TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ok_Line_886 Archive

View 1 post and 147 comments by Ok_Line_886 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
10

masculinityOk_Line_886/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/11/22 07:24 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

The idea is that humans aren't very happy when their partner has multiple other partners. and prehistoric men were rapey savages. No no. Everyone was savages. Remember that we did chattel slavery within the last few hundred years. I don't know that humans anywhere have ever been above savagery. My main point is just that getting pregnant is not the "fundamental biological privilege" on par with great riches that puts them in the "ruling class" like the post claims. Nothing more, nothing less.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/05/23 04:35 AM
1

And so they were always pregnant because they were just so attracted to prehistoric Harry Styles that they just had to be perpetually pregnant? Humans are jealous things, you know, especially women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 10:27 PM
-1

What's your point here? Women's lives were better because getting raped fulfills their evolutionary function?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 10:25 PM
-1

Societies didn't stick around for long. There was a time when humans were quite primitive
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 10:11 PM
1

You didn't argue against what I said at all
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 10:07 PM
0

I mean nor is the ideal of not stealing everything. Theft was still more common back then. Violence has been more common throughout history, including rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 07:30 PM
-2

I'm just saying that I'm not sure being repeatedly raped by whoever is the "dominant" man at ant given time until you die of child birth sounds like much of a privilege to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 04:26 PM
3

Yep. All the data we have access to shows that children are better off with their fathers.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 10:23 AM
7

It's just more biological essentialism. "Given that reproduction is the fundamental function of any organism, the privileges of women are far more fundamental than any ruling class, including capitalists." Give me a break. It also doesn't track with the reality of human relationships. If we were spiders or coral that have thousands of children at once, then maybe this would be true. But in humans, children raised by their father and mother are at a huge advantage. Think of it like this. If the o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/23 03:57 AM
13

My biggest criticism of Peterson is his biological essentialism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/23 10:54 AM
2

I have a question for you. What do you think makes someone male or female? What would it take for you to say, "Yes that is a male," or "Yes, that is a female."?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/23 04:39 PM
2

Then you have males or females with unique characteristics. You're talking about something that is extremely rare. It would be like saying that humans aren't bipedal because some people are born without legs. It's just science denial at this point. You can't pretend science isn't real because you don't like it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/23 02:27 PM
0

We call them that because they are overwhelmingly correlated with the expression of the SRY gene in utero...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/23 02:09 PM
-1

If you have a functioning copy of the SRY gene, you are male. If you do not, you are female.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/23 02:02 PM
17

There are people out there that think it's a man's job to die for women. They'll tell you that it's his instinct, that it's innate, and that it's right because he "has less biological value". Of course, none of that is true. It's often conservatives that think that way. As much as we place an emphasis on countering the hateful elements of feminism, just as much misandry comes from traditionalism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/23 12:49 AM
8

It's not leverage, it's reality. Leverage would imply that men are then going to force the women's hands. I think a lot of the guys are going to be perfectly happy being single and choose that life over dating the then-antsy women. Also the article you linked is kind of my whole point. Women are turning away from most men now only to realize later that they're unhappy. The fact that they aren't unhappy right now is literally the central idea of what I was saying.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/23 03:27 AM
13

A lot of guys are realizing that they are perfectly happy single and just check out of the dating game. There is a huge problem with young women being superficial (I blame Tinder) in the dating world right now and many young guys just aren't having it. But every single guy is an inevitably single woman. And when they hit 30 and realize Prince Charming ain't comin, they start to get antsy. I think a lot of young woman are barrelling toward a harsh wake-up call. Or more probably, they'll just blam…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/23 02:50 AM
1

Why does genetics make you mad? It's not a big deal. It's not like I'm saying that XXY people are bad or something. Your point feels anti-science. It'd be like me going "humans are bipedal" and then you going, "NO! Look at all the people who are missing limbs! There are even people born without limbs! Do you hate them or something?" I'm not the one acting like a dumbass here...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/23 05:43 PM
1

