists, specifically Ms Magazine. The definition went from “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” and was changed to the current definition “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/21 08:53 PM
3

I think a close reading of the definition excludes made to penetrate. The phrase "by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim", specifies that the person with the sex organ (penetrating) is not the same individual as the victim. I also tend to believe this wording choice was deliberate, given it was largely changed at the best of feminist organisations (Ms Magazine in particular), though I'm a cynical bastard. But I guess words have never gotten in the way of an interpret…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/21 08:46 PM
12

I don't know, if you look at the front page of FDS, you can see they use a lot of feminist terminology and ideology. Anti-pornography is hardly new to feminism, if anything it's the opposite. Anti-porn radfems ('SWERFs') like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine Mackinnon were super popular in the 80s, and many still are today. It's basically the default position of radfems. Feminism has had long history with allying with traditionalist forces.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/08/21 06:08 PM
9

To be brutally honest, this is kind of the shallow 'analysis' of social issues (gendered or otherwise) that I hate, and doesn't result in better understanding or critical thinking. You have taken a single issue, thought of all the ways it could possibly be used to oppress men or a result of misandry (frankly, a lot of which seem untrue), created a list, then called it a day. It's merely just to promote a 'meme' that men are the oppressed group. This is not dissimilar to how a lot of casual femin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/08/21 04:57 PM
13

When looking an environmental and climate changes issues on a global scale, one concept one should be familiar with is 'environmental dumping' or 'pollution havens'. Essentially it is when a wealthy developed country moves all its polluting and emissions producing activities to a foreign country, so it is no longer produces them on its home soil, while still reaping the benefits of those polluting activities. The most obvious example is China is the largest polluter, but is producing goods that …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/21 06:49 AM
6

While I have no real lost love for MGTOW, I would describe myself as a 'free speech maximalist' (I don't think absolutist is the right term) so I frankly just disagree on the ban on those grounds alone. This also goes for all subs I vehemently disagree with too, such as the previously banned GenderCritical
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/21 08:36 PM
7

The whole premise is flawed from the beginning because men and women don't live isolated lives. Even if they're single, they still have integrated lives. Men and women's actions aren't just limited to themselves, but are often done in response to, or to benefit, others of the opposite sex. This goes for basically every "disparity" between the sexes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/21 08:16 PM
6

Neo-Marxism absolutely is a real philosophy, and is largely synonymous with the Frankfurt School. While it may be true that pure Neo-Marxists don't really exist anymore, their philosophy has been and remains influentual. Notably, one of the most famous neo-Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, had Angela Davis as a student. Davis, along with Kimberle Crenshaw (who is a close college of Davis) are sometimes called the creators of intersectionality or intersectional feminism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/21 11:29 PM
16

Various papers and studies I've seen over the years have reached slightly diiferent conclusions. Some say men have an outgroup bias, no significant bias or a very minor ingroup. But what is clear is men definitely don't a noticeable ingroup bias and certainly not to the same extent women do.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/21 11:20 PM
2

Women paid taxes. Actually not true, historically speaking, though there are a few exceptions like all the phenomenon being discussed. Financial obligation, including providing for the family and tax obligations were placed on men - the women's father, brother or husband. Interestingly, during reforms of coverture in England, when women's assets were no long held in trust by her husband, the reforms didn't actually lift those financial obligations from her husband. So there was a not insignifica…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/21 10:00 PM
2

People generally aren't very good at overlooking their own biases. There's a reason anecdotal evidence is considered the weakest form of evidence, and is largely considered unscientific. (Though I guess if you rebrand as 'lived experience' it suddenly gains legitimacy). Add to the fact this is literally just some random post on the internet, it doesn't look great. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely some value in gathering qualitative data, but there are significantly better ways to go about …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/21 07:48 PM
3

1/ Maybe in this specific case it was, but for the most of human history, including UK and US it was not. Yes it has been. Voting, where present, has be intimately linked to the concept of military service (and citizenship more broadly) all through history. If voting or democracy per se wasn't present, military service was still linked to authority and decision making ability. Citizenship in the ancient Greek cities was linked to military service. Being a citizen (meaning you could vote) also ca…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/21 07:32 PM
2

It may be controversial to say for many people here, but if you actually look past all the bombastic and deliberately inflammatory statements made by Elam, what he actually advocates for really isn't that extreme. It's more accurate to say that he's inflammatory and attention-seeking than extreme, or to put it another way, his methods are more extreme than his actual views.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/21 01:26 PM
4

This is just one other example of how feminism and traditionalism parallel each other (in this case, traditionalist Christianity). The thing is traditional Christian (or Muslim or Mormon etc) actually delivered on the promise of eventually "being rewarded". If you followed the teachings and conformed to the community, you (both men and women) were moreorless paired up with someone through your parents, local matchmaker, religious authority or some other social structure. If not direct matchmakin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/21 08:58 AM
18

Just relabel your 'anecdotal evidence' as your 'lived experience' and now you've got iron-clad evidence! Oh wait, you're male? I'm sorry, your lived experience is actually coming from a place of privilege therefore it's not valid.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/21 04:37 AM
4

I just hate how it’s been abused and appropriated by the “woke” crowd to push counterproductive, essentialist, tribalistic identity politics. It was invented by the woke crowd. It hasn't been abused and appropriated by them. I think the non-woke shouldn't copy the woke terminology, like 'intersectional' and 'ally'.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/21 04:34 AM
1

StupIDPol at its core is classical or orthodox Marxism, which (correctly) identifies wokeism as incompatible with the orthodox Marxism. As such, they already have a name for themselves (Marxists). As for the broader "anti-woke leftist" movement, there isn't really a name. Eventually a name will catch on though, largely beyond our individual control.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/07/21 11:59 PM
1

You might be interested at looking into the writings of Ernest Belfort Bax, a socialist and one of, if not the first recognisable men's advocate and an ardent anti-feminist. He's somewhat of an icon to many people in this sub.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/07/21 11:47 PM
2

Why is it seemingly only the Tories are accused of this, while Labour did the exact same thing with New Labour with Blair and the Third Way with Democrats with Clinton in 1990s (and Hawke/Keating's "economic rationalism" here in Australia and so on). I guess because the Tories are more recent?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/07/21 03:20 PM
2

Ehhh it lasted longer than that. Approximately 30-40 years depending on the country. Reaganomics and Thatcherism signalled the decline of social democracies and the rise of neoliberalism in the West. But my point still stands. There are very few, if any, major left parties in the West advocating for an overthrow of capitalism. The goal of basically all left parties is strengthening the welfare state, with some odd bits of minor nationalisation and such here and there. This is simply the reality,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 07:32 PM
7

True, marxism and leftwing ideals was all about class and not about anything else originally. It's more than that - orthodox Marxism assumes there's nothing but economic class, and views all other forms of social conflict as outgrowths of the class struggle, typically used as a tactic by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat toothless. e.g. elevating racial identity to get black and white working class to fight each other rather than uniting in the class struggle.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 07:19 PM
11

Intersectionality came on the scene only recently, it might have been posited in the 70s De jure intersectionality only came about in the 1990s, introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 07:14 PM
20

It would take far too long to go into detail here without writing an entire essay, but to sum up my objections very briefly: In theory - Intersectionality as a concept was developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw to basically prove how black women were uniquely oppressed. It presupposes its conclusion - that women and black etc are always oppressed. It's not mean to analyze oppression, it's meant to uncover or highlight it. (The question is not did racism take place...) The 'pop' version of intersectional…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 06:49 PM
5

Since when has 'fixing' capitalism been a goal of the left? At the very least since the fall of the USSR, and arguably since the start of the Cold War or even the Russian Revolution (the early 20th century was a tumultuous time). The brutality and authoritarianism (and later failure) of communist states throughout the postwar period (USSR, China etc) destroyed the credibility of the communist project (overthrowing capitalism) in the West. Even the most "admired" of the communist/socialist states…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 06:20 PM
16

I have some disagreements with the intersectional framework, and have criticisms of it both in its theory and its practice. I have a large amount of heterodox ideas around a lot of these social issues. I know that I'm not the only one here who has similar problems. Regardless, the overwhelming majority of people in this subreddit, including myself, are committed to egalitarian and liberal principles that extends to all kinds of social groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 06:13 PM
21

I get where you're coming from but I don't agree. Bernie was the furthest left. Yang had the most novel ideas though, most notably championing UBI.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/21 06:10 PM
4

That wasn't really my point. My point is that all cultures will subjectively portray themselves as moral and their competing cultures as immoral in regards to treatment of women. Muslims certainly believes that women are treated morally within Islam. They don't think "Islam oppresses women and that's a good thing". Or at least they wouldn't put it that way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/21 05:44 AM
10

I saw Karen Straughan who said the "wife-beating was common in the past" myth can be traced back to William Blackstone in Commentaries, at least in regard to Common law. The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemesnors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem; for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere. But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife ma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/07/21 07:57 PM
13

There's also the implication that 'risk-taking' is inherently negative too. There's situations where it can be but also plent of situations where it's a boon. Exploration, scientific discovery, set up new ventures, bravery and more are greatly supported by risk-taking.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/07/21 06:19 PM
7

But don't ya know that the only reason politics and voting was violent was because of patriarchal norms created by men that politics should be violent? /s Remember, everything bad in the past, like war, violence, racism, oppression was due to patriarchy. Every good thing in the past, like the development of medicine, engineering, science, arts, philosophy, was despite or incidental to patriarchy (and probably would have been better if women were in control).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/07/21 07:54 AM
3

The primary thesis of the post is that the narrative around women's suffrage has been subject to an extreme degree of historical revisionism. The dominant narrative you see today is something akin to "patriarchal/oppressive men didn't let women have the right to vote despite women really wanting the vote. It wasn't until the brave suffragettes/first wave feminists challenged the status quo and forced men to grant women the right to vote" The reality is that for a significant period of time, most…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/07/21 07:35 AM
3

How so? Would you like clarification on anything?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/07/21 07:06 AM
10

Also on the "patriarchy" or "internalized misogyny" argument, it really doesn't hold water given that men were more willing to give the vote to women than women were.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/21 08:09 PM
7

I have said in the past, that this is in part a result of the "fetishization" or the presentism of liberal democratic societies. Our societies highly value the right to vote. In some ways it is the highest moral value a political system can have. Therefore, political systems that did not have the right to vote or did not extend the right to certain groups are seen as immoral. The reason I described it as a fetishization is because I think it the right to vote has become the goal in of itself. Ra…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/21 07:21 PM
7

The only somewhat positive change for men I see coming out of feminism is that it has become more socially acceptable for men to be openly sensitive and to wear a wider variety of clothing in some social circles, but that's really the only benefits I can think of. And these benefits only seem to help gay and non-binary males. Why do you attribute this to feminism, and not say, liberalism?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/07/21 06:14 PM
16

Tell Vaush it was capitalism that got women into the workforce and watch his head explode.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/07/21 06:09 PM
4

There is research showing that gay and lesbian families aren't any worse for children then cis families. I wonder, could this be at least partially explained by each member of a homosexual couples inhabiting the role of traditional mother or father? One parent plays up masculinity (butch lesbian/bear gay man) or femininity (femme lesbian/feminine gay man). Even if they don't conform to those roles normally, they fall into those roles as parents. One parent becomes the disciplinarian, one becomes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/21 07:00 PM
8

I really hate the term "talking point". Ironically, "right/conservative talking point" has become a liberal/left "talking point". The validity of a hypothesis is completely independent from the politics of the people advocating for it. It's really an ad hominem attack, because it is basically attacking an idea or argument not for its merit, but who makes it. (It also doesn't help conservative is a relative term) There are plenty of political and social issues that have become partisan not becaus…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/21 06:52 PM
1

I meant libertarian in the American sense, so right-libertarian. I don't particularly feel like digging through years old posts, but I'm just recounting from my own memory of some of the things she's said in the comments she's made on Reddit and some of her youtube videos.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/21 10:15 AM
6

More importantly, I'm struggling a bit trying to reconcile the Rose in this video with the Rose that came across in the Prim response videos. It's pretty simple. It's easy to strawman, misrepresent or even insult someone when they're not there directly talking to you (especially when you're just trying to preach to the choir about how smart and virtuous you are compared to the person you're criticising). When confronted with an actual person in conversation, people actually regain some their res…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/21 09:41 AM
2

Karen is more-or-less a libertarian, or at least has a libertarian outlook on many issues. She actually participated here a handful of times in the early days of this subreddit (I was an early adopter!), where some of these differences came to a head.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/21 09:36 AM
5

From what I've seen, she doesn't challenge core feminist ideas such as patriarchy/historical oppression of women/etc much (If anyone here has any videos where Prim does that, link them, I'd like to watch them). It's not something that Prim often directly talks about, but I think that's more because it's not the focus of the kinds of videos she makes, not because she has no disagreements there. She does have some pretty good criticism of feminism theory (as presented in psychology, her field). If…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/21 06:47 PM
8

I saw Prim's original two response videos to Rose Wrist, and it was difficult to watch. Rose Wrist refused to actually engage with the points made by Prim and was generally just acting in bad faith. The alternative is to not attribute things to malice... which leaves me thinking Rose doesn't have... great critical thinking skills. I haven't watched the debate between them, but I wonder what's the point. I'm surprised Prim even wanted to debate, given she (correctly in my opinion) stated in one o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/21 01:08 PM
15

One of my favourite critiques of feminism is Dangerous Trends in Feminism by gay rights activist John Lauritsen from 1976, and I strongly recommend everyone read it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/07/21 07:29 PM
3

Was it originally intended though, or did they add it in later? Like Rowling and her retcons.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/07/21 09:04 AM
1

I haven't seen Luca but I remember I had a similar issue with Jojo Rabbit. There is a character, Captain K, who runs the Hitler Youth group. Captain K is extremely apathetic to Nazi ideology, to the point where he undermines it, and helps protect Jojo and Elsa, the Jewish refugee. This comes to ahead at the end of the film where Captain K sacrifices himself to save Jojo. But it is also revealed at the film that Captain K is a closeted (flamboyant) gay man, and the implication is that he is only …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/07/21 08:59 AM
4

There isn't one clear answer or reason. It's a complex system governed by a whole range of factors. Honestly, this goes for many things related to sex/gender issues - anyone who tells you it's just because of one thing hasn't thought it through completely or is selling you snake oil. There are both social and biological reasons why men are less afraid of their personal safety than women. Socially, men are conditioned to ignore fear and their personal safety particularly when it means protecting …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/21 11:23 AM
22

She literally ran one of the first womens/gender studies programs at a college. If she doesn't count as a feminist, no one does.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/21 06:23 AM
-1

I would suggest there is at least a partial basis in biology, pragmatism and evolutionary psychology. There is a notable asymmetry in the sexuality of men and women. Women's sexuality is generally seen as more flexible than men, and there's some evidence to back this up. Women are significantly more likely than men to be bisexual. While the numbers depending on the specific study/survey and time, homosexual men make up ~1.5% of men, bisexual men are ~1% of men. In contrast, bisexual women are ~2…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/21 07:41 PM
8

Thanks for having an open mind and engaging with us here. I will say, and I mean this is the gentlest way possible, your ignorance is showing here. I don't really have an issue with MRAs, but some are extremely sexist to women like Roosh V Roosh V is not, and has never been an MRA. He was a PUA, and an extreme one at that, to put it mildly. Roosh has an extremely low opinion of MRAs, and wrote several pieces disparaging them, such as this one and this one. I don't blame you for thinking so, as m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/21 08:17 PM
6

Thank you for the effort post! Just out of curiosity, your previous postings on Reddit have been more-or-less orthodox feminism until now. Was there any person or media that prompted this change?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/21 07:33 PM
1

The more things change, the more they stay the same. You can find similar criticism from the 80s, 70s, 60s. Hell, even before the rise of modern 2nd wave feminism. And this article is relatively moderate as criticism goes. When people make appeals to some previous 'ideal' form of feminism, what are they actually taking about. People want to lump the blame on the contemporary 'third-wave' (fourth?) or 'intersectional' feminists, as if it were all fine and dandy before hand. The reality this kind …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/21 07:34 PM
24

I think the reason I find it so annoying because at its core its denying women agency, which is just sexist against both men and women. Really, what this attitude is saying is that women are basically have no control over themselves or their lives, and that they are nothing more than vessels of the alleged oppression that they've received. It's 'victim of circumstances' taken to an extreme degree. These women just can't help hating men. I often think that contemporary society needs a renewal of …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/21 07:26 PM
5

This is why I prefer subs to have karma score hidden for comments, at least for 24 hours.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/21 06:33 AM
22

We wouldn't make an such exception for any other crime or relationship. No one says you can't mention your friendship with a murder victim.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/21 06:29 AM
2

You say that about the study from Lisak, but you don't explicitly say it about the FBI stats, or as a general case whenever such stats are misused. I was just trying to clarify.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/21 05:10 AM
4

This claim is based on a misquoted statistic from the fbi in 1996 which revealed that 2-8% of rape allegations are false. To be more specific, it's that 2-8% of cases are proven false. The vast majority of cases are neither proven false or true. This post by u/Egalitarianwhistle which criticises a blatantly incorrect MensLib post on false rape allegations is the most comprehensive source on this issue I've seen.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/21 05:03 AM
50

They will also attribute hostility to masculine women to misogyny. Anything 'bad' to do with gender is misogyny apparently.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/21 04:57 AM
2

Because the defining feature of 'incel/nice guy' is their unattractiveness/unsuccessfulness (in addition to their horrible personality), not unrequited love.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/21 04:53 AM
2

'The incel/nice guy type was considered kind of attractive 60 years ago.' That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that they are not 'incel/nice guy', because they are successful individuals which precludes them from being incels.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/21 05:58 PM
1

Not really. I just think you're seeing a change that doesn't exist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/21 04:33 PM
0

Roy Orbison, or any other popular singer can't really be 'a nice guy' or 'incel' virtually by definition, as being an 'incel' entails being completely undesirable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/21 11:12 AM
65

See, how she guilt trips, manipulates and gaslights men and makes them look down upon themselves by saying things that men are inherently violent and how they uphold patriarchy by exploiting, oppressing and using violence on women. I mentioned in a comment on my older post Examining Patriarchy Theory that bell hook's view of patriarchy only leaves a few viable conclusions about men. In order for her theory of patriarchy to make any sense, men have to be one or more of: So greedy, short-sighted o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/21 07:52 PM
6

Most of them (dare I say, all) certainly aren't unattractive, even if they're not particularly attractive. But physical attractiveness is only one part of it - as I say there's the persona of being charming, but also the fact these are high status, successful men. A successful (attractive in the broad sense), 'needy'/heartbroken man is an opportunity for an enterprising women - a catch. An unsuccessful 'needy' man is a creepy pervert/incel/other bad name who just hasn't learnt his place yet.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/21 05:50 PM
22

I would argue that really hasn't changed. Those singers singing about heartbreak pre-1960s were still conventionally attractive and charming, or at least had the persona of being so (e.g. Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby). They're hardly what the terms 'nice guy' or 'incel' bring to mind today. While I'm not super aware of contemporary pop music, there seems still be a tradition of this kind of song e.g Mr Brightside (I know its a little old), but even 'older' stuff like Michael Jackson. Unrequited lo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/21 02:15 PM
15

It's also important to consider that we only got Schumer's account of the incident. If even by her own (biased) account she raped him or at least committed sexual assault, it's likely that what actually happened was even worse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/06/21 06:33 AM
18

Given he was barely able to stay awake/was fazing in and out of consciousness, yes this is rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/06/21 05:09 AM
3

It has some of its roots in Critical Theory, I'm not saying it is Critical Theory. The same way many Marxists hate Neo-Marxism, and many radical feminists hate intersectional feminism. That doesn't mean they don't share philosophical roots.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/06/21 04:19 AM
24

He gained his fame from dunking on moronic conservatives and libertarians i.e. low hanging fruit (those videos are still hilarious regardless). But trying to frame this as a debate just so misleading to say the least. You've got one guy going against three people over the phone, who have vastly more experience with the rhetoric needed for pithy social media debates. The lone MRA has all the burden placed upon him to describe concepts completely foreign to almost everyone, in disjoined 10 second …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/21 06:16 PM
2

Wokeism seems to be an embrace of personal identities on the surface. Maybe at a really superficial level it might appear that way. But to me it's fairly self-evident that wokeism has an exclusive focus on collective identities (e.g. race, sex, sexuality) and how that positions you within society. Your identity places you within a social hierarchy, where black is oppressed, white is oppressor etc. In may ways, these identities under wokeism can only ever be collective, as they are defined in rel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/21 05:20 PM
2

Apologies for the late reply: It's something I've spend a lot of time thinking about in the last couple of years or so - what is feminism? It's something I've commented and made posts on in the past, and I have changed my opinion slightly. My current working theory is this - there are actually two separate and incompatible movements that have been given the moniker 'feminism'. The first is simply 'liberalism' in the classical sense, as applied to women. This really isn't a distinct movement, but…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/21 05:03 PM
3

Peterson is pretty much a bog-standard conservative. But I guess because he's much better at articulating the appeal of conservatism than your average Republican or Tory politician, he's an existential threat and must be tarred as far right or alt right. I disagree with describing woke identitarianism as neoliberal. Neoliberals align with them, because it helps to distract from neoliberal economic inequalities. Wokeism is largely a non-economic ideology though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/21 05:23 AM
2

The problem I have with that video is he misidentifies the ideological roots and underpinnings of wokeism, even if some of his other conclusions are good. Describing wokeism as (partly) derived from hyperindividualism is so off-base, for example.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/21 05:14 AM
6

An interesting read, and I praise the author for putting their voice out there on this issue. However, I can't help but to echo the man in the piece - the author doesn't seem to quite 'get it' even after all that's happened. But maybe she's still tumbling down the rabbit-hole, and trying to make sense of it all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/06/21 05:31 PM
4

In India, the law explicitly defines rape as an act that can only occur against a woman (by a man). Copying from an older comment of mine: This is the case in India where Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines rape as: §375. Rape. A man is said to commit "rape" who, except case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman in circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- Firstly. –– Against her will. Secondly. –– Without her consent. Thirdly. –– With her c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/21 05:41 PM
1

Funny, I wrote a criticism of that paper too a while back and reached many of the same conclusions as yourself and the other commenter, though I did not go into as specific detail, nor do I think it's the greatest analysis I've ever made.
/r/MensRights12/06/21 09:23 PM
4

Neo-Marxism isn't Marxism. It's derived from Marxism, which isn't the same thing. It would be the same as calling Christianity Jewish, which is only true in the most pedantic, meaningless way possible. Many Neo-Marxists beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with 'orthodox' Marxism, notably including a rejection of historical materialism and the importance of material conditions. Terminology can be extremely misleading. You use the term 'liberal feminism' but you don't really describe what you m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/21 07:30 PM
1

I don't know which feminists you are referring to, but I am referring the the radical feminist academic literature of the 70s and 80s which is generally incompatible with the concept of benevolent sexism. This is before related concepts like "patriarchy hurts men too" were developed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/21 07:20 PM
5

My point is that radical feminists don't reject 'benevolent sexism' in the sense they think we should get rid of it or stop doing it, they don't believe benevolent sexism exists in the first place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/21 04:37 PM
3

Say what you will about hardcore feminists. At least they actually put their money where their mouth is in when it comes to rejecting ALL forms of misogyny (even benevolent misogyny) Not really. Take Kate Millet's Sexual Politics which argues chivalry was actually just a form of ("regular") misogyny because it places pressure on women to confirm to high moral standards in order to be idolized. For the "hardcore" radical feminists, they just reject the idea of benevolent sexism out right, and tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/21 01:22 PM
2

In a sense, yes. This is already happening to some extent. We're beginning to see traditional radical feminists (sometimes labelled TERFs) fight against Intersectional Feminists (aligned with 'wokeism'), particularly in the UK. It's really a case of purists fighting against the own outgrowth of their movement. Like Marxist-Leninists against Stalinists. They ultimately come from the same lineage. To oversimplify, Marxism led to Critical Theory which led to Radical Feminism which led to Black Femi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/21 08:40 PM
38

Yes and no. The issue is that there really isn't distinct and separate social force of men and women. Men and women live integrated, reciprocal symbiotic lives. While you might to point to a specific instance or influence as being due to either men or women, the reality is that the relations between the sexes are a tangled spiderweb. I know that isn't really a satisfying answer, but it's the truth. Men and women are both participating in the "game" of society, and both contributing to it. I mean…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/21 07:35 PM
3

Eyy, FriendlyJordies! Didn't realise he was popular on this sub!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/21 07:13 PM
2

She makes note that she can be a criminologist/police officer while also be feminine (wearing dresses, as is the fashion), but the male police officers have no incentive to be typically male and still be good at insert job here. I see this all the time in fantasy and historical fiction, and honestly I find it really jarring if not straight up immersion breaking. Very few writers think critically about the role of sex and gender within the worlds or societies they create. Almost always they just …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/21 10:24 AM
1

I mean, liberal democracies generally have a strong, shared, universal moral foundation in a secular sense. I don't think I explained myself very well. I think the last thirty years or so, and particularly the last ten, have really demonstrated the limits of liberal democracy. While liberal democracy does have moral framework, the issue is that liberal democracies are missing, for a lack of a better work, an element of spirituality or higher purpose. It is completely a materialist (in the philos…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/21 05:02 PM
4

To echo some of the other commenters, I find the left-right distinction become increasing irrelevant in contemporary politics. I think separating economic leftism from social leftism is extremely important. But sticking to the traditional understandings of left-right. I consider myself economically left insofar as I believe that essential industries and natural monopolies should be nationalised, and I'm generally against privatisation without good cause. However, I do believe the free market is …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/21 06:20 PM
2

I'm of the opinion that that vast majority of people in most countries (at least in the West) are moderately economically left, and moderately socially conservative. It's also why I think think the Labour Party in the UK and the Labor Party in Australia have been doing so poorly in elections - their platform is the exact opposite of this, social progressivism (increasingly woke), while adhering broadly (neo)liberal economic policies (increasing just lip service to left economic polices). While t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/21 06:00 PM
8

It's such a loaded question. Why does everyone have to be an activist? Many people who "support feminism" don't do any activist work. Some people are content simply integrating their beliefs into their life, either by discussing the issues with their friends or family, or who they vote for and so on. Is the bar for feminism that low that "raising awareness" is considered a meaningful action. Aren't MRAs also "raising awareness" too? I mean by virtue of the question being asked they must have suc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/05/21 06:31 AM
5

This is true, but you also have to consider that the system is set up in such a way that allows for such abuse. It's one thing to have individual scumbags that inevitably exist, it's another to allow those scumbags to use institutional power to screw over others.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/05/21 08:40 PM
3

Honestly my issue with the MensRights is purely one of quality. It's become a lot of ragebait and lowest common denominator stuff. It used to be a lot better with higher quality posts and discussion. Though this phenomenon is hardly unique to MensRights, any subreddit (or any community) really tends to degrade in quality as size and exposure grows. To be clear, there are still good posts on MensRights, they're just harder to find as you have to sift through large amounts of rubbish to find it, w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/05/21 07:46 PM
4

Those men, more often than not, are married and have families who are all the willing to enjoy the fruits of "men's privilege".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/21 06:12 AM
2

There's also the argument that those dysfunctional traits are actually "positives" in those certains fields. Sociopathy, callous disregard for others and so on are all really good traits to have if you're in a highly competitive, status driven environment. So it's not suprising to me at all that movie producers and the like are generally more horrible than average. Those kinds of people are both attracted to those positions and good at climbing the ladder.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/21 12:23 PM
1

How does it require modern thinking? The archetypal representation is all there. Enkidu represents the wild, nature or uncivilised, while the prostitute or temple priestess as you insist, represents civilisation. Her status as a priestess in fact only reinforces this point, as representing religion, considered a civilising phenomenon. It's still woman tames man, symbolical the civilised civilising or taming the uncivilised. It's not like the Epic of Gilgamesh is the only story to have these them…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/21 05:01 AM
1

I'm not sure how this is a rebuttal of my overall point, rather than just a slightly more detailed retelling of Enkidu.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/21 07:47 PM
4

Yeah I often think that the cause and effect are backwards. Porn and video game overconsumption are the symptom, not the cause. Disaffected men turn to porn and video games, rather than porn and video games creating disaffected men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/21 06:01 PM
13

It's an age old archetype. Men are uncivilised barbarians, who need to be tamed, while women are civilised. More specifically, that women must civilise men and control them, basically through sex (and adjunct things like marriage. This idea is so old you see it in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The gods, send a wildman named Enkidu to kill Gilgamesh, but they end up befriending each other. Gilgamesh eventually brings Enkidu back to his city kingdom of Uruk. But how does Gilgamesh acclimatize Enkidu to c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/21 05:58 PM
14

What is 'MRA ideology'? Can you define it? Can you refer to any sources? I'm not talking about what some random nobody has commented online. I'm talking about something that is widely read and accepted. It's easy to see what feminist ideology is. There's literally an entire academic field built around it. Feminism ideology is fundamentally build around 'patriarchy theory' or that society, current and historic, can best be described as an oppressive patriarchy, or in other words society is struct…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/21 10:51 AM
2

