TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Poly_and_RA Archive

View 1 posts and 525 comments by Poly_and_RA 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)
45

discussionPoly_and_RA/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/22 03:22 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

It's pretty sad. Like since when do left wing men basically approve of redpill bullshit?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/26 09:41 PM
2

I'm confused by some of the comments on this post. I thought this sub was centered on leftwing male advocates? I mean isn't that kinda in the name? Since when is slut-shaming and "frankly it's just biological fact that men want women to be virgins" (and probably barefoot and in the kitchen) a left-wing kinda position? That's essentially the position of the pope!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/26 08:07 PM
1

I'm curious how you can be so confident about what preferences you're born with, and which ones you acquired by osmosis througout growing up, yes. There are some preferences where there's a very clear reason to think it's in large part biological, for example markers of youth and health and fertility will tend to make women more attractive to most men -- which is kinda *duh* since it just adds up to a preference for partners you can have kids with. But there's no similarly obvious reason why rac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 09:41 PM
-2

Sure. And if you're a conservative religious fundamentalist -- you'll also divorce way less. But is that because deeply fundamentalist religious folks are happier in their marriage; or is it just because people are less likely to divorce despite dysfunction if they hold cultural values that attach a LOT of shame and stigma to divorce? What's your goal? Happiness -- or remain married at any cost? Of course pretty often the two coincide -- but if they don't, and you have to pick one of them, which…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 07:45 PM
0

"definitely not cultural" why now? Because trust me bro! What, pray tell, do you believe it's based on? And what do you base that belief on?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 07:43 PM
-3

I think it's difficult to just "erase" cultural norms we're grown up with. It's a bit like the idea of eating spicy fried grasshoppers instead of potato-crisps. In principle I have zero objection to it. I mean I'm not vegan or anything. But in *practice* I'm grown up in a culture where eating insects isn't seen as normal, and is instead shown as revolting. And I might be incapable (or unwilling!) to overcome that feeling. I don't think that makes me or you a horrible person -- but yes I do think…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 05:00 PM
-5

I don't think that's universally true, and I can think of two major exceptions: First it's not uncommon to have a period when young where you want to be "wild and free" only to later want to commit to a long-term relationship. That's fairly common for both men and women, and people who have done that might well have a high count of sex-partners while nevertheless wanting a long-term relationship. Secondly, not everyone is monogamous. Yes most people are, but it's important to not forget the corn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/26 04:57 PM
7

IMHO how people judge that depends to an extreme degree on your rationale for it. And it ALSO depends a lot on whether you simply yourself opt out of dating certain women -- or whether you shame them for it and argue that they're lesser in some sense. If it's just some variant of "women should be virgins or else they're like a lollipop someone else has licked" then yes people will judge that -- even if you're willing to adjust "virgin" up to "have slept with less than 3 people" or some such. And…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/26 08:28 PM
-16

It's fine to have whatever preferences as long as they're not racist or in other ways like that problematic. (and even then you still get to 100% decide who you want to date -- I'm not saying anyone should try to coerce racists into violating their preferences, all I'm saying is that I'll judge someone negatively for being racist and I'm unlikely to wanna for example be friends with them) But people who have preferences that exclude piles of perfectly awesome partners from consideration *and* th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/26 08:22 PM
3

Call it "citizen that is treated as less than a full adult when it comes to power over their own life" then.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/26 11:56 AM
2

In a literal sense "patriarchy" means "rule of fathers" i.e. that fathers hold the power. It's correct that children can still be *cherished* and sometimes even seen as MORE "valuable" than adults. But you're right -- the *power* in a parent-child relationship, rests with the parents. And similarly, the power in the household is assumed to rest with the *man* in places like Pakistan. As evidences by women needing the permission of a man to do many things (such as for example to get passport)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/26 09:40 AM
3

I think it's reasonable to describe a society as patriarchal when culture and law and society overall clearly centers male power to a very clear degree. Example: One of my friends is a single mom in her 40ies living in Pakistan. Since she's a woman she's treated as a person second class in a huge set of circumstances. Last year she wanted to get a passport. In order to do that she needed the permission of her male guardian, which would normally be her father, of ir married her husband. But since…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/26 07:37 AM
9

Yes, and if these things happen more to men than to women, that'd be an example of my explanation #3.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 06:01 PM
36

Also never mentioned -- even when you compare between people who use the same method, the men die more. Like men who overdose die more than women who overdose. Men who cut die more than women who cut. And so on, across as far as I know all common methods. So why? As far as I see there's only three plausible explanations: 1) The men on the average have a more serious wish to die while a larger fraction of the women are crying for help. 2) The women are just systematically less competent -- that i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/26 08:32 AM
2

"I could imagine the effect of "cuteness" in kids might skew the warmth/coldness factor, and maybe little girls are just "cuter" than little boys." They're not though. I mean up until they're closing in on puberty they're literally indistinguishable by gender except for haircuts, clothing and accessories. Ask any of the folks who have kids of both genders and who reused some of the small-child clothes. Besides, "cute" isn't an objective measurable quantity in the first place, and to the degree w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/26 05:56 AM
6

The framing often goes like this: If something is systematically easier for men than for women to acquire and we're talking about the man: Male privilege If something is systematically easier for men than for women to acquire, and we're talking about the woman: Discrimination If something is systematically easier for women than for men to acquire and we're talking about the man: He's not entitled to the thing! If something is systematically easier for women than for men to acquire, and we're tal…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/26 05:50 AM
61

Yes. And if you call attention to it, that's usually met with "You're not entitled to friendship" (or whatever it is that you wish for!) This is true. But it doesn't negate the fact that if systematically across huge fractions of life, people are systematically met with just a bit more hostility and indifference and just a bit less warmth and generosity because of who they happen to be born as, something they had no choice in and carry no blame for -- that'll have some sort of impact. Nobody wou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/07/26 07:52 AM
9

Yepp. I take full responsibiliy for all the things I say and do. I have no responsibility whatsoever for what other people say and do. That applies even if those other people have SOMETHING in common with me. They might have the same gender, or they might be left-handed like me, or they might share a nationality with me, or they might be similar to me in any number of ways. That does in no way change my responsibility for their actions; it remains zero. I *would* feel responsible if I was in a s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/26 08:38 PM
35

This would be a *bit* less of a problem if there existed a UN Men which was saying the equivalent thing gender-reversed. But that doesn't exist, and will not exist. And so we end up with a gender-neutral disaster such as an earthquake where calls to "center" women exist, but there's naught but crickets about even things that *genuinely* hurt men more than women. So it adds up to: Gender-neutral situation? UN calls for women to be centered. Gendered discrimination of men? UN says nothing about it…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/26 09:43 AM
26

Police reports are tricky to use for comparing women and men in areas of life where it's well-established that the odds of both reporting to the police and investigations by the police are massively different by gender. It's a bit like, if you judge how often men and women commit sexual assault by convictions, you end up concluding women are a miniscule fraction of perpetrators. But if you instead look at survey-data you end up concluding that women are a minority of perpetrators, but not at all…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/26 09:56 PM
3

Maybe, but this graph doesn't show it. To the contrary it shows that there's TOO FEW couples with a height-gap exceeding 9 inches.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/26 10:20 PM
6

According to this graph there's "too many" couples where the husband is roughly 6 inches taller than the wife. There's "too few" couples where the husband is shorter than the wife -- so yes it does seem that many women are critical of dating men shorter than them. But there's *also* "too few" couples where the husband is 9+ inches taller than the wife. I guess since this is for height-difference, it'd mean that shorter men have better odds if they're dating shorter women?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/26 09:28 PM
3

Male feminists are all about mocking men for displaying "feminine" emotions like sadness by crying now? Weird. I thought they were all about how toxic masculinity prevents men from displaying emotions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/26 12:36 PM
15

It's commonly simply ASSUMED that it's a huge problem that men and women navigate consent poorly and don't do a good job of asserting whether or not the other is genuinely consenting. But often this is simply taken for granted, without actually investigating it. And on the occasions when it IS investigated in a systematic and scientific way, the results are often a lot better than most would believe. Example study. We examined how accurate and biased men and women are when perceiving their partn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/06/26 07:33 PM
3

Yeah. That point struck me as sad. That people find these "insights" revolutionary, although most men could've told them the same thing -- if only they cared enough to listen.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 07:35 PM
23

I've read Self-Made Man. And found it mixed fare. On the one hand it's awesome that she cared enough to want to in a sense see for herself, and her book does describe some of the problems men face in a framing that'll make many women less defensive about it. I mean the very fact that it's written by a cis woman helps with that. But on the other hand, there's nothing in there that she couldn't have learned more easily if she was just willing to talk to men and trust us about our own lived experie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/26 05:22 PM
2

Mainly by not letting my impression of gendered topics be dominated by social media. Hot takes and ragebait is systematically amplified by the algorithms, and the extremists chase reasonable people with nuance away leading to further radicalization of such spaces. Doesn't mean most actual people are like this. Most men genuinely like women. Most women genuinely like men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/05/26 09:48 PM
9

I agree. Very few things are exclusive to people of any gender. Some cultural things are different, but at the core we're all humans, and all mess up in similar ways. Men also sometimes undercommunicate interest in sex, though often for a different reason: many women will respond *negatively* to it if you openly say that sex is one of the things you're hoping for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 01:08 PM
18

Agreed. So in some sense people USUALLY "convince" each other that they want to say yes. I mean perfectly synchronized mutual turn-ons can happen, but pretty often one person is motivated first, and initiates with the other who responds positively and things work out. This kinda "research" sometimes makes it sound as if initiating in GENERAL is abusive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 11:47 AM
32

It's narrow only when people strongly WANT it to be. By the dictionary, coercion means something like: the practice of getting someone to do something they don't want by using force or threats It doesn't really mean asking twice. Or any of the other things that people hell-bent on demonizing men would want to include. Doesn't mean it's all ethical -- but there's a large spectrum from GOOD behaviour and all the way over to what's actually abusive. A lot of stuff is somewhere in between. A wife wh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 11:42 AM
24

Yes. "no means no" is a nice slogan, and of course people should respect a no. But in the real world, women do sometimes say "no" and mean something else such as for example: "Yes, but I don't want you to think of me as a slut" or "Maybe, but I don't want you to arrive at the date with an expectation that sex will necessarily happen!" I had one first date with a woman who out of the blue (I hadn't asked!) told me that sex was DEFINITELY not happening. And then we met, and it actually went: Meet.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 10:41 AM
54

Yeah. Sometimes they seem to strongly WANT to find unethical behaviour, so they stretch the meaning so far that it becomes ridicolous. Not everything that's a tiny bit different from OPTIMAL behaviour, is automatically abusive. It's a large spectrum from Awesome behavior, to decent behaviour, undesireable behaviour and with abusive on the other end of that scale.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 10:25 AM
2

You're welcome! I realize I've probably been lucky, but I've nearly always been treated with a LOT of trust by the women in my life. Sometimes a flat out amazing amount of trust even. Here's some more or less random examples: As a student, I asked a woman on a date. She said no, she doesn't think we're a good romantic match. But then she counterproposed we go hiking together that weekend instead -- which we did, spending the weekend together in a small tent way up in the Norwegian mountains. (Sh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/26 05:13 PM
3

Luckily most men and most women haven't bought into the gender wars driven primarily by terminally extremist feminists, aided by some similarly horrible misogynist groups. Instead, most men genuinely like women, and most women genuinely like men. Mistrust? It can happen I guess, but really there's also a whole lot of amazing trust. And more often than not, it works out splendidly for everyone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/26 05:40 PM
10

