TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

OriginalStomper Archive

View 0 posts and 31 comments by OriginalStomper on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

There is an imbalance, but you are way off base here. Women carry the fetus, and men do not. It is the woman's body at issue, not the man's. A man who does not want the baby should not be penalized with child support simply because the woman decides against abortion, but a man cannot justly compel a woman to carry a fetus she does not want. Slavery is wrong by any label.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 08:28 PM
1

That's a good idea. Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 02:43 PM
2

Could be the biggest reason for a given woman in a given job, but that is likely to be an outlier. As a generalization, it is certainly unsubstantiated to claim sexism is the sole or even primary cause for all pay disparities across gender lines.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 05:26 PM
1

it shows that they completely disregard any inequality that doesn't apply to women. That does not follow at all. I can be a feminist, a civil rights activist, a gay rights activist, etc. Nothing in the label "feminist" precludes other causes.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 05:23 PM
2

On that we can agree.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 05:10 PM
1

I do not contend that sexism alone is responsible for the difference in wages -- but it should certainly be on the list of responsible factors. Your guess is as good as mine, regarding how much weight to assign to each factor on the list.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 04:47 PM
1

I can't say that its responsible for the statistical differences in wages, because its not. You can't say that, either. Sounds like confirmation bias to me.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 04:33 PM
1

Not at all. The law can only address a tiny minority of the discrimination out there. For every case I read that went to court, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, in which the employer got away with it. The odds still favor the discriminating employer. The employer only gets sued if the victim can find an attorney willing to risk time and money on a possible recovery, which will only happen in those rare cases where the potential recovery is large enough to justify the attorney's risk. …
/r/MensRights18/12/09 03:54 PM
1

No big corporations allow this because they have deep pockets. Dream on. It goes on all the time, even in the biggest corporations -- that was the point of the Lundwall tape. The corporations conduct training and espouse policies to discourage and prevent overt dispays, but there are far more subtle ways of getting the same bigoted result, and those things happen all the time. The law cannot change the way people feel or think.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 03:02 PM
0

Reading numerous reports of harassment and discrimination cases, I have seen substantial anecdotal evidence for racism and sexism in the workplace. Some of those cases are won by experts statistically showing disparate treatment of employee sub-groups within that employer. These cases do not provide direct evidence of bias at a national level, but anecdotal evidence is still some evidence. This despite our overtly "enlightened" age. The laws have driven these issue underground, so that people ar…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 11:50 PM
1

No, I find unofficial racism, sexism and bigotry in general to be the norm. edit: the threat of lawsuits has driven these things underground, so they are more subtle and hard to prove, but they still exist
/r/MensRights17/12/09 09:16 PM
-1

Not at all. For one thing, there are far more issues involved in running a successful business than in being a good employee.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 09:01 PM
0

Possibly. I have no data to dispute that. Are there data supporting that?
/r/MensRights17/12/09 08:54 PM
1

Oh, I don't disagree with that point. It is certainly valid.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 08:53 PM
0

But that would violate my confirmation bias! It can't be right! Sigh I guess I'll have to take a look, though it certainly seems counter-intuitive.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 08:44 PM
0

Absolutely. The invisible hand is not a robot hand. It is a human hand.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 06:53 PM
0

I'm not saying child and family priorities shouldn't affect performance or salaries. I'm simply saying that comparing the pay of childless men and women is apples to the oranges of people with children. The childless employees are outliers who do not represent the same pay issues found in people with children, and the absence of children is a symptom rather than a cause. I agree that there are too many variables for wage gap stats to be reliable as a measure of equality or inequality. So rather …
/r/MensRights17/12/09 06:35 PM
1

I have read far too many reports of sexual harassment in the workplace to deny sexism or its impact. Why is "human nature" such that it would prioritize sexism over efficiency in a competitive capitalist environment? I.E., if an employer can really get the same work out of women for less money, why hasn't somebody tried hiring all women to cut their labor costs, and then run their competition out of business with a price war? Because the pay disparity is the result of numerous factors including …
/r/MensRights17/12/09 06:16 PM
1

I won't say that is a gender bias, rather a performance bias in this example. Yes, I was not clear. I was speculating about a performance bias, but in an extreme way. If I understood your point correctly, you are asserting that the statistics for pay to childless employees contradict any claims that sexism affects pay. My point was that correlation is not causation. That is, childlessness does not necessarily cause all of the reported pay disparity, contrary to my understanding of your assertion…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 06:00 PM
-1

Correlation is not causation, but I will speculate. You can decide for yourself whether my speculation is both plausible and adequate. To the extent that many of these women have consciously chosen career over children, this choice reveals an extreme dedication to career success, which can manifest as higher motivation, longer hours, obsessive attention to detail, etc. In other words, a significant proportion of childless career-women are going to be highly-motivated to succeed at work. Far fewe…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:44 PM
1

Yes, it would have killed me, too.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:34 PM
0

I am quite willing to believe that children are the most significant factor, but I refuse to believe that sexism is not a factor. Sexism is real, and human nature is such that it will affect pay. Adjustments to "normalize" statistics are suspect if they do not recognize this factor.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:30 PM
3

No links to studies, but a few personal anecdotes from Texas, USA: When I was in law school, I interviewed with some firms I had no interest in -- just for the practice. In one interview, I actually asked about "paternity leave" policies. Mind you, this was the mid-1980's. Response? "So long as you bill enough hours, you are master of your own schedule." Of course, the billable-hour goals required nearly 60 hours/week for 50 weeks out of the year. Even setting aside paternity leave, all the firm…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:15 PM
0

How are these statistics "normalized"? That is, how are the various adjustments determined, so that they are not just guesses pre-ordained to account for all the differences? I have seen far too many sexual harassment claims to believe that there is no sexism or discrimination in the work-place.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:00 PM
1

Statistically, most reported pedophiles are men. Logically, if you keep your child away from men, then you are keeping your child "safer." Nevermind that most pedophilia involves people who are friends and relatives.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:53 PM
0

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Kipling just made up that story.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:49 PM
2

As a guy, I drew a lot of giggles when I announced to my sixth-grade class I was a "feminist" (back in the early 70's). My classmates apparently thought I was admitting to being feminine. Point is, labels do not communicate if your audience is unfamiliar with them.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:48 PM
0

the myth about the female glass ceiling or the female pay gap. Whoa, wait a minute. It's no myth. These exist. The only real question is, "Why?" I agree that a lot of it arises from society's pressure that men are expected to put the job first, while women are expected to put the family first -- but don't kid yourself that old-fashioned sexism is not a factor as well. edit: I also recall a study reported a year or so ago, that men are more likely than women to negotiate their salary when being h…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:39 PM
0

No, that's an entirely different discussion. I saw that one a few days ago, with a really pithy comment in "best of."
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:36 PM
2

Exactly. "He might hit on me" is a lame, lame excuse.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:34 PM
7

It should not be. Any woman who has a kid must have at least a little bit of experience dealing with guys hitting on her, and should thus be perfectly capable of shutting him down if he did so. Smells of rationalization to me. He makes them uncomfortable because he does not fit their gender stereotypes, so they cast around for excuses to explain their discomfort.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 03:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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