My simple explanation - the vast majority of people are completely politically illiterate. The term 'liberal' is so misused, I think I've seen it used more to describe something that's illiberal than something that's actually liberal in recent years. Yes, I know Americans have a different use of the term, but that only emphasizes my point. If the average person can't even get "liberal" right, how the hell are they meant to get "liberal feminism" right?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/21 02:15 PM
7

How does your professor explain that male suicide is almost universally higher than female suicide in every country in the world, even in those countries with little or no access to guns?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/21 03:44 AM
4

This is in reference to several comments you've made recently about the nature of power as it pertains to the sexes, and I think I might have mentioned something similar to you before but anyway: I always find it so frustrating how extremely limited the feminist notion of 'power' is, which is as basic as "man in visible, formalized position of power, therefore patriarchy" (or occasionally, men bigger than women, so men physically force anything, therefore patriarchy" . Every other field, be it p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/21 03:27 PM
5

I'm not sure if it's what you mean but honestly I think the idea that men should just hire prostitutes to solve their lack of intimacy misses the point. Sure, physical intimacy matters, but so does emotional intimacy that you can only get from a relationship, which I think is the real issue. I think for many ("incel") men sleeping with a prostitute may actually have a negative effect, as hiring a prostitute is in someway the final step on completely giving up on achieving emotional intimacy. The…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/21 05:32 PM
12

Yeah, conservatives ('traditionalists' might be more apt) and feminists actually a functionally identical worldview, and basically have a superficial, uncritical view of the relationship between the sexes. The only difference is the traditionalists see the virtue of the structure in the worldview and want to preserve it, while feminists want to dismantle it, or invert it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/21 04:00 AM
6

I always find it interesting how the conclusion always drawn from these articles is that men need to do more worrying, rather than women need to worry less.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 05:02 AM
15

No. But by atomizing and dividing the issues along sexuality and race, and largely ignoring the gendered aspect, you fail to address the address the broader and underlying issue. The article conveniently ignores how this fits into broader issues of male victimization, ignores female perpetrators (who also victimize gay men), and places a particular emphasis on race as the major causal factor. When masculinity is mentioned, it very much plays towards the 'toxic masculinity/masculinity is harmful'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 01:36 AM
23

I think the point is that whenever male issues are brought up in "progressive" circles it's always couched within other issues. Sexuality, race etc. It's never just men. There always has to be a way to deflect it onto the other issues that fit neatly into their intersectional hierarchy. It's the gay and the black that is relevant to these people, never the men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 01:26 AM
9

Reminds me of this comment from Karen Straughan. Oh my goodness? You're MALE???!!! No male has ever argued harder with me over the idea of female privilege than you have here. No male feminist has ever insisted that he's in a much better position than an equally situated woman. /s You know what feeling I tend to get from hard-core male feminists? You know, the ones who insist that women are grossly oppressed, exploited and abused, and that males are super-uniformly-ultimately-mondo privileged in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/21 09:03 AM
15

In other words, absolute poverty is decreasing and the collective wealth in society is increasing, but the wealth inequality is growing (i.e. Gini coefficient)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/21 06:28 PM
1

In a nutshell, feminists and conservatives teamed up in the 80s in a anti-pornography and generally anti-sex crusade. Trying to make all forms of pornography illegal etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/21 04:23 AM
9

Not to mention all the times feminist groups and conservative groups have overtly worked together. The radical feminists and the 'moral majority' type conservatives in the 70s and 80s were famously buddy-buddy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/21 05:41 PM
3

Historically, cultures featuring a third gender have had that gender apply more to birth males, so it's not just a modern phenomenon caused by toxic femininity. However, men in almost all cultures have been the gender assigned warrior and protector roles, so it also could've been a way to acceptably not identify with the stereotypes of the times. My hypothesis (not entirely original) is that it's a way to get rid of 'excess' men, as a harsh way to put it. Men in the past typically died in confli…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/21 02:47 PM
5

Interesting that the highest recorded preference was actually women for age. I assume this means women want a partner who is older than themselves. I wonder if this is actually an indirect way of stating preference for a man who can be a provider. Social desirability bias is a noted phenomenon in social science research. Many women wouldn't want to admit to preferring a partner because of financial reasons. Even if the study was done anonymously, I assume many women wouldn't want to consciously …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/21 05:42 PM
17

Yes and no. TERFs are only one outgrowth of second wave feminism. I would argue intersectional/contemporary feminism is as much the inheritor of second wave feminism as TERFs are. However my point was more that the same ideological underpinnings of 'woke' can be seen in second wave feminists, even if they are applied to different social groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/21 06:07 AM
22

I generally agree with your overall thesis, but I want to add that 'wokeism' isn't entirely to blame. Or in other words, much of issues of gender politics predate wokeism. There is very much a nostalgia for a perfect previous or second-wave feminism, even amongst those who are ardently anti-woke or anti-contemporary feminism. The reality is that many of the issues we see to today first surfaced in the 60s and 70s. In many ways, second wave feminism was the 'proto-woke' or the first manifestation…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/21 05:31 AM
2

I can post excerpts if you like.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 02:45 PM
15

I personally think it's far more complicated than that, and dare I say, nuanced. I don't think the issue was fundamentally one of equality, but of sameness. That is, men and women were treated differently, but not necessarily unequally. Equality is a nebulous concept, after all men and women are different, have different interests and wants. Therefore women being treated the same as men is not necessarily equal, and women being treated equal to men is not necessarily being treated the same. Even…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 04:29 AM
9

I'm actually reasonably disappointed by this thread. It's clear that most people in this thread, both those who are agreeing and disagreeing with the premise including OP, haven't substantially engaged with the feminist literature. I get it, it sucks and is boring. Hell, even most feminists haven't engaged with it. I hate self promotion but my essay Examining Patriarchy Theory at least makes an attempt to understand the feminist theory. To the substance of the post, it's not inherently contradic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 02:46 AM
5

The wikipedia definition is weak-sauce, and is arguably the 'motte'. Any definition of patriarchy in feminist literature inevitably includes some variation of "dominate/exploit women". https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/f19yrr/examining_patriarchy_theory/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 02:32 AM
6

It means rule by the father or fathers. This is more or less what it meant pre-feminism, such as in Max Weber's work. However, patriarchy has taken on a distinct meaning in feminist theory. The contemporary meaning I think is best described by Sylvia Walby's Theorizing Patriarchy: A system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 02:22 AM
10

I wrote a essay on this a while ago, Examining Patriarchy Theory if people are interested. There are somethings I would change but I think it holds up. What I find interesting about the linked article is it makes no mention of Kate Millet's Sexual Politics which is the text that popularised the term. The article also still seems to buy into the notion that men are distinctly and uniquely sexist against women which I disagree with, even if the article does refute the notion of patriarchy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/21 03:03 AM
6

There are feminists/ social justice advocates who do genuinely believe in creating a better world for everyone regardless of who they are. Not to rag on you specifically, but you could say this about literally every politically, ideologically or philosophically motivated group. Everyone wants to make the world a better place. Or if that's too strong, no one wants to make the world a worse place. The issues is that every group has a different vision of what a better world is. A radical Islamist i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/21 06:43 PM
12

My working theory, which my personal observations align with, is the feminism is just the modern incarnation of chivalry, the latest form in the eternal concern for women. Most 'moderate' or 'average' feminists just use it as a vehicle as such. Underlying presumption about the weakness, powerlessness and fragility of women. Concern over the safety of women, concern over welfare of women, concern over the injustices against women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/21 05:55 PM
4

As I said, your post seems naïve. You have to realize that you're playing a different game than the types who are to proclaim the superiority of "women's knowledge". Simple appeals to reason don't work. When I say it's not accidental, I'm referring to the idea that it's not a simple error of reasoning to be corrected. It's a deliberate effort within feminism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/21 03:26 PM
15

Yeah one of the next most common responses was "this is going to turn them into incels/this will give ammunition to the alt-right". Jesus Christ, what does that say about you when you're more concerned about feminism looking bad and "proving the alt-right's point" than the actual wellbeing of boys. They don't seem the boys as people, just pawns to be molded in whatever they want.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/21 12:46 PM
11

If you want to truly understand Christianity, you don't go up to random (self-proclaimed) Christian and ask them. Their answer won't be very useful. Even going up to a committed parishioner or a common priest will likely leave you unsatisfied. If you truly want to understand Christianity, you should not just read the Bible, but just as, if not more importantly, you should read what the great theologians and philosophers have written about Christianity. They make Christianity into what it is. Hel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/21 09:05 AM
5

Question for the mods given it's topical: Does anyone know what happened to /u/serpentineeyelash ?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/21 11:12 AM
4

I don't really understand how some of this stuff became an accepted academic discipline to begin with. As Camille Paglia tells it, after the colleges and universities began opening up to women in the 60s there was a huge push for universities to get more female professors and students. Desperate to prove how progressive they were, colleges just basically constructed "women's studies" out of thin air, who almost entirely made up of female English professors, explaining the complete lack of scienc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/21 06:37 PM
15

Honestly, this post comes off as a little naïve. The idea that female perspectives are more legitimate isn't accidental, or incidental. It's deliberately baked into to feminist theory (and related critical social justice fields). It appears under several different names, but the most common one is standpoint theory or standpoint epistemology. To summarise it very briefly, the general idea is that knowledge is social constructed, we live in a patriarchy that values men's knowledge (which includes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/21 06:30 PM
12

There is a whole cohort of male Zoomers who were raised by single mothers, taught near-exclusively by female teachers, and have constantly had it drilled into them by education, social media, and society generally that they are part of the oppressive patriarchy, that they should apologize for the sin of being male, while having done nothing wrong. They know first hand it's bullshit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/21 11:32 AM
9

Of all the posts the author could have picked of evidence of "misogyny", she picked one about a man who is having a breakdown from how badly he's been treated. What a joke. The top comments are nothing but supporting and caring too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/21 11:23 AM
15

The views espoused and embedded by CEOs and movie producers were the perspective of capitalists, men asking in a capitalist fashion, not of men as a gender. I think the idea that men don't conceptualise themselves as a group as the same way women do is one that is critically overlooked. Men lack ingroup preferences, if anything they have an outgroup preference towards women. Men don't see really themselves as a collective. In the feminist literature, they describe masculinity or masculine traits…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/21 03:29 AM
5

It is a matter of chivalry and honor for a knight to ensure all ladies of the realm are safe and protected!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/21 04:56 AM
10

I haven't delved deeply into the French side of things, but my impression is that the pushback has basically been limited to Islam, and race as well to a lesser extent. I haven't seen any French public figures pushback against gender in the same way, though I may be wrong and just unaware as a non-Frenchman.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/21 04:25 PM
5

No one should apologize for being a man or a woman or anything else out of your control, which is essentially what "allyship" does. It's a epistemological caste system. Be honest, thoughtful and act in good-faith, but never apologize for who you are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/21 04:18 PM
12

I'm going to be cliché here, but it's really an individual journey for you to go on. Many people, and elsewhere, have gone through similar experiences. Don't feel like you have to attach yourself to any group or idea, that includes here. Developing your own views and thoughts on an issue is important and necessary for growth, no matter your station in life. All I can really do is offer my own perspective on things. I personally don't agree with everything that is said on this subreddit, I hate l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/21 07:59 AM
8

Really great post. Perhaps my favourite one to date. It's clear and direct, has concrete evidence to support it, and leaves little to ambiguity or interpretation. It's a direct case of the disadvantages men face.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/21 04:00 PM
6

Just as we do not hear about injustices against men in Western countries, we do not hear about injustices against men in developing countries. Injustices against men are often degendered e.g. "people", "civilians" or "villagers" instead of men and boys, if they are addressed at all, and there is a hyperfocus on women, to the point of sensationalisation by Western reporters. The is a perception within Western countries that any system that is extremely gendered and oppressive, which the Taliban i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/21 07:51 AM
5

The Taliban are just as oppressive to the men the rule over than to the women they rule over.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/21 05:12 AM
1

What copypasta are you referring to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/21 05:20 AM
7

There's a tendency for people to engage in the "balance fallacy" or essentially "but both sides". I find when these people who show distain for both feminism and the MRM, they're often based on faulty or vague assumptions, like equating women with feminism, equating unrelated "manosphere" with MRAs, or simply have parroting what they're heard second or third hand. Throw in a healthy dose of "Women Are Wonderful" and angry men being scary. Not to say MRAs are flawless, but I find most of the crit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/21 06:25 AM
5

Wikipedia's political and social bias been an open secret for years. One only has to glance at the page for men's rights to see this is the case. Honestly, the whole idea of this thread is a lost cause from the get go, it was never going to be accepted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/21 05:53 AM
3

I personally don't believe in the wave narrative, based on my own reading of feminist texts. They all essentially are based on the same core ideas, and are often just rehashing the same arguments in slightly different contexts. I'm saying if you believe in the wave narrative as it's conventionally portrayed, then third wave's defining feature is intersectuality and it began in the 90s. Either my waveless claim, or the conventional wave narrative, the claim that thirdwave began in the 70s is just…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/21 04:39 PM
3

Not really. There's several problems I have with this. Firstly, I would argue "third wave" feminism doesn't really exist, in the sense the division between second and third wave is largely arbitrary, and they have complete continuity. Secondly, in the speech Lauritsen describes many events and texts that predate 1976, and even occur in the 60s. This is pretty much as far back as you can go in terms of modern feminist history. Sexual Politics, one of the most seminal radical feminist texts, was o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/21 05:34 AM
16

I'd think you'd be surprised. There has been tension between gay men and feminism since essentially the beginning of contemporary feminism in the 60s. I previously came across on Reddit the speech Dangerous Trends in Feminism, 1976 by John Lauritsen, a moderately prominent gay rights activist. He details the ways that feminism has been antagonistic to gay men, but also all the failings of feminism more generally. To highlight the introduction: The early homosexual rights movement and the women's…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/02/21 02:30 PM
11

Modernity, essentially. We are predisposed to care about the wellbeing of women more than men. In the past, this was balanced by balanced by the brutality of nature (and in turn, society). Men and women were pressured or confined into certain roles to make the best of a harsh reality. With modernity, the brutality of nature has been removed, there is no longer to put constraint on our natural bias towards women. Modernity has also atomized society. When people are living disconnect lives, people…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/02/21 03:08 PM
7

I don't remember where exactly I saw this, but life satisfaction has been slowly declining in Western nations since the 60s or so. Women's satisfaction has actually been dropping faster than men's though it's hard to say if this is because women have a higher level of satisfaction to begin with, or that women are more dissatisfied with the contemporary life than men are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/02/21 11:23 AM
1

There are specifically masculine good smelling hair and skin products. Old Spice perhaps being the quintessential example.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/21 05:30 AM
1

What kind of tone and length are you going for? Is it an purely serious/intellectual scripted podcast, or something more casual?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/21 03:30 AM
4

Just wanted to add that bachelor taxes (that is, taxing unmarried men for being unmarried) was a very real thing throughout history, presumably implemented when social pressure alone wasn't enough to get men to marry. The justification being, if a man wasn't doing his duty and providing for a wife and child, he should be taxed so his tax money could. Moral panics about bachelors have periodically appeared throughout history.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/21 03:46 PM
5

Yes, the husband was responsible for any debts his wife incurred. If his wife made a purchase (on credit), and the husband would ultimately be the one liable to pay, and if he couldn't pay, be punished by the state. Karen Straughan has written/made videos about this that are good, but I'll have to track them down.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/21 03:47 AM
6

Probably because, rightly or wrongly, it's seen as lazy self-promotion. If the comment had been along the lines of: "I wrote a book about this issue, you can find it here [link]. I think this part from my book is the most illustrative: small excerpt from book on the topic". it would have been better recieved.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/21 07:45 PM
13

Feminism in theory is, for the most part, sound. What even is feminism though? Ask 10 different feminists and you'll get 11 different answers. Even in your post you add qualifiers "modern day" feminism, as opposed to the righteous and moral feminism of the past. Real advocates of equality like Catharine McKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Sally Miller Gearhart. Clearly they didn't buy into these modern feminist notions of women are always the victim and patriarchy? Clearly somewhere along the line it s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/21 03:18 PM
4

They literally made him the blond bimbo, but male. And I dont mind that tbh, it was slightly amusing/funny. It's somewhat insulting when he's meant to be the counterpart to Janine in the original Ghostbusters. Janine was anything but an airheaded bimbo. She was smart and witty, and arguably the most assertive of all the Ghostbusters. But I think it's more due to it having shit writing and comedy than a conscious attempt to belittle men specifically. The other, female Ghostbusters are similarly u…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/21 03:55 PM
3

I guess this is an attempt to an alternative /r/FeMRADebates? Hopefully it works out, I have felt like FeMRA has been a slowly sinking ship for a while now.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/21 05:19 AM
4

"Toxicity" has largely become a meaningless buzzword anyway. One man's toxicity is another man's justified criticism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/21 05:11 AM
6

It reminds me of a quote from Tom Golden from The Red Pill documentary (might have been the Raw Files). I can't tell you the number of men I worked with whose children died, and they'd come back and tell me, you know, everybody comes home and they come up to my wife and they say "How you doing? Can I do anything for you? What are you feeling?" And they come up to me and they say "How's your wife holding up?" It's as if their pain doesn't exist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 03:45 PM
4

I agree with you, but I also think that it's only recently become a central tenet of mainstream feminism. Not really. It has pretty much always been the case. It was deeply ingrained in second-wave feminism (the wave narrative is also anachronistic/wrong but that's for another time). Kate Millet's Sexual Politics conceptualized the term patriarchy in its modern usage in 1970. Academic and institution feminist literature between then and now is absolutely riddled with the term, if not the concept…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 03:10 AM
1

Ted Bundy was a bona fide psychopath. While this is a crude way to phrase it, but his brain was fucked up. Trying to link his actions to some ideological or social norms is just wrong. One of the key defining traits of psychopathy (or antisocial personality disorder) is the complete lack of empathy for anyone, a lack of a moral compass or conscience and ability. The claim that Bundy's actions were motivated by traditionalism or toxic masculinity or backlash to feminism or anything similar claims…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/21 06:39 AM
8

Ehhh... While I normally love your posts, this one I can't say I do. This essentially the same, flawed argument as "do you believe in/care about equality? Then you're a feminist" I am very much against prescribing labels, so much so I tend to hate even labelling myself. It's a good way to sow division and partisanship. I much rather stick to the issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/21 07:47 PM
1

It's still a position of great power, even if the official powers are limited. One only has to look at Dick Cheney to see how influential a VP can be.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/21 04:39 AM
34

It actually quite interesting to look at the arguments the anti-suffragettes (who were largely women themselves) were making against women getting the vote. My understanding is the anti-suffragette arguments essentially boil down into three key arguments, two of which are related (though there are others). Politics is a horrible, immoral, dirty business that no woman should get involved with lest she be sullied by it. By directly getting involved with public politics through voting, women would …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/21 05:40 PM
10

I hoped for a Sanders/Gabbard administration... it was not meant to be. :(
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/21 04:22 AM
7

I always find the Rosie Batty case bizarre, because the ultimate victim of the violence was the son who was killed by the father, yet the case is held up as quintessential case of violence against women. It's ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy - conceptualise domestic violence as epidemic against women and driven by misogyny, then we find all the cases fit our preconception. If I want to be even more cynical, we as a society perversely want the "epidemic of violence" against women to be true …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/21 04:27 AM
12

The irony is that many of the worst posts condemning the father were saying "wait and see how the media tries to paint this murderous father as a good bloke", as if they live in some kind of alternate reality.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/21 02:50 AM
3

When I was a kid there was a popular book series called The Day My Bum Went Psycho, which featured a universe where bums could detach themselves from their humans and run amok. The series contained just about every bum, poo and toilet joke and pun imaginable. It was a fantastic kid's book. Is this kid's show any different from that book series in vulgarity? I don't know. I assume the question is that whether invoking penises or any phallic imagery or jokes is fundamentally different from bums an…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/21 05:23 PM
6

As I sometimes like to say, these kinds of people like the idea of science. They like the legitimacy and authority the science can provide. They don't actually like science itself.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/21 12:45 AM
11

Or in other words, why is fraud bad in every aspect of life except being fine it comes to tricking a man into fathering a child?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/21 03:39 AM
3

It's precisely, and perhaps counter-intuitively, because of their established masculinity that they can get away with deviating from it. In other words, for already highly masculine, and often high status, individuals, a limited amount of feminine behaviour accentuates their masculinity rather than detracting from it. A display of femininity from established masculine men demonstrates his security in his masculinity, like a wealthy man can afford to waste money to demonstrate his wealth.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/21 03:30 AM
2

Sorry to butt in but I wanted to comment on one of your points! And honestly, if I'm to be perfectly candid I think modern women are abusing that power. They are essentially exploiting society's greater compassion for women to get a whole plethora of legal and social privileges over men. I don't know if this was your intent or not but this comes across as places responsibility and blame on the foot of women, collectively. I think this the wrong way to look at it. Firstly, most people are stupid.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/20 03:00 PM
3

What people, including those who should know better like academics, have failed to realise or acknowledge is that there has been a fundamental schism on the "left". On one hand, you have the "traditional" materialist socialists and soc-dem types who sadly are a dying breed. On the other hand, you have the social constructivist (critical) social justice types. Both groups are called "the left" but they are very much different groups. I would go so far as to say they have fundamentally incompatibl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/20 01:42 PM
8

The thing is, those "rampant politics" are a feature, not a bug. Cleaning it up would imply they actually want rigorous, impartial and objective research. It's clear from reading the literature they don't. Not the best example, but one quote that I have on hand with out going digging is from Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism: And, finally, [using the term] "patriarchy" helps to re-orient our work toward more explicitly feminist purposes, simply because, as we sa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/20 05:45 PM
5

The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. There is essentially no evidence that for the claim that "women were treated as property".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/12/20 05:21 PM
10

This article has been posted previously here, but it's worth reposting. I'll also repost my comment on the article: It's a great article but at the same time it can't help fall victim to the very thing it's criticising. For a long time, women in the West were treated as property Ironic, given at the start of the article they write: In fact, this claim is made with such frequency, and is so rarely challenged, that it has become part of the Left’s catechism of victimhood, repeated by rote without …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/12/20 02:30 PM
3

I'm reminded of the radical communist and Marxist apparent hatred for the family unit, and wishing for it to be destroyed (or at least saw it as necessary). The irony being, the family unit is the most communistic part of society there is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/20 03:50 AM
5

Reminds me of this gem from the UN Women twitter account.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/11/20 05:44 AM
9

What kind of comics (genre) do you normally make? I think the best way to address this issue is through allegory or metaphor. I think directly including feminist critical points will immediately be dismissed by most people. For example, you could have a satirical superhero story (yes I know comics are more than superheroes, but it works and it's popular). Rough idea: A satirical superhero story where a male superhero sacrifices his personal life to fight crime and help society. Let's call him Et…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/20 06:09 PM
1

Don't worry, I sometimes look through the comment histories of commenters who have made good comments too! Also semester has ended recently for me so I'm working on substantial post(s). In the past, most forms of work was incredibly labour intensive and physically demanding. I can't remember the exact statistics, but in pre-modern Europe 90%+ of the population was working agriculture, compared to ~2% in most developed nations today. The portion of the population in pre-modern times who didn't in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/20 02:41 PM
6

It's implied he becomes a mass shooter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/20 03:22 AM
6

The feminists who are "on our side" tend to be excommunicated from the movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/20 02:04 AM
4

Here's a previous thread on this topic that was created by a very familiar user!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 04:47 PM
3

It's a great article but at the same time it can't help fall victim to the very thing it's criticising. For a long time, women in the West were treated as property Ironic, given at the start of the article they write: In fact, this claim is made with such frequency, and is so rarely challenged, that it has become part of the Left’s catechism of victimhood, repeated by rote without a second thought. I'm also reminded of the often used quote from the early socialist Mary Ritter Beard's Women as a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 06:10 AM
12

This is not particularly useful data, or at least for the conclusions you're trying to draw. Ignoring the sample size, the more concerning and obvious problem is you're drawing from a self-selected samples from a specific subreddit, which itself is a part of Reddit. This is going to absolutely and enormously skew the answers. You can use this data to conclude the opinions of the users of samplesize, and maybe very weakly reddit as a whole if you can demonstrate samplesize is somewhat representat…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/20 10:01 AM
3

Two points: Growing a subreddit can be painful. There's a direct correlation (and causation for that matter) between the size of a subreddit and the quality of its posts and comments, regardless of the subject of the subreddit. I've seen it happen to gaming, politics, comedy/meme subreddits etc. As a "veteran" of this subreddit, I've noticed several times where there's been a surge of low quality, rage baity posts as presumably a flood of new users are linked to this subreddit. Eventually a lot …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 11:31 AM
15

As Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about, during the GFC the Obama administration tried to pass stimulus packages for "shovel ready jobs". This was not an attempt to favour men, but as it turns out it's mostly men working in infrastructure and construction etc, among the worst hit industries. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men This is the closest thing to "favouring" men you can find. This caused outrage in women's and f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 10:51 AM
14

The more sound argument is one by Warren Farrell. "Women are human beings, men are human do-ings". In other words, women have innate value due to their biological sex (derived in large part from pregnancy). Men have to demonstrate their value in what they can provide and how they can protect. Women can get away with acting like men because you can't remove the woman's innate value. Men can't get away with acting like women because a man who acts like a woman is no longer producing value, but als…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/20 06:14 PM
16

You can see this most prominently in discussions of paternal leave. One of the most common (and probably primary) arguments for giving fathers leave is that "women will never be equal in the workplace if they're still expected to be the ones to take leave". Putting aside the fact this argument ignores the biological reality of women carrying babies. What really annoys me is that argument should be "men should have as much right to be fathers as women do to be mothers. It is only fair and moral t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/20 06:01 PM
3

As an Australian, I don't get why Americans are obsessed with voter ID. Individual voter fraud (i.e. someone impersonating someone to vote) is such non-issue and has effectively no impact on elections. It's also very poorly scalable. If you wanted to go and impersonate someone else, you'd have to go to multiple different venues, wait in line, and at best manage to get a handful of extra votes. Even you wanted to coordinate with a few hundred of your friends in a conspiracy and all do the same (a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/20 04:12 AM
9

I remember that post, which was an journal article on that topic. I also remember leaving a comment criticising that article, it had a number of problems. "Titanic was an exception" is pretty misleading or incomplete.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 09:11 AM
3

Why though? You say one is worse, but you have really provided any reasoning behind it. As it stands, you're basically just arbitrarily concluding one is worse than the other.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/20 03:57 PM
3

To be frank, if this is a personal project for you to personally learn more about men's rights and men's issues, why do you think a survey/research is the best way to go about it? To me at least, there's a distinction between learning and research.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/20 12:15 PM
9

Isn't this somewhat of an ethical concern? Doesn't informed consent require an understanding of what the research is used for?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/20 11:20 AM
9

Do you mind providing a bit more information on exactly what you're researching?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/20 10:30 AM
3

Why are they trumped by bodily autonomy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/11/20 02:09 PM
3

Even if I'm willing to concede it was a "hotly contested" term back in the 1980s (which I don't think is a fair characterisation), patriarchy is absolutely fully integrated into feminism now, both at the academic and pop/"liberal" feminist level. Can you actually list some prominent contemporary feminist academics who reject the term "patriarchy"? (preferably those who aren't blacklisted by other feminists for being not a real feminist) While my views on this issue have slightly evolved and refi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/20 05:48 AM
1

I cannot speak to Black studies (though given it's connected Critical Social Justice, I remain sceptical of your claims), but the idea that "many academics in gender studies reject the term" is just false. The concept is absolutely ubiquitous (to the point of it being foundational), and what debates do exist around the term within gender studies are largely trivial.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/20 05:04 AM
1

That's not how it's defined in academia at all, unless it's used substantially differently in Black studies than in feminism/gender studies, where the term originated from and is most relevant (which would just emphasis how useless a term it is). From Sylvia Walby's Theorizing Patriarchy (1990), there are six defining social structures of patriarchy: Patriarchal production relations in the household – “Housewives are the producing class, while husbands are the expropriating class” Paid work – wo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/20 04:43 AM
109

Huge irony given that she's coasted through life as a very attractive, wealthy white woman
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 02:26 PM
8

As someone who as made an effort to actually read the absolute tripe of feminist academic literature that passes for scholarship, this is absolutely not true. Just one example, the feminist concept of patriarchy which is now absolutely ubiquitous originates in Kate Millet's Sexual Politics, which is pretty much the seminal radical feminism text.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 11:46 AM
3

No, because humans are capable of using reason to overcome our own bias. Just because we can overcome our bias doesn't mean bias doesn't exist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/20 05:59 AM
3