Exceptions exist in pathology, but human sex is based on XX or XY. That's basic biology and it is binary. Moreover, even if XXYY people were common, I'm not convinced that that somehow automatically puts them on a "spectrum." Are they half male and half female? Exactly how much "maleness" does each Y count for? We don't have to shed basic science in order to be tolerant and accepting. Humans have binary sex determined by genetics.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/23 05:33 PM
1

I mean, if there is anything that's binary it is male and female. The vast majority of people are XX or XY and there isn't really a spectrum to be had there.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/23 05:02 PM
1

There were a couple of papers that were floating around the sub a while back that I read and am basing my claim on. I can't find them at the moment.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/23 05:25 AM
19

I do worry a bit here. The field of psychology is not known for being male-friendly. And differences that exist tend to be understated (or even reversed) when they favor men and overstated when they favor women. My favorite example of this is the whole, "Boys mature slower" idea. They frame it in terms of years to make it sound like a huge difference, but when you actually plot out the normal distributions for measures of maturity between boys and girls, there is barely a distinguishable differe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/23 04:06 AM
10

Wikipedia is a joke
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/23 03:07 AM
9

You start to notice your local bookstore stocking books with titles like “Testosterone: The Story of the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us” (a real title) LEAVE that bookstore and never go back. Welp, I'm never going into any bookstore ever again, I guess.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/23 03:06 AM
3

Interesting that Judge Colin Bruce has historically ruled the way he has. Does anyone know what kind of political lean he might have?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/23 08:43 AM
13

I think feminism is a hate ideology. It seems like those that associate hate ideologies with the right naturally see it as right wing, and those that associate hate ideologies with the left see it as left wing. Just a theory...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/23 06:31 AM
28

Well, we all know it won't be truly equal until it's 100% women /s
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/04/23 08:32 AM
12

"The moment feminists really NEED men" More like the moment that their beliefs become inconvenient. They already abandon their ideals. How many feminists do you see protesting conscription in Russia/Ukraine?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/23 04:54 AM
2

I just think it's important to present the findings accurately. If they studied undergraduates, they should say, "We find a gender bias among undergraduates," and not expand the scope to make the study sound more impactful.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/04/23 07:43 PM
12

Just being critical here, it looks like the study looked at undergraduate reactions to photos. Could undergraduates who know that they're rating people in a study be prone to overcompensating in the "intersectional feminist" (ie, pro woman) direction?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/04/23 08:24 AM
2

Well unfortunately we don't always get exactly what we want. If our culture has put young women in a place where they cannot accept the great majority of young men as viable partners, then we have no choice but to accept a generation of mostly single people.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/23 02:00 AM
2

I'm familiar with the video. I just want you you to summarize how you feel, what you think is true. Because I remember being in a similar place and figuring out what I actually believed was helpful. Let's talk about it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 07:51 PM
1

Help me understand. What exactly do you think is true? About dating, dating apps, and general success.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 07:39 PM
6

Based on the nature of the articles you posted, it sounds like you're really focused on dating. I don't see anything in there about career success or life fulfillment which is what I was talking about. I guess what I would say in regards to the dating stuff is--who cares? All these studies say to me is that there is a problem with women being shallow in the dating culture right now. Why let their problem affect you? Rise above that. If women can't appreciate you for who you are, then screw 'em. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 05:05 PM
2

Eh, this gets filed away in the same category as "people are stupid" for me. Women are shallow on dating apps--is that a surprise to literally anyone? And why does that affect me? It's just makes them miserable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 05:03 PM
1

Let's see these studies.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 03:15 PM
2

I don't find it very difficult. Why should I give a shit what a woman thinks of me?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 03:14 PM
1

They don't. Maybe you think they do, maybe you allow them to, but in reality they don't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 06:36 AM
35

Be careful not to overemphasize how much these things matter in your head. There are hordes of very successful short dudes. Don't be defeatist in your attitude. Frankly, there are things that matter a lot more than your height or looks. If you fail, it's not going to be because you're short. Also realize that everyone has these challenges. For you maybe you feel that it's looks. For someone else, it'll be different. But there are very few people out there who don't have some kind of barrier to o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/23 12:34 AM
6