For most people the point isn't to paint lesbians negatively. I don't think they're on the average particularly more abusive than anyone else. Instead the point is to dismantle the sexist and unsupported-by-fact narrative that says IPV is solely, or almost solely about men abusing women. That simply isn't true in any way shape or form; and lesbian relationships having IPV-rates that are comparable or higher than straight relationships is a fairly good data-point in that discussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/26 07:10 AM
13

I think there's sort of mistakes in both direction with this. First, SA and rape often IS (varying degrees of) traumatizing for men. Not all such incidents necessarily leave life-long severe trauma -- but some incidents do. And we have a tendency to treat it like a joke when the victim is a man, especially if the perpetrator is a woman. (Lots of people will for example imply he got "lucky" if a woman sexually assaults him) Secondly though, not all cases of SA and rape necessarily lead to lifelon…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/26 06:29 AM
3

Your claim is that people consider it the "bare minimum" to be literally perfect and never ever mess anything up? That sounds kinda silly, and I doubt many are doing that. But if they are they're being ridicolous and can safely be ignored. My point was a different one though -- my point was that judged by a REASONABLE standard for being a good and considerate person, a fairly high fraction of people score pretty decently.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/26 09:47 PM
3

I disagree with this. I think a solid majority of people of all genders are on the overall and in sum total good people who try their best to treat others with kindness and respect -- and actually succeed with that most of the time. Sure most people mess up now and then, it's called being human. But the occasional minor messup doesn't preclude someone from being a good person overall.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/26 09:16 PM
8

This won't help. They need to actually start caring about men for our own sake. Saying that they need to change their approach to men so that men will vote with them to gain benefits for women make it sound as if they still can't bring themselves to actually consider us valuable as PEOPLE -- but instead have merely managed to conclude that our *votes* have some nonzero value if they want to enact policies that benefit women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/26 09:08 PM
5

Yes. But those recommendations assume the same activity-levels (I think) and there's more men than women who have work that burns significant energy. (Even just walking around burns noticeably more than sitting all day)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/26 06:11 PM
3

It's crazy. When it comes to gender-equality as a topic, feminism to a first approximation holds ALL the power.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/26 04:42 AM
6

Is it? Because from where I'm standing, the trend towards increased misandry in more or less any and all spaces that are progressive and left wing and ESPECIALLY those that deal with issues related to gender or romance or sexuality -- has been going on for at least a couple decades, possibly longer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/05/26 05:52 AM
1

True. If men have fun with that it's proof of how horrible we are. But if women buy Fifty shades by the millions to revel in the fantasy of a tall and handsome billionaire who mysteriously is deeply in love with Jane Average -- that's perfectly fine and NOT and indictment of womens fantasies. (Or Twilight, or any number of other books that are variants of the same theme)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/05/26 04:43 AM
9

It'll be okay. These men will still be providers for women, just women they've never met. We'll make sure the tax and retirement and similar systems are set up so that men on the average pay more than they benefit while women on the average benefit more than they pay. That way women can live lives financed by men even without dating any of them. I mean this half jokingly -- I don't think this is the intention, but in many countries de-facto the tax-systems DO actually work this way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/26 05:42 PM
15

Yepp. I mean I have "maximum control" in my computer games too -- I can even turn them off at will.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/26 05:39 PM
2

Exception for written stuff I think. There's nothing for men that competes in popularity with how many women read things like fifty shades.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/26 05:19 PM
12

I'd assume for all of the questions -- any answer other than the most extreme feminist-leaning one, will be taken as evidence of "misogyny".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/26 11:32 PM
44

Agreed. Anything other than strict adherence to the feminist party-line is often seen as "misogyny". But is that reasonable? If you judged the participants in a feminist sub the same way with respect to men, you'd no doubt end up concluding that most of them are "radicalized misandrists". But of course that comparison will never be made. The depressing thing is that universities approve these kinds of studies, which tells you a lot about the degree to which entire departments are effectively spe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/26 05:21 PM
1

Probably from combining the maximum punishment possible for violating the law -- with an "offense" so minimal that in the real world it wouldn't fall under the law at all, but that the OP is able to pretend he believes would be covered by a creative reading of some portion of the law.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/26 04:12 PM
1

I don't have super-strong opinions on that, but I can see several plausible explanations for it, and most likely it's a combination of some of these plus some factors that doesn't occur to me: Women historically were lacking a LOT of very important rights. Being oppressed by an external "enemy" tends to build in-group cohesion and make group-members more inclined to defend each other. (same is true for other groups -- for example lesbian women have more in-group bias in favor of other lesbian wo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/04/26 04:49 PM
1

Male educational outcomes are good in Scandinavia. But if you mean something like "fraction of university students that are men" -- then that's an example of a thing that IS zero sum, because a higher fraction women by necessity MUST mean a lower fraction men. Here's some examples from my own country, Norway, which I believe are better than what men in more conservative countries get: Our military law is gender-neutral and women and men are conscripted under identical rules. Overall about 1/3rd …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/04/26 06:04 PM
9

A sovereign state controls its territory -- but does not own its citizens. A state has no mechanism for preventing one of their citizens from accepting a new citizenship, and if they were to prevent someone from leaving, that'd be a flagrant violation of basic human rights. (some states still do the latter of course, like North Korea -- but notice that even there it's the *territory* they control)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/04/26 05:29 PM
0

Unconvincing. Yes sure, it's possible when you put in effort to find some examples of things that really are zero sum fixed-pie division. We all have 24 hours per day, so any minute spent on any one thig, is a minute NOT spent on any of the other worthy things. But as a more general claim, it's clearly UNTRUE that gender-equality is all, or even mainly, about zero sum fights over limited resources. If that was true, then better gender-equality for one gender would always mean worse gender-equali…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/26 05:32 PM
34

The theory is that since men have both historically and today held most of the positions of power, they've used that power to shape the rules of our society in ways that benefit men in general. That assumption isn't ridicolous, we have a lot of research that confirms that in-group bias is a thing that exists in human beings, and most people have a tendency to make decisions in favor of people who are in some sense or other "like them". Unfortunately for the people who make this claim though, we …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/26 01:19 PM
3

The culture wars is primarily an Ameican phenomenon. You'll find a fairly small group of mostly terminally online extremists, but I reckon that's true in every country. (I do think that's a worrying trend and something that is worse now than 5 years ago, but again, not specific to Scandinavia) More generally though, one of the NICEST things about Scandinavia when it comes to gender-relations is that we're a high-trust society, and this includes dating and relationships. When I read about dating …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/26 08:34 AM
0

You're pulling claims out of where the sun don't shine. 100% sure about that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/26 07:30 AM
1

This still reads like a pure smear. Finland is more liberal, more progressive, more democratic, more gender-egalitarian and so on across the board than the average European nation. Russia is NONE of these, and in fact are very much the opposite.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/26 07:29 AM
3

Yeah. Canada, New Zealand and Netherlands are the non-nordic countries that the most often end up being in the same end of various statistics as us.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/26 06:24 PM
1

I agree they're culturally a bit different from the other Nordic countries, but I disagree that they take a "Russian" approach. Russia has very backwards gender-roles compared to all of the Nordic countries -- including Finland.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/26 06:23 PM
9

Yes. Most do, but some do not, and CA is one of the ones that do not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/26 10:03 PM
53

Scandinavia scores well for gender-equality for both women and men. But nowhere near perfect. For example, here's my judgement of the things you ask for Norway where I live: Our military law is gender-neutral. Identical for women and men Life expectancy gap is there, but smaller than in most countries Suicide-gap is more or less average Machismo and "toughness" is less enforced for men than in many cultures, and perhaps also more enforced for women, in other words while gender-roles exist here t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/26 09:28 PM
1

I agree in substance -- men are much more often than women sent to dangerous frontline operations in the military. But you're too absolutist. "more often" isn't the same thing as "always". And "mostly" isn't the same thing as "literally all".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/26 02:43 PM
13

They don't actually think it's better for men for it not to be legally recognized as rape when men are raped by women. It's just necessary to make that claim to avoid admitting the truth. If you want the world to think that (almost) only women are raped, and that (almost) only men are perpetrators, then rape-definitions that count only the penetrated part as a valid victim are convenient. It's just plain nuts of course. The result is that for example in the UK, a woman can be "raped" even by som…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/26 03:58 PM
1

To literally all countries? That's peculiar. I live in a country, and our military law has been gender-neutral and with women and men conscripted under identical rules for well over a decade. There's nothing inherently wrong with your argument. But all I'm saying is that it's worth being explicit about what you're talking about rather than just assume that everyone has USA as their default frame of reference. This is particularly relevant in a leftwing context since USA is one of the *least* lef…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/26 02:02 PM
0

That's still pretty vague. And the examples you give seem to be specific. I'll be honest -- I assume you're most likely talking about USA. It's fairly often a reasonably safe assumption that if a poster doesn't even think it's necessary to mention what area of the world he's talking about; it's because he's talking about USA. But even just specifying that you're intending to talk about "western countries" help a lot. Because trying to apply this post to the situation in say Pakistan or Yemen or …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/26 08:06 PM
2

Is your claim intended to apply only to some specific country or subset of countries? If yes, I think you should say so, and which part(s) of the world this argument is intended to apply to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/26 07:47 PM
2

Downvote low-effort posts and don't engage with them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/26 06:21 PM
12

Everything should be made as simple and as short as possible. But not any simpler or shorter than that. And you're entirely right; some idea take more than 3 sentences to express clearly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/26 12:02 PM
6

I don't think length as such is bad. But I do think the longer a post is, the more demand it puts on the author to struture it well in order for it to be readable. Worst are the walls-of-text where someone writes a thousand words and never even uses paragraphs. That's just flat out unreadable. Best are the posts that use headers and paragraphs and structure the text clearly with an actual plan. Like The Problem <some paragraphs describing the problem> How did we get here <some paragraphs describ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/26 12:01 PM
79

I think it matters a bit as signalling. Because the signal it sends is clear. It says: As a woman, we get that there are reasons you might prefer to have no men sharing the room with you, and we consider those reasons valid and so accommodate that wish. It also says: As a man, there *are* no valid reasons why you might prefer to have no women sharing the room with you, so if you happen to have that wish, it's not one we accommodate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/26 11:43 AM
9

Odds are she doesn't have any money anyway. A court holding her legally responsible for the damages doesn't help a lot if she has no money.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/26 08:50 PM
26

Clearly not focusing SOLELY on the female victims in a situation where victims of multiple genders exist, is misogynist. Women are entitled to being treated as if they're the ONLY victims of sexual crimes. Mentioning that male victims exist -- is misogyny.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/26 07:52 PM
12

Right. But my point was that it doesn't inherit the way for example race does. Black people today (mainly) have only black ancestors. So racism that hurt that group in the past, will lead to worse starting-points today. In contrast, women today do NOT have only female ancestors. So sexism in the past that hurt grandmothers or whatever, *today* impacts both boys and girls similarly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/02/26 11:51 AM
18

An important argument against "historical wrongs" that is rarely mentioned but that I think is important, is that gender inherits differently than for example race. The racism that existed a century ago, meant that black people living at the time were on the average less educated, and had less wealth and less income and less opportunity to create wealth compared to white people. And that meant their children got a worse start in life in lots of ways ranging from access to education to nutrition.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/02/26 11:37 AM
5