Somewhat of a copout, but it depends. There isn't one "right way" to advocate for men. It depends on the type of person you are, and the position you are in. Some people are heavily into activism, and have concrete legal goals. If so and you have the capacity do so, consider finding a local men's group (such as National Coalition for Men) and joining them. I personally know I am not an activist type, and at the risk of sounding grandiose, I am much more interested in the philosophy and ideology …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/20 01:56 PM
5

Even rightist xenophobes often play the gays-and-women-card to prove their point. Not my original thought (I think the credit goes to /u/Oncefa2), and this applies more to the "women" part of your statement, but one of the way we judge the "moral value" of a culture is how the culture treats the women in the culture, where the "better" and "more enlightened" culture treat women better, and condemn other cultures for its (perceived) oppression of women. It's why Western conservatives will commonl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/20 11:28 AM
1

I sometimes wonder if the two rhetorics of the red pill (men are the masters of their own destiny, and women are irrational) go hand in hand. It's not dissimilar from ancient "stereotypes" of men and women. What is the best way to convince men to be heroes, to improve themselves, to lead, to sacrifice and even die? Well it might be the best way is to convince men (and women) is that women are incapable in some form, so men better do it because no one else will! I also wonder how much both ancien…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/20 05:59 PM
6

On the contrary, I think a purely sociological cause of valuing women over men is unlikely. To me it seems much more likely that it is at least partly innate, or biological, then obviously reinforced by society or culturally (I prefer the term "socio-biological"). From an evolutionary psychology perspective it would make complete sense why we would have a innate preference for women's lives. I think the Women Are Wonderful effect and the lack of male ingroup bias is good examples of this, though…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/20 05:27 PM
6

It's been removed! Lol. Perhaps for the mere implication that feminist advice is bad and/or women may have some culpability in the poor state of dating and romance. I sometimes wonder if then end result to the MensLib and feminist idea of dating and relationships is some neo-Victorian strict codes of courtship. After all, it fits what the MensLibbers and feminists are looking for: strict behavioural codes (particularly for men on this case), safe environment for women perhaps with neo-chaperones…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/20 05:03 PM
1

I think using a spiritual or supernatural view as the basis for defining religion is extremely limiting, and really only good for the layman. Most sociological theories of religion is far more nuanced. Under the "supernatural" definition, some religions may not actually be religions, i.e. some forms of Buddhism, Daoism etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 03:49 PM
1

How would you define a religion then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 03:32 PM
2

Why do you think made-to-penetrate is not included in that definition? What is the moral reasoning behind it? Do think the exclusion of made-to-penetrate from the legal definition of rape in many countries affects our perception and understanding of male victims?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 03:27 PM
2

How do you define rape? Is rape not forcing someone into sexual intercourse against their will? Why would this not include a man who is made to penetrate?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 03:13 PM
2

Yes they can, and also blackmail too. So if a man is blackmailed, or drugged, or otherwise forcefully coerced into sex (made-to-penetrate), why is this not considered rape?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 02:50 PM
3

What about situations where blackmail, or drugs, are used to force someone into sex? Where physicial strength isn't a relevant factor. Should this be considered rape?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 02:41 PM
5

Why do you think made-to-penetrate is not defined as rape?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 02:27 PM
5

Your first link doesn't work. The CDC NVDS is actually a good example on how statistics and definitions can be abused to make male victims invisible. The CDC considers "rape" and "made-to-penetrate" seperate acts. In other words, when a woman is forced into sex by a man, it is rape, but when a man is forced into sex by a women, it is not rape but "made-to-penetrate". If you consider "made-to-penetrate" instead as rape, as any sane individual would, then the victimisation rates become very compar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 02:15 PM
5

The major one being social constructivism/blank slatism being the only way to discuss gender. But in the race context, critical race theory is increasing the only way to look at race. Universalist, objective, liberal and/or rationalist approaches to gender and race are being removed. The Duluth model is the big one when it comes to domestic violence, along with the related predominant/primary aggressor laws. Murray Straus' Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 10:12 AM
7

Students aren't being "taught gender studies" they're being taught theories that originate in, or have been adapted from gender studies. These theories aren't just some minor amusing sideshow. They have been in academics for decades and have been leaking to other fields. It seriously effects the quality of education and the range of idea being discussed. It doesn't just end at academics either. They do change things. These critical social justice policies move from the universities to public ins…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 08:42 AM
7

I cannot speak directly to the elementary/primary school level (though I've heard things through the grapevine), but at the university level here in Australia it is quickly becoming pervasive in pretty much all areas of social science/arts. Whenever you hear "a gendered approach to X" what it really means is "how is the evil patriarchy fucking over women in this situation?". Most social science subjects will dedicate at least one week to the "gendered" aspects of whatever is being studied, if no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 07:28 AM
5

It's also silly because it used to be the exact opposite, where men were given custody because they had financial responsibility, but was changed under the Tender Years doctrine promoted by suffragettes or proto-feminists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/20 03:17 AM
9

What annoys me as well are the people who are willing to "concede" that there are distinct physical differences between men and women (I guess complete denial is ludicrous for most people to accept) but somehow think that sexual dimorphism would just arbitrary stop at the brain and sexual dimorphism couldn't possibly be a factor in psychological and social differences between men and women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/20 05:49 PM
2

Saying there's "no religious gene" is a reductive argument. Plenty of innate human phenomenon don't have "a gene" either, doesn't make them less true. To say there's nothing inherently religious about humans requires a working defintion of religion. From a Durkheimian definition of religion, then human beings absolutely are innately religious, where religion is simply a set of beliefs and principles to give moral value (defines what is sacred). Critical social justice can very much be seen as on…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/20 04:23 AM
2

But if you oppose CRT, you must be a fascist! /s
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/20 04:12 AM
4

Are you not familiar with James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/20 11:56 PM
4

While I greatly admire and appreciate what they have done (what NEEDED to be done), I find myself disappointed by Lindsay and Pluckrose when they discuss feminism. They seemingly want to lay all the blame at the feet of intersectional feminism in the 90s in the role of critical social justice, and more or less absolve 2nd wave feminism, with a sort of handwave away the role of 2nd wave radical feminists as not really mattering that much, even though the racial feminists were very much a precurso…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/20 05:02 PM
18

The point isn't there are literally no women you can compare to Mozart or Jack the Ripper, the point is that it is the same "mania" in men (or to be pedantic, is more common in men) that leads them to be both great achievers and crazy psychopaths, why men are overrepresented at both ends of the spectrum. It's pretty obvious in the context of the quote.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/20 08:04 AM
2

Yeah there's a huge irony when it's compared to other developments in political science. In other (non-woke) political science fields, there is increasing emphasis on non-traditional sources. Contemporary (or evovled) theories in political stress the role of non-formal and non-traditional actors, including news media, cultural norms and traditions, social pressure etc. in creating political outcomes. Hell, it was well understood as far back as the 1920s or earlier, such as Max Weber's different …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/20 07:47 AM
1

Yeah probably but he's only one of a few people discussing the role of ideology today, which I think is critical to issues we're currently seeing today, so I'm a little overenthusiastic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/10/20 05:54 AM
3

Just wanted to agree the Peterson and Zizek 'debate' is great. A must watch if you're interested in the role of ideology in contemporary politics. Zizek is also perhaps the most important leftist public intellectual today, his talks/interviews are fantastic, even if at times he's a bit incomprehensible.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 05:00 PM
15

The term "toxic masculinity" has been frequent topic of discussion on this subreddit (hotly debated!). If you're interested you can search for the term on the subreddit. I think there are many good arguments against the term, but I'll leave you one question, why is it called "toxic masculinity" when the equivalent term for women is called "internalized misogyny"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 02:36 PM
3

I have not read 12 Rules For Life, but I have seen a decent amount of Jordan Peterson's other media, so I'll answer the question more generally about him. Jordan Peterson is probably one the best "steelmen" for conservative liberalism (though I doubt he would label himself as such). His "Maps of Meaning" lecture series on Youtube is actually quite compelling, and he clearly knows what he is talking about in his home field of psychology. However, I think Peterson takes some major intellectual sho…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 02:21 PM
6

The problem is that experiences are anecdotal evidence, and thus unreliable by nature. Personal experiences should be used to illustrate an argument or point, but not be an argument in of itself.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 01:52 PM
14

To be more specific about why I dislike the concept of allyship, it is because it is essentially ascribing one's ability to make arguments for and advocate for a position based one's innate characteristics. For this reason, it is illiberal. If you can understand the issues and can make well reasoned arguments using evidence when necessary, that is the only thing that matters. While I can't say for certain the term originated in critical social justice (aka "wokeism", emphasis on critical, as sep…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 01:08 PM
12

The mission statement of this subreddit listed on the sidebar does a generally good idea of the issues and views of people here, albeit not everyone here will agree completely. Thanks for taking the time to engage. If you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them, though I can only really speak for myself and I dislike labels. On a side note, I strongly disagree with the concept of "allyship". If you are willing to advocate on the behalf of men (or anyone really) that's really all th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 12:11 PM
1

https://web.archive.org/web/20160601224113/http://harvey.binghamton.edu/~hist266/era/cott3.htm https://www.jstor.org/stable/684629 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3234930 https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/lieq1&section=7 Albeit these are written from a feminist perspective I don't know if you have access to journal articles or not for the last 3, apologies if you don't. Eleanor Roosevelt's opposition to the ERA is pretty commonly know. Any work that discusses her a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/10/20 02:17 PM
3

Having looked at the removed comment I don't really see why it should be removed. It was a stupid basic conservative argument about "the evil porn rotting minds", but I would rather err on the side of freedom of expression, and rather have people argue with them why they're an idiot and downvote them if necessary.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/20 04:29 PM
2

I don't know much about explicit men's rights songs, I don't much if any such music exists, but I find much of classic rock deals with many themes and issues common to men (or "men's issues" as such). A popular example is say, Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. While it is an anti-war song (among others), I would argue it's also a decidedly masculine song, in the sense it's directly speaking to the experience of men in the Vietnam War and arguable men in general. Maybe this is a little too "…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/20 05:59 PM
5

This sounds pretty gay.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/20 02:42 PM
1

Uhh, thanks?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/20 06:46 PM
3

It's a major problem with the feminist conception of patriarchy - it's mutually exclusive with any kind of matriarchy. Patriarchy is all-encompassing and eternal. By definition, a society cannot be both patriarchal and matriarchal. I don't have any problem with the term patriarchy/patriarchal per se, as long as it's scoped and defined appropriately, and matriarchy/matriarchal is used too. For example, we may say that formal/overt positions of power like government were historically (mostly) patr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/20 04:36 PM
5

This is not a new phenomenon. When the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed, it faced fierce opposition from feminists, particularly labor feminists. Famously, Eleanor Roosevelt strongly and publicly opposed the ERA.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/20 04:28 PM
2

Statistics on deaths due to obesity or being overweight are hard to parse due to the fact that obesity is an extremely common comorbity to basically every other kind of 'natural' death. Heart attack, cancer, liver and kidney failure etc This is less true for starvation and malnutrition, but still has somewhat a similar problem, with malnutrition being a comorbidity too. That being said I think from an ethical standpoint there is a bigger onus to prioritise addressing hunger than obesity generall…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/20 11:55 AM
5

Pointless social media pandering that doesn't actually achieve anything.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/20 03:10 AM
4

Yeah and now the focus on Breonna Taylor has put a nail in the coffin to any discussion of male issues. Interesting how the "George Floyd protests" have now become the "Breonna Taylor protests".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/09/20 03:55 AM
5

But why do you prefer the label feminist instead something like egalitarian? I'm not talking about radical feminists - even adopting the "simple" label feminist presupposes a certain worldview or outlook on gender (ideological principles/philosophy, as it were), it's rooted at the very core/origin of feminism. Namely, belief in the feminist conception of patriarchy, or at the very least that women have been/are oppressed (largely) unidirectionally (women "have it worse" in a nutshell).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/20 06:47 PM
5

Genuine question, but why would want you label yourself a feminist if it wasn't to align yourself with the associated beliefs and believers ("baggage")? Isn't that the whole point of adopting a label? Like I get not wanting to adopt a label, it makes sense you don't agree with the (majority of) other who use that label. It seems like you want to use a label but aren't willing to have what label is associated with used against you, which just frankly seems like wanting to have your cake and eat i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/20 05:56 PM
9

There's a description I can't exactly remember, perhaps someone else has seen it and can source it. I think it was from the Renaissance (Petrarch? I may be completely wrong), but the general gist of it was a description of life in a city, where the author describes a (male) butcher working away in the city, caked in filth and blood from his work. His wife walk by, beautifully dressed in jewellery and make-up, paid for by the butcher's labour. For the husband, his wealth and status was indicated …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/20 02:31 AM
4

A bit late, but I made a comment about this in r/FeMRADebates, but to basically sum up, that specific claim in the report was based on the testimony of a single feminist journalist who conducted her own non-peer reviewed study that a significant portion of was qualitative in nature. The journalist also has a working relationship with NPR on these issue, the very publication now reporting on this federal report.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/20 05:37 PM
6

It seems unlikely such a study has been done, given that marriage status is typically not something present on a CV. Though perhaps in a job interview it might matter if it's revealed, maybe a visible wedding ring.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/20 05:25 PM
8

"They're right, but we can't let anyone know they're right!"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/20 05:17 PM
11

In some ways Jesus is the embodiment of the masculine ideal (or at least a masculine ideal. Jesus metaphorically (or literally) took the sins of others on to himself, took their burdens and was selfless as one could be. This fits closely with what is expected for men as a protector - Jesus was the ultimate metaphysical protector. You can make a similar argument with Buddha. Men's lib types have a weird warped caricature of ('traditional') masculinity where it's like a cross between a uneducated …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/20 06:26 PM
3

Thanks, you're like an encyclopedia with all your references!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/20 12:27 PM
19

Luckily for us, our good friends the marketers, advertisers and the business community collect a lot of data on consumer spending, which I think is rough approximation of the beneficiary of income (though obviously women are not spending everything on themselves, just like men are not earning everything for themselves.) https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2020/02/10/how-womens-eco…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/20 01:58 AM
8

Honestly I think you're being far to optimistic. I've heard some horror stories about men trying to get therapy, where the therapist if anything would just make the patient's mental state worse. Maybe in your area therapists are great and professional, but sadly there are many who are not, or simply just don't understand men's issues. Good therapists do exist, but they can be very hard to find.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/20 03:23 PM
10

I'm going to remain sceptical. I've seen and investigated similar claims about the Mosuo people and their social structure that didn't hold up to scrutiny well. In general, I find scholarship on gender to be severely lacking. If I get a chance I'll look into that study. Edit: Additionally, the author seems to be taking a hardline social constructivist view which is just patiently unscientific which just furthers my scepticism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/20 12:38 PM
15

Yeah many feminists say that patriarchy was spread because of western colonialism, and that many pre colonized peoples did not have strict gender roles. I always found this claim hilarious, because it's clear people who make this claim have little knowledge of history. I had a feminist friend of mine who is ethnically Indian claim that prior to the British colonisation, most of India was actually matriarchal. I guess if you ignore the Mughals, and all the other Islamic Sultanates, and the Rajas …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/20 11:42 AM
3

It's something I've about for a while now. To be slightly more nuanced, I believe that feminism is the result of changing attitudes to gender (women in particular, and not the cause. A strong piece of evidence is that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 in the USA was signed into law the same year Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was published, which is often cited as the beginning of "second wave" feminism. On a side note, I wonder if the Equal Pay Act actually achieved anything, though not in the w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/20 11:29 AM
2

mostly because the women you speak of do not sound like real human beings, but some demonic beasts with no empathy, sympathy, and conscience. Do you mind elaborating on this? I'm not quite sure how you got this impression, it's certainly not the impression I get from this subreddit as a "veteran". Though to answer your question, it's something I've thought a lot about and continue to develop my thinking on, but I see men and women as complementary and mutually beneficial forces. Don't worry, I d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 04:55 PM
8

I think on a simple level is that women (and people in general) have an ideal that they hold that conflicts on how that actually act. People perceive themselves as better than they are. Think of a college student who rallies for environmentalism or anti-capitalism but still engages in unapologetic hyperconsumerist behaviour. In the context of gender roles however, men actually can express emotion - it's just that men are only expected to express emotion on behalf of someone, and generally in a w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/20 04:00 PM
3

The one I found particularly egregious was this one. I often see people who tweet support going "Men are trash! that includes trans men UwU" and its just.. I mean yeah but that's a weird way to support us if you are just going to find woke ways to dunk on an oppressed group.. Emphasis mine.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/08/20 06:26 AM
10

The problem with this thread is how the OP still continues to use men as a scapegoat. The OP isn't interested in how misandry generally is rampant in the LGBT community, they're only concerned with transmisandry and seem to be more than willing to throw (cis)men under a metaphorical bus. They fail to see how the hatred for trans-men and cis-men are ultimately from the same place, instead more concerned with navigating what their personal identity is up the oppression ladder. I also think it's ir…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 05:43 PM
3

A trend I've noticed is that when people talk about a man who acts poorly towards women is seen as indicative of men or society ('patriarchy') as a whole, while a women who acts poorly towards men is seen as an isolated incident or unusual behaviour.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 08:34 AM
1

We need to question, add nuance to, the notion that men are inherently violent. I think the current societal spotlight on male predators and abusers, in the home, in workplaces and institutions, means we have to offer men and boys a reassurance that they're not naturally some kind of monster. That this is not the way it is "supposed" to be. Traditionally (and I would say correctly) this anti-social behaviour has been the consequence of barbarity, or a lack of 'civilisation'. It's a product of ma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/20 04:58 PM
29

I chose blue for the background because that's the color associated with the Democratic party in the US That's really only in the US where blue is associated with the "left" party. Pretty much everywhere else red is associated with the left, and red in particular being associated with the labour movements and socialism. I think red is a more appropriate colour.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/20 01:52 PM
7

Yet I assume if you use Margaret Thatcher as an example of why a women should or shouldn't lead a country these same people would flip their shit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/08/20 02:24 AM
8

The scientist in me is screaming internally about how many ways the data could be flawed or biased. Though there is a nasty habit, which is present in the comments that thread, only critising or explaining away data in a way that conforms to your prexisting beliefs. Thay being said, it may have contain some redeeming information. I do think there is a cruel (one might say dramatic) irony in the Women are Wonderful effect causes people not to believe in the Women are Wonderful effects (or qualify…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/20 04:48 PM
2

Another quote that's been posted here before that would fit right in at the beginning: “Yemeni women and girls are the ones who are truly paying the price of war,” says Suha Basharen, Gender Specialist with CARE Yemen. “The situation for women is extremely difficult. They are now having to step into roles that are traditionally filled by men, because so many men are now being killed or injured or are forcibly disappeared.” Source
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/08/20 04:09 AM
2

Here is another source: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/02/when-men-are-victims-of-domestic-violence/ Edit: A more direct source http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2016/11/8/appointment-of-feminist-group-to-aid-male-family-violence-vi.html
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/08/20 05:44 AM
5

I've often thought about what 'power' is exactly. It seems to me that much of the debate on the link between power and men/masculinity employs somewhat circular reasoning. That is, power is defined in terms of what men have, therefore men have all the power. But what about power in context of femininity? Is a social expectation of protection and immunity from misdeeds not in itself a form of power? Not to mention sexual power and other kinds of feminine power. I'm wary of any claim that one sex …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/20 03:06 PM
1

The term 'patriarchy' in some form can be traced as far back as the Romans. Patriarchy as a society as used in feminist theory is a relatively modern concept, created by Kate Millet in the 1960s. At a stretch, you can argue the concept originated in the early 20th century from Max Weber, but they way he used patriarchy is different to how feminists use it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/20 08:04 AM
5

Then how exactly was the media dominated then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/20 05:17 AM
4

Are you asserting that all media during that period was made to appeal to men? That's grossly inaccurate. Look at all the movies and magazines produced during that time. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz were made only to appeal to men. The 60s with Beatlemania.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/20 06:33 PM
7

From these studies we can at the very least make the weaker conclusion that the man as head of household is generally a thing of the past, and we need to start teaching men self-respect, boundaries, and standing up for themselves, like we do for women. I find the assertion that "men as a head of a household is generally a thing of the past" and odd one, because it's making the assumption that this is only a recent change, despite not having any evidence for it. Their own research should being ra…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/20 02:52 PM
8

There was a time when nearly all media was dominated by appealing to men. What/when do you mean by this? If you go back to say, Ancient Egypt and Greece, the most common form of art was found on pottery and other domestic decoration, which were largely the domain of women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/20 07:57 AM
14

For those who haven't read it, Examining Patriarchy Theory is a post of mine from several months ago looking at the feminist theory. I agree completely that patriarchy theory is at the heart of 21st century feminism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/20 05:09 AM
2

True, but when people refer to identity politics they're generally referring to identity politics guided by critical social theory, 'critical identity politics', which is all of what is being discussed under identity politics.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/20 05:02 AM
8

It's the same old double standard. Liberation for women, traditionalism for men. Using paternity testing is upending who we are, the sacred tradition of man as unquestioning provider and protector, but any of the countless medical or technological inventions that were instrumental in women's liberation are apparently just fine.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/20 06:05 PM
3

Then why make a distinction between mothers and parents? If you read the entirety of the statement, you'll notice that any mention of men or fathers is completely absent, despite BLM being originally founded against the injustice of black men being killed by police. The one time they do mention men, it is of course to highlight how they can be harmful to women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/06/20 10:32 AM
3

That was my point, that the BLM statement is conspicuously leaving out fathers. "...to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/06/20 10:19 AM
2

I'm talk about the statement from the website in OP's post.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/20 08:16 AM
1

It's very much a borderline rule 6
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/06/20 05:52 AM
7

I think we need to be clear with definitions here. I think many comments here are using a too broad definition 'nuclear family' (and the BLM statement seems to also be abusing such a term by using it to exclude fathers). Nuclear family refers to a very rigid family structure of the cliche 'father works full time, mother stays home full time, two children, stereo-typically a boy and girl'. The nuclear family has been on long decline. I don't really have a problem with the decline of the nuclear f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/06/20 05:49 AM
2

3th wave feminists largely define themselves as 'sex positive' What exactly are you referring to? Because while there may have been a general trend of increasing open sexual activity, I don't think this is a trend in academic or institutional feminism, but just in society in general. As was mentioned in this and the other thread, sex positive "won" the public opinion in the 90s. For example one of the most prominent feminists texts of (so-called) third wave is Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth can ha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/20 06:56 PM
3

It's not strictly an "IDpol" definition, there are very real situations historically where a numeric majority has nevertheless been a minority in terms of political or social influence. The Sunni demographic minority historically having rule over the Shia demographic majority in Iraq for example, where it would have been accurate to describe the Sunnis as the political majority. Now, I don't think women are a minority, but I think it's important to have more critical rebuttals to such an argumen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/20 02:12 PM
21

It's not really poorly chosen. It's a very deliberately chosen term. Especially in the context of feminist/patriarchy theory, the terms reflect exactly what they mean quite well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/06/20 05:09 AM
7

Two things: Firstly, to paraphrase Warren Farrell, hero is a social bribe to get boys to risk their lives. Many of the male gender roles that are considered prestigious. Many jobs like the military are presented this way so boys will be willing to go into them. Also, consider all the male roles and jobs that aren't considered prestigious (e.g. sanitation worker, construction etc) Secondly, traditional female roles did once have prestige. A well run household and family, with a strong matriarch w…
/r/MensRights04/06/20 04:53 PM
12

As others had said, it was originally accompanying a genocidal (androcidal) call to reduce men's population to 10% by feminist professor Sally Miller Gearhart. The full quote is "the future - if there is one - is female."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/06/20 05:46 AM
11

It's kind of a double bind where the best way to argue for male issues is place them second, and being unable to actually use the data demonstrating the bias against men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/20 04:19 PM
6

Many forms of FGM were historically called female circumcision. I do think the name does have a significant factor on how it is viewed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/20 11:17 AM
7

Comments like this are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/05/20 05:08 AM
10

The two most significant (but by no means the only) examples are Mary Koss' exclusion of male rape victims (labelled as 'made to penetrate') on her own and CDC studies, and Ms. Magazine lobbying the FBI to change the defintion of rape to one that still excludes male victims of female rapists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/05/20 05:04 AM
1

I agree to some extent, but if COVID-19 has demonstrated anything it seems to be people seriously value personal safety and security over freedom. In the past more so I imagine.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/20 08:09 AM
2

No, I mean the thread from months ago, like at least 4 months ago if not more. When this is issue was first raised.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 04:04 PM
3

To be frank I don't think lonely's description of that old thread from months ago is completely accurate, though I can't find it now, I remember it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 03:47 PM
3

In a ideal world, it should be self-evident that male genital mutilation is wrong and should be banned. The lack of consent, the reduced sexual pleasure, the underlying trauma which is still horribly understudied, the unnecessary risk for severe medical injury or malpractice. All these reasons should be standalone reasons enough for MGM not only to be banned but be considered culturally unthinkable. The (relative) severity of FGM should be irrelevant to MGM, as MGM is ethically wrong on its face…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 12:32 PM
4

I was told under explicit terms that this was MensLibs mortal sin outside of being pro-feminist. Come on man, don't construct a strawman. The issue is the type/medium of the post, not the message or opinion expressed in the post. This clearly apparent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 10:04 AM
2

Pretty much. I personally don't like labels and generally avoid identifying myself with any. I guess if I was pressed I would say I am as much a feminist as Warren Farrell and Camille Paglia are (I'm only half joking).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 05:43 PM
2

I don't agree with using the feminist label because you're just perpetuating the myth that "feminism is just about gender equality", albeit at a small scale.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 11:19 AM
8

Both terms were lifted from academic discourse and then popularized/mutilated via people talking out their asses. There's a valid reason for the term, but it was never "designed" for popular use by people who apparently don't actually read or understand context. You can toss "patriarchy" and "intersectionality" in that group as well. I hear this all the time. "They have legitimate academic use!", said by people who have never actually seen the academic use, or at best a sanitized version of femi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/20 05:13 AM
2

I'm pretty much on the same page as you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 06:13 AM
6

I like Jordan Peterson so far as he's very much the "steelman" for conservative liberalism/traditional conservatism. I think anyone who wants to understand why conservatism has appeal today (or argue against it) has to understand Peterson. I think too many people dismiss him wholesale without actually trying to engaging with his arguments.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/20 05:48 PM
3

You could always just do a blanket ban on crossposts, but sometimes there's genuinely good crossposts. Maybe just a blanket ban on any image macro/meme. Basically anything that doesn't foster a discussion. Perhaps limit to self posts, and links to articles or other text based medium outside of reddit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 07:24 AM
5

I would support a rule banning low quality ragebait. I know some people will see this as censorious, but the distinction I'm making is that the type of post is being banned, not the opinion behind the post. Same way you would just bad all image macros/memes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 07:21 AM
13

I will say in this subs defense, this is an acute and recent development, and it's largely due to flood of posts by a handful of users, one in particular. I mean, this very post is indicating this is abnormal and we want it to change.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 07:19 AM
8

The difference is you were/are actually trying to foster discussion. The user largely in question just spams constant ragebait,never comments, is a young account. It's so bad literally half the front page of the sub is that one user.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 07:18 AM
5

You can always wear a messenger bag or a satchel (like Indiana Jones!)
/r/MensRights28/04/20 06:17 AM
25

There's a general snowball effect in Reddit, particularly on the large/"default" subreddits. The view of the comments posted and upvoted early/first set the tone for the rest of the thread. As a certain view is more popular, it will usually be the first one presented in comments, but occasionally another view will "get in" first.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/20 04:43 AM
1

Right. Your comment was somewhat ambiguous. I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would be wary of oversimplifying the issue as being generational.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/20 04:25 AM
5

It won't be. If Biden wins "a return to normalcy" is a return to the same situation that caused Trump to be elected in the first place. If Trump wins, well it's 4 more years of Trump and we'll be in the exact same place 4 years from now as we are now. And without Sanders. The system is broken, and it has been for a very long time. It's why I think Biden vs Trump is a false choice, as they both symptoms of that broken system.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/20 04:10 AM
3

One point I remember where Warren said "biological propensity", and Vaush made a strange face implying biology was a no-no word when it comes to gender fpr him.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/20 03:04 AM
6

Popped in for a few minutes. My brief impression that Vaush is largely unfamiliar with Farrell or most MRA/Egalitarian arguments as Vaush seemed generally surprised or shocked (maybe in a disagreeing way) at some things.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/20 06:41 PM
2

It's a pretty easy read. Nothing in the book will be suprising to someone who's already familiar with men's issues. It is a little dated now, but given it was written in 1994 is holds up well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/20 06:38 PM
12

It has 7 upvotes, and while it's not a huge amount, that comment is definitely representative of that subreddit. Regardless, stuff like this is just unproductive ragebait and I would prefer not to see it on this subreddit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/20 04:33 AM
5

As opposed to the female dominated financial and heathcare dominated sectors which don't have government support and kickbacks?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/20 06:59 AM
4

They're not mutually exclusive catagories. She's both.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/20 05:09 PM
3