And one person going down that terrible path for these reasons means that there are 1,000,000 perfectly innocent people who feel these same things.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/23 01:23 PM
2

Unfortunately, the data says otherwise. I think you're misinterpreting that. Suicide being a problem for that group doesn't mean that men don't do better than women being single. A similar effect, as an example, would be the fact that men are more likely to commit suicide in general but women are more likely to have issues with depression/anxiety. "Having something to offer" only means anything when someone is attracted by that thing, in other words, if they value it. I'm not sure where your dis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/23 08:04 PM
1

Well that's to their detriment. In my experience, guys generally go a lot better being single. It's the young women in my life (almost all single) that pine for relationships. Also, "high-value man". What a terrible phrase. What ever happened to different people having different things to offer. Are we ranking people on "value" now?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/23 07:42 PM
0

But I'm thinking polygamy is pretty rare. It's still extremely taboo in western culture. And if women are going for older men, that just means that guys will get married later, but will still eventually end up married.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/23 10:17 PM
3

I don't know that this gap "favors" women. Doesn't 1 single man ~= 1 single woman? The only way this favors them is if they largely don't want marriage.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/23 08:03 PM
3

"selectivity" I don't like calling it that because it makes it sound objective and infallible. I prefer "superficiality" since we are almost always talking about selectivity of superficial features--height, income. in favour of women But there are only as many men as there are women. Can something like this skew in favor of women? Doesn't their supposed "selectivity" bite them in the ass too because they end up marrying later, not marrying, or even winds up with them in singe-motherhood?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/23 08:02 PM
38

I think that there is also this element of "female infallibility" wherein people get really uncomfortable at the idea that many women might not always make the best decisions, especially in the context of dating. For example, if a woman is single at 30 and complains that there are no good men, the idea that she might have maladjusted or superficial priorities doesn't occur to many people. And if you point out that a lot of young women do have a problem of maladjusted and superficial priorities, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/23 03:27 AM
43

It is kind of suspicious isn't it? If a woman is the victim it's a women's issue, but if a man is the victim, even if he's 100x more likely to be a victim than the woman, it's literally anything else.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/23 06:28 AM
1

What? Blood chemistry?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/23 05:02 PM
1

I mean, I care about men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/23 05:29 AM
1

Humans seem to be either hardwired I'm with you on everything but this. Hardwired? Where is your evidence that this is baked into humanity and not some cultural thing? I think it's stylish these days to care about girls. Everyone wants to be the most "forward thinking" and pro-female in the age of feminism. I would look at that before I start implying that we'll never care as much about boys because biology. In other words, I think this is a workable problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/23 05:27 AM
1

Yes, yes. If these are the kinds of biological challenges we're talking about then sure. I guess I thought you were talking about more of the "men instinctively protect women because they want to preserve the species in the case of disaster and that's why we should send men to war" kind of "biological" reasoning.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/23 07:41 AM
1

Attributing things to biology is a very dangerous game. Most often it isn't that simple and it gives dissenters the out of, "Well it's just natural for it to be like that." And evolutionary psychology is often bs anyway. Everything is cultural until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/23 03:52 AM
4

So it's like a tax that you pay if you're doing well (ie own a home), but not super wealthy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/23 05:21 AM
1

I just hope that an institution like this actually confronts the real issues that boys and men face--discrimination. I find that it's all too common these days to start justifying discrimination by declaring that boys are less mature of girls of the same age, that we should redshirt them, etc. They really should shirk these ideas and address front on the discrimination that boys and men face rather than justify it with "biology".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/23 09:08 AM
1

(1) She assumes that men have a special obligation to protect women. Why shouldn't all individuals be equally responsible for intervening to protect any other individuals when necessary? Some people here would reference nature as a justification for this. But as a group, men and women both behave largely the way they are socialized to behave as children. Some people here would tell you that boys are less mature than girls. I don't agree with these things, but I see them here quite a bit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/23 04:25 AM
1

I know, I might extend the title to more than just radical feminists. It's not just radical feminists that treat men like they're dangerous, talk down to them. I think our culture has managed to convince women (and men to a large extent) in general to treat men like second-class citizens.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/23 08:04 PM
1