It's often NOT a "buff" for black people to be male. One of the systemic forms of racism that black people experience is that they're more likely to be perceived as threathening than people of other backgrounds even when their actual behaviour is identical. And that tendency is made WORSE by being male, not better. That is a black man is lots more likely to be perceived as threathening than a black woman is, even if they're behaving the same. And then the black man gets shot and killed by the po…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/02/26 07:48 AM
8

It's supremeley ironic that the very groups that otherwise have it as a core asusmption that when a demographic group systematically underperforms, that's by itself evidence of political, social or cultural oppression and/or prejudice holding the group back INSTANTLY forgets all of that the moment the group in question is "men". Then it's all individual responsibility. When women, statistically speaking, struggle with something, it's never their own fault. When men do, it's always their own faul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/26 10:02 AM
5

Poorly Typically there'll be some poorly structured argument from convenience about historical context and about how men have held more power than women which means that <blabla>. None of it holds up to even light scrutiny. But they're not used to having their arguments scrutinized, or even to have a debate on a more or less level playing-field. The very institutions supposed to deliver core knowledge on gender-equality such as the departments of gender studies at leading universities are THEMSE…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/26 09:58 AM
1

That's what I suspected. Lofty "declarations" with flowery language like this, deliberately written in a style to mimic other importat "declarations" and purpoting to talk for entire nations. But in reality, it's more like this is a list of things that their 20 members thinks would be a good idea. I'm guessing there's also nil organizations that have signed onto this, other than their own. (if there were high-profile and important signatories it's a safe bet those would be listed, right?) Get me…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/26 07:19 AM
2

It says "On behalf of nations, organizations, and individuals," But who exactly signed onto this declaration? Did for example any actual nation do so?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/26 11:30 PM
15

The general trend is that the explanations ALWAYS go like this: If women struggle more than men in some part of life, the reasons are cultural, political and social, i.e. the cause is various forms of discrimination and/or prejudices. If men struggle more than women in some part of life, the reason is solely biological inferiority and/or mens own responsibility, social, cultural and political factors play no role at all. And the opposite for positives of course: If women do well in something, it…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/26 02:22 PM
9

There's a tendency for many to go straight to the worst outcome -- death -- and then work REALLY hard at not noticing that that exact argument WOULD lead to taking men more seriously. You know the drill: "men worry women will reject them, women worry men will kill them" kinda rhetoric. But in real life, men are *tons* more likely to die an early death than women are, and as a society we tend not to care much. 93% of workplace fatalities are men, but we don't care, we're more concerned that 70% o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/02/26 06:53 AM
9

People who are reduced to sleeping on the couch of a friend are in trouble; but they're still a LOT better of than people who are literally sleeping outdoors on the streets. Sleeping on the couch of a friend means a uncertain future and lacking independence and autonomy. But it's generally safe, clean, warm, and with full access to things like a functioning toilet and shower.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/01/26 08:50 PM
1

Yes, and the weird thing is, while doing that, the demographics is dominated by a group that you could reasonably call least oppressed. Bi women make up a huge fraction of the current LGBT and queer spaces. And they're systematically facing LESS prejudices than bi or gay men are across the board, demonstrated endlessly in a huge multitude of ways. So if we *are* playing oppression Olympics, then frankly it's worth pointing out that >90% of the people who ever did jailtime on account of a same-ge…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/26 12:36 PM
3

Except the app doesn't do the same. For example in at least many countries today it's fully accepted for women to NOT have children and NOT be houswives. That part of what was previously a female gender-role isn't expressed in a different way -- it's GONE. Women today where I live (and in many other countries) can happily and safely have no children at all, and suffer zero legal discrimination and very little social shaming for that choice. It's seen as an entirely acceptable choice by almost ev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/01/26 09:00 PM
5

I wasn't blaming anyone. I was explaining why this specific thing is gendered. Becoming a refugee in order to *avoid* being drafted and sent to die in the mud in a way you might oppose -- is specifically a problem for men; that doesn't tend to happen to women. (not in most countries anyway) But that is a general observation and has nothing to do with Estonia in particular.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/01/26 10:58 AM
39

It's a gendered thing that some men specifically, are fleeing Russia in order to avoid being forcibly drafted and sent to the front against their will. This doesn't happen to women, so women have no need to flee for this reason. (but might still be refugees for *other* reasons of course!)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/01/26 01:50 PM
2

Sure. Because women don't need safety-equipment for work -- they don't do any of the dangerous work to start with. That's a slight exaggeration of course, but as an example, here in Norway 94% of the people who died from accidents at work last year were men. It's also a lot more dangerous. Here in Norway approximately 5 women (and 2 men) get killed by a partner or ex-partner per year. For comparison about 30 people per year are killed in accidents at work -- nearly all of them men.
/r/EverydayMisandry13/01/26 07:37 PM
2

weak troll.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/26 10:11 PM
1

xkcd is a treasure. Doubly so if you're a nerd. (but a decent treasure even if you're not, worth some time if you're NOT familiar with it.) https://xkcd.com/386/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/26 07:39 PM
1

Also though, at least some of those women were women who'd lost a partner to police violence. (or had a partner put in prison unjustly) That kinda thing is going to provide a lot of motivation for action, and that's not a BAD thing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/26 02:02 PM
2

You're surely familiar with this awesome strip: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/porn_for_women.png
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/26 01:16 PM
3

It doesn't become "fine" to leave them out just because they're difficult to estimate exactly. There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that in aggregate sum, husbands contribute more money towards the standard of living of their wives, compared to the reverse effect. In fact the usual thing in at least many countries, is that married couples have more or less identical standard of living, regardless of who earns how much.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 07:09 PM
1

It's more often just indifferent than actively hostile. But the kinds of spaces where social justice kinda thinking is front and center, tend to be flat out hostile.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 06:52 PM
2

It's not an accident. Rallying broad and wide parts of the social justice landscape behind the BLM-banner was possible only as a direct consequence of scrubbing the message ENTIRELY of any reference to men-as-victims. If they'd prominently mentioned that it's mostly about men-as-victims, then there would've been no large-scale movement or large-scale protests. Most social justice engaged people would actively shun activism that centered men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 06:43 PM
3

I guess that's the key. Less segregation. It's hard to demonize any demographic that is seen not as the "others", but instead as friends, loved ones and people you genuinely CARE about. I've noticed the same in my own feelings. I don't think I was ever actively hostile towards any demographic group, but my feelings have still changed as I've gained personal caring connections to people in various groups. I'm a bit ashamed of this -- in *principle* I think one should care about groups even if the…
/r/EverydayMisandry05/01/26 06:23 PM
1

I don't follow when it comes to polygamous spaces, can you explain? I'm not even sure I know what you mean with polygamous spaces. Do you mean polyamorous spaces?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/01/26 03:53 PM
2

I'm bi. And even though bi men are somewhat more hated than bi women are, it's still like the LEAST controversial and the LEAST impactful of my minority-statuses by a mile. I get 100 units of shit over being polyamorous and/or autistic for every 1 unit of bi-hatred. So yeah, I agree with you. At least in libereal western countries, being attracted to people of your own gender is no longer a big deal. Hell if I wanted I could get married in our largest-by-far church -- and have an openly lesbian …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/01/26 03:52 PM
4

I'm curious. How'd you arrive at your current position on gendered issues given that background? I ask because in MOST of the cases where I know women who have genuine concern for men, that's come after they've observed second-hand how misandry hurts men they love. (I *do* realize you can be lesbian and nevertheless have men in your life that you love!)
/r/EverydayMisandry04/01/26 11:31 PM
10

There'll never be a "Male Lives Matter" that large fractions of the social justice progressives support the way they did Black Lives Matter. Not because men don't die disproportionally. But because, to be blunt, they don't CARE about men. About men as a group I mean. They might of course care about individual men that they happen to be close to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/26 10:14 AM
7

Agreed. Most progressives seem to think all privileges are (fairly) "pure" as in come with ONLY advantages. And many privileges genuinely are like that. I mean in an American context, what substantial *disadvantages* do white people, straight people or cis people face? I'd argue that these groups face very close to zero disadvantages worth mentioning. (somewhat elevated risk of skin-cancer, I guess!) So people used to discussing social justice easily fall into the trap of believing that this is …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/26 10:12 AM
14

Statistics doesn't tend to help though. Because if you *do* start looking at statistics, then the conclusions you get are NOT the ones people on the progressive left would want you to find. Here's some examples: Using statistics we can see that American police kills black people about 3 times as often as white people. But using exactly the same statistics shows that police kills men 20 times as often as women. So if statistics was the determinant it'd be "Male lives matter" not "Black Lives Matt…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/26 12:34 AM
1

I don't see that at all. Being critical of the horrible amounts of violence Israel is using against neighbouring states is not at all the same as "hating jews".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 11:59 PM
198

For me, it's ruined the left when it comes to gender-equality. It's not possible to take seriously a group of people who claim to be progressive and in favor of things like gender-equality and NOT judging people in the basis of random innate characteristics they happen to be born with, when so many are so willing to make an exception for men. As you say, the kinda things that are ROUTINELY said, and supported, in progressive spaces about men, would cause an *uproar* if said about more or less AN…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/01/26 05:45 PM
87

It's usually a classical motte and bailey fallacy. Make statements that genuinely ARE wide sweeping strongly negative claims about men in general. That's LITERALLY what these people are actually saying; and it's what they *want* to be saying. It's the goal. Harming men in general, or expressing hatred of men in general is the actual goal of their communication. But their claims aren't generally defendable, so if someone confronts them with the fact that they're making generalized claims that are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/25 10:51 AM
15

Yes. And it's also more long-lived. If your grandparents were upper-class, that gave your parents a head start in life, and odds are good that they ended up privileged enough to give YOU a head start in life. In other words when it comes to class (and some other things like race) -- privilege is inheritable and can persist through multiple generations. African Americans are still disadvantaged today not just because of discrimination that they themselves have faced, but ALSO because of discrimin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/25 10:32 PM
2

This will have the opposite effect of the one intended. They don't realize it, but young men falling into the clutches of the likes of Tate is not the root cause; instead that's a second-order CONSEQUENCE. It starts with misandry. It starts with growing up in a world that from your perspective seems pretty centered on women. Where does the average young man spend his time between birth and age 20? At home in the family, with mom treated as the primary parent by default. If there's a divorce, whi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/12/25 09:59 PM
2

True. But treat people as if their mere existence is a problem, and predictably a fair fraction of them will go look for someone that at least doesn't hate them for existing. And some of those land in Tate-camp.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/12/25 09:38 PM
0

You're still projecting and making assumptions. I am indeed a white cis man, so your claim that I "clearly" am not is simply wrong. I find the rest of your comment similarly silly so I won't even honor it with a response.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/12/25 10:22 PM
2

I think you'll find the rankings where Finland score highly does not take this kinda thing into account. That's a problem with many of the rankings -- they usually focus only on issues that hurt predominantly women. Sometimes they even employ a cutoff so that discrimination of men ranks as "equality" -- the most famous index doing that is the Gender Gap Index which in reality is a "Disadvantages for women index" since it cuts-off at equality and for example give Norway a "Perfect equality" score…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/25 05:18 PM
0

I didn't say more tolerant -- I said more knowledgeable. It's not quite the same thing. I do agree that some minorities can be pretty insular.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/25 04:11 PM
0

It can definitely be a bad thing. If the reason someone knows about racism is first hand experience then -- *duh* of course that's a bad thing! And it's a bit like that for poly people too -- we do run into some prejudices and some unfair attacks, and thus get "forced" into learning enough to be able to effectively defend ourselves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/25 04:10 PM
3