The left-right political axis is severely limiting. The original post is a demonstration of that. I conceptualize ideology into rough groups. There are the three modern political ideologies (or perhaps more broadly "schools of thought") - liberalism, socialism and fascism. Then there is the pre-modern ideology which I'll broadly call "traditionalism" (natural or "divinely ordained" hierarchies such as religion based social structures or aristocracy in the 19th century context). Conservativism is…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/20 05:08 PM
5

What I was really objecting to was your nonsense take on political ideology. If you're participating in a left wing sub then don't expect all that rubbish to fly. You clearly don't have a solid understand of left political thought.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/20 04:47 PM
16

You're clearly not left-wing so I'm not sure why you're here. As a marxist ideology, This is a myth that needs to stop. Feminism/Patriarchy Theory is not a Marxist ideology. It is an appropriation (or I like to say, a bastardization) of Marxist ideology. That's a really important distinction. Marxist philosophy is purely a materialist philosophy. That is, Marxist ideology specifically describes economic classes and material conditions. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of Marx is that h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/20 10:27 AM
12

Shoe0nHead, ArmoredSkeptic, Chris Raygun and The Prim Reaper are all good left or left leaning "antifeminists" on YouTube. Edit: if you want a pure Marxist (and more intellectual) critic of identity politics, there's always Slavoj Zizek.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/20 06:28 AM
6

To paraphrase Warren Farrell, the title "hero" is a social bribe to get people to sacrifice themselves. A title all too often use to coerce men and the lower classes alike to sacrifice themselves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/20 04:58 PM
6

So what actually defines the "manosphere" then? Because you're not making any clear delineations, which is kind of my point. It's a term that malleable to whatever the user wants it to be. At best, it can be defined as groups "concerned about men or male issues" which is so incredibly vague as not really convey substantial meaning.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/20 06:17 PM
3

Is this subreddit part of the "manosphere"? The MensRights subreddit? MensLib?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/20 06:09 PM
6

Any previous use the term may have had is ultimately now redundant in my opinion. I mean the equivalent would be like labeling radical feminists and Christian women's groups under a "femosphere" because they're both vaguely about women's issues. A hypothetical equivalent femosphere would include both Dworkin and Schlafly which just shows how useless such a term is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/20 06:04 PM
9

Can these "journalists" or "pundits" at least do the bare minimum research about the MRM before writing these absolute garbage articles? Jesus Christ, at least watch The Red Pill documentary. Manosphere is a completely useless and shit term only seriously used by two groups - feminists who wish to conflate completely different groups so they can paint them all as misogynists, or by fringe awful groups who trying to attach themselves to more legitimate groups in order to try and leech some legiti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/20 05:36 PM
9

Oh yeah, they really skim over on issies disproportionately and uniquely affecting men of marginalized groups. I'm not sure what you mean here. The authors' point was that we never conceptualise the issues that happen to minority men as to do with their gender, only other parts of their identity (e.g. race or sexuality). It's something I've commented on a few times in the past. For example, "Black Lives Matters" was presented as purely a racial issue, ignoring the very gendered aspect, male vict…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/20 05:23 PM
14

Did you forget to switch to an alt account or something?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/20 05:39 PM
5

I assume Strikester is refering to this post from months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/eh3myl/a_study_on_maritime_disasters_and_wc_first/ Of which I only remember because I left a long comment criticising the study!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/20 03:34 PM
11

True, though I imagine the chronic malnutrition the peasants experience would probably have just as big of an impact.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/20 02:57 PM
14

Of the five children born to Louis XIV and his Queen, Maria Theresa, only the Dauphin survived. Queen Anne of England, desperately trying to produce an heir, gave birth sixteen times; not one of these children lived beyond ten years. Peter the Great and his second wife, Catherine, were to produce twelve children, but only two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth, reached adulthood. Even the Sun King was to lose his only son, his eldest grandson and his eldest great-grandson, all prospective kings of Fr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/20 02:44 PM
3

Do you mind explaining what you mean?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/20 02:32 AM
14

Firstly, MRAs, as a movement, do not hate women. I would say that the MRM as a whole is at least somewhat critical of feminism, which is often incorrectly conflated with women. Just to be clear, feminism and women are not the same thing. Women refers to a group of people. Feminism refers to an ideology. Criticizing feminism is not crticizing women. Most problems men face are not "just" caused by other men, but society at large, of which both men and women are apart of. Both genders have been his…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/20 08:35 AM
1

The fact you jump to that rather than actually addressing arguments say more about your attitude to constructive dialogue than anything else. Empirically they are? How to you empirically prove that one difference is more substantial than the other? Aren't you just ascribing a subjective value to how relevant the difference is? I think also the difference is more substantial that you think it is. In this friendly public debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, I think makes demonstrates…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 09:44 AM
1

Is that meant to be an ad hominem? Why would those be differences be any bigger or smaller than physical differences? How big enough does a difference have to be before it justifies a "double standard"? If the difference in physical strength between men and women were half as large, would they still justify your double standard? The actual differences are quite small. It really depends what you mean by 'small'. The differences are large enough that some fields would not reach gender equity in re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 09:23 AM
10

I think Biden, like anyone deserves the presumption of innocence and due process. However, while I remain sceptical at this point in time of any "serious" sexual misconduct, clearly Biden is someone who struggles with boundaries. Maybe it's because of his age (senility) but Biden's conduct with voters and children is not okay.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 09:17 AM
1

Do you think then the field of evolutionary psychology has no merit? There is a bulk of scientific literature which strongly suggests that that some personality and cognitive differences between men and women are innate. I find Steven Pinker to be quite compelling on this issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 08:52 AM
1

Okay, do you mind elaborating? Which ones are you referring to? Would it be incorrect to say men are generally more assertive and less agreeable than women due to innate factors?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 08:31 AM
2

Why is this limited to a physical attribute and not mental/personality ones?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 03:53 AM
2

I'm just going to throw this question out there - is possible that it isn't sexist due to the there's still level of physically required for those jobs? Like handling large animals. That men are accepted despite being female dominated because women are more than happy to let men deal with physically taxing tasks? I see a similar situation with hospitals desperately wanting male nurses because they want them to deal with unruly patients. I don't know if this is true, but I think it's a good topic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 03:19 AM
5

To be critical (and somewhat flippant), this comes off as too much to me as "just have sex". You say yourself you don't really know what changed, you just have a vague notion. It raises the question, did you change your outlook which lead to sex, or did sex change your outlook? Because it seems to me it's more of the latter based on what you've written. I mean your whole "transformation" was based on 'getting lucky' on a dating app, which is either impractical or undesirable for many men for a w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 03:10 AM
5

This is a major reason I can't get behind the Greens as an Australian. I'm sticking to Labor Left. While Labor Left also has its problems with "gender equality" approach, it's not as bad as the Greens have become.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 02:51 AM
4

It's not actually clear that the higher fatality rate is actually due to immune response (biological), or societal conditions. I'm honestly sceptical of any claim that it's (only) biological. Men are less likely to see medical attention/more likely to prioritize others. They are more likely to undertake strenuous activity even when sick, and men are generally are in poorer health to begin with (e.g. alcoholism).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 12:34 PM
2

I make a distinction between civil and negative. Telling someone for example"Your argument is intellectually backrupt and has merit and you consistently use fallacies. You are actively hurting people" is negative, but civil. I'm not saying every comment was perfect (I mean, I pretty much said so in my first comment). That was clearly the worst comment out of the numerous other ones. At least complete the whole quote "Kindly go fuck your civility argument".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 02:18 AM
2

It's civil, just extremely critical and negative (excessively so). The commenter is obviously making a huge intellectual mistake of generalizing, however.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 12:07 AM
18

I really don't see what your problem is. It was a relatively civil discussion from a feminist who came into defend the feminist label. At the very least you can give her credit for that. I'm not sure why you mean by "positive" responses, all the responses I can see were pushing back with civility, if a little blunt. Are you honestly suggesting we should just mass downvote everything that doesn't conform to a pre-existing view? That's how you get groupthink. I personally try to never downvote unl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 10:16 AM
3

It is. That doesn't stop every other group under the sun from trying to promote their views here. Radical feminist, right libertarians, right MRAs, the weird radical ProMaleCollective guys, MGTOW, MensLibbers, you name it, they've been here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 01:49 PM
1

Hi again, I saw your post on MensLib about partriarchy, here's a post/essay I wrote called Examining Patriarchy Theory if you're interested.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/20 01:50 PM
2

I have two comments on that: It's partly a selection bias/frequency illusion. The front page of this sub as I write this comment is, has 5 posts explicitly feminism in their title out of 25, which is not really that many in my opinion. Admittedly, this is only a single data point, but this is actually slightly above average in my experience. If you look at top posts of all time, only 2 mention feminism, maybe stretch it a couple more to 4 or so with indirect discussion of feminism. (though this …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/20 12:53 AM
2

The name of this subreddit
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 10:10 PM
6

Yes and no. You could categorise someone like Warren Farrell as an "egalitarian anti-feminist" in the sense that he opposes a lot of feminist theory and concepts (male power and patriarchy), and he's been around forever. Cynically, I think the feminist movement deliberately paints its critics with a broad brush as all traditionalists and sexists because acknowledging there are egalitarian "competitors" means potentially ceding some power in the long run. Hell, even someone like Steven Pinker, wh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 02:09 AM
8

His Reddit account was suspended by Reddit - it's not exactly clear why.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 12:41 PM
7

Yeah, I do remember seeing studies that show women are heavily favoured in STEM interviews. There was also that study that where removing names and other identifying marks from applications resulted in more men receiving interviews, which suggests that women have an advantage genders are known. Edit: I also think it's prudent to make a distinction between jobs people want and jobs people don't want
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 11:05 AM
10

IIRC the opposite happens in male-dominated jobs. Does it? I find this hard to believe given the huge push to put women into male dominated fields like in STEM.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 10:08 AM
1

I'll just end by saying that MensLib can be a "safe space" or hugbox (and I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way) for men who had a bad childhood with rigid roles ("toxic masculinity") put on them etc while everyone is positive and "civil", or it can be a place for robust intellect discussion on gender issues which necessitates having critical, dissenting, and yes, negative (gasp!) voices . It can't have it both ways.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:51 AM
1

To be blunt, then why are you here?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:42 AM
1

I also moderate. While I vaguely agree with you that there is a point where you have to draw the line, MensLib's approach is so far removed from any theoretical line it's really not the issue of discussion. Moderation is fundamentally meant to remove unproductive comments, not opposing or critical comments. MensLib makes no distinction between the two (deliberately). I think there's a marked increase in the quality of conversations It's only a marked increase so far as it's an increase of detail…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:28 AM
1

You know what the difference is? We actually allow dissenting opinions and criticisms. If this conversation was on MensLib I'd be banned already. You, penguin and weasel and some others frequently make the opposing case on this subreddit. Granted, it's not often well recieved and downvoted (I hate the voting system in Reddit but that's a topic for another time) but we willing to hear you and engage with you. Moreover, there's been several occasions where the dissenters here have been upvoted whi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:01 AM
1

I think they don't care. I don't think it's intellectual disagreement (after all, they made no attempt to engage with the criticism levelled at that post, and delete any such criticism in comments and posts), they simply support it because it conforms to their preconceptions. Whether it's deliberate and malicious or ignorant and natural bias, the end result is the same: a place where false information is allowed to flourish, and criticism, even when it's sound and well reasoned, is slienced.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 03:33 AM
2

I know this is an old comment, but I justed wanted to add the problem I have with MensLib ("crossed the line") is they repeatedly promote misinformation, amd refusing to correct it when it's brought to their attention. The false rape allegations post is the classic example, it was just patently incorrect. Objectively, yes, MensLib is promoting misinformation and therefore is doing more harm than good, even if I'm willing to ignore what I consider a fundamental misunderstanding of gender relation…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 01:54 AM
29

Consider: "My boyfriend won't let me wear that," she said. "He said it makes me look ugly." And My girlfriend won't let me wear that," he said. "She said it makes me look ugly." Alternatively: "My boyfriend won't let me come," she said. "He insists I spend more time with him. " And "My girlfriend won't let me come," he said. "She insists I spend more time with her. "
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 01:41 AM
1

Is there a specific recent post or comment you're refering to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:56 PM
5

While people can participate in whatever subs they want, I would prefer if this sub didn't promote or associated with specificially negative/attack subs.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:55 PM
2

Yeah, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 12:22 AM
3

I wonder what the author thinks of Tulsi Gabbard.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 12:17 AM
2

People as recently as 2008 were constantly on the news openly questioning whether or not a woman could be a capable president. Yet at the same time, we get people openly stating that we should elect women for the sole fact they're a woman, or worse, that women would be inherently better leaders then men (including Obama's statements recently). Am I meant to take that as evidence that being a woman is now an inherent advantage in politics?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/20 05:08 AM
14

Only from a twenty-first century perspective can this particular situation be called "rape", and even that's chancy. Jesus Christ, what an awful argument. This is worse than when pro-choice feminists use pro-life arguments to deny men reproductive rights. Basically she's asserting that rape didn't exist at all until the modern era (is rape just a social construct? /s). It's rape apologia in the truest sense of the term. I've argued with this user before. As dismissive as it sounds, don't bother.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 02:58 PM
8

I have several points. While democratic socialism has a number of meanings, it ultimately is a rejection of Marxist-Leninism. It's not a "hybrid". This is particularly true for the "Sanders" or "New Labour" use of democratic socialism (which is basically just social democracy) which advocates for a mixed economy, which is antithetical to Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps it's splitting hairs but I see a distinction between altering Marxism and rejecting Marxism. MensLib want to have both the benefit of …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 02:39 PM
13

I disagree. Maybe what you're saying would be more relevant 50, 40 or 30 years ago, but I don't see how it's relevant to the present day. Does that mean sexism against women doesn't exist at all? Of course not. But it extremely disingenuous to suggest that's what is holding back women rather than the individual politicians in question failings. It also fails to acknowledge the circumstances where being a women is actually advantage. Did Clinton lose just because she's a woman? Did her status quo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 12:10 PM
2

Did they not set up an AMA with the mods beforehand? That's a recipe for failure.
/r/MensRights06/03/20 07:30 AM
19

Yet when Tulsi is routinely smeared as an Assad apologist, a Russian asset, a secret Republican and every other thing under the sun, no one gives a shit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 06:45 AM
37

A quick search shows the author has a clear feminist slant. Not going to give it the time of day. I've read evidence in the past. I believe there is a clear bias against fathers. Even if you disagree, the fact the author calls the idea a "dangerous fallacy", despite there being reasonable evidence, suggest a lack of good faith. The author is effectively using abused women and children to deflect from the issue and guilt trip the reader. If the courts are actually so biased against women like the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 05:16 PM
3

No, but I just thought it's be best to make you aware (if you weren't)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 11:00 AM
6

Yes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 01:07 AM
6

Then how can you dismiss everything as "slander" when the head mod admits to bad behaviour?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 12:39 AM
15

Taking the moral high-ground for MensLib doesn't really work when the head mod himself admits to trolling and engaging in bad faith.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 12:09 AM
3

/u/serpentineeyelash
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 04:47 PM
17

Looks like he's attempting to create a direct feminist-friendly challenger (because MensLib isn't enough) to this subreddit when the co-opting efforts failed. Edit: also r/MensLefty in addition to r/MensLeft
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 04:45 PM
6

Holy shit! Have they given you a specific reason for the suspension yet? If not, please press them. I fail to see how you broke the content policy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 09:52 AM
7

But I thought the feminists loved 'lived experiences'!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 03:04 PM
10

Just some brief comments: This author really only seems to have a superficial understanding what he's talking about. Right of the bat he alleges that MGTOW is the largest of the "manosphere" groups, which is a red flag for two reasons - firstly, while numbers are hard to quantify, it seems by an large MGTOW is not the largest, and secondly, I am immediately wary of any author using the term "manosphere" as it tends precede a conflation and misunderstanding of the various men's groups. The author…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 02:24 PM
7

I imagine that the number who identify as feminist would be notably higher in younger, educated (college/university) demographics which the users of this subreddit probably trend towards.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 01:16 AM
9

My impression of Knowing Better from the handful of videos I've watched in the past. Most of his discussion/analysis is superficial or pseudo-intellectual, akin to a student who relies on Wikipedia as their primary source. I find the name of the channel often to be ironic, rather than apt.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 11:11 PM
7

The author fails to acknowledge how the effect of being a woman in politics works both ways - it is a detriment in some regards and a boon in others. Contrary to many establishment/moderate democrats and identity politics types, I think Clinton's gender actually helped her in many regards - the novelty of a women president distracting from a status-quo neoliberal platform, and her gender likely distracting from her questionable record on foreign policy, as generally painting women as 'warhawks' …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 10:34 AM
11

I'm not really sure why that subreddit even exists, other than self-affirmation ('patting themselves on the back') that they're the good guys and everyone else sucks. The fact the subreddit deliberately removes context just affirms this - the mindset of the posters is not to engage with people in good faith. About 75% of the posts are just pointless troll comments I don't know why anyone would go to the bother of cataloguing, petty trolls exist everywhere in every community. About 10% are actual…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 02:58 PM
11

It's just part of the bigger trend. I've seen many a similar phenomenon before - most disgustingly an article praising how a majority of defence industry CEOs are now women. It's a clear portrayal of how modern feminism has been used (willingly or not is a separate question) by the ultra-wealthy to divide and conquer the working and middle class. Essentially by convincing the lower class that their economic exploitation is actually "empowering" or just. I understand why many pure/hardcore Marxis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 02:21 PM
3

Honestly, just read any good literature. From Shakespeare to Harper Lee to Jules Verne to Charles Dickens to Roald Dahl and so on. Great authors have the ability to capture the nuance of human life, the positives and the negatives. Same can probably be said for films and other forms of media. Consider looking into the heroic myths of old, or even religious texts. Not necessarily because of any theological value, but for cultural value. The tales of Odysseus and Herakles and the great feats perfo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 02:13 PM
14

I really don't agree with that conclusion. For example, take the issue of transpeople and gendered bathrooms. The issue almost entirely revolves around transwomen in women's bathrooms, and rarely, if ever, about transmen in men's bathrooms. To me, this says there is greater social concern about "men" encroaching in women's spaces than there is about "women" encroaching in men's spaces. It seems in this regard 'masculinity' is actually more accepting or inclusive than 'femininity', and why I tend…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/02/20 10:53 AM
11

u/Lady_Coraline2 has made some good posts discussing this in the past, for those interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/etb1t4/im_a_trans_woman_and_feminists_hypocrisy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dnkgkn/lets_talk_about_how_transexclusionary_radical/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/02/20 10:46 AM
3

I would argue there effectively exists a canon, however.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 10:32 AM
2

No, it's more like a specific Christian or Muslim sect criticizing a member or element within that sect. The same way I don't think the Catholic Church has done enough to address pedophilia in the Church.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 10:28 AM
5

I would also emphasize the reverse as just as, if not more important - it's up to the feminist community to self-critique and disassociate themselves from awful texts, including the SCUM Manifesto, which I do not think they have not make a sufficient effort to do so (if anything, it's the opposite).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 04:25 AM
1

Not so much. The SCUM Manifesto calls for the outright killing of men (barring those men willing to join a "Men's Auxiliary" which would ultimately kill themselves), and the eradication of men through selective artificial reproduction (no male babies). She wanted to get rid of all men, period.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 04:21 AM
1

It's more complicated than that. While they do see many parts of femininity socially constructed (under patriarchy) to further the oppressive needs as men (such as heterosexuality being a social construct), they still believe there is a "female essence" that is morally superior, and concepts like female solidarity/sisterhood are prevalent. A large problem is how radical feminists have completely divorced gender from sex. This has resulted in sex essentialist arguments being used on gender ('gend…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 03:30 AM
2

What was your metric for determining this? Because it's almost never referrenced or mentioned at all by other feminist texts I've read. Academia works on references. Feminist scholarship is not built on the SCUM Manifesto like it is other texts, even if it studied and has some other indirect influence. Like I said, very few other texts call for androcide. Not no other texts. Additionally, it is frequently studied, I know, I said as much. My point was that the SCUM Manifesto isn't foundational to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 02:54 AM
1

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Femininity is seen as better because because masculinity is seen as inherently oppressive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 02:46 AM
7

I guess her attempted murder of Warhol was also just absurdist performance art then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 02:37 AM
4

I really don't think that's a fair comparison. Religious scripture is (usually) thousands of years old, translated through in both language and time, is usually written by different authors for different purposes and audiences. I stand by my comparison to Mein Kampf. No one argues that Mein Kampf shouldn't be taken literally.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/02/20 04:41 PM
16

I want to try and be as fair as possible to feminism when addressing the SCUM Manifesto. It was one of the texts I read when I was examining feminist theory (it's quite short), Examining Patriarchy Theory. Firstly, the SCUM Manifesto is not a mainstream feminist text, even among radical feminists. The SCUM Manifesto is perhaps the most extreme piece of radical feminist literature. The SCUM Manifesto calls for the outright genocide (androcide) of all men. Very few other radical feminist texts cal…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/02/20 04:17 PM
9

It's an issue I've spent a good deal of time thinking about how does the men's movement gain acceptance and become mainstream? The problem is I'm not sure conventional rules and wisdom apply here, due to the innate biological and social biases we have against addressing men's issues. For example, from that list: Step 2: Build Unity ...Learn how to foster a sense of community and cultivate group identity The issue is, men really don't have a group identity, or at least not in the same way of as o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/02/20 06:36 PM
2

I think we have to agree to disagree here - I just wanted to restate that independents are not unique to presidental system (America has one of the strongest two party systems around). Even Sanders and Paul have had to kowtow to to the parties at points (Paul ran as a Republican like Sanders for Democrats, plus Paul is still a member afaik even after the presidental run). I'm not sure if the Canadian system is somehow uniquely screwed up, but it doesn't really reflect my view of the Australian p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 03:14 PM
3

I'm Australian, and for the most part the Canadian system is the same in Australia (good old Westminster). Here in Australia we have a good number of independents and minor parties, particularly in the upper house. Granted, it's not as much as some European countries (which are mostly parliamentary too, though not Westminster) but it's certainly more than the USA. I'm not sure why you think actors like Bernie or Ron Paul can only exist in the American style presidental system. In Canada though, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 02:37 PM
8

This is patently untrue. Second-wave literature was/is absolutely filled with prejudice and outright malice towards men. I have read feminist literature, here's a post I made discussing it: Examining Patriarchy Theory.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 11:11 AM
13

The replies weren't... overtly hostile, which is something I guess, even if I feel most of the replies miss the point. I guess the Overton Window is moving millimetre by painstaking millimetre.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 10:11 AM
6

Well trying to put everything on a political scale is inherently limiting, but the biggest problem is the conflation of economic and social policies. The major failure of things like the political compass is it ties the economic left and right to the social left and right. This creates a problem when you try and classify groups like Christian democrats and even neoliberals to some extent. Christian democrats are broadly economically left (supports a welfare state), but broadly socially right (Ch…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 09:29 AM
3

Yeah, I should be clear, when I say economically liberal I mean what is considered economically right. Economic liberalism refers to free markets (little regulation), low taxes etc. Here in Australia, the major "conservative" party (centre/centre-right) are called the Liberals due to being economically liberal, despite being somewhat socially conservative (by Australian standards), which is quite confusing for Americans who associate the world "liberal" with socially left. So in Canada, it is al…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 09:17 AM
6

In the modern political context maybe it's trended that way. My understanding is tha leftist refers to left on economic issues (i.e some form of socialist). Liberal as been used to describe economic liberalism and social liberalism, but nowdays, particularly in the American context, usually just means socially liberal. One thing I've noticed, particularly in the American context, is the political left/right divide has become almost entirely cultural/social. It's partly why people say the Democra…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 03:07 AM
10

The typical counter to the "Bernie Bro" smear is it disregards Bernie's strong female and minority support (the highest of any candidate). This response also raises the issue, why is it even a problem if a candidate has strong (white) male support? Or to put it another way, why is having white male support seen as a bad thing? It seems it has almost become taboo to have male support. Moreover, it seems like any expression of emotion, particularly anger, by men is seen as an inherent negative. It…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/02/20 05:48 AM
6

I support liberal feminism, but frankly liberal feminism is dead. There can really no be reconciliation with feminism while feminism maintains patriarchy theory.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/02/20 10:28 AM
16

Obligatory: I am not a lawyer. This should not be considered professional legal advice. First: Get a lawyer. Nothing can substitute for proper, professional, and most importantly, specific legal advice. Second: Tell your loved one to stop talking to the police under any circumstances. The police's job is to find evidence of guilt, not to find evidence of innocence. All contact with the police should be handled through the lawyer. Third: Your loved one should document every interaction (emails, t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/02/20 04:03 PM
1

Now there's reasons why this is the case. Civilizations that were less rigid didn't thrive, and instead were overrun by nastier, sterner civilizations. So the environment selected for rigidly run civilizations instead of the gentler forager mode of living which is the instinctive preference of humanity, due to our genetic inheritance. I think this is missing an important element - technology. I am of the fundamental belief that society and civilization is driven by technology. Technological chan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/02/20 05:37 PM
9

The comparison falls flat because men don't have reproductive rights to be begin with. The counterpart to men having forced vasectomies would be women undergoing forced sterilization (tubes tied), which doesn't happen. The real comparison to no abortion rights would be no legal paternal surrender for men... which already doesn't exist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/20 10:50 AM
4

Traditional conservatives
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/20 09:17 AM
1

Unfortunately that's not how it's seen though. I saw the phrase "biologically inferior" being used to describe men's (potential) weaker immune system
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 06:48 PM
1

What do you mean by "new"? As in recently discovered or a change in an existinging trends/outcomes? The sex difference in immune systems is a new area of study, this has only really been studied in the last decade or so, and even then there's not that much research on it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 05:09 PM
2

The evidence for men having weaker immune systems is relatively weak and it's understudied. "The observations add to growing evidence that immunologically speaking, men are the weaker sex." Confirmation bias. They ("some scientists") attribute the deaths to a weaker immune system then they use it as evidence for a weaker immune system. At the very least, the "some scientists" mentioned in the article do think sex difference is the sole cause, which is absurd. In my opinion sex difference is a mi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 05:01 PM
5

I have doubt the major cause is innate biological differences, if it is one at all. A twice as high infection rate is such a huge difference. Even if we assume men do have slightly weaker immune systems, are they really weaker to the point of being functionally half the strength of women? Exposure bias seems like the real cause here - men more likely to be labouring outdoors, more likely to risk going outside in an emergency (both as men are less risk adverse and self sacrifing if they need to g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 04:39 PM
14

Having read a lot of feminist literature recently, I think people really don't understand how vile and malicious the vast majority of feminist theory is. At best, men portrayed as inherently selfish and cruel. At worst, men are portrayed as violent sadistic beasts who are just itching to rape and abuse women at every chance they get. I honestly don't understand how any sane individual can read one of those books and agree with them. It's hard to describe just how venomous feminist theory is with…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 03:35 PM
3

As cursory glance at Patriarchy by John Harris indicates it's about the original familial context of patriarchy. May early modern and pre-modern use the world patriarchy to describe households. Not particularly relevant to what I was discussing - societal patriarchy in feminist theory. I also really fail to see the relevance of Gage's speech. I would say it has very little to do with "patriarchy" even if we were going to be generous by being anachronistic and applying the label to her words and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 12:44 PM
6

A quick search through askhistorians suggests they don't deflate patriarchy - on the contrary, a few threads I've read conflate familial patriarchy (fathers as head of household) with the neologisitic feminist societal patriarchy (social structure where men oppress and exploit women). Several of the comments have the simplistic reasoning of "well there's good evidence fathers led the household, therefore women were oppressed by men".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/20 11:47 AM
8

The absurd thing about this statement is that the logical conclusion derived from it is that we should send women and girls to die in war instead of men because according to Suha Basharen and Hilary Clinton it's a better outcome than staying alive and having to fulfil the other gender's role.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/20 04:16 AM
3

Yes, I mean radical feminist supremacy. By that I mean the radical feminist thought has become supreme (the dominant force) within feminist theory and academia. That is, radical feminism represents mainstream/orthodoxy/consensus of feminist academia (and arguably feminism generally).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:19 AM
3

They have the final say in the household (a situation that actually isn't that uncommon in "patriarchal" households), not necessarily the final say in the community. Also my understanding is that Mosuo men have the primary role in religion/religious ceremonies, including funerals, though information on this is vague and hard to find. The opening paragraph of that article you link shows its hand pretty well. It's exactly what I mean when I say when articles have a clear agenda. "Men are little mo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:16 AM
2

I don't use the word female in that excerpt...?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 08:20 AM
7

The probelm is that LWMA is small enough that individual users can skew the results, like Calgary, so I would take it with a grain of salt.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 03:21 AM
5

I really don't want to get into a whole argument about this. I'll just make one point - 'unpaid labour' is paid, as wives are paid through the goods and services provided by their husband's income (in a traditional relationship). Women have a legal right to their husband's property and wealth through marriage. It's hard to justify Mackenzie Bezos, Jeff Bezos' ex-wife was 'unpaid' for her labour given she was entitled to billions of dollars from her divorce.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 05:27 PM
3