The difference is on the order of a fraction of a standard deviation.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 02:11 AM
1

This is very true. But don't forget that romantic relationships with women are often terminated, usually by the woman, as well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/23 11:05 AM
1

Personally, I have very close friendships with other men. They aren't as touchy-feely as my friendships with women which involve quite a bit of cuddling and physical affection, but I am just as comfortable sharing emotional aspects of my life with my male friends as my female friends.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/23 10:36 AM
3

Although sex ratios tend to hover around 1. If it's significantly different from 1 then that culture has severe problems to deal with other than dating. In western countries, women should realize that, with a sex ratio above 1, some of them will end up single and that if they want a relationship, they need to fight to not be in that group. Friendships are important to preventing loneliness, although friendships can be made within the same sex even between heterosexual people. I could definitely …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/23 09:00 AM
0

It's pretty well documented that boys generally develop a little later than girls, at least in some aspects. Not to any extent that would justify policy. Papers have suggested some small fraction of a standard deviation, which demonstrates that you can determine almost nothing about a person's maturity based on their gender. Differences may show up in large scale studies, but that does not indicate a difference between individuals.
/r/MensRights09/01/23 08:35 AM
2

Isn't it true, though, that male loneliness and female loneliness go hand in hand? For every single man, a single woman.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/23 07:47 AM
1

Too bad he advocates for discrimination against boys in the form of redshirting.
/r/MensRights09/01/23 06:29 AM
0

This is just calling boys stupid. Boys are not "less mature", they are being discriminated against by the educational system.
/r/MensRights09/01/23 06:23 AM
5

So what do we do? Someone needs to run an article entitled, "These are the men at risk of execution..." or something like that which points out that most of the people at risk are men. But unless this message breaks out of this somewhat niche subreddit, then it's just us talking. Which is great! I love the discourse on this sub. I just think we would all eventually like to see a world where men dying is taken as seriously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/23 06:19 AM
3

If women didn't select for wealth and status there would be no incentive for men to compete and struggle to attain it. What are you talking about? You make it sound like everything men do is at the beck and call of women. The achievements I seek have nothing to do with seeking the approval of women. I seek success for my own reward.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/23 09:29 AM
1

haha okay, I think you're trolling
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 09:05 PM
1

Absolutely not. Women do not decide men's value.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 08:31 PM
5

I'm looking for a lot more than an orgasm. I can give that to myself. And I get validation from myself too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:22 PM
3

Well then single men don't have much to worry about, I guess
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:21 PM
3

Let's see how that plays out for them in 30 years
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:14 PM
1

Is that the goal? I though the goal was marriage.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:08 PM
6

Maybe, but speaking as a man, my goal has never been to just sleep with as many women as possible. Honestly, I've seen the devastation that extra-marital sex can cause on relationships, friendships. I don't need to bed every woman in town. Only need to find one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:03 PM
2

Oh sure, they may think that. And I fully admit that many of them do. But they're just going to end up alone unless Henry Cavill decides to start taking multiple wives and they're okay being wife #8. Look, your husband might end up being short. Or maybe not the richest guy in town. He might be a little stoic, maybe not in the best shape. And the same is true the other way as well. Your wife might not be a super model. Ultimately, what everybody should be doing is looking for kind people that the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:01 PM
4

government issued catgirls I see no other solution.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:50 PM
2

Those conditions have now changed, which is great for women, not so great for short/ugly/poor men. How in the world is it great for them? The same number of women as men will end up single.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:47 PM
0

This just has never been true historically, at least for the last few hundred years. Almost everyone, man and woman, gets married.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:44 PM
2

I think they can be wrong. Look, if I walked around saying, "I won't date you unless you have D cups or larger," I'd probably be an asshole. Am I objectively wrong in some deep philosophical sense? Probably not. But I am shallow. And that would be a behavior that I should probably change.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:43 PM
5

Historically, almost 100% of people married. And however many men end up single, the same number of women will end up single.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:30 PM
4