I don't think that's inherently true. There's nothing at all wrong with monogamy -- it works very well for a lot of people, and it's both practical and common to have healthy and happy monogamous relationships. But it's true that you can also be "mono by default" -- i.e. never spend time actually learning about or thinking about what kinda relationship you actually want, but instead just more or less passively go with the "cultural default" -- and of course then the odds that it's less awesome w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/25 04:09 PM
11

My opinion is that the entire thing is a huge mess where really neither of them were saints and both end up looking like abusive assholes. On the overall balance I'd say Amber was probably the larger asshole, but Depp doesn't come out squeaky clean either. But the case itself isn't super interesting -- there's thousands like it every year with a couple who are more or less mutually abusive. More interesting is to observe that large groups of people have VERY strong preconceived notions of who is…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/25 08:05 PM
1

I do think they're flat out awesome! I think frankly being poly helps. Not because poly people are better in any way -- we're NOT. But because poly people are a small minority, and as a direct result we get forced into spending time and effort on analyzing, discussing and thinking about these topics. And so we gradually *learn* and as a result of that learning, we do (on the average) better. This mechanism exists for most minorities. For example gay men tend to know more about sexual orientation…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/25 05:01 PM
1

Agreed. Pakistani men also have these disadvantages, but there women are treated more or less like children. A woman I'm friends with who is in the tail of her 40ies needed to bring er adult SON with her to the passport-office to co-sign for him as he's legally considered the head of the family. (she's unmarried) How offensive is that? She *raised* him as a single mother, and the moment he turns 18 he becomes legally her guardian in a sense and need to co-sign for example if she wants a new pass…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/25 04:54 PM
7

I mean that the way progressive left-wing groups routinely talk about men is something they themselves would NEVER tolerate and would *correctly* identify as stigmatizing and hateful if applied to any other group. In the context of dating, it's particularly common for women who want to avoid amditting that dating-privilege for women is a thing to claim that while they get orders of magnitude more matches and more messages with the same effort, that's not really a privilege because the quality of…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/25 03:48 PM
29

The people closest to me are all at least reasonably well-informed egalitarians. A majority of them are women. Luckily there's quite a few women who also understand that gender-equality is more nuanced than "women victims, men perpetrators!". I've reduced contact, or cut off entirely depending on severity the people in my life who will regularly spout misandrist bullshit. It's no different than any other form of ugly intolerance -- I wouldn't wanna be friends with a racist, a homophobe or a miso…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/25 08:09 PM
4

Especially gender is glaring. Because being a woman is something that has both substantial *advantages* and substantial *disadvantages* -- overall it's not that clear that the disadvantages dominate, might be more or less a tossup. Like seriously, if you could double your risk of sexual assault, but you'd also gain on the average 3 years of healthy lifespan -- would tht overall be a win or overall a loss? I think it's hard to objectively answer such questions. In contrast, it's uncontested that …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/25 05:44 PM
4

An interesting thing about this is that of all the commonly mentioned axes of privilege, gender is the exception in being the most heavily mixed one, thus phrases like "white cishet men" implcitly claim that being a "man" is a priviege in a similar way to being cis, being straight and being white. But that's a blatant lie. What are the large and important *disadvantages* to being cis? There aren't any. What are the large and important *disadvantages* to being white? There aren't any. What are th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/25 05:38 PM
37

Yes. And to make matters worse they invariably want the right to simply DICTATE which identities "count" and which do not. Sexual orientation, race and gender counts. But for example neurodiversity, relationship-structure or education-level does not. Or I mean, they *might* pay lip-service to it, but in practice they very rarely talk about the privileges of having a university-education. Might I suggest that this *might* be in no small part because they dislike axes of privilege where they're no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/25 11:01 AM
39

It's incredibly common to say things like "even when both do paid work, women still shoulder a majority of the chores" This is the kinda statement that is technically true, but that is misleading, because this sentence is also true: Even when both do paid work, men still shoulder a majority of income-generating work. The thing that is glossed over is that the average man with a job does substantially more hours per year than the average woman with a job. This remains true even if you compare onl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/25 08:01 AM
22

The country I live in has been democratic, and with men AND women voting for well over a century. Women and men are fairly equally represented in the legislature with >40% of both genders. Women make up a majority of voters. Then again, here in Norway we also DO have gender-neutral military law with people of all genders conscripted under identical terms. We've had that since 2013. (but our major feminist organizations all OPPOSED this change of course -- they tend to want gender-equality only w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/25 12:49 PM
16

Most advice given to men assume that for any and all problems that men face; men themselves carry the ENTIRE responsibility. That is, as a man, if you ever suffer, it's your own damn fault, and *only* your own damn fault. (or sometimes, if they're feeling generous, it's other mens fault) It goes like this: Men do poorly in something? It's men's own fault, never women's fault or societys fault. Women do poorly in something? It's society and/or men's fault, never women's own fault.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/25 11:10 PM
16

It depends on context. The "standard" phrasing is "cishet men", sometimes "white cishet men" -- as if those formulaic clichees describe all relevant axes of privilege. It's never ever able-bodied university-educated neurotypicals.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/25 11:07 PM
2

When I describe some environments as gynocentric, I mean more or less the literal definition of the word: An environment is “gynocentric” if it systematically centers women—treating women, women’s perspectives, or women’s interests as the default lens throuh which things should be seen and analyzed. The world overall isn't gynocentric -- but there are some environments that are. And that set includes quite a lot of left-wing, progressive spaces, for the obvious reason. The term itself is neutral…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/25 07:22 PM
12

Eh, LLMs tend to output text that is sort of the weighted average of texts they've read on the topic. Thus they're at least sometimes a useful measure of what kinda attitudes are common in published writing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/25 05:25 PM
1

You're projecting. I'm neither from America nor from the UK. Of course no privilege is 100% pure -- there's *some* disadvantage to everything. So while being straight is a fairly pure privilege, it's still true that gay and bi men have an easier time finding willing partners for casual sex than straight men do -- thus the privilege of straightness is NOT 100% pure. Same for all other privileges. Nevertheless I think my argument is fair. There are many big and important disadvantages of being a m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/11/25 08:59 PM
29

Their world-view is based in large part on a big lie. The big lie is that gender is an axis of privilege comparable to the other main axes often mentioned such as race, sexual orientation and gender identity. They talk about "white cishet men" as if being a man is a pure privilege the way being heterosexual, white and cis is. But that's a lie and a lot of their rhetoric would collapse if that was widely understood. Let me explain: Many privileges are fairly "pure" -- with pure I mean that being …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/25 12:28 PM
1

You missed my point. My point was that I don't think it's because women have a better life overall. They have advantages in some parts of life, and disadvantages in other parts of life, depending on where in the world you live and other factors. Instead I think it's because specifically the freedom to live with a greater spectrum of gender-expressions is one of the advantages women DO have. And that *exact* advantage is one that is of direct relevance to many trans people.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/25 09:47 PM
3

I don't think that's primarily about privilege to be honest. At least not of this sort. I think instead it's likely to be in part because we've got a century behind us of working to expand the gender-roles available to women. So as a woman you already have a wide spectrum of different gender-presentations that you can choose from WITHOUT being shamed for it or being seen as "not a real woman". Men in contrast, haven't had that fight yet, and as a result our spectrum of available gender-roles is …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/25 01:10 PM
17

Yepp. Nearly all the people who die from violence are men. That's a *bit* of an exaggeration, but whether you're looking at a high-crime part of a shady city or Ukraine or some civil-war-torn nation in Africa you'll tend to find the same big-picture-stat: The vast majority of the people killed, are men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/25 01:02 PM
2

It's very unsurprising that a century of hammering the message that women are virtuous victims while men are evil perpetrators will tend to grow the empathy-gap.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/25 11:12 PM
3

Yepp. It's genuine that men are a *bit* more Trump-friendly than women, but the gender-gap is tiny compared to many other gaps they're not talking about. It's more convenient, I guess, especially if you have a movement centered on unity-in-femininity to blame men than it is to blame for example white people or religious people; both axes that matter a lot more than gender does. The women-men Trump-support gap is small. The black/white Trump-support gap by comparison, is *huuuuuge*
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/25 06:21 PM
0

I've not shifted an inch. My position remains that situations exist where men are judged more harshly than women for doing the same thing -- *and* that situations exist where women are judged more harhly than men for doing the same thing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/25 12:31 PM
4

Yes. And in addition, school builds the foundation for the rest of your life. Get a poor start in school and you'll only qualify for low-demand studies, and your odds of less desireable job and having a poorer career and income goes up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/25 09:34 PM
-2

I think it's more complex than "true" or "not true". It's one of those effects that you find sometimes and in some settings, and not in other settings. It's hard to make proper neutral tests for it though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/25 08:06 PM
-2

I mean, the reverse exists too. There are some behaviours that are accepted or even admired in a man, but shamed in a woman. The most prominent example might be acint in a confident and assertive manner. Men who do are often praised as "confident" as "leaders" while women who do are accused of being "bossy" or "unlikeable". Hillary Clinton as an example got this constantly -- mostly for behaviour that very few would critique in a man. (I don't agree with her on politics, but here I'm talking abo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/25 04:16 PM
3

Those feminists who say misandry isn't real also misuse the term, understanding it as systemic oppression of men by women, which indeed isn't real. It's absolutely real in some parts of life. I'll give one example: parenthood in Norway. Women relative to men have LEGAL advantages ensrined in law. As an example unmarried women automatically get sole custody if they inform the government that they want it. There's no requirement to show that this is to the benefit of the child, or even to name a r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/25 01:22 AM
3

I've asked people who use the term on occasion what exactly would have to change for them to conclude that Norway (where I live) is no longer usefully or accurately described as a patriarchy. They never have an answer. They will talk about historical injustice. And I agree that used to exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was what would have to change for Norway to (in their opinion) no longer be a patriarchy? No answer to that ever comes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/25 12:48 AM
31

Only if the positives are something men do most of. Overall it goes like: Positive done by woman: Gender highlighted Positive done by man: Gender erased Negative done by woman: Gender erased Negative done by man: Gender highlighted
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/25 09:38 PM
30

Yes. It's EXTREMELY notable that "all men" is only ever used about negatives. Men heroically risk their own lives to heroically aid innocent bystanders? Nobody ever says that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/25 09:37 PM
2

I dated an autistic woman around your age a couple years ago -- same deal for her. Pushing 40 and yet no real relationship-experience at all. I don't think that's *common* for autistic women -- but I do agree it happens to autistic women more often than for neurotypical women. Most of the autistic women I know *have* substantial relationship-experience, but many of them have had it with the wrong men, i.e. they've had deeply dysfunctional or in some cases even abusive relationships. That's in my…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/25 09:09 PM
4

As an autistic man myself, and definitely not "very conventionally attractive" -- I think that's a bit of an overstatement. It's genuinely true that being autistic tends to make dating substantially harder, and also true that many of the behaviours that are most rewarded in men, are difficult or impossible for many autistic people. But a given thing being harder isn't the same thing as it being impossible. I've had plenty of struggles myself, and for a while in the start of my twenties I had sev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/25 09:05 PM
3

Men and boys who are civileans have it HARDER than women and girls who are because they're frequently *suspected* of being combatants even if they're not; and treated accordingly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/25 08:54 PM
3