Do you mind actually citing a source for such a claim? I still find such a statistic patently absurd.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 04:46 PM
3

Of necessity, some finer points are skimmed, such as "intersectional feminism" and the replacement of "patriarchy" theory with a theory of power as mediated through complicated interplay between gender/class/race: the crucial triad. I'm not really sure what you mean here - patriarchy theory is alive and well in feminist scholarship, and outside the academic context too. Are you refering to "capitalist patriarchy" and the like? If so, patriarchy is still at the core of that, and my intent was to …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 04:40 PM
4

I'm not sure if you're joking or not because that "statistic" is completely baseless. There's no actual evidence to support it. There's mountains of evidence supporting the opposite. It's such an absurd statistic that I wonder how anyone can believe it on its face. "Women's labour is valued less" is an example of the kinds of unqualified claims that are made in feminist scholarship. They often treated as fact themselves to support additional claims. What does "valued" even mean? Economically val…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 04:33 PM
7

What you're describing then is just economic class, not sex or gender. Addtionally those wealthy men are married to women who also benefit from their husbands capital.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 08:30 AM
3

Yeah I know, I kind put that bit in there tongue in cheek.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 07:23 AM
4

An argument to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) to demonstrate the kind of flawed logic employed to support patriarchy theory (and working back from conclusion) is to claim we live in a pet-archy. We live in a pet-archy, where pets (and animals generally) have power and privilege over human, and oppress and exploit humans. Pets benefit from the appropriation of the labour of humans. Pets and animals contribute almost no labour to the economy, outside of few fringe jobs like law enforcement or di…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 07:13 AM
3

Why would we use patriarchy to describe patrilineality when we can just use patrilineality to describe patrilineality?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:53 AM
2

Man is actually the old English word for person. Woman meant female person and wareman (or something similar to that) meant male person. Yeah, that's why I was pointing it out. We also had this discussion on GaborFrame's post about steelmanning. It's a terrible argument with no merit if you actually look at etymology which Johnson obviously doesn't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:51 AM
7

I would say that when they say 'patriarchy is not men' they're being disingenuous, and only saying that to shield themselves from criticism. It's why I point out the contradiction in Johnson's analysis of patriarchy. In taking responsibility for patriarchy, men cannot hide behind arguments that patriarchy is about someone else. So patriarchy is about men? The text is riddled with these kinds of inconsistencies.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:45 AM
4

It is circular reasoning, because it supposes the cause of the structures of patriarchy is patriarchy. Men in positions of power is patriarchy. Why are men in positions of power? Because patriarchy puts them in that position. There is no explanation of how patriarchy actually came into being independent of using patriarchy. Sure, it might describe a self-perpetuating system, but in offers no explanation of the origin of that system. A better example would be to use the word 'capitalism' the same…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:40 AM
2

The text is The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, and it was published decades after his death. In this translation: ‘Patriarchalism’ is the situation where, within a group, which is usually organized on both an economic and a kinship basis, as a household, authority is exercised by a particular individual who is designated by a definite rule of inheritance. It's elaborated further but just to give some context. Obviously Weber's definition of patriarchy is far closer to its roots.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:25 AM
6

Not really, though you're probably better off asking someone who believes in patriarchy. Patriarchy theory starts from a conclusion and works back word, and employs circular reasoning which is what I briefly mention in the last paragraph before the conclusion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 05:42 PM
5

Yeah, I briefly touch on this in the short section of Patriarchy as a Descriptor and a Cause 'in a circular way' was a tongue in cheek reference to circular reasoning.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 05:36 PM
4

Sure I'll reply when I can.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 05:00 PM
3

To my understanding the first use of patriarchy as an overarching social structure rather than in a familial limited scope was by a sociologist called Max Weber in 1947. But Millet was the one to introduce it into feminist theory so she's the person of interest. While it's true I didn't go into super depth about the origins of the word itself and familial patriarchy, that wasn't really my intent. I was mostly interested in how it has been used in feminst theory and the modern gender debate. I ha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:47 PM
6

It would likely have to be a separate post, my intention with this post was to look at the modern (i.e. 2nd wave onward) feminist concept of patriarchy. I haven't actually read the whole of the Origin of the Family, I probably will at some point. A large problem I find with almost all discussion about the family is a complete rejection of any biological necessity to the family. From my understanding Engels believed that socialism/communism will result in the collapse of the family unit which I f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:28 PM
16

You clearly haven't even tried to read my post. My post is examining and describing what the feminist concept of patriarchy is, not trying to construct a male friendly version of patriarchy theory. Where I'm at currently I largely reject any notion of societal patriarchy (or any overarching societal gender social system). I think patriarchy is only a useful concept in describing families i.e. a patriarch. I also reject wholesale your frankly regressive attitude about the "decline of western civi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:20 PM
6

A common point made is that patriarchy prevents financial independence for women and limits labour opportunities for women, and men are essentially 'stealing' labour from women. I don't know if that really qualifies as concrete. There's all the common "most political and CEO etc positions are men so they have power" so patriarchy benefits men that way. The hardcore radfems also say that patriarchy allows for free sexual domination of women so men can basically use women for sex however they want…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:14 PM
2

Gender Knot Many men, however, will protest that they do not feel at the center, and this is one of the many ironic aspects of male privilege. I was in the middle of one of many patriarchal paradoxes: that men live in a male-centered society and yet often act as though the reality of other men’s inner lives matters very little. A good example of denial is Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, which reflects men’s fear of being blamed and how far some will go to avoid it. Farrell seems obsesse…
/r/MensRights09/02/20 03:30 PM
3

There is more context, information and discussion in the comments section of the original post from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. Edit: I've decided it's just better to copy it here. Addendum: References in no particular order: Judith M. Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenges of Feminism, 2006 Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, 1976 Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, 1997 rev. 2014 Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patri…
/r/MensRights09/02/20 03:25 PM
9

Gender Knot Many men, however, will protest that they do not feel at the center, and this is one of the many ironic aspects of male privilege. I was in the middle of one of many patriarchal paradoxes: that men live in a male-centered society and yet often act as though the reality of other men’s inner lives matters very little. A good example of denial is Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, which reflects men’s fear of being blamed and how far some will go to avoid it. Farrell seems obsesse…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 03:20 PM
13

Addendum: References in no particular order: Judith M. Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenges of Feminism, 2006 Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, 1976 Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, 1997 rev. 2014 Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patriarchy, 1990 bell hooks. Feminism Is for Everybody : Passionate Politics, 2000 rev. 2014 Heidi Hartmann, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a more Progressive Un…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 03:20 PM
6

I am also not American, but my preferences would be Bernie Tulsi Yang as a weaker 3rd Warren as a distant 4th I'm torn between Bernie and Tulsi (Bernie/Tulsi ticket would be great) but ultimately I put Bernie ahead for his experience.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:18 AM
6

To quote a comment I read somewhere a while ago: I'll stop caring about American politics when you guys stop having all those nukes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 04:12 AM
9

Most alleged matriarchal societies are only matriarchal in the weakest sense of the word. There is often a large conflation between matriarchal and matrilineal. A lot of these kinds of articles have a clear agenda. The Mosuo are the most commonly cited matriarchal society. If you look past all the fluff pieces you find that the Mosuo aren't actually that different from most communal societies. The division of labour in the Mosuo is absolutely typical - women perform domestic duties and childrear…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/20 03:30 AM
15

I've recently been consuming feminist literature (I'm looking into 'patriarchy'). While of course it depends what you mean by feminism, but feminism as conceived in feminist theory, thought and academia (i.e. "gender studies") is absolutely a problem. The overwhelming majority of feminist scholarship is absolute rubbish. At best, it's extremely poor reasoning filled with faulty assumptions and conclusions. At worst, it's unabashedly male bashing. Granted there's a very small number of texts I've…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/02/20 03:41 PM
2

But you could also compare it to the question of the gay wedding cake controversy I put it in an edit in the previous comment but this UK legal case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v_Ashers_Baking_Company_Ltd_and_others What makes the case so fascinating is that unlike the other 'gay cake' legal cases like in the USA, the issue here was that the cake makers refused to put a pro-gay marriage message on the cake, not that they refused a gay customer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/20 04:39 PM
3

Freedom of religion should be nothing more than freedom of expression. If we're equating freedom of religion with freedom of expression (speech), then isn't the logical conclusion that a government forcing a church to conduct gay marriage ceremonies is the same as a government compelling speech? I still come out of this thinking that there is just a huge discrepancy between fundamentalist / traditionalist Christian thought and LGBT rights. I suppose we could imagine a version of Christianity whe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/20 04:20 PM
4

My personal view when it comes to rights is that someone's rights end where they infringe upon the rights of another. When it comes to LGBT rights and religous rights (freedom of religion), it's not immediately apparent to me where the line is, or should be, drawn. Obviously there are some things that clearly violate someone's rights in this context, but I'm talking about the vague middle ground here. Forcing churches to hold gay marraige ceremonies is a common point of contention.I honestly don…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/20 03:10 PM
2

I find this hilarious, but doesn't this count as low effort content?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/20 04:58 AM
5

Not available in Australia :( Though I've already seen it myself
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/20 04:53 AM
2

but I still see many comments either blaming women in a sneaky way, or straight up, and they seem to rarely get called out. Can you point out some examples? If what you're saying is true, I'm sure most of us on this subreddit would appreciate you airing it so we can address it and call it out. Regardless, it would would make for a good discussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 03:18 PM
6

Also, just for the record: Here's the sub's Mission Statement. Here's several threads on this sub about trans issues: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dnkgkn/lets_talk_about_how_transexclusionary_radical/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/elhivz/how_does_this_sub_feel_about_trans_people/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/db2gce/is_there_room_in_this_sub_for_trans_women_too/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 12:45 PM
4

Is there something specifically you want to argue or discuss about? Because you're not saying anything substantial, and making wild claims with no evidence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 12:32 PM
5

The NCFM is probably the most important men's rights group, they have been involved in many important legal cases over the years, most recently they had one of their biggest wins where they successfully challenged the constitutionally of the male only Selective Service registration (i.e. the draft) in the US (now currently on appeal by Selective Service afaik).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 08:01 AM
6

Well if you want to include the biggest men's rights organisations: National Coalition for Men - USA & International Canadian Association for Equality - Canada Regardless of what you think of them, they are among the most (if not the most) influential groups dealing with men's issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 07:39 AM
3

Ellen Pence said Duluth was shit (which it is), not that it isn't used.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 12:26 AM
2

I'm not just talking about flat advantages. I'm talking about differences about men and women generally. For example, do men and women even want exact same thing out of sex and relationships? Is either sex more inclined towards long or short term relationships, even in a 50/50 split? What effect is the expectation of men (attempt to) intiating relationships causing?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 10:10 AM
5

The argument is not that prepubescent kids are sexual, it's that they're being ascribed sexuality. The reason pre and post-pubescent kids are seperated is for the same underlying reason. The fact that there are places that don't seperate kids for whatever reason doesn't change the fact that in places where they do seperate kids they are ascribing sexuality to and demonizing boys. I'm sure whatever country (presumably European) you're from is generally more fine with sexuality generally. That's n…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 09:24 AM
7

The disclaimer was not including non-heterosexual relationships and that sex and gender would be treated as the same and as a binary. The disclaimer wasn't about men and women being the same. Even if it was in the disclaimer, it doesn't change the fact it's a glaring issue with any model or argument the author is trying to make. Non-heterosexual and different gender expression don't undermine the general argument, they would have a statistically small effect on the 'sexual market'. A systematic …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 09:15 AM
4

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Your arguments are awful and contradictory. For the record, I don't even fully agree with Lady Caroline, but your arguments are awful. You're simultaneously saying it's about sexuality, but not about the boys' sexuality. So whose or what sexuality is it about then? Siblings share spaces because of two reasons: Families (siblings) are inherently non-sexual. Families know each other, so there's no risk of an unknown 'predator' Neither of which contradicts Lady …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 08:34 AM
4

I did read it. I just think you're wrong. But I guess it's too much to think you'd read me charitably.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 08:08 AM
10

Just a brief criticism of the piece: The author treats men and women identically in terms of the 'sexual market'. That is, the author sees that a 45/55 and a 55/45 will have symmetrical effects on either gender. I don't think this is accurate as male sexuality and female sexuality are self evidently different (among other traits and behaviors of the sexes).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 08:02 AM
4

The truth is that separation between genders in NA has more to do in its origins with the puritans, separating women and girls from men and boys for the sake of chastity So you agree it is to do with sexuality then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 07:46 AM
11

The argument Lady Coraline is making here that even before puberty, boys are treated as potential sexual predators - they are separated from girls for the same reason men are separated from women, that male sexuality is inherently threatening to women. Thus, they are ascribing sexuality to young boys, and also demonizing male sexuality, teaching boys from a young age they have to keep their sexuality "in check" at risk of becoming a predator.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/20 07:38 AM
4

I'm not really sure why you are blaming "communists feminists" here. The article here being discussed is a critique of modern feminism, albeit from a socialist lens. My point was that socialist policies are great, but are incomplete for addressing men's issues. You seem to be conflating socialism with totalitarian communism and planned economies.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/20 10:18 AM
13

Interesting take. The core argument the essay is making is that socialism will ultimately resolve family and masculinity issues as it will remove financial pressure for men to provide, which is what the author believes is the root cause of family issues. While I agree with much of what the author is saying, where I think the author falls short is that she is essentially advocating for a purely economic solution to an economic and social problem. For example, the author says: I don’t believe that…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/20 05:30 AM
5

It's a rather desperate attempt to resolve a sociocultural problem at the wrong end. It's debatable where this is even a problem at this point. Just because there is a gender difference in a specific area, doesn't mean discrimination is the cause. If we remove all discrimination and barriers, and it turns out women generally don't like STEM (and there's good evidence to support this), why is that a problem? Why are we trying to force women into fields they don't want to be in?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 07:11 AM
1

I'm not talking about abortions. I'm talking about this law where an ex-wife can still use the embryo that is biologically the ex-husband's without his consent, even if he doesn't have any financial responsibility. It doesn't have to be that way for men.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 05:46 AM
6

It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations. That's great, though it's still shocking that you can essentially be forced into having a biological child without your consent.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 01:57 AM
10

If I remember correctly, the SPLC calling Men's Rights a hate group in 2012 was actually false, either SPLC retracted it or it was falsely reported by news outlets. The SPLC did designate AVFM as a hate group in 2018 though. They also designated the PUA site Return of Kings as a hate group, which has been incorrectly widely reported as a men's rights group, despite Return of Kings hating MRAs. It's what I mean when the groups are conflated with one another, and the term 'manosphere'not helping.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 06:05 PM
5

Thanks for the feedback. It's not really my intent to go to minute detail about each group, it would be too long regardless. I really just wanted to try and give a fair and brief summary. I will probably change the incel section slightly, to emphasise the nihilism/lack of hope they have, but I don't think I will include blackpill and low value male and the "jargon" that they use. It's beyond the scope. Negging is certainly a term for debate. I've seen the justification for it as not bullying, it…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 04:57 PM
5

I'll crosspost but I don't know how MensRights will recieve it. I already say the main point of contention between the MRM and the MLM is opinion of feminism in the MLM section.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 03:41 PM
16

because if you survive a suicide attempt, you can do it again. Just to emphasize this point, the single best predictor of a suicide attempt is if the person has made a suicide attempt in the past.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 04:07 PM
2

Jargon is meant to have a specific, technical meaning. Feminist jargon doesn't. 'Buzzwords' might be a more accurate word.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 05:41 AM
6

The terms and arguments you want to critique (especially emotional labour) have many different meanings depending on who you're talking to. Isn't that part of the problem though? A lot of feminist terms and rhetoric, such as patriarchy, toxic masculinity and emotional labour have wildly different meanings depending on the person you're talking to. A cynical person might say they are deliberately vague so they can use jargon and mold ideas to in order to give weight to whatever argument they're t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 03:46 AM
1

What's the alternative to decide who should and shouldn't go into gendered spaces?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 02:23 AM
1

What's the alternative though?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/20 05:04 PM
16

Wow, assuming this article is accurate, the Harvard administration essentially cajoled three women into accusing him of sexual misconduct. Interestingly you can see how the issue has been spun already - it is simply a issue of racism by Harvard. No real criticism of how the adjudicatory process in Harvard is extremely unjust and essentially operate as a kangaroo court. No acknowledgement of how this process is specifically harming and being used against men. No acknowledgement of the intersectio…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/20 02:15 PM
3

The forgot to mention how women are the primary victims of this issue, because they lose their husbands. /s
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/20 09:53 AM
7

Oncefa2, did you ever know that you're my hero? You're everything I wish I could be.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 04:26 PM
2

Paul Elam's (and AVFM) influence has significantly waned in the last few years. To Elam's credit as a provocateur, and he brought attention to the MRM even if I disagree with his methods (no such thing as bad publicity?). But the AVFM style male advocacy is going out of fashion as far as I can tell. AVFM specifically is pretty much at the point of irrelevance now. The MensRights subreddit has turned into a ragebait sub, but I think it's that's more a consequence of the subreddit growing too larg…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 08:00 AM
1

You guys need to relax, or funnel that energy elsewhere. I thought tone policing was bad?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 04:24 AM
3

True, but I wouldn't call the MRM founded on that belief the same way feminism is. Farrell is often called the father of the MRM for a reason.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 02:04 AM
1

I'm not questioning your tone, I'm questioning your attitude. Someone comes into the subreddit and your response is essentially a purity test.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 01:21 AM
3

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the MRM. I would not call it founded on the idea men are (historically) more oppressed than women, though I do agree that sentiment is somewhat common in the general MRA populace. I have yet to see a prominent MRA disagrees with men and women having been both oppressed (restricted) in differing ways, however. Feminism is built on that women were more (or exclusively) oppressed though. As I've said before I think the MRM has the benefit of learning …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 01:13 AM
9

I'm not sure it's your intent, but this comment comes accross as needlessly hostile.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/20 01:03 AM
6

I don't really have anything substantial to add but I just find this paragraph hilariously ironic: There are two problems with Emily’s situation: First, her boyfriend undermined entirely legitimate facts and research findings. Second, he was unwilling to support his partner in an area that was so central to her whole belief system.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 04:54 PM
4

When I say "I do think feminism has a purpose" I mean as a principle (that is, a movement that advocates and ensures the rights of women is needed). Obviously I am quite critical with how the feminist movement currently acts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 04:46 PM
3

I'm not completely sure, but I guess I generally agree. I do think feminism has a purpose and I would not consider myself an anti-feminist. I think that feminism is just unsuitable for addressing men's issues. An (rough) analogy I guess would be is the NAACP trying to address antisemitism - it's just not the purpose of the organization/movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 04:36 PM
4

I guess I care less about the labels and more about the stances I somewhat agree but my point was more that labels mean something and the author is uncritically claiming feminism is the 'correct' label for gender equality of both sexes, full stop. I've seen people point this out before, but never a feminist. I don't know if feminists like Warren Farrell or Christina Hoff Sommers have mentioned the Global Gender Index Gap specifically, but they have pointed out similar phenomena. It's something I…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 04:14 PM
13

The first thing I read is this gem: I often tell people off for saying “oh, I hate feminists.” “Feminists really ruin feminism.” “I don’t call myself a feminist, I’m a humanist.” I am a feminist. I am definitely a feminist. I believe that all humans should have equal rights and opportunities. Therefore, I am a feminist. I'm really tired of this lazy, awful "dictionary definition" argument. It holds no water. I can just as easily flip the argument on its head. I often tell people off for saying “…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 02:29 PM
8

Great comments here already, but I just wanted to add a small point, even if it's a bit late My main objection to the term “patriarchy” and its concept is one that I have with Marxist philosophy in general. I know what you mean, but I want to clarify that patriarchy (and feminist theory generally) is not Marxist theory/philosophy. It's based on Marxist theory, or I would term it, a bastardization or appropriation of Marxist theory. It's an important distinction that often gets lost. I am not a M…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 11:02 AM
3

People rarely actually vote with their wallets when it comes to things like consumer products. True, I agree 'voting with your wallet' is a flawed concept. By my point was about 'voting with your wallet' it was about how consumer markets are geared towards women and women's interests. Unless the product is specifically geared towards men, consumer advertising is almost always focused on women (or more specifically, appealing to women is more important than appealing to men). As a result women's …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 10:33 AM
4

I recommend the 1981 Australian film Gallipoli (directed by Peter Weir of Truman Show fame) which has similar themes, I'm Australian so I particularly like how it shows how it affected Australian society. u/Dis95405
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/01/20 08:36 AM
7

The rich (who, yes, are largely male) People often forget that those rich men are married to women, who in turn become rich women as a result, and can use that wealth for their own benefit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 04:58 PM
14

I don't want to go into huge detail on each point, but I'll just highlight some arguments against each point briefly. There may be other counterarguments which I don't argue. Most positions of power are still held by men. Even though female government leaders have been elected, most management positions, which are not subject to public elections, still reside with men. Women are the majority electorate, both in possible voters and voter turnout. There is nothing barring women from attaining offi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 04:51 PM
2

Thanks for the discussion!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 03:43 PM
2

So you get why I object to the term patriarchy, it's useless. As it's incomplete, it's not useful for describing society in a meaningful way, especially when it comes to nuanced gender issues. I'm talking about modern history, the history of the U.S., the values they decided to organize our society around that we live in. Why even talk about history then? The history of pre-U.S.A is just as important. After all, how did the U.S even end up with those values? We should just then look at the socie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 03:23 PM
1

Well perhaps 'benefit' is inaccurate or incorrect. Maybe more accurately it would be that women fare better economically relative to men in a highly stratified class system because they have have an inherent 'safety net'. Men have more to lose (and more to gain), so to speak.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 02:24 PM
3

I'm not sure if you saw this thread from a week ago where the text Women as Sex Vendors was discussed. I don't agree, for the most part, with the text (I left a comment there) but it does raise some interesting points about the relationship between men and women from an economic perspective. The arguments made in Women as Sex Vendors would suggest that women do benefit from a stratified class structure (more than men) because they can rely on sex (relationships) as a means to provide for themsel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 09:28 AM
2

It's not a completely accurate picture of history. Only landowners could vote, but landowners did not have to be men. There are several cases where women who owned land (yes they existed) voted pre-suffrage. Most men got the right to vote approximately the same time most women got the right to vote, usually less than a decade between the two in most countries. Also, democracy as we know it today is an extremely new idea. For the most part no one voted. There are a great many examples of women in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 09:21 AM
5

The worst part is it's demonizing empathy. They don't want people to understand others, they want tribalism. It's so fustrating because empathy is critical to any social issue - to empathise with someone is to understand them, and you need understanding to solve social issues. It's an increasing trend among feminists and social justice types the "you can't possibly understand my experience so don't even try" and "the oppressor can't understand the oppressed". This is such a backward way of think…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 03:28 AM
2

If the vast majority of men (i.e men as a group) do not have power, than why call it a patriarchy, as the basis of power is not sex? When you say 'it was men' whst do you mean? Also do you not see a problem in using a word that already has a well known meaning in gender issues? Is that not asking for confusio
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 01:49 AM
2

Then why do you use the term partriarchy and what do you mean by it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/20 01:17 AM
23

marches like these attract more extreme types I think that does play a role. An important factor is that these are the feminists who feel strongly enough to partipate in activism and actually institute change. It's all well and good to say that the average self-identified feminist isn't extreme, but they do not matter. The casual feminist is not actively engaged with gender issues. It's not so much "marches like these attract more extreme typed" it's more "marches like these attract more active …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 06:44 PM
3

My point is that 'patriarchy' doesn't exist. If you believe that men have issues and they are worse off in some regard then that inherently conflicts with 'patriarchy'.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 06:31 PM
3

If you believe patriarchy hurts men then you don't believe in feminist patriarchy theory, as the patriarchy is a social system that all men benefit from. It's an inherent contradiction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 06:20 PM
12

Because BlueOrange is actually trying to legitmately engage with feminists? Isn't open dialogue ideal?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 06:01 PM
3

I'm not arguing about the feminisms. I'm talking specifically about feminist patriarchy theory (which not all feminist groups ascribe to). When in the patriarchy is social structure created by and maintained by all men to oppress women to benefit all men (hence #YesAllMen and the like). Patriarchy theory is fundamentally incompatible with the idea men, of any kind, do not benefit or do suffer because of patriarchy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 05:57 PM
3

It's an acknowledgement that patriarchy doesn't help all men and not all men have the same level of priviledge under that system. But patriarchy in feminist theory is specifically a system that benefits men. What you're saying is antithetical to that idea.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 01:34 PM
2

Karen DeCrow was later blacklisted by feminist groups after supporting father's rights a la Warren Farrell. It's specifically because of her advocate for men she was shunned.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/20 05:55 AM
3

There's several problems with trying to quantify the Matilda effect, or if it even exists: Small sample size - very few scientists and inventors, fewer have found/invented something note worthy, and fewer still have had credit stolen. Impossible to test/no control group - are scientists more likely to steal credit from women than men? After all, it's not like male scientists have never had credit stolen from them (Newton and Leibniz for calculus is a classic example) Some demonstration that when…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/20 06:00 PM
2

lots of famous scientists and inventors were single their whole life. Famously Nikola Tesla was an incel (yes I'm using that word facetiously) who fell in love with a pigeon.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/20 05:51 PM
2

There's a large problem is that this thing is talked about or studied a lot - the same way the acts of terrorism by suffragettes (and the history of the suffragettes in general) has been white washed. Here is a decent article discussing the 1920s feminist debate about the ERA, albeit from a feminist perspective. I'll have to hunt down more about feminist opposition in the 50s, 60s, and 70s though. I know I've read about it before. The Hayden Rider was suggested in the 50s in part to appease the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/20 07:12 AM
7

I wouldn't just say it "negates the spirit". The whole idea of the Hayden rider is completely anti-thetical to the ERA, and really betrays the cultural attitude is to protect women and women only, men be damned.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 02:25 PM
7

I'm a little bit skeptical when it comes to men's rights enforcement of the ERA. Laws are only as good as they are enforced, and there's a long history around the ERA and other laws being about women and ignoring men. Title IX in the US is another example, although in the last few years some men's groups have had success using Title IX. The issue is still the underlying social attitudes. The ERA has been about women and its enforcement would likely reflect that. To be a bit more optimistic, if t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 02:22 PM
7

Without
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 01:57 PM
9

Virginia is the 38th and final state needed to ratify the ERA. However, the deadline for the amendment ratification expired in 1982, so it is unclear if this means the ERA will actually become an amendment (it's unlikely). Coverage of the ratification seem to primarily focus on women's rights, I have seen little discussion in the new about what it means for men's rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 10:33 AM
1

"Obama Bros" used against Obama too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 08:04 AM
14

Krystal Ball is completely unsurprising, as she's been anti-identity politics for ages. One of the best left political commentators right now.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 05:27 AM
5

Obligatory not an American, I think Tulsi is great and she's probably pretty closely tied for my favourite with Bernie. Unfortunately her chances getting the nomination are basically zero, but she has a chance as Bernie's VP I sometimes wonder if Tulsi is deliberately taking heat to deflect from Bernie, and/or she's preparing for a VP run by trying to get independant and Republican support to help to help Bernie if he wins the nomination.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 02:49 PM
12

Remember the rules: Be attractive Don't be unattractive And you're good to go!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 02:08 PM
8

It wasn't proven to be true. Her DNA test showed it was likely she a one Native American ancestor 6-10 generations ago. She has no ties to any native tribe. She labelled herself as a "Native American" or "American Indian" woman in the past, despite having no tangible evidence to make that claim. No link to tribe and unable to identify any Native ancestor means she is not a Native American, ergo she lied.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 11:33 AM
1

No it's not. Women aren't hiding so men think there's less women around. They're making "purchases" harder. It's the difference between hiding half your loaves of bread, and making your customers pay for the bread in pennies. The artificial scarcity of diamonds isn't because they're hard to purchase.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 08:59 AM
9

This just after the fake Sanders campaign script that Warren bought into and looked stupid for doing so? Yeah I'm calling bullshit on this one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 08:31 AM
1

It's not inducing scarcity. Men know sex exists and women have it. It's making the purchase of it convoluted. Why isn't there just a literal marketplace where you can purchase relationships? Why is their a whole song and dance of courtship that is not related to economics? Why does love poetry exist, when it doesn't serve a financial purpose?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 05:30 AM
3

Really depends on the methodology they used, which I can't comment on
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 05:03 PM
5

I admire your fortitude to actually watch the video.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 02:42 PM
3

Nah ProMaleCollective is almost exactly a gender reversed radfem subreddit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 02:40 PM
4

They can't possibly hope to account for every single factor. 2% is pretty much at the point you can say it's negligible. Heck, it may even be within the error range for human and random error.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 12:14 PM
2

This is actually somewhat similar to an old comment of mine that I made in r/FeMRADebates. If you want to have a read.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 11:09 AM
5