I think the underlying tone that I'm objecting to is this idea that female sexual preference is an infallible measure of value of men--that men succeed or fail at the whim of women. This is an idea that a lot of male advocates have tried to overcome and I think they are right to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:28 PM
1

And women will suffer for it. I don't see how this is men's problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:27 PM
5

There are as many single women as single men. Why are we, even in this sub, reading this as a failure of men? We're talking as though the dating model isn't overwhelming monogamous. Why are we sitting here talking as though female sexual preference is an infallible measure of value of men? Isn't that what we want to overcome? Isn't that like, the whole problem with the term "incel"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:25 PM
2

How... biological Couldn't it just be that dating is hard in the modern world? Why make it weird?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:12 PM
1

Rhetoric like this makes me laugh. Women are a "resource" that needs to be distributed? The woman worship here is astonishing. Being a single guy is not the end of the world. And if you genuinely have a lot to offer and women cannot see that, that's not on you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:11 PM
3

No no, the historical marriage rate was almost 100%. This was not some people making it to the "top". This was almost everybody.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:00 PM
3

Why? Women are not infallible.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 03:59 PM
8

I think this idea suffers from a very simplistic view of the "sexual marketplace". Plenty of short guys, ugly guys, poor guys, etc. have historically dated and married very successfully. If that has changed, that's not a problem with men, it's not a problem with the marketplace, so it's a problem with.....
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 12:20 PM
3

I wonder how all of these conversations would change if we started talking about "adventurousness" and "courage" rather than "impulse control"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 12:08 PM
1

he is talking about how men mature more slowly than women Which is nonsense for the same reason the "pay gap" is nonsense. Can you assemble a statistic that appears to show it? Sure. Does it reflect reality? Absolutely not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 11:35 AM
5

I was the victim of a false accusation and subsequent Title IX investigation as well. Thankfully, I was eventually exonerated but it was very very hard. The process was extremely discriminatory. It's not fair and something needs to be done.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 07:19 AM
3

Oh sure, I was definitely talked down to, we were subjected to collective punishment. If we had a pizza party, we were told we needed to sit down and be quiet so the girls could go and get their pizza first. It was demoralizing. I can totally see why a lot of boys just want to check out.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 07:11 AM
3

You pasted a link to a scientific article in a separate comment which basically asserted a difference in impulse control of 0.16 standard deviations. While the paper does not justify why this might be the case or differentiate between biological and social factors, this is what 0.16 standard deviations of difference looks like between two normal distributions: https://i.postimg.cc/L8sbSR2f/asdf4t.png That is the scale of difference we're talking about. When people try and use "biology" to justif…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:29 AM
7

To help me understand where you're coming from, to what would you attribute academic female underachievement historically and as recent as a few decades ago?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 05:06 AM
1

I think you see my point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:25 AM
1

If someone ever says to you, "Look, about what I said about black people, I'm not racist, I'm just pro science." They're racist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:15 AM
3

This study suggests there exists a very mild difference (speaks in fractions of standard deviations) I'm a few things but has very little to say about why. This is not evidence for your point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 04:14 AM
2

Not interested in female supremacist nonsense. If you have a peer-reviewed study that claims something specific and testable, repeatable, then I will read it. Otherwise, I have no interest in this feminism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 01:50 AM
1

Look, I have no time for female supremacy or the nonsense idea that boys are dumb, less mature, hiwever you want to put it. It's been disproven time and time again by people here and I just don't have the energy or interest in rehashing it. I am against female supremacy. You should be too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 01:48 AM
7

No. There is overwhelming evidence that boys are discriminated against in schools.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 12:37 AM
4

Can I see this evidence?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/23 12:37 AM
5

Feminism absolutely pushed me away from the democratic party. Why would align myself with a group that appears to hate me?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 10:20 PM
21

When boys over-perform, it's because discrimination against the girls. When girls over-perform, it's because the boys are just biologically dumber. It's ridiculous. And I see it even in male-advocacy spaces.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 05:15 PM
9