Sure. Equality can feel like oppression. Conservative christians who claim they're "oppressed" because gay people have identical rights to marry can take a leap. So we have to actually investigate. But when someone for example complains that there's now only 100 men in higher education for every 153 women, are they then complaining about equality which feels like oppression to them? I know it's hard for some social studies folks to do math, but for the record, 153 is not equal to 100, nor approx…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/25 07:06 AM
22

This entire space is filled to the brim with this thinking, it's so normalized that it's probably invisible to her. Consider the most cited comparison of gender-equality in the world: The Gender Gap Index. Despite the name, it's really a "discrimination of women index" because the scoring cuts of at 1.0 so that a country that has more men than women in for example education is scored as not equal -- but a country that has a lot more women than men in higher education is scored as "equal". This i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/10/25 09:10 PM
6

Like I said, for some kinda topics it's just plain hard to find ANY spaces that are centered on some groups and that is NOT if not actively encouraging, then at least passively accepting of a way of talking about men that they'd be FLAMING MAD about if any other group was targeted. Just changing venues is fine advice when there's good alternatives. But there often isn't. Especially not if you're in a somewhat narrow group to start with. And here's the thing; left wing progressive spaces are IN P…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/25 10:35 PM
14

True. But in left wing progressive spaces a pervasive atmosphere of misandry is common. It's downright *HARD* to find for example spaces centered on sexual or romantic minorities that are *not* also filled to the brim with misandry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/25 01:55 PM
11

I think it's a bit hyperbolic. But I also think that at the core there's a lot of truth in it. Quite a lot of things labelled "misogyny" is in reality a pretty understandable reaction to an atmosphere where it's normalized to talk about men as a group in a way we'd be FURIOUS if people talked about any other group -- especially in left-wing progressive spaces. Tell me, would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or a black man? The vast majority would find even asking the question a *str…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/25 01:54 PM
4

No. Men are not even REMOTELY close to the most disliked group. There's a loooooooooong list of minorities that meet a lot more prejudices, dislike and even hatred in their lives than men do. But men *is* a group that at least in progressive and liberal left-wing spaces it's considered socially ACCEPTABLE to attack. Thus in these kinds of spaces people will treat such attacks as perfectly fine, even though they'd throw a fit if you talked that way about any other demographic group.
/r/MenSupportMen03/02/25 11:07 PM
3

It's forbidden only if you're close to women who like to play passive-aggressive games around these topics. I recommend you seek women for friendship and/or relationships that aren't like that. None of the women close to me is like that. With all of them, if something seems up, I can ask what's on their mind, and trust their response to be honest.
/r/MenSupportMen28/01/25 05:03 PM
1

Neither. It's just that being oppressed and discriminated tends to foster in-group cohesion and a feeling of solidarity and "at least we've got each other". Being the dominant majority doesn't come with the same effect. Now of course in the case of women, they're -not- a minority, but instead a (very slight) majority of humanity, nor are they in countries with decent gender-equality "oppressed". But like I said, the fact that this is the case today in some countries, doesn't magically erase hist…
/r/MenSupportMen25/01/25 08:24 PM
-6

You missed my point.
/r/MenSupportMen25/01/25 07:02 PM
-4

I think it makes sense. Women have a history of being in many ways marginalized and oppressed and needing to stand together to fight for rights that men got earlier than they did. And such a history will tend to strengthen in-group bias. Now, you can argue that at least in countries with decent gender-equality most of this fight is behind us and TODAY women are not systematically oppressed or marginalized, but instead remaining gender-inequalities are sometimes in womens disfavor and sometimes i…
/r/MenSupportMen25/01/25 06:41 PM
1

As far from that as you can get pretty much. Unless your definition of a "Chad" is an overweight and balding autistic guy pushing 50 who drives a bus for a living. A "harem" is a group of people who are sexually available to one person -- and ONLY to that person. Someone who has sexual relationships to 4 people, none of which have the freedom to have sex with anyone other than him, has a harem. (and people in nonmonogamy near-universally see that kinda structure as a HUGE red flag) I have exactl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/25 09:30 PM
–

The way these checkins are worded, I'm never quite sure whether it's "allowed" to say that ... I'm fine actually. My last couple of weeks have been awesome in more ways than not, and while that doesn't mean there's been ZERO problems, the overall judgement remains that it's been good. The main awesomeness was that I got to travel. I had a 3-stop vacation on the American east-coast (Boston, Cleveland, NYC) and got to meet and hang out with some awesome friends, including two that I've known for a…
/r/MenSupportMen12/01/25 10:24 PM
3

All men have experienced this before -- or will. It sounds completely normal. Unfortunately the thing on the planet MOST likely to kill an erection, is worrying about NOT having one. Worrying about it is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't stress it, realize you can be an awesome lover regardless, and odds are super-high that it'll work out just fine.
/r/MenSupportMen08/01/25 04:44 AM
1

A nice thing about cuddle-parties is that there's no expectation that cuddles SHOULD lead to sex. In mainstream society outside of such spaces, that expectation often exists. It's fairly rare for men and women who are NOT lovers to cuddle. But even though it's not an expectation that it SHOULD lead to sex, of course it *can* if both of you happen to want that.
/r/Divorce_Men23/12/24 10:01 PM
2

Could it be transfer? Sometimes when I'm in the depth of big emotions in one part of my life, I find myself hypersensitive and easily touched by things that "normally" wouldn't impact me much.
/r/MenSupportMen22/12/24 04:26 PM
2

Some people are more emotional than others. There's an extremely wide spectrum, and as long as it's not so extreme that it causes problems in your daily life, I don't really see any problem with it. When you say you find it annoying though, that could be in part because gender-roles for men frequently demand that we are stoic and in control of our emotions at all times, and so many men might feel it's awkward or embarassing to choke up or start crying. But my thinking is that it's that shame tha…
/r/MenSupportMen21/12/24 11:56 PM
16

The real mystery is why they'd get married in the first place if she doesn't approve of him being the person he is. I'm assuming these interests of his, and this way of deriving an income isn't a NEW thing to him. I wouldn't date, nevermind marry, someone who disapproves of who I am and how I live my life.
/r/MenSupportMen13/12/24 11:56 AM
22

This is the "men can be marginalized, but men are never marginalized BECAUSE they are men" kinda thinking. So a black man can suffer *because* he is black -- but won't ever have disadvantages *because* he is a man. But that's simply untrue. It's patently obvious that many examples exist of ways in which people are discriminated against BECAUSE they are men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/24 02:16 AM
3

This sounds to me like the kinda thing you should have a conversation about prior to getting engaged and prior to cohabitating. People (of any gender!) who see themselves as the natural masters of the couples economy should be avoided. Healthy relationships are more or less balanced.
/r/MenSupportMen01/12/24 05:09 PM
3

Where do you come from? I agree that the patterns you describe here are unhealthy. But none of this is common in my culture. (I'm Norwegian)
/r/MenSupportMen01/12/24 05:00 PM
2

You complain that they don't take feedback or constructive criticism from you. That sounds as if you're trying to make them change their behaviour. But you're not interacting with a minor child as a parent here, and I would recommend you simply STOP giving them unsolicited advice for how to live their lives. You can and should however set boundaries around how you want to be treated. And if they're unable or unwilling to adhere to those boundaries, that'll need to have consequences. Which ones d…
/r/MenSupportMen27/11/24 01:23 PM
2

Why are you trying to in essence raise your sister? It was never your responsibility in the first place, and at this point she's in her thirties so she's been an adult for well over a decade and is responsible for herself. Yes, if someone reacts negatively to things you say or do, you might have to share less about your life with them. Why tell them at all if they're only going to make a problem out of it? It sounds to me as if you're too dependent on your mom and sister. You can still keep them…
/r/MenSupportMen25/11/24 12:31 AM
–

No, you're just misreading me, and being rude in addition. Not cool. I'm out.
/r/MenSupportMen12/11/24 12:26 AM
1

Again -- I don't see what you describe as independence of ANY flavor. I see it instead simply as and example of not caring about someone. If you're lonely, and yet don't want the company of a partner of yours -- then you just don't like them very much. Whether you're *dependent* on them is an entirely different thing. If I'm lonely I'll certainly WANT the company of my partners -- but I'm not *dependent* on them, if for whatever reason they're not available, then I'll find some other way of copi…
/r/MenSupportMen10/11/24 03:26 AM
1

That doesn't sound like "independence" to me, that just sounds like not caring about someone. Sure it's a bad thing if you have a partner that doesn't care about you.
/r/MenSupportMen10/11/24 01:12 AM
5

More like whatever men do, we're NEVER equal to women -- so even if the topic is being a good partner for a woman -- let it be known that men are DEFINITELY inferior to women in that role. In fact so much inferior that it's an INSULT to equal value as partners.
/r/EverydayMisandry07/11/24 05:31 PM
14

One thing these people don't seem to understand -- or care about -- is that when you shame people for body-parts, you're harming not only people who are horrible and have that kind of body, but also people who are wonderful and have that kind of body. If you shame some horrible person for having a small penis, you're not hurting only that person -- you're also hurting perfectly innocent, perfectly awesome human beings who happen to have a small penis.
/r/EverydayMisandry02/11/24 01:39 PM
1

The mononormativity is strong with this one. Why choose monogamy at all if you're someone who prioritize sexual novelty highly? That makes no sense at all. Unless of course he's just clueless enough to not really have internalized the idea that other relationship-structures exist. Nothing at all wrong with monogamy for those people who want it, of course. It just doesn't sound as if this person is among them.
/r/EverydayMisandry01/11/24 07:04 PM
3

Some people in this sub don't like *any* defence of women. I think that's a pity. We're focused on calling out misandry, but surely that means we should do BETTER than that in reverse, and treat women with dignity and understanding ourselves? The goal should be to treat *all* genders with respect and understanding.
/r/EverydayMisandry31/10/24 04:22 PM
-3

There's a core of truth to this -- many women *have* experienced that if they say "A, B, C" then some men expect that the rest of the alphabet will necessarily follow, and then they've got an awkward rejection on their hands, or worst case he doesn't gracefully take a no for a no. The good news is that straight men can typically access this more relaxed state too. Not with strangers, perhaps, but with women you know well enough that you're able to credibly signal that it *IS* fine to be friendly…
/r/EverydayMisandry30/10/24 03:00 PM
13

The sad thing here is that the sign could so easily be fixed. Just replaces "usually" with "sometimes" and all is well.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/10/24 11:51 PM
1

I don't fully agree with either of your assertions here. Too much or too little dependence *can* cause at least some of the things you mention -- but I don't agree that it universally causes ALL of the things mentioned. I especially do not believe that being independent means not being bonded, intimate and important. One of my partners is in practical terms entirely independent. She lives in an apartment of her own that she alone own, and that she pays for with money that she alone earns. There'…
/r/MenSupportMen26/10/24 12:09 AM
5

The biggest problem with these is that they pretend there's only two outcomes: Either an accusation is PROVEN false beyond a reasonable doubt, or else it's not false. But there's *3* possibilities when someone accuse another of sexual assault of some sort: The accusations are proven true -- the accused is found guilty and convicted The accusations are proven untrue, the accuser can be found guilty of false accusations and convicted It can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt either way -- it's si…
/r/EverydayMisandry24/10/24 09:41 PM
18

Yes. And also never mentioned is the fact that a lot of the hatred piled on "incels" is really thinly veiled ableism. Few reflect on the fact that if there's a big and important part of life that most people navigate more or less fine that someone is struggling enormously with, they're disabled by definition. Disabled. Lacking one or more *abilities* that most people have. A fair fraction of incels are autistic, or have other disabilities that makes social dominance games and/or navigating compl…
/r/EverydayMisandry22/10/24 03:43 PM
9