Didn't you ProMaleCollective guys swear off LWMA?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 03:31 PM
1

Fluffpiece for clicks.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 03:11 PM
12

Yeah, maybe I was too harsh. I think a better angle to take would be emphasising dealing with men's issues is not detremental (overall) to women, and that the men's movement is the natural complement to the women's movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 03:11 PM
28

Honestly, I don't want to play this game. I find it disingenuous when feminism says helping women helps men and I find it also disingenuous when MRAs do the reverse. The reason I find it disingenuous is because it's co-opting the issues of the other gender into a movement that's not about them. Don't get me wrong, I know you're acting in good faith, but the men's movement is focused on men's issues. Any additional benefit for women is great, but incidental. We shouldn't have to be justify suppor…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 02:41 PM
5

Not really that interesting. Title is pretty misleading (probably delibrately so). All it's saying is women hold a majority on names on payrolls. This means part time is counted the same as fulltime. This probably means a women with two part time jobs is counted twice. Women are significantly more likely to hold part time work than men. Also the article has this caveat: The share of women on payrolls, excluding farmworkers and the self-employed Guess which gender is more likely to be self-employ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 02:32 PM
3

This depends on the way a society's economy is organized. In a lot of agricultural societies, having more children is/was actually seen as an economic boon, because even though you've got more mouths to feed, you also have more hands to do labor on the farm etc. It's only seen as economical for the long-term population growth of the community. On a purely individual level, it is uneconomical. A child will still 'cost' more than they produce. Though admittedly when this text was written children …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/20 06:36 AM
5

Old threads are archived, not locked.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 03:02 PM
7

A bit late to the party, already some great comments (especially by plitox), but just wanted to add something. Shame (and, by extension, honor and status) is a huge part of men's lives, and will often affect their relationships and decisions. Male shame is also not the exact shame as female shame. Related to the gender roles of hyperagency and hypoagency, male shame is about men doing (or failing to) something, while female shame is about women having something done to them. For example, in clas…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 02:54 PM
6

I've never actually read the whole thing, just excerpts, including the (in)famous: When a man is out of a job and broke, he is flat on his back. His appetites, his desires cry out for satisfaction exactly as they did when he had money in his pockets to pay for the satisfaction of these appetites and these desires. When a woman loses a job, she has always the sale of her sex to fall back upon as a last resort. So I read the whole thing just now, it's pretty short. Given it was published in 1918, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 02:33 PM
5

Honestly? Pretty much all of them. A large portion of issues that affect men affect gay men stronger. Assault and violent crime against men? Gay men are far more likely to be assaulted (or otherwise discriminated against) than lesbians. Pedophile hysteria about men? Historically homosexuality has been wrongly portrayed as linked to pedophilia which still is around to some extent. I'm willing to bet it's significantly harder for gay men to adopt than lesbian women. Gay men (and other LGBT groups)…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 11:49 AM
19

You're describing left-wing in purely social terms, which is pretty nebulous to get into argument over with someone calling you a right-wing because of your social political beliefs (about men). Switch gears. Describe your economic beliefs. Taxes, unions, or if you're a hardcore Marxist. Your environmental beliefs, climate change. Healthcare. Foreign policy. The list goes on. That's really what I hate about identity politics, it pushes all these other (far more important in some respects) belief…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 11:25 AM
3

You could just make the Youtube videos with an avatar. Like 90% of commentary channels started that way. Youtube videos are also easier to promote across platforms. You could always do podcasts that are also Youtube videos. Also Prim Reaper is really good, I've watch several of her videos since someone recommended her in a previous thread, if you haven't already watched her videos.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 11:17 AM
3

The Hill is decent for American political news, though it's sometimes pretty centrist-y
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 03:51 PM
5

Starting to sound like a broken record, but there is a big overlap with the traditional conservative worldview and feminist worldview. In both, men are expected to protectors and providers. In feminism's case, it's all about how men can be better 'allies' for women. But you already know all this, but it's just so frustrating when no one sees the clear parallels.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 02:22 PM
1

Not just conservative women, labour feminists, among other groups of feminists, opposed the ERA because it would mean protective legislation giving women special rights (e.g. maximum hours, safety regulation, mandatory breaks) would have to be removed. There were several feminist groups who saw the ERA as detrimental to women.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 01:36 PM
6

'Fragility' is worse than that. It's literally a traditional masculine norm repackaged as a feminist/social justice term. It's meant to shame men into not expressing emotion, "look at the fragile white man overreacting". You know, the exact same way men are traditionally meant to be stoic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 01:09 PM
8

Yeah the constant "can't you stop hating on feminism and focus on men's issues" is so frustrating, when in reality it should be put back at them "can't you stop defending feminism and focus on men's issues". The constant dancing around the issues to avoid stepping on feminist toes is what I find unproductive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 07:55 AM
1

I wasn't trying to argue the issue, I was just trying to highlight that LWMA has some good discussions on issues such as that, so I think you'd like it.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 07:50 AM
1

Any or all; we actually had a great thread a while ago discussing that very issue. Most people are definitely on the opportunity side though, but anyone is able to contribute their arguments on the issue.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 07:45 AM
1

Please, come check out the sub! I think you'd like it. The overwhelming majority of posts foster really good discussion there's not "ragebait" which is pretty common here. Low-effort posts are frowned upon in LWMA.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 07:42 AM
1

How do you qualify a religion as 'andro-centric'?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 07:21 AM
1

You can always just post a link to your blog with a couple sentences outlining it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 06:11 AM
18

For those who haven't read the linked article (and you really should), the article is a bait and switch where the topic is actually a feminist talking about the 'end of men', in which she describes how she made a 'joke' about how men should be confined to camps away from women because men are dangerous and patriarchy, and then acts all surprised when men (and women) got upset by it. Obviously she has no self awareness that the ability for it to be a 'joke' is limited by the fact she's literally …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 05:46 AM
6

You clearly didn't read the linked article ;)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 05:37 AM
3

I think the person above was being sarcastic, making fun of how feminists construe a postive interaction as 'actually' being sexist to further the narrative of sexism in STEM
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 03:26 AM
10

The issue is they refuse to discuss how feminism has impacted perception of female-on-male rape. Good on them for discussing it, but it's shit how they refuse to discuss Mary Koss, Ms. Magazine's petition to the FBI etc. They've boxed themselves in.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 02:50 AM
3

One thing I always try and emphasize when describing my views on gender roles is the focus should be on choice. That is, one should be able to choose whether to fulfill a traditional male gender role or not. This is not to say men shouldn't lead a traditional male role if they believe it's best for them, but they do so without the pressure of societal expectations. The protector-provider role is an issue specifically because it's forced on to men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 02:44 PM
4

I think the issue is that intersectionality itself isn't the problem, it's the way it's practiced in intersectional feminism (e.g. the ridiculous progressive stacks).
/r/MensRights09/01/20 10:20 AM
6

I'm a regular in the sub and we definitely don't do identity politics. The closest thing is often how minority men are often on the worse end of discrimination compared to minority women or non-minority men (e.g. mass incarceration), but that's not really "identity politics". Most regulars there are definitely in the "economic left" camp.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 10:08 AM
6

As someone who also had a good deal of experience moderating, I agree pretty much with what you've said. The amount of censorship in MensLib is unjustifiable. They use a veneer of "fostering productive/positive discussion" but it's a load of shit, it's just an excuse to suppress dissenting opinions. Either that or they're too lazy to actually make reasonable judgements, so they just blanket remove anything that doesn't explicitly conform to their platform. Either way they're shit moderators. Com…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 05:19 PM
1

Chris Ray Gun too, though he just takes the piss out of a lot of things (his fans often called him "discount idubbbz), but he got a lot of popularity for criticizing self-righteous social justice types. Also has made videos criticizing conservative views, like when Trump claimed video games was causing violence. He's not really a MR channel though. Also as you say Armoured Skeptic has several videos criticizing faulty feminist logic, though he's not really concerned with MR, though he is definit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 02:29 PM
12

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, however I want to expand on one point Part of that is helping them transition if that is what they want, having the courtesy of using the correct pronouns, and just generally trying to understand them. Transitioning medically is currently seen as the one and only treatment for gender dysphoria. Particularly in social justice circles, there is an huge push for people to transition medically, often with reckless disregard for the complications and r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 06:24 AM
4

I'll also just add a little addendum - it gets really tiring arguing against these repetitive feminist argument. The vast majority of the time you can predict what they're going to say before they say it. It becomes so tedious. You're not arguing against an individual, you're arguing against the same old ideological spiel. It's not so much an argument but a script reading.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:32 PM
5

The safeguards do exist, you have feminist leaders, organizations and scholars who form a rough leadership and consensus amongst feminists. If a feminist essay or article (or action) is rubbish, then the other feminists should criticize it or otherwise invalidate it. The safeguards keep out those who don't subscribe to the feminist dogma. Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers etc. The safeguards worked just fine at keeping them out. The realization is that those safeguards are meant for those p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:10 PM
6

As /u/mewacketergi points out, generally the people who make this argument are ideologues who are not going to change their mind even if you make the most compelling argument in existence. They have defined (one might say internalized) feminism as being the one true movement for equality, and by definition it must be the movement for men's rights even if the actions of feminism contradict it. Let's run through some examples of arguments you can make and the typical feminist counter arguments. Ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:01 PM
16

It's actually amazing how regressive this proposal is, wrapped up in a feminist message. It's actually pretty indicative of the problems with modern feminism. Protective legislation (including maximum working hours, mandatory breaks, protection from heavy loads and other safety protections) for women is not a new idea. Women enjoyed many of the labour protections we have today before men did. You can find it from the 19th to the mid/late-20th century. The traditional justification behind protect…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 07:59 AM
10

Men create the wars if so it's only right if they fight the wars is just as stupid as saying men created the government so it's only right if they have complete power. The claim that only men create wars is meant to perpetuate the idea that war only exists as a means to show of masculinity (and thus demonize masculinity by linking the horrors of war to masculinity), rather than the reality that war exists because of very real factors, whether it be limited resources or ideological conflict. It a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:25 AM
5

I do not think being a man has any inherent meaning to me. None at all? You don't think it has affected what your interests or views are? It hasn't affected your behaviour in anyway? If you were born a woman you would act exactly the way you do currently? I know this isn't true because you are saying how you struggled with intiating relationships (me too). How did your masculinity play a role in this? Perhaps a sense of chivalry, where you can't even risk harming a woman though potential harassa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 06:02 PM
2

Actually I can see the confusion where I was switched to talking about general feminist perspective on men intiating relationships. My point was sort of trying to demonstrate how the feminist perspective should be irrelevant. That Gabor shouldn't try and contextualise his feelings in a feminist framework, but find meaning from within himself. I probably should have phrased the last pharagraph better. But your comment is still appreciated :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 05:51 PM
3

I was talking more on a personal level, why do you (Gabor in this case) feel compelled to intiate relationships (obviously I'm making the assumption you do)? How does it make you feel? My concern is that I think Gabor has conflicted feelings about the male role and masculinity, including in other threads I've discussed with him (feel free to correct me Gabor). I'm really just trying to help with what experience I have to come to terms and understand the male role. Basically I don't want men to f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 05:39 PM
5

I have never been shamed for not being manly enough, for not earning enough money, for not having the right body type, for not going to war, or anything like that. Neither have I. But I still recognize how I am being constrained by my gender role. It's not usually overt, it's covert, almost by definition. There are times I have refused to sit down on train/subway. Why? Partially I'm stubborn, partially because there is a subtle, but powerful influence for me not to as a man, that priority is for…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 05:03 PM
11

I have never been a fan of terms or concepts like internalized misogyny/misandry, and toxic masculinity/femininity. As I tend to find them reductive and often used to assign blame to a specific gender than rather looking at how society, which is created by both men and women, influences behaviour. My preferred way of talking about the issues that underlie toxic/internalized concepts is liberation from a gender role. My understanding is that women, at least in the West, have been more or less lib…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 03:59 PM
5

It's interesting you raise Macron. I think the absolute lack of scrutiny and criticism of Macron's relationship compared to older men-younger women relationships is telling. He married his high school teacher. If that doesn't even hint at abuse of power I don't know what does (yes I know they claim they didn't start dating until after 18, doesn't change the fact she was an authority figure to a young boy). Instead the focus is on older male relationships even in situations that are completely co…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/20 09:09 AM
5

A non-American's perspective: A large scale war in the vein of World War III is incredibly unlikely (though I won't rule it out completely). WMD has made conventional warfare all but obsolete, not to mention the changes in warfare in the last ~20 years with things like drones, and this likely will hold true for Iran. I think the most likely outcome is Iran will (attempt to) invade Iraq, in part through Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militias (which they already were doing) and install a Shiite Iran-fr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/20 09:33 AM
3

And my point is they're rarely equal, and even if they are technically equal in law and wording, in practice it is still men that are occupying the vast majority of direct combat roles and the overwhelming majority of combat deaths.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:33 AM
3

The issue being discussed is men dying in war. Even in countries that draft women, women still have a small chance of dying due to not occupying combat roles. Also even in countries that draft both men and women, there is sometimes still inequality in the detail, usually by having shorter terms or greater exemptions. For example, women in Israel are required to serve approximately 12 months less than men.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:07 AM
3

They also occupy a tiny minority of direct or frontline combat roles.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 04:35 AM
6

A single parent is preferable to being raised in an orphanage, no question.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 01:04 AM
4

I completed a STEM undergraduate but I'm going back to uni for a postgraduate in politics/governance. Bit of a change of direction but I think my increased for gender issues over the last few years played at least a small part.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/20 01:33 PM
0

Hi there! Just out of curiosity, how did you find our sub?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/20 01:28 PM
5

What is happening to black men and black communities is a tragedy. Black men are jailed in the USA at astronomical rates, which has flow on effects to their kids and communities, where black fathers aren't present in their family's lives and able to provide support (not to mention the de facto slave labour they're subjected to in prison). The kids in the black community then go on to have poor outcomes in standard of living and education, which means when the kids grow up they get involved in cr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/12/19 12:38 PM
5

Hey! I wrote a comment on that article a month ago. I don't think it's perfect but I did put some effort into it so I'll repost here. What a very strange paper. There's a lot of things I want to discuss about this article but there's too much, I'll just write as I go at the risk of rambling and being disorganised. Firstly, I always find it's a red flag when an article does not include its raw/original data. Nowhere, not even in the appendixes, can you actually look at the data of each of the shi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/12/19 03:20 PM
3

Which comments from the MensRights thread are you talking about? Most of the top comments (i.e. consensus) are fine. There's a couple of comments I might consider "spicy", but nothing that's misogynist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/19 12:04 PM
2

/u/homo_redditorensis Honestly I really don't want to be dragged back into a week old argument. While I get involved in my fair share of heated internet arguments, this one has become particularly vitriolic, something I try to avoid. I will just leave this one comment. Mewacketargi, I know when people misunderstand or misrepresent your views it's incredibly frustrating, but there's no point in being antagonistic, just ignore if it's not productive. homo_redditorenisis, I think you may be conflat…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/19 11:33 AM
16

It case you missed it that post was made by one of the current mods of this subreddit, albeit before this subreddit was created.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/19 12:58 AM
2

I wouldn't bother arguing with this guy. He's an ideologue using sock puppet accounts and vote manipulation. He's not interested in good faith debate or discussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/12/19 04:38 AM
2

As I said I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really sure, but to my best understanding that in most crimes character witnesses are presented by the defense, and the prosecution can only present rebuttal character witnesses (i.e. to prove the defense character witness as false). I assume this also applies to the inverse as the accuser is a prosecution witness. However, I think section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act in NSW prevents the accused from bring in a rebuttal character witness in rape cases, …
/r/MensRights27/12/19 04:19 AM
3

He's one of the sock puppet accounts lol
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/12/19 11:00 PM
3

That statement can easily be interpreted in a Marxist/socialist vein and not a conservative one. The "imaginary money or loans" is almost exactly something a hardcore communist would say.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/12/19 10:52 PM
10

Sadly the NSW judicial system disagrees with you.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 01:52 PM
19

NSW law has been interpreted that sexual history includes false rape allegations.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 01:35 PM
72

The article specifically mentions how under NSW law, alleged rape victims cannot be cross-examined about their sexual history, which has been interpreted as including history of false rape allegations. This likely (not a lawyer) also includes not admitting rebuttal character witnesses. So no it will not be covered in her character testimony.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 11:55 AM
9

Great post. I'll also add that a really important factor is that men are far less likely to contextualize what happens to them as rape. This scene from the sitcom Peep Show is actually a great demonstration of how male victims do not contextualize what happens to them as rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/12/19 11:43 AM
3

Perhaps in classic libertarian thought. Modern libertarian thought (in the vein of US libertarianism) is hyperfocused on negative liberty to a fault. I think strong welfare is needed in order to ensure positive liberty which puts it at odds with modern libertarians.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 01:43 PM
1

I love that video clip and watched it more times than I care to count. It guarantees a good laugh everytime I watch it, so thanks!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 01:37 PM
5

Extremely likely the case, given that consent is almost always discussed as only women give and men have to recieve. Men are basically assumed to always give consent. Here's an old comment of mine looking how feminist writing and the media portray affirmative consent this way, even if they technically define it as gender neutral.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 01:29 PM
4

Basically the concept of positive liberty or positive freedom. Negative freedom being freedom from external restraint e.g. freedom of religion - Positive freedom being the capacity to actually act as one wishes e.g. being healthy. Positive liberty is a major part about how I think about social issues and I think far too much focus is placed just on negative liberty, particularly in US spheres.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 12:32 PM
1

While it's better than nothing, ultimately it can end up being worthless as consent can be revoked at anytime.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 11:09 AM
5

While I think there is a good discussion to be had about capitalism and MGM, I am not a fan of clickbaity/low effort titles or posts such as this one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 06:22 AM
16

If you're going to post a long form video essay/argument, please provide a summary of the video or your own brief thoughts on the video.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 02:29 AM
7

My feelings towards the traditional masculine role is something I also feel conflicted about. Women first (male disposability) is not rational in the modern era. Children first is still rational to some extent, in purely utilitarian terms saving a child mean more "total potential years of life" saved. The reason women first is irrational is because there are nearly 8 billion humans and reproduction is not an issue. The issue isn't "there aren't enough women to ensure the next generation so we ne…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 12:46 AM
9

To quote an old comment of mine in reference to men's liberation specifically: Will men always hold the large majority of dangerous and dirty jobs? Probably. Biology plays a big role how men and women act, and I think even devoid of any societal pressure men would still be the majority of those jobs. Many men like the thrill of the military or the police force or firefighting. The goal is not to try and get gender parity in every profession, nor to create an androgynous society. The goal is to r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 12:26 AM
2

And that's the crux of it. Is the problem domestic violence or is it feminism? We can either look at Domestic Violence information and men's services or we can complain about feminists. The problem is both. They are not mutually exclusive. Feminism has contributed (contributed to, not the progenitor of) to discrimination of male victims of domestic violence. It's not just DV either, feminism as discriminated against and contributed negatively to men's issues of rape victims, family courts, educa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 12:07 AM
8

Spot on. The key word here is, and always should be, choice. Support the choice to live a traditional masculine life or something else entirely.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 11:09 AM
9

Yeah the outrage was way excessive. I think in part the outrage may be from Yang was initially very sympathetic to men's issues. Early on he made very critical statements of circumcision and he has made several statements alluding to the boys crisis. He has since walked back on his stance on circumcision somewhat, and the boys crisis has never become a major topic. So for many people his latest statements have become disappointment expressed through rage. I still think Yang cares about men and b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 11:05 AM
5

Because as O said it seems to occupy a disproportionate oint of the oxygen. I can tell you that any of the feminists I talk to, and especially the younger ones, have moved on. And the only ones still concerned are anti-feminists. Why shouldn't it be a priority issue when it's still being used, when men's lives are being ruined. When men who are victims of DV find themselves re-victimized by a system that treats them as violent offenders? The feminists shouldn't be "moving on". It still exists. F…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 10:51 AM
7

If you're not familiar with Duluth or related concepts, then why are you making arguments about 4th wavers not using it or what countries are using it? Why are you telling us to "move on" from Duluth if you don't know what you're talking about? You're not asking for help, you're making arguments and claims. The Duluth model is not decades removed, it is an active and ongoing theory and policy. The Duluth model is also known as the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project/Program, and many organisatio…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 03:51 AM
2

It's amazing how dishonest and bad faith Penguin is arguing in. Same language as Duluth, same gendered theory as Duluth, same discrimination of male victims as Duluth, but they don't use the word Duluth so they have nothing in common right? God forbid someone mentions primary/predominant aggressor laws too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 02:11 AM
13

"Benevolent sexism" is "female privilege" repackaged into a feminist compliant way. You could apply the same logic to "male privilege" and call it just "benevolent sexism" towards men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/12/19 01:28 AM
11

Because the Duluth model is still widely used by law enforcement and across the globe, and still used by some feminist organisations and domestic violence victim service. It is still an ongoing issue. Duluth model hasn't just fallen by the wayside. It actively needs to be removed. I don't understand this fascination with the Duluth Model. If it's still used somewhere, then advocate to get it removed So you do understand?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 09:55 PM
1

K
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 02:20 PM
5

While I enjoy a bit of humour here and there, this is really not the kind of thing we should want on this sub, it's pretty low effort and pretty reductive if you take it seriously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 01:53 PM
1

You're reading way too much into it If you're asserting that women are inherently better leaders like Obama is I'm not. I didn't mean you specifically, I was using a general "you", probably could have phrased it better. TLDR; your saying "checkmate female supremacists, logic indicates men are superior". I'm not saying that. You're saying I'm saying that. All I'm saying if you (general) are going to assert that women are inherently better leaders, then you need an explanation why a group of peopl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 08:36 AM
2

It's a genuine question. If we assume men and women are equally capable, then we can still explain the prevalence of male leaders by socialization. If you're asserting that women are inherently better leaders like Obama is, then you have to ask why a sex or gender that is inherently better at a certain role would not naturally fulfill the majority of that role.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 07:47 AM
2

One has to ask, if women are better leaders than men, than historically more leaders were men than women? And why is it still the case today?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/19 07:14 AM
5

Hi it's the original guy again. I just wanted to say please, please watch The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye. It is a great documentary explaining the MRA position. There is so much (deliberate) misinformation about it. I don't know exactly what you have heard about it, but it is definitely not "extremely biased right wing trash". I am not saying you need to agree with the whole documentary, but it is important to understand the otherside. Thank you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 10:33 PM
6

They're not liberal feminists or equity feminists in power. That's exactly my point. I recommend looking at this old comment thread by Karen Straughan aka girlwriteswhat. Honestly I think I'm going leave it here tonight. Thanks for the good discussion and I hope you stick around and examine our viewpoint further! Edit: I'll give leave you with a little question to ponder ;) Why is it we can have this conversation on this subreddit, but not on r/feminism?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 10:26 AM
4

Here is a comment by another frequent user on this sub that is better sourced and examination of bias towards women that I. Is it not self evident why feminist academia has a vested interest in portraying society as unfavourable to women? Feminism is fundamentally based on the notion that women have it worse than men. It's existence is fuel by highlighting areas that women are disadvantaged. Do you think feminists in academia and in power one day will go, "okay mission accomplished, no need for …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 10:26 AM
3

I disagree that that there isn't an inherent cognitive bias that generally favours women. My point about feminist academia is that it has a vested interest in portraying society as unfavourable to women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 10:06 AM
5

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I'll also just add there is huge incentive to focus of female victims, and that there is generally a bias towards feminist friendly ideas in academia (you probably disagree with this!).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 09:58 AM
6

It is still the current definition of rape used by the DoJ in the USA. What you may be thinking of is that definition used to be “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” and was changed to the current definition “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” So it went from a case of explicit discrimination against male victims of rape to imp…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 09:09 AM
6

I probably could have worded 2) better. When I said "men frequently use power for the benefit of women", what I meant is that men do not exclusively use power to the benefit of men. From a purely biological, "caveman" mentality is makes sense that men in power have a vested interest in the well-being of women. I think the cognitive bias towards women is stronger than you believe. Think of it on a purely intuitive level. How does the average person react when they see a man hit or verbally abuse …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 08:55 AM
5

This is a major barrier I find when discussing feminism with the average feminist. To quote part of a comment I made a while ago: It's also important to note that there are also two broad types of feminism. "Equality/Equity Feminism" which is the feminism based on the pure equality of the sexes, the average Jane's definition of feminism. The other feminism is "Gender Feminism" (I sometimes like to call "Institutional/Ideological Feminism"), who believe historically and currently society is inher…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 08:23 AM
7

Thank you for taking the time to engage. If you want to understand our views better, I encourage you to stick around and ask questions. We welcome friendly and honest discussion. While I agree with you that feminism is not the progenitor of men's issues, it is at best ignorant or misunderstanding of men's issues, and at worst complicit making men's issues worse. Feminism is not the issue, but it is one of many issues. Just to better flesh out my explanation to patriarchy theory, as I believe it …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 07:59 AM
8

As you say, it's complicated, but in a nutshell men have traditionally held political power while women have held social (and moral) power. I don't think either gender was historically oppressed (or I guess you could consider it equally oppressed by life), but rather each gender had a specific gender role to fulfill, necessitated by survival and a need for a division of labour.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 06:42 AM
14

LeftWingMaleAdvocate's Mission Statement does a good job of summarizing the reasons most people here disagree with feminism. While there is a lot of issues with feminism, the core underlying issue I have with feminism is patriarchy theory, or more generally feminism operating under a presumed male-oppressor female-oppressed view of history and society.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 06:26 AM
3

If people want to live a traditionalist lifestyle personally, there's nothing wrong with that. The distinction is if they're advocating for a traditional lifestyle for others. Compelling others into a traditional lifestyle is inherently anti-choice, thus I believe is incompatible with MRAs. If you're someone who likes traditional values in your own life but advocates choice for men (and women) then you're not a traditionalist MRA, but just an MRA who lives a traditionalist lifestyle.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/19 06:22 AM
5

A bit late, but Muslim and Jewish men would still be able to undergo circumcision as a choice as an adult (or teen). The rights of one individual end when they infringe upon other's rights. In this case, the right to religious freedom is infringing on the infant's right to bodily autonomy and genital integrity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 06:27 PM
2

I tend to specify "patriarchy theory" when talking about feminist notions of patriarchy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 02:23 PM
1

Also, poverty (usually) is defined by income, not by spending. As men are expected to be the breadwinners for families (especially in developing countries), it stands to reason they will earn more (and therefore be considered not in poverty), even if the money is being spent by or on behalf of members of their family.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 10:16 AM
6

There still has to be a demonstration about how climate change specifically will disproportionately affect women's economic wellbeing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 10:05 AM
8

As women are the majority of poor people They're not. Seriously what is this claim. Women have husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. To suggest that the economic impact of climate change will only hit women badly and not their male relatives is absurd.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 09:58 AM
11

Basically confirming what we already believed, that Derrick is a traditionalist with an alt-right streak. But thanks for actually going to the effort of cataloging it. You do raise some interesting points about right-wing MRAs. It seems like Derrick doesn't even really consider himself an MRA, and perhaps is only using the MRA term to give legitimacy to his traditionalist beliefs to a wider audience. So it raises the issue of what constitutes a MRA? I do not consider Derrick a MRA, even a right-…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 08:45 AM
3

While global warming is expected to harm women more than men (on average) What do you mean? I have not seen anything suggesting this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 08:06 AM
4

Not a fan of the CLICKBAIT TITLE!!! I'm not sure how anyone take Kraut seriously after the discord server controversy. That whole corner of youtube is a shitshow. I don't even know what to call them because "anti-feminist youtubers" isn't fair to all the anti-feminist youtubers who actually make good videos without the stupid drama. Honestly I don't know if I want these kinds of videos up for discussion on this sub as a personal preference, as I feel a lot of the youtubers are concerned with pol…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 04:34 AM
2

I provided my argument (rebuttal) on why NOW and Mary Koss are feminism, you don't respond to it at all except to tell me to read bell hooks, then you accuse me of ignoring you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 02:49 AM
2

Maybe if bell hooks and people like her were the ones passing laws, I would be a feminist. But she's not. Are you just going to ignore the rest of my comment?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 02:39 AM
3

NOW is feminism. Mary Koss is feminism. These are not some random internet posters. They are, and other like them, are powerful influencers in our society. They are feminism in action. They are actively changing laws and policies, in the name of feminism and in the name of equality. You understand this, yes or no? I don't understand how you can not think the largest feminist organisation in the world is at least somewhat representive of feminism. If NOW is not feminism, why is it so popular and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 02:31 AM
4

Then how do you explain the largest feminism organisations and prominent femininsts who actively fight against equality, such as NOW fighting against Shared Parenting? Or Mary Koss excluding male victims of rape, affecting the CDC? Are these just a "blind spot in mainstream feminist conversation" too? These are specific examples of how feminism is directly antagonistic to men's issues and creating negative outcomes for men. Should we not be critical of the movement which facilitates these kinds …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 02:11 AM
3