Older kids do better regardless of sex. Red-shirting is not a logical solution even if this "boys are stupid" nonsense were true. The variance is too high. There is so much overlap in all these distributions that even if there were a clear difference in the means, that would tell you almost nothing about individual boys and girls.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 05:13 PM
16

My worry is that this is actually a step back. It's one thing to have society neglect boys because they're ignorant to the issues that boys face. Calling them stupid doesn't help, it just serves to justify the neglect that already exists. The message should be, "You're treating boys unfairly," not, "You're treating boys as the idiots they are, but you need to be better about accounting for that." Doesn't this all serve to just justify the teacher that grades boys more harshly? Doesn't this let h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 05:08 PM
37

And this is why it bothers me when the message just becomes, "Boys need help because they're dumber." They're not dumber. They learn in different ways. And to zero in on "biological difference" completely obliterates any space for conversation about the literal sabotage of boys by our educational system.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 05:00 PM
15

The neglect is the struggle, not the "developmental delay". You seem to be implying that the only reason that boys would need help is because they're dumb. And I'm saying no, they might need help because female teachers don't relate to them, grade them unfairly, punish them more harshly, etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 04:53 PM
21

Yeah but we should be saying, "Boys need help because they're being neglected," not "Boys need help because they're stupid." Those are very different messages. One is male advocacy. The other is female supremacy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 04:45 PM
24

Just more "boys brains are biologically inferior" nonsense. This isn't male advocacy. It's just calling boys stupid. Boys can and should be held to a high standard. And as children do, they will perform to the level of expectations they are held to. And perhaps most importantly, The stats referenced neglect, as they always do, fundamental statistical concepts like variance which help us to understand how much overlap there is in these figures.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/23 04:07 PM
1

Your issue may have been being liked. And that is something I certainly can empathize. My own popularity has certainly varied over the years. But it sounds like that is stemming from things other than attractiveness. Honestly, it sounds like you've been through a lot and I'd let yourself off the hook for that rather than concluding that you're not attractive enough. There are a lot of very attractive assholes out there. And there are plenty of ways to be liked without being attractive. At the en…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/12/22 04:20 PM
3

Beauty is a lesser virtue, but a virtue nonetheless. It has an effect in the same way that everything has an effect on our lives. It might get you an advantage in the dating world. It will certainly make you more successful in approaching random people. If your goal is to go on as many dates as possible, then sure, it's probably a huge advantage. So would being wealthy, charismatic, charming. But finding a happy relationship? Not as clear. You could claim that you're able to cast a wider net, bu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/12/22 10:30 AM
1

I'm not sure what you mean
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/12/22 05:27 AM
1

Well that's not what you said. Regardless of whether or not being obese or odd matter s9 much, your claim was that your appearance determines "almost every social aspect for you."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/12/22 03:00 AM
2

If theres anything incels are RIGHT about is that your appearance determines almost every social aspect for you. That's just not true. I can't see how anyone would take that seriously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 11:10 PM
4

It's the duality of rights and responsibility, leadership and deference, respect and courtesy. These things come in pairs. The equal right to a combat position must entail equal responsibility for mandatory service. Wanting to be treated as an equal on a date must come with an equal charge to deference and courtesy. You cannot stand up and demand respect and then simultaneously expect not to pay for yourself. And it's not that it's not fair. It's not possible. If you expect to always be paid for…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 10:47 PM
6

It's like asking whether there are more black whores than there are white whores. I am in love with this analogy. I think you're spot on.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 07:58 PM
7

I think some people are thinking that I'm saying that men aren't treated as though they're expendable. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they shouldn't be treated that way because in reality they aren't actually expendable. But it seems like some people here do think they are. I see the argument from biology all the time and it bugs me to the point of animosity because it's a drastic oversimplification of reality masquerading as sophisticated scientific fact. And the conclusion of that…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 04:24 PM
1

Reddit mod moment. I basically just said that if you want to feel expendable then you can go ahead. But just because someone tells you that you're "inconsequential" or makes you feel that way, doesn't make it true. And certainly don't put that nonsense on me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 01:30 PM
7