Sure. Same. But it's still true statistically speaking that autistic men on the average struggle with navigating social situations well, which is often required to fight back efficiently. I mean, it's literally a diagnostic criteria to have social struggles.
/r/EverydayMisandry22/10/24 03:41 PM
5

Bi guy talking. I don't think gay men get any LESS hatred really, but it comes from very different sources. If you're hanging out in left-wing progressive social justice aware spaces, then their "default" evil-doer that it's okay to shit all over in a way they'd not wanna do about any of the demographic group is the "cishet man". It's formulaic and dogmatic, and very little conscious thought goes into pondering why exactly THOSE 3 axes of privilege are the ones picked. Personally I'd say it amou…
/r/EverydayMisandry20/10/24 03:48 PM
3

That would be perfectly fine if it was a case of "Today we're discussing a problem that women are struggling with, so going 'whataboutthemen' is derailing -- we'll discuss problems that men are struggling with tomorrow." But that's not the case, is it? It's more like today and ALL DAYS we're discussing problems of the world from a gynocentric perspective and I'm not willing to tolerate that there's EVER a discussion where mens problems are centered.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/10/24 09:15 AM
8

It's not just men are getting murdere *too* -- as in "Sure, most murder-victims are women, but there's a few men killed too". Instead it's men make up a solid MAJORITY of people killed. The same is true for dying in general, if you look at the list of top-10 most common reasons for early death (early as in dies before turning 66) -- then men are a clear majority of the dead in 9 of them, and about equal in the last one (diabetes).
/r/EverydayMisandry20/10/24 09:13 AM
2

If it exists, there's porn of it.
/r/EverydayMisandry17/10/24 10:57 PM
28

It goes like this: "Men are scared of powerful, smart or otherwise capable women!" And then if men find a woman who is all of the above attractive: "Men are gross! As a powerful, smart and capable woman, she deserves better than to be considered attractive!" The way this comes across in sum total is: "How *DARE MEN* express admiration for any woman whatsoever?"
/r/EverydayMisandry17/10/24 10:57 PM
26

Did you know women were NOT excluded from testing -- but women in fertile age were from phase 1 trials because one of the risks of new medicines is that they may hurt the fetus if you're pregnant? i.e. the entire thing was to PROTECT women (and their babies)? The usual implicit assumption in these claims, of course, is that the patriarchy don't give a fuck about women, so testing only on men is sufficient -- because who cares about women, right?
/r/EverydayMisandry17/10/24 01:41 PM
28

Fun fact -- women like the one posting this are just misandrist in general and convinced ALL men are horrible.
/r/EverydayMisandry14/10/24 06:13 PM
11

There definitely is. https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/the-re-demonization-of-the-gay-male This dynamic is just one example. It's not hard to find many.
/r/EverydayMisandry11/10/24 12:47 AM
27

The term "mansplaining" implies that it's a thing you're doing BECAUSE you're a man and the person you're talking to is a woman. As this person is finding out, that's frequently NOT the case -- they get the accusation even though they're behaving the same as they were back when they were seen as a woman.
/r/EverydayMisandry02/10/24 05:30 PM
3

I'm 49, and in the middle of re-educating myself to start an entirely new line of work in a few months when I graduate. My situation is different from yours, but in a sense I've been NEET for most of the last 5 years. My romantic relationships are also fairly new -- I've lived as polyamorous since 2019, and thus I started dating my girlfriends when I was 44. I'm not saying you ain't got challenges. It does sound as if you're in a tough spot. I'm just saying, please don't think that your age as s…
/r/MenSupportMen24/09/24 08:45 AM
1

Yeah, but I find that reading weird given that they followed up their statement that the last thing we need is a movement that centers men because men are already fully centered. If we assume your reading is right and they mean "the last thing we need is a *feminist* movement that centers men, because men are already fully centered in the feminist movement" -- then that's not self-contradictory; but it's patently absurd and doesn't pass the laugh test. Men are MOST DEFINITELY not "fully centered…
/r/EverydayMisandry20/09/24 10:51 PM
2

Right -- I agree that they *are* asking men to make their own movement to solve their own problems. But then in ADDITION they say that "the last thing we need" is a movement that centers men. Which means they're saying: 1) Men should make their own movement and 2) We do NOT need a mens movement. Which IMHO is directly self-contradictory.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/09/24 09:58 PM
7

Obviously the latter since the [deleted] person is advocating both positions in the very same comment.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/09/24 08:04 PM
43

It'd be nice if posters would at least agree with THEMSELVES. Which of these two is it: Men should solve their own problems. (presumably with one or more movements centered on doing that) We do NOT need a movement that centers men
/r/EverydayMisandry20/09/24 03:49 PM
5

The bar for what should be ALLOWED to be sold should be high. Freedom of Speech is crucial. But what's worse is that there's usually very little, if any, pushback and critique. A bookstore that sold a book that as a title proposed killing all members of any other group -- would perhaps be LEGAL, but it'd face MASSIVE public back-clash, boycotts, picketing, review-bombing of the stores online presence and so on and so forth.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/09/24 01:59 PM
0

These aren't mutually exclusive. It's well-known and well-documented that Russian propaganda aims to destabilise among other ways by deliberately pouring gasoline on whatever fires of division they can find in western cultures.
/r/EverydayMisandry14/09/24 04:38 PM
-9

It's impossible to separate what's just straight up Russian propaganda, from how hateful some people genuinely are.
/r/EverydayMisandry12/09/24 08:36 PM
8

Yes sure. The most common way to die by misandry is suicide, I reckon.
/r/EverydayMisandry11/09/24 12:02 PM
2

Like I said -- it's still invalidating. If you want to call that invalidation by itself transphobic, that's fine. But if you compare these two then I think it's clear that, as I said, there's a whole lot less HATRED in the latter: Trans women are men in disguise, and therefore a horrible threat to women (implied: because men in general are horrible threats to women!) Trans women are men in disguise, so they might be confused, but they're perfectly decent human beings -- it's not as if there's an…
/r/EverydayMisandry09/09/24 10:05 AM
28

Small surprise. Any sub that calls men "XYs" can safely be assumed to be deeply transphobic, and thus also misandrist. It's not exactly as secret that TERFs are to a first approximation always also misandrist. After all their hatred of trans women has two components: A belief that trans women are "men in disguise" A belief that men are, by virtue of our gender alone, a horrible threat to women. I mean without #2 there wouldn't be much to hate. If TERFs where typically like: "Trans women are men …
/r/EverydayMisandry09/09/24 01:12 AM
3

Yepp. In fact statistically speaking men are more likely than women to be the victims of violence from strangers. Varies a bit by location, but as an example, where I live around 70% of the people who require medical treatment following violence from a stranger; are men. Though women are at higher risk of sexual harassment or assault, so overall I'm honestly not sure who faces the greater risks.
/r/EverydayMisandry03/09/24 12:30 PM
5

Or at least it can be; it depends on context of course. And that is another thing where men are often cut less slack than reasonable. Being the one to initiate, which most straight men have little choice about, by necessity requires a certain amount of guesswork. You'll have to guesstimate to the best of your ability, who is receptive to what under which circumstances. And sure, sometimes when in doubt, you can ask, but you can't *always* ask because something as normal as a date would turn into…
/r/EverydayMisandry03/09/24 12:20 AM
1

I agree men are at somewhat higher risk of it, yes. Though I'll add that there's a *huge* difference between: "You look really elegant today! That outfit matches perfectly!" And: "Wow, awesome tits!"
/r/EverydayMisandry03/09/24 12:10 AM
4

I dunno. I kinda agree that compliments that are about something people have *done* are more meaningful than compliments that are just about, in essence, being lucky with your genetics. Of course appearance is a bit of a combination; but complimenting a woman for (say) having pretty eyes is about as meaningful as complimenting a man for being tall -- things like height and eye-color are just random chance and inheritance and aren't accomplishments. I'd rather be complimented for something that I…
/r/EverydayMisandry02/09/24 11:48 PM
-1

That redpill nonsense is toxic and won't ever make you happy. Instead it'll make you bitter and hateful. Is it possible for a perfectly ordinary man to have a variety of loving, sexy, adventurous and amazing relationships? Yes absolutely. You don't need any redpill bullshit for any of that though.
/r/MenSupportMen02/09/24 11:46 PM
6

Lol! Bisexual women in particular are strongly OVERREPRESENTED in polyamory, as in bi women are much more likely to be poly than any other demographic is. The idea that polyamory is about the arch-nemesis: "cishet men" is ludicruous. Polyamory is dominated by left-wing progressive forces. I know dozens and dozens of poly folks of all genders, but I don't thik I know more than one or two republicans; they presumably exist but are definitely vanishingly rare. To the degree right-wingers are into n…
/r/EverydayMisandry01/09/24 03:08 PM
8

I agree with the text in the bottom here. Intent matter. Is the person touching you doing so in good faith, that is, do they reasonably believe that you're consenting to the type of touch they're engaging in, and can you feel safe that they'll respect a "no"? But that goes for women too. Touch that is unwanted, but that is done in good faith, and by someone who WILL respect a no, isn't usually a big deal. (though feminists often pretend that it is) A certain amount of guesswork is required when …
/r/EverydayMisandry01/09/24 01:49 PM
12

I'm proud of my friends and loved ones, especially if they do something that I know must have taken courage or been difficult for them. Their gender is entirely irrelevant to this.
/r/EverydayMisandry31/08/24 10:38 PM
43

The argument about reproductive risk is kinda weird. In civilized countries women can take emergency contraception up to 72 hours after the rape happened, and be protected from pregnancy. If for some reason they don't get to that, then they can opt for an abortion. Either way the reproductive risk is limited. In contrast, men who are raped risk involuntarily becoming fathers; and there's NOTHING they can do to reduce or eliminate that chance. And if it happens, the law-system in many countries i…
/r/EverydayMisandry31/08/24 07:13 PM
5

That's odd. Here I was assuming that sex positivity was about getting rid of centuries-old attitudes towards healthy sex between consenting adults for EVERYONE. And then it turns out that it was supposed to solely empower women, and it's deeply regretful that it instead empowers everyone.
/r/EverydayMisandry31/08/24 01:14 PM
2

I reject the entire idea of collective crime. If I happen to have the same gender as some criminal, this doesn't in any way shape or form make me any more responsible for their deeds than someone who does NOT share a gender with them.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/08/24 11:08 AM
7

Odd, normally feminists insist that women mature *quicker* than men, and that men remain "childish" for longer. And if that's true, then surely dating a man in the end of his teenage years would be WORSE than dating a woman the same age?
/r/EverydayMisandry20/08/24 05:51 PM
4

It does matter because the words used are at the core of how we talk about, and what awareness we have of various injustices. The same crimes should therefore use the same words so as to make it clear that we're talking about the same thing. If having sex with a woman without consent is rape -- then having sex with a man without consent is also rape. It's not particularly complicated, and lots of other countries have managed just fine to create gender-neutral rape-laws. It doesn't matter all tha…
/r/EverydayMisandry12/08/24 01:10 AM
21

Is this a story from the UK? In the UK the problem isn't with how the media report it, but with the blatant sexism of the law itself. UK law defines "rape" in such a manner that only penetration with the perpetrators penis counts as rape. So no matter what a woman does to a man, or to another woman, it's not going to count as rape. Yes that's blatantly misandrist and a disgrace. It's pretty telling that even in spaces that are *very* concerned with sexual abuse and rape, most people aren't even …
/r/EverydayMisandry11/08/24 03:38 PM
1