Also you didn't answer my question.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 01:52 AM
3

I was talking generally about MRAs, not one specific user.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 01:47 AM
3

I believe your comment is the first mention of feminism in this comment section. Here is a question I would really like an answer to: Do you think feminism has contributed zero harm towards men and boys' issues? Male advocates/MRAs/egalitarians do not call feminists an oppressor class. They are simply one of many social forces that are contributing to men and boys' issues, and for this reason they deserve to be criticised. I feel like you are projecting here - feminist theory calls men an oppres…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 01:32 AM
1

I don't understand how you can look at a clear discrepancy in education outcomes between the genders and call it "Oppression Olympics". Do you not see preferences in scholarships/grants as a problem? Do you not see how it is indicative of a larger issue?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 01:18 AM
3

It's where the dogma creeps in. They define feminism as inherently good, therefore anything bad that comes from feminism is not actually feminism because feminism is inherently good. So feminism only produces good which just proves it's inherently good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 12:34 AM
8

It's just a small part of a bigger question of who should be allowed to migrate into a given country and what it means to be a citizen of a country. Who gets to decide what 'culture' is representive or appropriate of the country of immigration? Honestly I don't really have a good answer myself. There's a balance to be struck between ensuring new citizens have respect for the existing culture and creating harmonious neighbours, and prescribing a static culture for country. As for "respecting wome…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 12:17 AM
3

I have very mixed feelings on the feminist movement as a whole. My opinion has changed back and forth many times over the last few years. On one hand, I want to recognise their achievements in women's rights. On the other, Karen Straughan aka u/girlwriteswhat (and others) have made compelling arguments that feminism is not and never was about gender equality. The opinion where I'm at right now is that feminism was an outcome of changing attitudes about gender due to industralization and war, not…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/12/19 10:38 PM
11

Two general criticisms without going into specifics: Joint custody is not the same thing as equal custody. A father who only gets to see kids once a week (or less!) may still be considered as having joint custody. As you say, +90% should be the goal here. To go one step further, 50:50 equal custody should be presumed/default arrangement, and the system should encourage such an arrangement whenever possible. I think the only reason that number is as high as it is due to survivorship bias. Men are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 04:40 AM
3

I think they're just being cheeky/friendly banter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 04:26 AM
4

Here's my short, 'hot' takes on all these issues. Obviously they're more complicated that this, but it's a summary. The gender gap in many professions widens as egalitarian principles become more widely accepted. The "Nordic Paradox" in differences in professions between genders is only a paradox if you believe in the blank and there are no biological/psychological differences between men and women. The solution to the "paradox" is simple - men and women have innate preferences and when given th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 04:11 AM
9

While I agree with your overall sentiment, "Reddit feminist" types very much do exist in the real world, and have a huge influence in colleges and universities. The feminist academics who promote misandric theories and policies fall into the same general field of feminism as "Reddit feminism".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 06:26 PM
7

This is also what people believed prior to the invention of the Duluth model The hilarious thing about this part of their argument is an admission that, at best, feminism has made no effort in regards to men's issues and is happy with the status quo when it concerns a negative outcome for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 07:16 AM
10

You are not even allowed to mention FGM in any context when discussing MGM on Menslib. That's the level of censorship and echo chamber we're talking about here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 07:07 AM
3

Probably because the comment is implying that women don't have agency, and women couldn't possibly support a prolife stance outside brainwashing from religion (i.e. men). Not report worthy but an ignorant comment.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 07:04 AM
5

You pretty much say as much in this twitter thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/MattTheGweat/status/1185663520324640769
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 06:34 AM
7

I think people just are hyperaware of differing/opposing views. Basically ever since this subreddit started I've seen people saying X group is dominating the discussion, whether it be Menslib, libertarians, classic liberals etc. As other comments point out, I think this is a good thing as it shows a diversity of viewpoints, fostering good discussion and preventing an echo chamber.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 05:46 AM
13

My preferred analogy is that's it's like saying Marx had an unhealthy obsession with capitalism. The whole 'can't you focus on real men's issues without attacking feminism'is such a lazy, awful argument. Feminism is the mainstream orthodox view on gender. It's basically impossible not to discuss it. Try having a discussion on communism or socialism without ever mentioning or alluding to capitalism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 05:39 AM
10

No, the mainstream right and conservatives do not challenge patriarchy theory. They may challenge specific feminist policies and actions, but not the theory that underpins it. I think in part this stems from the fact conservative agree with patriarchy theory to an extent - that men dominating women is/was the natural order of things, although their outlook is obviously different to that of feminists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 02:55 PM
3

Symbols have fuzzy histories. This symbol is technically generic feminist symbol, but the symbol is by far most closely associated with radical feminists. GenderCritical is TERF, which is a branch of radfeminsm.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 02:36 PM
15

I would go more specific. Feminist theory is never challenged in the media or academia. Debates within feminism never challenge concepts like patriarchy theory. By feminists and many non-feminists, patriarchy theory is gospel and is true as gravity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 02:29 PM
10

Yeah it's one of the clear examples of how feminism is not just simply supporting "equality of the sexes".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 05:49 AM
15

I don't know if you missed it but there was a thread here recently that discussed this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/e7gdhd/why_are_feminists_so_adamant_about_defending/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 05:43 AM
7

This is an incredibly disingenuous interpretation. Does something have to be literally 50:50 to be considered equal? What about 55:45? And secondly, something does not have to be literally equal for it not to be gendered. The causes of IPV are not uniquely gendered. That is, IPV doesn't exist because it's driven under some uniquely partriarchal or 'toxic masculine' system. Most IPV is reciprocal. I think I can't stress this point enough - the causes of IPV are almost never to do with gender, the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/19 04:09 PM
7

You already asked the same question two weeks ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dzz6se/what_are_your_views_on_the_discussion_of_sex/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/19 03:54 PM
33

The "official" or common explanation given by feminists (as many do in the threads you linked) is that in the male-oppressor female-oppressed society ('patriarchy'), women who hate on men are punching up and men who hate on women are punching down. They subscribe to "prejudice plus (institutional) power" model of discrimination often used to describe racism in social studies and social justice activists. That is, because women have no power, they are literally incapable of discriminating against…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/19 06:07 PM
1

Yeah, it's a shortening/portmanteau.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/19 08:50 PM
1

A bit late, but the conclusion workplace violence dispropotionally affects men is an obvious one. There's a reason there's such a high demand for male nurses (in addition to nurses in general) - they need nurses who can handle unruly and violent patient, and move heavy patients, and men are the ones expected and more capable of doing so.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/19 12:01 PM
4

I feel you are being pedantic. Serpentineeyelash meant "women were actively prevented from entering positions of formal/political authority" in the context of his argument, not a pure statistical argument.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/19 06:12 AM
2

I fundamentally disagree with the approach MensLib takes to men's issues, and I disagree with your characterization of how they handle discussion there. That's all I have to say about it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/19 04:07 AM
6

I'm going to go somewhat against the grain here and say no, women were not historically oppressed, albeit with a huge asterisk. By 'oppression' I assume you mean 'the patriarchy' or men have oppressed women, which I do not believe to be the case. What I believe is that historically both genders have been confined to specific gender roles, mandated by the need to survive. Gender roles acted as an efficient division of labour. So in this sense both genders were 'oppressed' into their respective ro…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/19 03:57 AM
3

I agree it's a sensitive subject. But ultimately I subscribe to the maxim that the rights of an individual end when they infringe upon another. In this case, freedom of religion is infringing on the right to bodily autonomy/genital integrity of the child. Jewish and Muslim (and Christian and non-religious for that matter) men can still undergo circumcision when they able to consent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/19 12:27 AM
2

I really can't be bothered getting into an argument on this, so I'll just say the experience of many MRAs and male advocates on MensLib is one of censorship/bans, particularly when it comes to serious/holistic criticism of feminism. While I have not actively participated in MensLib, I am a long time lurker and have observed the pro-feminist slant and removal of criticism myself. A brief look at your posts there I couldn't find anything that was overtly negative about feminism. MenLibs unabashedl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 11:53 PM
3

Just wanted to add that there's huge discussion about how women have to carry the "emotional labor" of society, yet there's not awareness that men carry "emotional labor" of not being able to express themselves and expected to be a bedrock of stability and stoicism at all times, especially for others in times of crisis or grief. In some ways that's what I consider actually laborious - it takes effort to hold back emotions, and none to let go of your emotions. To paraphrase Tom Golden, at a funer…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 04:41 AM
3

Yeah it was more a rhetorical question
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 04:28 AM
5

How BLM is actually racist/sexist When has this ever been said on this sub? These people really just make stuff up or see what they want to see. This sub has always discussed how black issues intersect with male issues. Black men are hurt severely by intersectional discrimination.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 03:18 AM
8

They can't comprend criticism of feminism. It's basically blasphemy for them and you should be burned at the stake for it. We are heretics in the eyes of MensLib.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 03:12 AM
5

I haven't watched the video yet, but here is a comment I made a while ago about toxic -inity. While my views have evolved somewhat, and it doesn't address all the problems I have I with the term (such as toxic masculinity being internal while the 'equivalent' internalized misogyny is seen as external) it does still does represent my core opinion on the term(s) toxic -inity I too take issue with the term "toxic -inity". My biggest complaint about the term is it implies that harmful behaviours are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 12:12 AM
5

All parties, both left and right, all of media, all NGOs, everyone supported it... which may be surprising to some of you. It's really not surprising when you realize the feminist world view is pretty much identical to that of social conservatives. 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 obvious…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/19 02:23 AM
5

What you're asking is pretty broad so you may want to narrow down to something more specific. But here is one study that may help answer your question: Moral Chivalry - sacrificing a man instead of a women is seen as more moral, and people are more willing to sacrifice a man. Also consider just the general male disposabilty stats. Men are the overwhelming majority of workplace deaths and injuries, combat deaths and sucides. You could also consider men's lower life expectancy and the little conce…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/19 01:16 PM
4

I thinm there's been some confusion. I was orginally referring to Mary P. Koss' 1987 study, which I quote: The results indicated that, since the age of 14, 27.5% of college women re- ported experiencing and 7.7% of college men reported perpe- trating an act that met legal definitions of rape, which includes attempts. Rape in the study is defined as: The groups labeled "rape" (yes re- sponses to Items 8, 9, or 10 and any lower numbered items) and "at- tempted rape" (yes responses to Items 4 or 5 …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/19 05:21 AM
3

Yes, it's sexual assault not rape, my mistake. But it's still controversial for the reasons you mention and others, such as counting drunken sex (both parties are drunk) as sexual assault afaik. Edit: apparently it was "rape or attempted rape".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/19 01:20 AM
9

As no one has mentioned it in the comments yet, I just want to state here that made-to-penetrate not being considered rape by the CDC is due to the influence of feminist researcher Mary P. Koss, who in a nutshell, does not believe men can be raped. If I remember correctly she is also the source of the infamous and controversial (to put it lightly) 1 in 4 women in college get sexually assaultes statistic. Mary P. Koss is a classic example of how feminists will institutionalize discrimination agai…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/19 03:43 PM
1

It doesn't explain why there's such a discrepancy between the genders. Raw capitalism is gender blind. There must another factor for why men get longer sentences. Why aren't more women in private prisons?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/19 07:08 AM
3

I do think trauma manifests differently in men and women. Women are more likely to be killed by their partner. Men are more likely to engage in self destructive behaviour because of their abuse, suicide, drinking themselves to death.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/19 02:10 AM
1

A major problem is very few people are willing to do research in this area because of the politics around it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/19 03:19 PM
6

They pick the latter because of socio-biological factors cause them to. Even when presented with "the correct information" many people will still be vehemently opposed to men's issues. It's how deep the prejudice goes. This is fundamentally why men's liberation will be so much harder than women's liberation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/19 01:01 AM
8

They don't. They have an innate bias towards women. It's the Women Are Wonderful effect. Some other examples of studies showing innate bias towards women in some form: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jolien_Van_Breen/publication/325263802_Subliminal_Gender_Stereotypes_Who_Can_Resist/links/5b1e39ed0f7e9b68b42c35f4/Subliminal-Gender-Stereotypes-Who-Can-Resist.pdf https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334751470_Reactions_to_Male-Favoring_vs_Fem…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/19 12:32 AM
4

I don't really agree. The same way women can enter politics, STEM etc and behave the way that's need (aggressive, confident etc) and still remain feminine, I think men can do the inverse and remain masculine. It's not about changing masculinity (like feminism would have you believe), it's about changing our societal perceptions and attitudes. I think a great starting point is an emphasis on fatherhood for a re-framing (but not reconstruction) of masculinity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 04:24 PM
9

I don't agree with your aggressive pessimism. While I agree that men's liberation is going to be much hard than women's liberation, I don't see it as completely impossible. You will be VERY hard pressed to find a men’s rights activist that is a woman. Karen DeCrow, Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, the Honey Badgers, Suzanne Venker, Janice Fiamengo, Christina Hoff Sommers. The list goes on. Not all of them call themselves MRAs (or similar term), and not all of them I agree on their views/methods, bu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 04:02 PM
9

As you say, MensLib ≠ men's liberation. I would go far as to say they are antithetical men's liberation from gender roles. I don't really agree with your assessment that egalitarianism is what will eventually liberate men. The MRM is a focused movement with clear goals, which is what I think is needed for any real societal change to happen. As feminism did for women's liberation, hopefully the MRM will do for men. Egalitarianism, I think is the end goal, the "post gender role" society, but not t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 02:06 PM
5

Yeah I'm so sick of it. Started reading the first paragraph thinking, "maybe this will be a nuanced take on how changing gender expectations has resulted in some negative outcomes for both genders". But no, it's just garbage "women are doing so great, but men aren't, which sucks for women". Men can literally not have problems. Everything is a problem for women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 01:04 PM
8

I'm really confused at what this article is trying to say. It feels like they found a single data point and tried to extrapolate a whole social theory from it (that just happens to be clickbaity and friendly to the feminist idea of a pre-historical matriarchal utopia). A lot of the article doesn't even discuss things that are directly related to the grandma-evolution link. Like it spends a great deal talking about unique socialization of humans and cooperation by humans, without actually saying …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 12:53 PM
16

I really don't like discussing the gender in terms of which gender has the more "privileges" or "advantages", I feel it's reductive. How I like to discuss it is in terms of liberation of gender roles. Both men and women have historically been limited by their gender roles, out of necessity, the need for survival. A division of labour made the most sense. Now days, with modern technology and medicine, the need for survival is no longer relevant, and therefore gender roles are no longer (less?) re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 12:36 PM
9

There is no reason to think Michael Bloomberg would make any progress on men's issues. He's also a clear example of the wealthy trying to buy their way into politics. He's a political opportunist, mayor of New York as a Republican, before become independent in his last term when Republicans are no longer popular, and now running for president as a Democrat because he can't as a Republican. A political opportunist like him is never going to make a principled stance on men's issues, even if he sup…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/19 12:24 PM
1

Yeah that's what I said.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/11/19 04:21 PM
1

What do you mean?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/19 03:39 PM
3

I consider it part of the larger debate between equality and equity, also known as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Is it more or less fair to give someone more resources than someone else because of innate differences? Is there a happy medium?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 04:27 PM
8

Yeah, Pinker discusses this issue in that talk (and in his book). He suggests the reason the blank slate hypothesis of cognition is so popular is because it plays into idealized notions of equality and egalitarianism - the idea that all men are literally created equal, when clearly that's not the case. But accepting the reality that people have innate cognative differences does not conflict with ideas of equality, though it probably makes it harder to put into practice. Just because people are d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 04:03 PM
14

This talk by Steven Pinker summarizes the scientific data on cognative differences between the sexes, albeit it's a little old. Part of a debate with Elizabeth Spelke. Pinker 's works, including The Blank Slate, are great examinations of the innate bias and hardwiring the brain has. My view is just what the science says. In an extremely simplified summary: No statistical difference between the sexes in average general intelligence. Slight advantages to either sex in specific mental tasks - e.g. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 02:07 PM
1

Yeah, but my point was that what she did admit to did not break the rules, so there was no formal reason she had to resign.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 11:08 AM
8

It's because the sub is small. From my own experience modding, there's a direct relationship between the size of the sub and low effort posts. As subreddits grow you get more people who are just looking to karma farm, and more people who just scroll through casually and like image macros and low effort posts because it's easy to digest. Low effort posts probably won't be a major concern until the sub starts approaching ~10k, which will be a while away.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/19 01:13 AM
2

That's incredibly reductive way to look at childcare. Even in a communist utopia, people are still going to need childcare services in some form at some point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 02:29 PM
2

Universal Childcare is not a "horrible" idea. Is it going to solve the issue of low wages and long working weeks? No. But that's not the point of it. I don't see how universal childcare (by this I assume you mean free childcare), is a bad thing. Even in a ideal working environment with low hours and high wages, there are still going to be times when people need to use childcare - single mothers and fathers who don't have any family or friends they can ask in particular. Children shouldn't be a b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 02:23 PM
1

Why are you screening other commenters?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 02:10 PM
1

My point was the premise of this piece was that women's safety is consider sacred, and men's safety takes a backseat, yet the author does not argue or suggest that this (may) also also apply to sexual assault and domestic violence. "Some types of violence arguably are, like sexual assault and partner violence..." though this may be because male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence are often disregarded.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 02:57 AM
1

I have made an effort in good faith to demonstrate that men giving concent has never been the concern of feminism, and concent is only being discussed as something women give. Honestly I find it disappointing how dismissive you are, particularly as you have made no effort to demonstrate why my examples are not representive (they include the popular everydatfeminism, Time magazine, and prominent feminists Gloria Steinem and Michael Kimmel). See you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 12:38 AM
1

Are you even reading the same text as me? From example one: That’s where common victim-blaming notions come into play: “She was drunk,” “she sleeps around anyway,” “she was wearing a low-cut top and a miniskirt,” “we’d had sex before,” and so on. So with affirmative consent, or “yes means yes,” we imply that women have the power to be their own agents when it comes to sex and consent “Sexy consent” is still designed to satisfy the male gaze without taking the preference of the person giving cons…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 12:26 AM
1

What are you talking about? The example I provided show that concern about concent is only focused on women. There is no discussion on women gettimg consent from men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 11:51 PM
3

Thanks. Apparently, the reversal has only been tested on primates, but it does look promising.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 04:25 PM
3

Source? I don't mean to be critical, the OP article doesn't mention it and I would like to know more.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 03:16 PM
3

13 years seems like an exessively long time. What if you meet a woman you love 2 years into your 13 year contraceptive, you get married after 2 more years and you decide you want kids? Guess you have to wait 9 years for it to wear off. Hopefully a version with a shorter time frame will be developed. I'm sure the 13 years will give most men who want kids in the future serious doubt. The way I see it, this is more an alternative to vasectomies than a "true" contraceptive (the article even says as …
/r/MensRights20/11/19 02:03 PM
4

Copying a comment I made in FeMRADebates which is pretty appropriate for this thread: To talk specifically about the MRM, I think the "problem" is no real orthodoxy exists in the MRM the same way it does in feminism, that is, feminism has been institutionalised in academia (gender studies) and government to a large extent, with formal social theories (e.g. Patriarchy). The MRM doesn't really have a comparision. The MRM is all but unrepresented in academia, and the closest thing to an orthdox org…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 11:29 AM
1

As I've said before, just because rightwing advocates don't agree with leftwing advocates on a solution, does not mean they don't agree on the problem. And as we on the left should understand perfectly, you do not have to agree with everything your "side" says. In the context of rightwing MRAs, I see no reason for libertarians have a fundamental incompatibility with the MRM, as they are economically conservative and socially liberal. The emphasis is on socially liberal - there is no inherent rea…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 11:25 AM
3

While "affirmative consent" is gender neutral in the sense that "sexual partners should get an enthusiastic, verbal and specific yes" is gender neutral, in context and in practice this means men should seek enthusiastic consent from women, and women are the givers of consent. If you look at any feminist discussion of consent or affirmative consent, it is almost always in this context. Even those who do not support affirmative consent laws, for practical or moral reasons, still acknowledge a male…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 11:19 AM
1

Do you think rightwingers should not be allowed in the MRM at all?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 01:13 AM
5

Why is pushing "affirmative consent" only targeted towards men then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/19 01:11 AM
1

I don't know what you think the movie is about but it does a good job of laying out general MRAs beliefs. If you are so convinced your preconceptions of MRAs/male advocates are correct then you have nothing to fear - it will only confirm your suspicions. All I ask is to actually examine what MRAs/male advocates believe rather than what other people tell you they do.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 04:09 PM
1

It is exactly No True Scotsman. You're saying ideas that are commonly put forward by feminists and feminists organizations aren't "real" feminist ideas... because you said so. If your issue that 'fake' feminist ideas are being called feminist ideas, then your issue should be with the people and organizations who call themselves that, not the people who criticize them. It seems your mind is set in stone. All I can say to you is that I believe your perception of what MRAs and male advocates believ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 03:54 PM
1

Did you miss the part where I said: Male advocates have no objection to Equality Feminism (on the contrary, they celebrate it). Male advocates object to Ideological Feminism
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 03:38 PM
1

Ignoring the obvious "no true Scotsman" fallacy, if by definition you define feminism as inherently good, then by definition it can do no wrong. You admit there are distasteful (misandrist) ideas that are called feminist ideas, even though you don't think they are "true" feminist ideas. Then why do you have a problem with people, including MRAs, criticizing those ideas? Under your own definition, MRAs aren't criticizing "true" feminist ideas, they criticizing these "fake" misandrist feminist ide…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 03:35 PM
1

I'm genuinely confused what you are looking for. You want a pro-feminist men's subreddit but don't like MensLib? Also, are you suggesting no element of feminist should be criticized? Does this mean parts of feminist theory like the SCUM Manifesto should also not be criticized?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 03:14 PM
1

MRAs typically do not believe the patriarchy exists, or more specifically not in the way put forward by feminst theory. Most regulars in this subreddit are critical of patriarchy theory. Criticism of feminism or patriarchy theory is not criticism of women. Feminism is not women. I get the impression you are unfamiliar with criticism of feminist theory. This subreddit welcomes skepticism and criticism of feminist theory. If you think feminist theory is immune from criticism, then you will not enj…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 02:58 PM
3

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of r/MensRights. There have always been a wide range of politica opinions in r/MensRights, from far-left to far right. While I do agree there has been a small but noticable trend rightwards in nature (I believe in large part from disillusionment with the left due to failure to address men's issues), I would characterise it more as libertarian than neo-conservative for the most part. The alt right specifically has never has been part of MensRights - in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 10:47 AM
1

To copy an excerpt from an old comment I made: It's also important to note that there are also two broad types of feminism. "Equality/Equity Feminism" which is the feminism based on the pure equality of the sexes, the average Jane's definition of feminism. The other feminism is "Ideological/Gender Feminism" (I sometimes like to call "Institutional Feminism"), who believe historically and currently society is inherently oppressive to women, and men are inherently oppressive. Ideological Feminism …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 07:47 AM
1

Feminism holds a monopoly on gender issues. You literally cannot discuss gender issues, or male issues with discussing (or criticising) feminism. Many of the injustices faced by men today have been reinforced or codified by feminists or feminist ideology - e.g. "made-to-penetrate" not being considered by rape due to the work of feminist Mary P. Koss., the Duluth Model which assumes male victims of DV do not exist was pioneered by feminists, among many others.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 07:09 AM
2

No, all it means is we can't conclude that gender studies is comparatively worse than other fields. We can still say there is a problem with gender studies with so many hoax papers published, but it doesn't preclude other fields from being flawed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 04:16 AM
1

I don't know if there'd any super extensive lists, but the guys behind the Grievance Studies Hoax managed to get many papers published or accepted - Wiki Link. While hoax papers do exist in other fields, they seem to be nowhere as prevalent - Wiki Link. Yes I know an argument is that maybe other fields haven't been as "tested" as extensively as gender studies, but the fact remains the most extensive hoaxes have taken place in gender studies and related fields. Edit: I'm not sure if there's any l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 03:04 AM
6

Moreover, women never have to get consent. It's just assumed men always say yes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 01:22 AM
1

AFAIK there have been similiar attempts in other fields over the years, which are nowhere near as vunerable. These guys in particular have got more than one "hoax" paper published in grievance studies/gender studies journals.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 01:08 AM
19

As I've mentioned several times previously, the issues that are facing black men (or any other male minority) are almost always discussed exclusively in terms of race and never gender. No one wants to say it's not just because they are black, but because they are black men. It's not black students, it's black male students. Feminists only want to use intersectionality when it suits themselves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/19 03:14 PM
2

There's currently a post about the hoax on the front page of r/all. It's quite amazing how many people are arguing it is in no way a reflection of the merit of the theories in gender studies and simply a reflection of the poor quailty of those specific journals only.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/19 08:18 AM
9

Interesting article, longform criticism/analysis of the current gender paradigm is rare enough that I always enjoy reading it. While I very much agree with the general premise of the article, I have a few criticisms of the article. The author portrays feminism's attitude to women's safety as almost unintentional, almost saying "wow, I can't believe feminists haven't noticed their focused concern on women's safety is traditional". The author doesn't even entertain the notion that feminism may not…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/19 03:18 PM
1

I say they're vaguely related exactly because they're connected by the general category of "men", and differ greatly in their beliefs, goals and issues (often to the point of being diametrically opposite). It would be like calling a Conservative Christian Woman's Group and the National Organisation for Women as part of a "femosphere". I don't see how it's useful at all. I think it's actually harmful - I think it contributes to the conflation of MRAs, incels, MGTOW etc that so may people do. Perh…
/r/MensRights16/11/19 02:44 PM
4

On the part of the feminist reading - I agree. The way I see it is the feminist dogma he was subscribed to wasn't working, wasn't helping him achieve success in his love life and he didn't know why. So he tries to find answers the only way he knows how - asking women. If I had to make an analogy, it's like a child who (innocently enough) questions the religion they're raised in or lashes out. Rather than being told what is wrong, he is scolded and his question goes unanswered, which just makes h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/19 03:33 AM
2

The post that spurred OP to create this threat is from TheRedPill subreddit, which is not an MRA group.
/r/MensRights16/11/19 03:03 AM
2

I refer you to the comment I just made in response to OP. Why should we address it? TheRedPill has nothing to do with us or MRAs. They are not part of our community. Why is the onus on us to address it?
/r/MensRights16/11/19 03:01 AM
2

The term "the red pill" is from the Matrix, where it's symbolic of a deep epiphany or realization of how the world "really works". As such, "the red pill" has be use by various groups over the years (including groups not related to men in anyway) to symbolize how their outlook is revolutionary. The Red Pill movie uses the red pill in that, simple "Matrix" way to symbolize how MRAs have a different outlook on gender issues. TheRedPill subreddit also uses the term, but to mean something completely…
/r/MensRights16/11/19 02:54 AM
1

The post you are basing this post off of is from The Red Pill, which is not a MRA group. This is essentially guilt by association. MRAs do not have to take responsibility for the actions of non-MRAs.
/r/MensRights16/11/19 01:09 AM
3

A little off topic, but I despise the term "manosphere". I find the term is most commonly used by those (typically feminists) who want to apply guilt by association for various groups that have little in common. Redpill and Incel communities have nothing in common with MRAs/male advocates other than vaguely being about men.
/r/MensRights16/11/19 01:03 AM
2

I don't see how someone could see the violence as an endorsement. It's an explanation of how people become some radicalized and socially isolated that committing horrible acts is the only way they can feel validated. I don't know about empathizing. Is empathy an innate or learned trait? Are people less inclined (or conditioned less) to empathize because the story is about a man? I feel like someone who has empathy and can think critically can actually see what the article is saying. I don't real…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/19 05:47 PM
4

I may revisit and expand on this later, but after reading this fascinating article and reading the conclusions people had from multiple, differing subreddits, I don't feel I agree with any conclusions I read. My own interpretation is the story is a criticism of gender-based dogma, or just dogma in general, told from a male perspective (and thus how it effects men). The story is critical of both "woke" or radical feminism, and of incel-like thinking. I don't believe the story is critical per se o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/19 05:40 PM
8

Just saw that askfeminists thread - wow the comments there are so incredibly shallow. Are those commenters incapable of empathy? (or is it because it's about issues men have?) I don't know how you can read a piece like this and not come out saddened. I can admit that I can relate to certain parts of that piece. At least from my interpretation, the comments in that thread is one of the very things the article is criticizing. The lack of self-awareness is always astounding.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/19 05:10 PM
4

Do you mind elaborating further on this post?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/19 02:03 PM
1

As I mentioned in my other comment, as far as I know the rule only applies to congressional staff, not campaign staff which Katie Hill admitted to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 01:14 PM
5

I agree. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but using a term like "self-partnered" says to me that the person is very self-conscious about being single (and perhaps they don't want to be) so they overcompensate by using a new "sophisticated" term. "It's not that I can't find anyone to date, I'm actually just self-partnered I swear!"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 02:39 PM
1