And that is exactly the nonsense that I am referencing. All of these gender roles and customs are unwound back to pseudoscientific references "biology". Everything we do and say is predestined by evolutionary psychology, (except somehow, for monogamy, by the way. That is somehow the grand exception.) And the idea here is what, that men took men took on the dangerous roles because women are the reproductive bottleneck? Men did take on the more dangerous roles but the idea that is the reason doesn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 01:17 PM
1

Alright, you go be expendable. I'll be over here asserting my own value. You are the problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 09:34 AM
6

Absolutely not. Even if men are treated that way sometimes, that just means that there's something we need to change, work to be done, not that we're actually expendable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 08:21 AM
24

The disturbing thing I see with this trope in particular is male advocates claiming it's reality somehow--that men actually are expendable. They'll cite something about how women bottleneck the number of offspring or something like that and pronounce that men are, in real life, "less valuable". This is of course nonsense and is an idea we need to eject with prejudice. It doesn't make sense from a reproductive perspective in any remotely realistic scenario and it fails to account for the fact tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 02:35 AM
53

Hardly surprising. I do think things will get better down the line. People seem to be paying more and more attention to this stuff. But we have to be careful. Many will look at the stats and scream that boys are not "discriminated against," that they're just "less mature" or "less intelligent" or "less valuable".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/22 05:09 AM
1

Cheating is not evidence we're not monogamous. Monogamy does not mean that I stop being attracted to other people. In humans, it appears that monogamy is driven by our interfering with our partner's attractions rather than our own. Humans are promiscuous individuals that demand monogamy from our partners. That is wired directly into our brain. And while some cultures do practice polygamy, it is not at all the norm. Even where it happens, it is a less common arrangement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 03:13 AM
0

I'll circle back for another shot: Males will always be more disposable than females because that's how anisogamy, more specifically gonochorism, works: eggs are rarer than sperm and therefore more precious. That doesn't hold up. It's not our gametes that are valuable. It's our genes. Our gametes are just vessels for our genes. And furthermore, female bodies sure do toss out a lot of eggs if they're so precious. Males will always be more disposable To who? If you want to be so evolutionary about…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 03:01 AM
0

While the point about monogamy isn't really true (at least not entirely) Of course it is. Provide evidence it's not. Monogamy arises independently across the Earth in multiple disconnected cultures by accident? Jealousy over partners other lovers is baked into our psyche's for fun? Children do far worse in single parent households just cause? In short, if humans aren't monogamous, then why are we monogamous?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 02:43 AM
4

We're monogamous for a reason. And monogamy arises spontaneously across cultures all over the world throughout history. That's not an accident. There would be little reason for women to feel the insane jealousy they do when their partner cheats if this weren't the case. If you're going to plaster your decree in a sticky, you damned well better provide evidence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 02:07 AM
0

Monogamy arises spontaneously across cultures throughout history. That is not an accident. Even if it's not the direct parent, are there many cultures where a child is commonly raised by a single caregiver? There would be little reason for women to feel the insane jealousy they do when their partner cheats if monogamy weren't natural.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 02:04 AM
1

No, you're wrong. If the child dies without "economic" input then economic input is reproductive input. And regardless, the idea that any of what you said would make men more disposible is pessimistic nonsense. Nobody is disposable. Not for reproductive reasons nor any other reason. You make the mistake so many other make while spouting this nonsense. You talk like we live in a fertility cult where value is assigned to people based on their reproductive roles.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 02:04 AM
3

Since men are male mammals, they have a lower reproductive value than women and are consequently perceived as more disposable across cultures. This is something that I think a lot of MRAs think is true, but isn't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/11/22 07:06 AM
10

Honestly? Just giving a shit is a big step in the right direction. It's far more than can be said for most women, and even most men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/11/22 12:42 PM
97

Honestly, I don't often hear women/feminists even talk about equality of opportunity for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/22 02:56 PM
1

Yes completely. Like I said, biological factors kill women too--a lot of them. And so we do what we can to fix them. I think my objection to OP is at least somewhat based on history. OP has made posts in the past, for example, saying that boys need to be held back a year in school because they are inherently and biologically academically inferior to girls of the same age. So some of that is definitely causing me to not favor a more generous reading of OP.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/22 12:14 PM
4