I don't think so. To the contrary I think it's an EXCELLENT way of demonstrating that we're *actually* opposed to body-shaming even when the target happens to be a despicably person who deserves critique for a hundred different things -- it just so happens that his dick-size isn't one of them. So I absolutely call it out when people body-shame the likes of Tate and Trump. By all means. Critique them. Harshly. But do so for one of the MANY things they actually *deserve* to be critiqued for. It's …
/r/EverydayMisandry10/08/24 04:50 PM
22

The problem isn't that Tate is roasted. The problem is that it pushes the idea that men with smaller penises are inferior, and therefore hurts not only Tate -- but *ALL* men in that category, most of which are perfectly decent human beings who don't deserve to have their bodies shamed.
/r/EverydayMisandry10/08/24 01:24 PM
7

It's a weird presentation. I don't "ask for" polyamory. I tell women I'm dating that I'm polyamorous and while I'm open to sharing a pretty large range of different things with them, one thing I'm definitely not offering anyone -- is exclusivity. That's not "asking" for anything. It's just informing them about what I myself offer as a potential partner. If that's not to their liking, they're of course free to opt out and seek a more compatible partner, but that's hardly "kicking me to the curb",…
/r/EverydayMisandry06/08/24 11:34 PM
2

It depends a bit on what you mean by "dating". If you mean the stereotypical thing where you find strangers on some kinda dating-app or other dating-centered space, and then you arrange and go on a number of "dates" with them where the sole goal is to judge whether or not you're compatible as sexual and/or romantic partners -- then yes, I'm not interested in that. I have the same experience you have: it's a lot of effort in time, in mental bandwith and sometimes in money, and it exceedingly rare…
/r/MenSupportMen06/08/24 04:27 PM
2

Good catch! My bad! However the result isn't QUITE that uneven, because "Caring for and helping household members" should probably also be seen as "work". This is mostly childcare, but also to some degree taking care of elderly parents. And women do 0.62 hours per day of that while men do 0.38 i.e. women lead by +0.24 Although I suppose you could argue that most people have kids because they WANT TO, and as such, spending more time with the kids can't be solely a negative. (if it was, why would …
/r/EverydayMisandry04/08/24 10:44 PM
3

Even in dual income mixed-gender couples, it's the case on the average that the woman tends to spend more time doing chores than the man. But here's the thing; it's ALSO the case that she tends to spend less time doing paid work than he does so *overall* its more or less a tossup. Doesn't mean he does nothing at home of course, just that he does a bit less than she does at home -- and a bit MORE than she does when it comes to generating an income.
/r/EverydayMisandry04/08/24 08:14 PM
16

The "double working woman" is one of the longest standing myths. I think one of the reasons it's so slow to die is that women notice that they're doing more unpaid work at home (aka chores) than men, but systematically FAIL to notice that they also put in less hours of paid work per year than men do. It becomes "we both work, and in ADDITION I do the lions share at home!!!" -- and then they fail to notice, or "forgets" that even though it's true that they both work, it's also true that he works …
/r/EverydayMisandry04/08/24 04:56 PM
6

What would it take for a country to -- in the opinion of these people -- no longer be reasonably described as a patriarchy? They never have an answer to that, and that makes the concept pointless because there's de-facto no end-point. They want to fight patriarchy, but they're not willing to draw ANY finishing-line and say that at *this* point the patriarchy is no longer in power. I hear similar stories here in Norway all the time, and data-points such as these seem to make no difference whatsoe…
/r/EverydayMisandry16/07/24 06:54 PM
9

I think that depends entirely on what they're seeking to be frank. If someone is on dating-apps seeking a one night stand, frankly they're not being abusive towards anyone if they do not proactively disclose that they're a single father or a single mother. But if they're looking for longer-term relationships, sure they should disclose, regardless of gender.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/07/24 12:31 AM
8

Originally it means someone who is a) condescending but b) he's condescending BECAUSE the person he's talking to is a woman, and he assumes women incompetent. By the original meaning of the word, someone who is a condescending asshole towards EVERYONE isn't mansplaining since in that case gender doesn't enter into it. These days, of course, you just need to be a man and disagree with a woman, whether or not you're condescending is irrelevant and whether or not you're explaining anything is also …
/r/EverydayMisandry14/07/24 01:00 PM
10

Mansplain used to mean more than just "man who disagrees with a woman" too.
/r/EverydayMisandry14/07/24 12:51 PM
4

Because there's a pattern where people CLAIM to be opposed to slurs, but that words like "mainsplain" and "incel" refer to specific behaviours. More specifically "mansplain" means a man talking down to a woman because he assumes women are incompetent so as a woman she wouldn't have basic knowledge about a suspect. And an incel used to be someone who in involuntarily celibate. But over time these morph, and ALWAYS end up meaning the same thing: Man that I disapprove of. There's no link to the ori…
/r/EverydayMisandry14/07/24 12:51 PM
3

So, have you stopped beating your husband?
/r/EverydayMisandry14/07/24 12:45 PM
11

It'd be nice if people would learn the difference between single event and data. "WHY IS NOTHING CHANGING?" In the real world, the murder-rate per capita for the UK is approximately *halved* over the last 25 years. Sure, that doesn't mean we can't do more to bring it down even further, but "nothing changing" isn't a fair or reasonable description of the trend. Oh, and in the even bigger picture, examining all of Europe and not just the UK and looking at a couple centuries instead of a couple dec…
/r/EverydayMisandry13/07/24 09:33 AM
9

"the vast majority" is an understatement here. That's the kinda description we use when 90% are innocent of a given crime. Like 60% is a majority. 75% is a solid majority. 90% is a vast majority. But here we're not talking 90% -- we're talking.... let me do math.... Where I live (Norway) there's 2.85 million men. Of these, over the last decade, and average of 11 have committed a murder. (4 have killed a woman, while 7 have killed another man) 11 out of 2.85M is 0.0004% -- so in other words 99.99…
/r/EverydayMisandry12/07/24 01:02 AM
17

It's even more slanted here in Norway. Over the last decade, an average of 13 women per year were murderd (and 15 men -- men are at slightly HIGHER risk of murder than women, not lower!) In contrast, an average of 420 men per year died from suicide, that's a factor of 32x more than the count of women who are murdered. If we could EITHER reduce suicide among men by 5% -- or completely eliminate murder as a cause of death for women, then doing the former would save more lives. And as you say, the …
/r/EverydayMisandry10/07/24 09:05 PM
-1

I think context matters here. Innocent unless proven guilty is a core component in criminal law where it's absolutely crucial. We prefer erring on the side of caution and if there's any reasonable doubt then we acquit the accused. A cornerstone of any non-horrible legal system. But the same thing does not, of course, apply to public discourse, or to how you'd treat for example a friend who came to you and told you they've suffered some kinda abuse. If your best friend came to you and told you th…
/r/EverydayMisandry07/07/24 03:10 PM
10

Meanwhile in the real world, of the ten most common reasons for early death, men are over-represented in 9 of them and approximately equal in the tenth.
/r/EverydayMisandry03/07/24 04:25 PM
1

Gender-roles being what they are, women relatively rarely will lead in these interactions. That is, it's fairly rare that women will be the ones to INITIATE flirting -- but a lot more common that they'll respond positively and participate if someone else makes the first move. So reading cues from women won't help you all that much; there aren't that many. Oh sure, there's ordinary friendliness, and warmth, and genuine interest. Behind SOME of that is an interest in exploring more than friendship…
/r/MenSupportMen03/07/24 12:08 PM
16

You have a mental health problem, not a body-proportion problem. Treat it as such. I know you're not going to listen to rational argument anyway, but I'd nevertheless like to point out that the average lesbian woman reports being slightly MORE happy about her latest sexual experience than the average straight woman, so clearly it's not even a requirement to HAVE a penis in order to be a good lover for a woman.
/r/MenSupportMen02/07/24 01:24 PM
5

5 here stands out to me. If it's genuinely true that women except for family has always consistently given you a very wide berth then there's SOMETHING lacking in your social skills. And I wonder whether #8 and #9 might provide some hints here. I don't know you, so it's completely possible that my thinking here is COMPLETELY wrong, but here's my thoughts. You're right that people rarely treat male and female friends the same. There are cultural differences between genders, and pretending those a…
/r/MenSupportMen02/07/24 12:15 AM
1

How low does a given risk have to be before it can no longer justify broad sweeping strongly negative generalizations about an entire gender? I live in Norway. Total count of murders? About 2 a month -- one woman and one man. Of these around 1/3rd are killed by a partner or ex-partner; about 5 women a year die this way. And of course only a tiny subset of those again are killed because they reject a man. Can't find stats this specific, but it's a reasonable guesstimate that the scenario describe…
/r/EverydayMisandry01/07/24 09:21 PM
1

Gynocentric folks tend to very often highlight that women DIE while men suffer some trivial inconvenience, such as being "irritated". In the real world, it's the other way around -- if you list the ten most common causes of early death, men outnumber women in 9 of them. And at least some of that is about misandry. As an example, 20% of male suicides in the UK are connected to custody-battles, and men who don't get to actually parent their kids equally despite wanting to outnumber women in the sa…
/r/EverydayMisandry01/07/24 09:07 PM
2

I don't think there's anything wrong with you; or with what you're doing. But I also think the things you're doing tend to rarely work out for introverted guys if the goal is to gain friends, and perhaps also romantic and/or sexual partners among women. You talk about bars, parties and nightclubs. Those are stereotypical places for short-term more casual relationships, and to be blunt, popular media notwithstanding, most men rarely or never have any luck with finding friends or partners among wo…
/r/MenSupportMen19/06/24 08:51 PM
5

It sounds to me as if the communication in your relationship is not good. First, it worries me that you are feeling reluctant to honestly tell your partner that you're planning to quit one of your jobs. It sounds from the rest of your post as if you're handling your economy in a responsible and good way with paying of the high-interest debt and having the ability to live from your main job. In that setting I don't see any reasonable justification for your partner being critical of you quitting y…
/r/MenSupportMen10/06/24 12:16 PM
11

I find this a pretty massive red flag. Sleep is a basic biological need. You say in comments that you're up by 520 in the morning, and that you often have a short and/or not very restful night on account of apnea and a cpap machine. Given this reality, being tired and doing things like falling asleep at 10pm is PERFECTLY NORMAL, and in fact you're already not getting enough sleep, so sleeping more is in a very literal sense important for your health and wellbeing. Your wife knows all of this. Bu…
/r/MenSupportMen05/06/24 08:47 PM
4

Sometimes yes. This feeling was one of the worst parts of the toughest period of my life, back when I was a student in the start of my twenties. There's a pervasive feeling that men are valuable and worth paying attention to if we are USEFUL. That is, if there's something we can *do* for others. But also that we're not really worth paying attention to as human beings unless we're in some sense useful. Of course there's a subjective element to such feelings, but there's a lot of data-points point…
/r/MenSupportMen30/05/24 02:09 PM
4

Lots of research show that women have a fairly strong inherent in-group bias -- and men don't. (example source: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.87.4.494 ) I'm a bit skeptical that it's a good idea to try to replicate this though. A lot of this internal cohesion among women is about having historically been systematically discriminated against in a wide range of ways. (and in many parts of the world that's still the case!) That's not something we can, or should, replica…
/r/MenSupportMen30/05/24 01:50 PM
8