Thanks! Honestly, I wasn't planning on writing that much, it just... happened. I do want to people to understand what legitimate criticisms of feminism are and what different MRA/male advocate groups are, given there's so much misinformation. I hope my comments will give people like OP (though they deleted the post after they got pushback) a new perspective/understanding on gender issues, and make a tiny step towards open dialogue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 02:34 PM
3

Great comment, but honestly the men's lib poster position can basically be summed up as thinking that paying attention to men's trauma is somehow anti-women. They basically treat it as a zero sum game when any attention to men takes away from women, and therefore is misogynist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 04:52 PM
3

To be blunt, this article reads as though your only experience with criticisms of feminism are single sentence Youtube comments. I'll try and explain the problems I have with your post briefly, honestly it's not something I want to spend a great deal of time on. Firstly, there is a distinction between two broad types of "anti-feminism" or critics of feminism, who criticize feminism for two very different reasons. First is the "conservative anti-feminist", which I guess is vaguely the topic of yo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/19 12:41 PM
6

The problem I have is that I find most compliments, typically given by or to women, are incredibly superficial. You see this all the time online, with constant "you look AMAZING", regardless of context. When I was a kid I would remember how my sisters would talk to their friends - meaningless compliments, compliments for compliment's sake. Compliments seemed to be treated more as a greeting, a form of phatic communication. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't want that. I want compliments to actu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/19 12:18 PM
1

This is an old post, but the link is broken so I'm posting a new link for any future readers: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334751470_Reactions_to_Male-Favoring_vs_Female-Favoring_Sex_Differences_A_Preregistered_Experiment
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/19 02:51 PM
10

Yep, the name is a reference is to the original meaning from the Matrix. "The Red Pill" has been used by countless groups to mean various different things.
/r/MensRights04/11/19 04:05 AM
11

I hate to be pedantic but these aren't "reproductive rights", they're contraceptive methods. Reproductive rights would be about Legal Paternal Surrender, legal abandonment, paternity fraud and yes lack of conteaceptive options for men generally etc.
/r/MensRights04/11/19 01:46 AM
3

I would also add that men tend to use suicide methods that make suicide attempts go unrecorded. For example, it is likely a man who puts a gun in his mouth, steps up to hang himself or stand on the edge of a bridge but does not end up killing himself are not counted as suicide attempts. Contrasted with women who tend to use drug overdoses, exsanguination (slitting wrists), which are far more likely to be noticed as an attempted due to the medical needed afterwards. There's also the question of a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/19 12:47 AM
4

Do you mean general sacrifice or do you mean specific cases where men will die/get injured in place of women? For general sacrifice, one only has to look at all the dirty, heavy labour jobs - they're occupied exclusively by men. Men sacrifice their bodies in constructions sites, in sewers and in mines so women don't have to. If you're referring to specific cases where men literally die in place of women, the most obvious one is of course the military. A infamous example is the White Feather Camp…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/11/19 12:43 PM
2

What a very strange paper. There's a lot of things I want to discuss about this article but there's too much, I'll just write as I go at the risk of rambling and being disorganised. Firstly, I always find it's a red flag when an article does not include its raw/original data. Nowhere, not even in the appendixes, can you actually look at the data of each of the shipwrecks and look at the percentage of survivors by gender (or other factors), all data presented is altered in someway, mostly from st…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/11/19 12:16 PM
4

Your original comment is describing this post as a right wing talking point. I would like to know your reasoning behind it. No, your reasoning is awful. You assert a right wing talking point is a right wing talking point by virtue of it "being in line with right wing politics". It's circular reasoning/ a circular definition. You're saying something is right wing by virtue of it being right wing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 01:28 AM
3

You have not established why the original post constitutes a right wing talking point. Also, "more in line with right wing politics" is a completely subjective measure. It's borderline circular reasoning. "It's a right wing talking point because it's in line with right wing politics, and it's in line with right wing politics because it's a right wing talking point."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 01:18 AM
3

Please, go ahead
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 01:07 AM
6

The analogy is there to demonstrate how just because something is supported by your opposition doesn't mean that it is wrong, and may be something most people support. Just because the right wing occasionally criticises feminism, doesn't mean criticism of feminism is invalid. Freedom of speech has often become a right wing talking point as of late. Do you disagree with freedom of speech?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 01:01 AM
7

Yes, explain to me why criticism of feminism should only be restricted to the right wing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 12:50 AM
10

Not kicking puppies is also supported by the right wing, does this mean we should start kicking puppies?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 12:46 AM
8

Criticism of feminism is not limited to any one "side" of the political spectrum.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/11/19 12:41 AM
2

"strongly dislike"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/19 04:19 AM
3

If I understand right, that rule only applies to congressional staff, which Katie Hall denies having s relationship with. She only admits to a relationship with a (former) campaign staff member.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 06:04 PM
7

It seems the difference is that Katie Hill chose to resign, while the other politicians chose not to. As far as I can tell, there is no reason Katie Hill had to resign. Additionally some of the comparisons are off - some of the other politicians listed only have unsubstantiated allegations made at them, while Katie Hill has admitted to a relationship with a campaign staffer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 07:50 AM
8

A cynic might say that she's only "changing" her image because she met a guy she liked and wants to impress him. That being said, I think we should always be open and respectful to people who change their mind, even if it seems unlikely. Benefit of doubt should always be used in my opinion. Though, as far as I can tell, she still hasn't admitted that her stunt with a matress was was predicated on a lie.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 07:18 AM
3

Patriarchy theory at its core is basically Marxist theory with women and men interchanged with the proletariat and bourgeoisie respectively. It should be fairly obvious two economic classes is not equivalent to gender and the basis of patriarchy theory is questionable at best.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/19 07:13 AM
10

I can't really comment on trollxchromosomes, but this post is almost the perfect example of why most people in the men's movement on reddit hate Men's Lib.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/19 03:26 PM
8

Are you asking for an alternative name to patriarchy, or are you asking for name for the alternative social system put forth by male advocates/MRA/egalitarians? Assuming the latter, one common term used is "gynocentrism", essentially the idea society is built around protecting and providing for women (and children). It is linked strongly term "male disposability" where in order to meet the demands of a gynocentric society, men are expect to sacrifice themselves and ignore their health and trauma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/19 02:29 PM
15

Feminism routinely say female privilege doesn't exist by rebranding it as "benevolent sexism". So even when women benefit, it's still men's fault for being sexist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/19 12:47 PM
3

Why are you attributing gay marriage to third wave feminism?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/19 05:52 AM
7

One possible explanation is that feminism goes basically unchallenged in mainstream media. Pretty much every single other issue has at least one major competing voice or theory e.g. Fox vs CNN in the US, the Guardian vs the Daily Mail in the UK etc. While conservative outlets occasionally challenge specific feminist policies, feminist theory and world view is almost never challenged. Indeed, conservatives and feminism share a similarity in often reinforcing male gender roles. Conservative and fe…
/r/MensRights27/10/19 11:44 AM
2

What I've noticed over time is how much people just give lip service to the idea of freedom of speech/freedom of expression without actually supporting it in practice or understanding the implications of it. I believe this is part of a bigger problem of people holding beliefs (even "correct" ones) without ever actually thinking critically about those beliefs, and instead they just hold those beliefs because it's what family, friends or school told them was right. The most obvious example of how …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/10/19 12:10 PM
2

I'm not saying men don't need empathy or emotional support. I'm simply saying their emotional needs and how they express themselves differs from women. Using women as a baseline as for what men should be is ultimately self defeating because men are not women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/19 03:26 PM
2

Again, the assumption is that men and women operate the same way. Men and women express emotions and relationships different. You can't just take how women act, say "men should do that too" and expect it to be positive. You have to acknowledge that men have different needs.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/19 12:11 PM
2

No, because male relationships are different form women's relationships. For example, most male friendships revolve around a certain activity or hobby that is a common interest for men. Men tend to be more practically minded when it comes to problems they have focusing on potential actions or solutions instead of simply offering emotion support. Men in general respond better to therapy when it's mixed with a hobby, craft or some other activity. It's why programs/organisation men's sheds are effe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/19 12:09 PM
2

Why specify wives and daughters, if they weren't implying gender? The average joe now days arguably has more free time - computers, plumbing, electricity have all made the average joe's life better and easier than well-off renaissance man. A middle class person is way better off than a "middle class" person in the 1500s. Whenever we compare ourselves to the 'genius men' of the past, and wonder why we fall so short, remember this: their intellectual capacity, energy, and freedom was because there…
/r/MensRights25/10/19 10:38 AM
2

Some did, but a large amount did not. At worst, they may have used the services of their patrons' servants. To use Da Vinci as an example again (as the quintessential Renaissance man), Da Vinci was born a bastard child from a peasant mother (hence is lack of family name). He worked his youth as an assistant/apprentice in an art studio. When he became successful in his own right, he too had assistants/apprentices who you might argue as "servants". A large portion of the Renaissance figures (not a…
/r/MensRights25/10/19 08:52 AM
6

I really don't like these kinds of posts. Fundamentally, the author is supposing that men are "wrong" socially and emotionally, while women are right. It supposes that men are just socially dysfunctional women, and men should just act more like women to be "fixed". Men socialise and express emotion differently to women. Rather than trying to make men more like women, how about instead we change how we treat men, provide services to men and how we perceive men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/19 04:39 AM
3

Even if she can't take OP as a client, hopefully she can provide a good referral.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/10/19 04:30 AM
2

While this statistics’ sentiment that women are paid less in modern day America is true Nitpicking on word choice - women aren't paid less, women earn less. I would also consider mentioning the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (or the equivalent legislation in other countries). That paying women less has been illegal for decades and legal remedies do exist for rare situations where women (or men) are paid less. I would also rephrase how men and women are both oppressed by gender roles. I would say some alo…
/r/MensRights25/10/19 04:20 AM
13

Pretty much every major renaissance figure was unmarried, and a large portion of them lived effectively chaste lives (though some produced bastard children). There has been long time speculation on the sexuality of Da Vinci and Michelangelo (though I think Da Vinci was probably asexual)
/r/MensRights25/10/19 02:47 AM
1

Polluting the environment is profitable because the company who pollutes does not have to burden the cost of pollution, the taxpayer does. This is why I support a carbon price - companies need to burden the cost of their own pollution.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 04:34 PM
10

I'm not saying all feminists are guilty of this. But feminism, as a movement, bears some guilt. The willful ignorance of male issues by feminism predates the 90s. Take Warren Farrell - he was a former board member of NOW - and Karen DeCrow - she was a former president of NOW - both of whom where ostrasized by the feminist community when they tried to raise men and boys' issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 02:45 PM
8

Even the part where the author absolves feminism of any guilt relating to men's issues, blaming a minority of "bad feminists"? The premise of the treatise is "we need feminism 2.0 that includes men's issues", and of course, the author neglects the fact that males issues were willfully ignored by 2nd wave feminists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 01:52 PM
3

Gender roles refers to the expectations and pressures society places on an individual to act or behave due to their biological or perceived sex (or at least, that's how I would define it). This can be both explicit and implicit. In explicit cases, the gender role will be enforce by laws, policies or systems. An explicit example of the male gender role is that men should sacrifice themselves in favour of women - it's women and children first, not men and children first. In implicit cases, the gen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 01:17 PM
4

I probably could have been more specific - I'm not against people wanting to remain in traditional gender roles, I'm against people being forced, shamed or otherwise pressured into gender roles by society, generally speaking. In a nutshell, I want choice and freedom for all on whether to engage or not engage with gender roles. There are things I love about being a man and a traditional male role. I consider myself stoic by nature (maybe to a fault), and I like the confidence and direct nature as…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 12:12 PM
9

Because my core economic beliefs are social democratic in nature (leaning towards democratic socialism). I also support things like strong government regulation and worker's rights, a strong welfare state, egalitarianism and environmental protection. Gender issues are just one of many issues that make up a political stance. I don't base my whole political beliefs around a single issue. Besides, male advocates/MRAs/egalitarians beliefs aren't on the conventional political spectrum anyway - the le…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 11:37 AM
1

I don't think solely men are responsible for women's rights, nor do I think women are solely responsible for women's rights. It as a social movement that took both genders it implement. The women's movement is perhaps the most bloodless, and the most "easily" accepted social change(s) in history. The women's movement was always going to succeed - men are biologically (and socially) predisposed to want to help women, including the women's movement. This is the fundamental problem with men's issue…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 06:51 AM
1

Even when women do enter "glorified" dangerous fields like the military or police, they are still rarely put in dangerous positions. There's very few female frontline soldiers, and few female combat deaths. Most women occupy a support role. I've also read apparently it's an unspoken rule for police departments never to assign two female officers together, with the implication that a male officer is there to "do the heavy lifting" and sacrifice himself if need be, though I don't know if this is c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 05:05 AM
1

Just wanted to add that men with power/influence often do look after women (Women Are Wonderful effect). If one believed that men in power never looked after women, one has to ask how the feminist movements succeed and why there was large male support for it, despite the USA (and most other countries) at the time having male dominated governments.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 09:03 AM
2

This may sound extreme/politically incorrect if your experience is interacting with radfems. Every building you have lived in, every road you have walked on, all the electrical and sanitation infrastructure you use was built by men. One of the best positives men have, is that they are responsible for the literal physical society and environment we live in. Now there may have been a handful of women involved, but 99% the physical environment we inhabit was built by men. This is no way meant to de…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 08:52 AM
3

Ranking and popularity are all relative. Just because the women's team are at the top of women's soccer doesn't mean the sport is popular. The top WNBA team is still going to make less money than a low NBA team just because men's basketball is more popular overall when compared to women's basketball.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/19 04:46 AM
4

What do you mean? What are those numbers?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/10/19 04:42 AM
9

And there's never any limit or qualifier to "for the good of the child". Why don't we force millionaires to pay child support for random children then? Maybe we should raise taxes so every child gets to go to an elite school. There's plenty of things society can do "for the good of the children" but no one wants to do it, or it would be politically unpopular. So instead they just rope in some poor sod who's been unfortunate to have been around the kid or the kid's mother for a few weeks, and we'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/19 09:10 AM
1

These articles always use gender neutral terms when it comes to issues that predominantly effect men and boys. It's people, adults and children, but never men and boys.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 04:36 AM
3

I would really like to see a source for that claim, ideally with the cause of death e.g. direct fire, starvation, lack of clean water etc. 90% seems too high and has my skepticism alarms going off.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/19 01:11 PM
1

Thanks, but I'm not actually American ;) I just like following American politics
/r/MensRights15/10/19 09:25 AM
3

What you said is probably true, but I still have hope for Sanders. Gabbard is probably my personal favourite, but like Yang, the DNC has her for quotas and she's been snubbed by most of the other candidates. My ideal situation is probably Sanders as President and Gabbard as VP (Yang as an alternative) but that will never happen sadly.
/r/MensRights15/10/19 07:03 AM
16

I always find posts like this on Reddit incredibly frustrating, even when the comments are generally sympathic to men or perhaps because they're generally sympathic. The reason I find it so frustrating is these posts and comments are often "close but no cigar". That is, the comments will often acknowledge it's a fucked up situation but there's minimal discussion of the societal factors in play. It's treated as a curiosity rather that potentially part of a bigger picture. For example, many commen…
/r/MensRights13/10/19 01:36 PM
13

Probably the single most frustrating thing about feminist theory is how it is set up to be largely unfalsifiable. I sometimes humorously compare patriarchy theory to Star Wars' Force as a mystical force that somehow affects everything but no one can adequately explain: The Patriarchy is what gives a man his power. It's a societal structure created by all living men. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds Western capitalist society together.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 05:41 PM
1

The "Daryl Davis" (calm, friendly, rational) approach towards engaging people with male issues is something that I still think about - specifically, will such an approach actually work with male issues. Something I think doesn't get quite enough focus is that male issues are pretty unique compared to other social issues. Men are the only social group with an outgroup bias, and people are conditioned by both biology and society to ignore or downplay male issues - a stark contrast to the feminist …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 05:32 PM
3

What are you saying? Are you suggesting Steven Pinker is a centrist and/or not credible?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 05:24 PM
1

I would say the biggest barrier to success for men's groups is the biological and social bias people have against addressing men's issues, and it's probably not going to be overcome by just hoping people realize it, even if you ask really nicely. Many men (and women) feel outraged about what is happening to men across the globe, sometimes you just need a place to vent. I think there's also a place for anger in a social movement - it's arguably the most powerful emotion. Some might even argue tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 05:15 PM
2

I agree with u/LWMAFTW - why is the bar suddenly set higher for feminism, that criticism of feminism shouldn't be a focus. You don't see people saying "Yeah Mr. Marx your manifesto is all well and good, but could you spend more time focusing on the positives of communism and not the criticisms of capitalism"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/08/19 03:40 PM
3

Great write-up! I just wanted to add it's not the first time feminist forces have teamed up with/had the same goal as tradcon forces. In the 80s, sex-negative feminists (usually radical feminists) allied with traditional conservatives ("moral majority") in order to try and outlaw and eliminate sex work in America, particularly pornography. Now, some may say that sex-negative feminists lost that battle, but I would say that they are ultimately winning the war. Patriarchy theory in modern feminism…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 06:08 AM
3

Late to the party, and there have already been some good comnents, but I just want to add that feminism has had essentially a monopoly on gender issues until very recently. Indeed, it would be extremely difficult to talk about gender issues without mentioning feminism, as most mainstream views are derived from feminism. Essentially what you're asking is the equivalent of saying "can't we discuss abortion without mentioning Republican?" or "can't we discuss renewable energy without mentioning coa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 05:52 AM
5

Absolutely fantastic. I am a big fan of Warren Farrell. In my opinion he has one of the best understandings and explanations of gender issues today.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 05:20 AM
8

A little off topic, but I've always though "emotional labour" sounds like the opposite of what people (feminists) use it to mean. That is, people use emotional labour to mean dealing with and expressing emotions, when to me it seems like it should mean not expressing emotions (i.e. being stoic). The reason I bring it up is because arguably men do have a form of "emotional labour" - the expectation they have to be stoic and collected in a crisis or emotionally harrowing experience. If there's a d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/19 05:45 PM
2

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Duke University Lacrosse case yet.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 02:19 AM
1

Social democrat is probably the most accurate label for my economic views.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/19 02:15 AM
3

You do realise you're linking biased articles on a male advocate sub right? Including the infamous one from Souhern Poverty Law Centre calling MRAs misogynist and male supremists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/19 02:04 AM
2

You seem to be really reaching. You're also using guilt by association. Just because the alt right like some of his posts doesn't mean he is altright or supports them. I'm sure both you and the altright agree that kicking puppies is bad, doesn't mean you support the altright.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 07:24 PM
3

I don't understand, because Elam says he didn't see gamergate as a scandal (i.e. he didn't care about it?), that makes him alt-right?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 06:45 PM
1

Like I said, can you provide a specific quote or at least a time stamp? You're providing your opinion on his view, not his view/quote.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 04:20 PM
0

Do you mind pointing a specific quote or view of his?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 10:13 AM
2

Yeah it's actually pretty insane if you think about it. Men are the only social group in history to have an out-group bias. This alone makes comparisons to any other form of inequality/discrimination (racial, religious, class etc) unusable, whether it be a pro-feminist or pro-MRA comparison.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 08:17 AM
1

True, but that doesn't change the fact I'm annoyed that my views aren't being completely represented when I vote.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/19 08:11 AM
1

Fellow Australian here. It's not just the Greens who do this (though they're more egregious), it's Labor too. Labor has been pushing for gender quotas in both MPs and Cabinet members. I would never vote Liberal but it's just so frustrating that there's there no real party or candidate I can vote for who reflects all my views.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/19 01:40 PM
6

This article was also posted on /r/FeMRADebates so I'm copying my comment from there. I don't understand why the author is portraying this issue as an accidental lapse or a blind spot of feminism, that it's just an honest mistake that feminism ignore or at worst demonise male sexuality and experiences. This is the end result of modern feminist theory, more specifically patriarchy theory. Patriarchy theory promotes ideas that men, and male sexuality is oppressive to women, and male sexuality is i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/08/19 05:30 PM
1

I'm really sick of the term "manosphere". It's essentially used by people as a catch all term for any group that centres around men or men's issues, even if their ideas and approaches are completely different, such as men's rights/advocates and redpillers, which have conradicting goals. Essentially manosphere is just a term used to create guilt by association, to degrade and delegitimize anything about men's issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/08/19 07:06 AM
1

I like LMA for short
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/08/19 09:52 AM
4

The difference is that they are exclusively anti-feminist, and not interested in male advocacy. A male advocate is generally anti-feminist, or at least critical of feminism, but anti-feminist does not have to be a male advocate. Indeed, there are many anti-feminists who are not anti-feminist because they are MRAs, but because they are traditionalists or conservatives. The reason someone is anti-feminist (and therefore the type and context of the arguments they make) matters.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/19 05:49 PM
1

I would be careful with figures like The Amazing Atheist. I note that you don't want to include vast numbers of "anti-SJWs", but have listed the Amazing Atheist, who I would consider a classic example of a Youtube anti-SJW or anti-feminist. While I'm not saying his videos are devoid of any value here, he, like many other Youtubers are specifically anti-feminists and not male advocates. These figures also have a lot of baggage associated with them, both personal and "professional".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/19 02:02 PM
13

The comparison between MGM and FGM to me is one of the best examples for two things: 1) The innate bias (which has both social and biological roots) of society to overvalue harm to women or undervalue harm to men. (Male Disposability) 2) The power language has at framing reality. This is a topic that often doesn't get talked about that much in gender issues, and people are generally dismissive of. There is a reason feminism has created and promoted various new terms over the years. Language abso…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/19 12:08 PM
3

Okay, but can you point out/link to some examples of what you're claiming on this sub?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/08/19 02:16 PM
5

What do you mean by Ayn Rand ideas on this sub? Can you link some examples from this sub?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/08/19 12:56 PM
7

The title immediately made me think of Warren Farrell, who went on a somewhat similar journey to DeCrow. Many of the early supporters of men's rights/male advocates were feminists that were pushed out of the movement. But stories like theirs do give me hope - that there are people out there wanting to do what's right for people, men and women, no matter what side/movement they're part of, that they will change course if they believe the movement they're currently part of is not helping.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/19 04:14 PM
2

Yes, that's a good point. Even if I disagree with (modern) feminism, I still support women's rights, which the Right doesn't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/19 05:51 AM
6

Are your political beliefs honestly just defined by this single issue? Will you just change all your political affiliations, change your support on economic issues to whichever side you think is treating men better? Strong regulation and worker's rights, a welfare state (democratic socialism), egalitarianism, environmental protection. These are things I support, and I didn't reach it overnight. The Right doesn't support these things. It is my beliefs who make me left wing, it's not the left wing…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/19 03:58 PM
8

"The Left" isn't a monolith. It's full of different ideas and individuals. I'm not going to renege on all my left leaning beliefs just because of one issue. Besides, it's not like the right is any better for men, who likewise want to reinforce male gender roles, albeit for different reasons.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/19 03:21 PM
3

Yeah, I find it's often framed in the feminist friendly notion of treating boys like girls, that they should be socialized like girls. It's not so much a modernization of masculinity as it is a feminization of masculinity. Which is why some people in r/mensrights are hostile to it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/19 02:07 PM
3

I consider myself left wing, but there's some things you've listed that I take issue with: The assumption that men truly dominated in the traditional “patriarchy” What do you mean by this? Are you asserting that women had historically had no power whatsoever, not even social power? Men have been limited by gender roles just as much as women. Both men and women were first into roles that were necessary for survival. I don't see this as men dominating or oppressing women, but rather but rather soc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/19 06:47 PM
4

I agree, and something needs to be done to try to keep it on the level, but at the same time I think it's understandable. Many men and women are very angry about how men are treated, and the fact society tries to silence any discussion of men's issues just causes the toxicity to breed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/19 06:02 PM
10

When are they going to remove gendered language from the term "feminism"?
/r/MensRights18/07/19 05:46 PM
4

Queen Elizabeth I was just a stooge, duh.
/r/MensRights18/07/19 05:08 AM
2

Good to see someone shares my perspective, friend. Here's a cut and paste of a comment I made on a different sub a few weeks ago. I too take issue with the term "toxic -inity". My biggest complaint about the term is it implies that harmful behaviours are isolated from other parts of identity. Really, there is no toxic feminity or toxic masculinity, only feminity or masculinity in excess or used negatively. Someone will probably say to me that I'm splitting hairs and that's what what "toxic -init…
/r/MensRights29/06/19 02:44 PM
9

False equivalency. There is no practical reason for circumcision, the reasoning behind it just comes down to "aesthetics" or because dad had a circumcision. It's unnecessary risk. There is a practical reason for people to drive. Namely they have to go to work, buy things etc.
/r/MensRights25/06/19 06:36 AM
5

She's been around for a while now. Makes great videos. Though her primary focus has always been humour, not activism (or to put another way, satirising social/gender issues. Her father, Armored Skeptic, makes pretty good videos too on social/gender issues, focused more on actual critique. I like him a lot, and is one of the few people in social media/youtube who I share many views (a rare thing!) so it's always interesting to see if he reached a conclusion the same way as myself. That being said…
/r/MensRights15/06/19 04:02 PM
1

I'm really not sure what you're talking about, most porn I've seen doesn't have women in pain. Some porn has a bit of roughness too it, but honestly that's in the minority. I don't see it being mainstream.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:27 AM
1

A small percentage of usable data equals a low absolute number in this case.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 03:30 AM
1

There are always going to be people (men and women) who want to take a dominant role in a sexual relationship. I'm sure there's also a group of women who prefer inexperienced partners too. People just want different things out of both a romantic and sexual relationship. As long as there's consent there shouldn't be a problem regardless. I think sex education is a big part of it. I do think women are not adequately taught/explained what is normal for sex, and ways to make sex safer and more comfo…
/r/MensRights29/05/19 01:12 PM
3

Yes it is, because only a tiny percentage of people have ever been leaders of countries, a smaller percentage still we have enough information on to make robust judgement on their rule, and a even smaller percentage of that were women.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 08:49 AM
36

"Men create the wars if so it's only right if they fight the wars" is just as stupid as saying "men created the government so it's only right if they have complete power". The claim that only men create wars is meant to perpetuate the idea that war only exists as a means to show of masculinity (and thus demonize masculinity by linking the horrors of war to masculinity), rather than the reality that war exists because of very real factors, particularly limited resources. I also think looking at h…
/r/MensRights29/05/19 08:18 AM
1

To be fair, OP wasn't necessarily looking for a debate, just wanting to hear another perspective.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:04 AM
19

Brief thoughts on the article. It's a typical sex-negative feminist piece. The author portrays sex as largely a negative thing for women, and positive for men, and that women are simply "giving" men sex, while not only getting little personal gratification from sex themselves, but it actually cause women pain. The author seems to alternate between presenting this alleged state of affairs as socially determined or biologically determined, with no real consistency I can gather. The author seems to…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 04:06 PM
1

No, the wage gap is not a lie by omission, it's a direct lie, because they claim women are not paid they same as men for the same work, which is not true. You haven't actually shown any evidence of the Danish public's perception on crime. The sources I showed demonstrate that I'm not wrong, at the very least in the Anglosphere. There at least, public perception is higher than the real rate. What's your ideal situation? Do you want the Danish media to create a panic about migrants? You seem to ha…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 02:14 PM
1

What they are saying is correct, crime rate has fallen. I see no mention of violent crime.
/r/MensRights28/05/19 01:48 PM
1

Can you provide some actual examples of the crime rate being reported as lower? You can check the sources I linked in my comment that this is not the case in the Anglosphere if you think I'm untrustworthy.
/r/MensRights28/05/19 01:32 PM
1

Managing to access the English version of the site, you ignore the fact that the spike in basically every one of the crimes has occurred in the last 3 or so years. The crime rates in Denmark have remained relatively stable from 1995-2015 (as far back as the data goes). Do you have any evidence that the Danish news media is underreporting crime rates, or that the Danish public's perception of crime rates is lower than actual data? Likewise, do you have any evidence that police reporting has decre…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 01:13 PM
2

This is not true, for both violent crime and crime in general. Here is a report by the US Congressional Research Service, showing a dramatic decrease in violent crime since the late 80s/early 90s, with the current violent crime rate halving since the historical high, reflect a similar decline in the overall crime rate. A report by the U.K's Office for National Statistics shows a similar large decreasing trend of violent crime (Figure 6) since the early 90s in England and Wales, and a similar dec…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 09:39 AM
5

It's a mixed bag, it depends on the country and church. Circumcision is popular with American Christians (and Americans in general), but practically non-existant in Europe, even with Christians. Countries with Christian communites influenced by American Christianity also seem to have a higher rate (South Korea, Phillippines etc) Notably, the Catholic Church does not support religious circumcision. Oriental churchs, such as the Coptic church, typically practice circumcision, though I am unsure if…
/r/MensRights27/05/19 04:12 AM
5

To many people (and cultures) it's seen as a rite of passage which is why people will defend it so strongly.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 03:28 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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