Kind of. Consider, for example, death while birthing a child. There is perhaps no more "biological" way to die than giving birth at 14 years old. And without modern medicine, modern civilization, women would die young at much greater rates. However, child birth is thankfully much safer today than it was in the past and pregnancy at such young ages is thankfully rare. Are women biologically just predisposed to often die at that age? With no intervention, they would. Would we be sitting here going…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/22 02:31 AM
1

That's actually a really interesting stat. I'd love to cite that in my own discussions. Would you happen to have a link?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/22 12:39 AM
3

Again with the subtle implications that women are somehow biologically advantaged. You did it on the redshirting post, now here again. "testosterone can also dampen the immune system"? You use this to justify that men are somehow destined to live shorter lives and yet make no mention of the fact that, for example, differences in immune system function also means that women are stricken with autoimmune disorders far more often than men. Only the facts that supposedly support this biological inevi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/22 12:38 AM
17

Sure, but I want everyone to note the overt difference in rhetoric. When girls lag, it's "Discrimination!" and "They're being held back!" When boys are held back it's, "When the playing field is leveled, it reveals the better players." We need to grow some teeth. This is discrimination. Boys are being discriminated against. Early education behaves as though it hates boys and men and we're just sitting here going, "Well if only they could have a bit more recess."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/22 09:37 AM
0

Evidence. Show me some evidence. And I don't mean some nonsense that fails to produce any concrete notion of "maturity" etc. I want you to explain to me how this is true, despite the evidence for accelerated development of things like spacial, logical, and mathematical skills in boys.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/22 03:39 PM
0

It's bullshit used to justify things like discriminating against boys in grading.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/22 03:16 PM
2

Who's at fault here? After reading shit like this, the story of the White Feather Girls, stories of vindictive young women getting young men thrown out of college, baby trapping, overwhelming evidence of women being completely shallow on Tinder/in the dating world, how does one keep from dropping into the very negative conclusion that women are bad? I don't think that women are any more or less terrible than men. I think that society allows them to be more terrible. Like, look at this https://ww…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/22 04:28 AM
3

During college, I was held down and forced to make out with a girl in public, with people walking by. Of course I couldn't shove her off me because every white knight within 100 yards would have jumped on me and beat me to a pulp in order to "rescue" her. It wasn't the worst thing that can happen to a person, but it was unnerving. It was extremely uncomfortable. Nobody gave a shit.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/10/22 05:33 AM
3

Unironically insanely based mod message Sanest mod ever
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/10/22 12:01 AM
2

The path of progress is fraught with nuance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/22 07:03 AM
2

Women make up half the population. It would be extremely difficult to avoid them entirely.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/10/22 01:01 AM
1

I'm a little uncomfortable with this idea that women seem to be completely above criticism. I can sit here and say, yes, men are the overwhelming perpetrators of violent crime without that being some attack on men. But if I say that "female sexual empowerment" has made modern young women pretty shallow and that this is completely obvious to anyone in the dating world, and that this fact is largely the reason for the existence of many of these unfortunate communities, I'm a sexist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/10/22 06:06 PM
1

I've never understood what's wrong with mgtow. I live a pretty good life and marriage as it exists today represents a risk to that which I'm not willing to take. Why is that toxic?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/22 11:59 PM
0

Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. That doesn't mean anything. More women than men who had bad interviews dropped off the platform. So more low-performing women left. Of course the average female performance increases more than the average male performance after that, pushing them towards equal. This is like saying that the average performance of the top 50% of women was the same as the average pe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/22 06:51 AM
1

You make some great points about boys being failed by the education system, grade discrimination, classroom culture being tailored towards girls, etc. but then you parrot this "boys mature later" nonsense that is used to justify exactly the discrimination you are supposedly calling out. You even suggest further discrimination by holding boys back a year. Don't get me wrong, boys and girls are different, and they need help in different ways. But to claim that boys are immature universally, consis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/22 09:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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