It's a fine balance. You can't center mens experiences and yet forbid ALL critique of things like feminism and womens gender-roles. And MensLib is so over-censored that to a first approximation, any statement the average feminist would disagree with, is banned. Myself I got permanently banned for the crime of using the term "gynocentric" as part of a reasoned argument. You can't talk about mens issues at all if you're not allowed to call attention to the fact that in certain parts of life, women…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/24 08:28 PM
–

Not really. My opinion is that most "coaching" consists of some combination of snake-oil and con-man tactics. A "coach" is usually someone of no actual qualifications whatsoever other than a conviction of their own wisdom, who extracts money from people in difficult situations by making promises (explicitly, or implicitly) that they in actuality cannot keep.
/r/MenSupportMen10/02/24 12:29 AM
13

They judged him the 2nd most physically attractive -- prior to the questioning, so these women AGREE that he's physically attractive.
/r/AllPillDebate02/11/23 11:25 AM
3

Children have a right to two legal parents if and only if the mother wishes for that to happen. Example: We can't allow paper abortions for men, because this would violate childrens rights to have two legal parents. But we can allow single women who want a child to have one by way of sperm-donor since the very same situation does NOT violate the rights of the child when it's the result of a choice made by a woman. Letting men choose, violates childrens rights. Letting women choose, does not viol…
/r/MensRights29/10/23 11:09 PM
1

I'm pretty sure your mom put her life at risk to give birth to you, mate. Women who died giving birth in my country last year: 3 Men who died doing dangerous work in my country last year: 31 Men built this at risk to their life that by a factor of 10 eclipses the risk women face in pregnancy. I realize this ain't true everywhere -- but where I live (Norway) it is.
/r/MensRights22/10/23 10:34 PM
1

If obesity had anything to do with "factors outside an individual's control" then the rates of obesity in all nations would be similar No. That would only be the case if obesity was purely determined by genetics. And nobody has made that claim. What I said was that overweight is to a significant degree genetic. That doesn't at all imply that genetics is the only factor that counts. It's actually pretty easy to figure out how important genetics is for things like this. All you need to do is compa…
/r/MensRights17/09/23 09:01 PM
6

Another reason for the "higher attempts" claim in women is that people confuse higher DOCUMENTED attempts with higher attempts. Women are more than twice as likely to get therapy of some sort when they're struggling with mental health; and that fact massively increases the odds that their attempts gets recorded somewhere that's included in the statistics. In contrast, a man who's receiving treatment from nobody, and who has a suicide-attempt that he doesn't die from, are much more likely to exis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/23 10:05 AM
0

I didn't say anything about being "wealthy", sure most men are better of financially at age 40 than at age 20 -- but most still ain't "wealthy", just average middle-class as opposed to poor student. I also can't talk for other men; and I don't really do "pursuing" (life is too short to play stupid games). But why would I want to have mutual happy relationships with women older than 30? (The women I've dated in the last few years have been between 29 and 44, though I also had a FWB for a while wh…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 09:18 PM
1

It's not quite that narrow. If we're talking about dating then the relevant number is what fraction of the adult population we're talking about; and not what fraction of total population we're talking about. Men in dating-contexts are judged on a wide spectrum of features; among them: Physical attractiveness including things like facial features, height, muscles and body-fat. Being educated and having a career Being independent and autonomous Possession of things like an apartment and a car Conf…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 08:38 PM
1

There's nothing particularly wrong with my looks. Might be slightly under average for a guy my age, but so what? Half of all people are average or below you know? You just missed my point. My point was simply that it doesn't take massive amounts of dating-privilege to be able to have a rich, happy and fulfilled dating-life.
/r/MensRights08/07/23 08:10 PM
0

I don't think stats supporting the idea that 1/3rd of young men ain't had sex in a year, is very good evidence that 95% are incapable of doing just fine, you know? Young straight men do face one additional problem though -- age-patterns in dating makes things rough for them. Imagine a hypothetical town with 1000 straight men and 1000 straight women in the 18-25 age-bracket interested in finding a partner. It might go like this: 700 of the men date 700 of the women 250 of the women date a man who…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 07:55 PM
0

I don't believe that at all. I'm 48. Balding. Crooked teeth, about an inch under average height for a man in my country. Income a bit under average for my country. Autistic. I'm not at all high in dating-privilege. I do have some things going for me too of course; but most people do. (More specifically: I'm comfortable and relaxed talking to women, I have a reasonably large social network that includes many women, and I have few obligations so there's a lot of freedom in my life to do things lik…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 06:27 PM
2

I mean the ENTIRE business-model of most online-dating apps is to get thirsty men to pay for expensive "premium" subscriptions in the hope of having SLIGHTLY better luck.
/r/MensRights08/07/23 06:23 PM
1

Like I said; you can't prevent cheating OR have a happy life by caging your partner. Yes sure there's temptations in clubs. There's temptations EVERYWHERE. It's toxic and unhealthy and not practical to attempt to prevent your partner from being anywhere where they might face temptation. The same thing is true for men, by the way; possessive female partners who try to cut them off from anything and anyone they judge a "temptation" are a genuine problem. Face it: if your partner WANTS to cheat on …
/r/MensRights08/07/23 06:21 PM
1

You do realize, I hope, that there's more than one way to approach dating? Stop participating in the dating-areas that suck for men, and your life will improve by a lot. My life has been an order of magnitude more awesome since I stopped doing any, or trying to do any, "dating" in the traditional sense, and instead simply offer the things that I want to the women in my life and around me that I happen to like. I have 2 girlfriends and a couple FWBs, am married to none of them and don't really ha…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 03:06 PM
1

Agreed. Trying to prevent cheating by in effect caging your partner IS controlling, and in addition, as you say, it doesn't work. If someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way. The only thing that DOES work is dating people who are open and honest about their preferences, and that genuinely want a monogamous relationship.
/r/MensRights08/07/23 01:53 PM
1

It's completely voluntary to enter into a monogamous relationship-agreement. You don't have to promise sexual or romantic exclusivity to anyone, if you don't want to. And even if you don't, there's no part at all of life that you'll be cut off from. Monogamy is the most common relationship-structure, and many people have insufficient knowledge and understanding of the alternatives. But it's not the only one. You want to have a loving committed and long-term partner, yet at the same time be free …
/r/MensRights08/07/23 01:29 PM
1

Getting laid as in casual sex? Yes absolutely. Cultural values like slut-shaming perhaps along with different biological tendencies as a result of very different risk/payoff-curves for promiscuity between men and women mean that most women will get more offers of casual sex in a day than most men will in a year -- if they're otherwise equivalent, straight, and announces that they're interested in it. But finding love? No, I don't think there's any systematic difference in that EXCEPT for among t…
/r/MensRights07/07/23 11:07 PM
18

Alimony and child-support are two entirely distinct things.
/r/MensRights07/07/23 09:01 PM
2

Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both of these can be true at the same time: Rape should be recognized as a crime, even in cases where the two involved are married to each other. In criminal cases generally, the benefit of doubt should always accrue to the accused, and the burden of proof should fall on the prosecution. Yes there's sometimes a problem with #2 in domestic violence cases, but I don't think the right way to deal with that is to oppose #1.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 01:47 PM
4

That's not how any of this works. Sex without consent is rape. But the burden of proof in criminal law is on the prosecution, not the defence. So it's the prosecution that must demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is in fact guilty, i.e. both that the sex happened, and that it happened without consent. None of this is specific to marital rape, instead all of the above is equally true for ALL forms of rape.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 01:17 PM
11

There are some people who BELIEVE that platforms have widespread punishment of groups/subs that are "adult" and that this is based on stupid filters looking for trigger-words, so it actually accomplishes something of value to deliberately mis-spell words. You see these beliefs both here on Reddit, on Instagram and on Facebook, to mention a few. I've never seen credible evidence that ANY of it is true. (and indeed if it worked like that, the highly-paid engineers working for all of these would ha…
/r/MensRights06/07/23 01:14 PM
3

First, I think it's important to separate these two questions from each other: What military laws should we have? Should there for example BE a draft or not? Should the military laws we do have be gender-neutral or not? From a gender-equality perspective I think question #2 is the most relevant, and my answer to that is a resounding yes. Luckily where I live (Norway) this is also now the reality, we changed the relevant law in 2013 and since then young men and women are drafted/conscripted under…
/r/MensRights03/07/23 10:31 PM
2

Men’s Health Month, also known as Men’s Mental Health Month (as mentioned before), has been an official holiday since 1994, where it was first known as National Men’s Health Week. Then-President Clinton signed the observance into effect. https://thriveworks.com/help-with/mental-health-awareness/mens-mental-health-month/
/r/MensRights02/07/23 08:45 AM
2

Nothing wrong with a fancy date with someone you like, but I agree it'd be a red flag if she pretty much demanded that or if she put a lot of focus not on getting to know you, but on the context of the date. How would you judge it if she does propose a fancy date; but she also happily splits the bill with you? First time I went on a date with one of the women closest to me we spent like $350 to stay at a freaking castle (in England) -- a cost we split 50/50. I suppose context is different; poly …
/r/MensRights26/06/23 07:48 AM
10

There's more than one explanation for transphobia. But sure, misandry is one of them. When for example some people panic about trans women, but we hardly ever hear anything about trans men, it's because their reasoning goes something like this: Trans women are really "men in disguise" Men are a danger and a threat to women by virtue of gender alone Without #2 there'd be no reason to care much even if someone thought #1 was the case, I mean for the people who believe this, presumably trans men ar…
/r/MensRights20/06/23 03:40 PM
14

It's not as if Russia isn't sexist as fuck. It'd hardly be a win for gender-equality to have them wipe ANYONE from existence.
/r/MensRights19/06/23 10:29 PM
1

Thank you kindly!
/r/MensRights15/06/23 11:38 PM
3

Sounds good. Thank you for the explanation!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/23 11:35 PM
5

Is kbin any different fundamentally? Let me phrase that differently -- is it owned and controlled by the community; or is it owned and controlled by a company or an individual? Because the REAL mistake here, and one an endless list of communities have made, is to establish a community on a platform owned and controlled by a corporation. It always ends up the same way: The community is a lot more valuable than the platform is; and yet the corporation is ideally positioned to milk that for all it'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/23 07:55 PM
1

Implication?
/r/MensRights14/06/23 07:49 PM
8

I reckon they do mean physical attractiveness, yes. Thing is, it's a pretty general thing in life that being physically attractive helps women mostly DIRECTLY, and men to a substantially degree indirectly. Thing is, if you're more physically attractive, you'll have just a bit better average outcomes in all kinds of social interactions ranging from customer-service to romantic or sexual interactions. And better outcomes, will tend to give you more confidence. I mean it's pretty easy to be confide…
/r/MensRights14/06/23 12:42 PM
21

The article explained it? This suggests that the beauty premium for males is due to some productive attribute, such as higher self-confidence, whereas discrimination causes the beauty premium for women. Which seems perfectly plausible. In other words it works like this for women: Women who look more attractive, get better grades. And it works like this for men: Men who look more attractive tend to become more assertive and more confident. Men who are more confident, get better grades.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 09:39 AM
-12

I think gender-segregated bathrooms is a stupid idea to begin with. Taylor Swift concerts illustrates one of many reasons why they're dumb. Venues like concert-halls have vastly different gender-mix on different concerts, which means whenever there's a happening that appeals mostly to women, there'll be a huge line at the womens restrooms and nobody in the mens, and vice versa. In addition, the idea that segregation is the way to go is fundamentally the same idea that the Taliban has, just in a …
/r/MensRights14/06/23 08:43 AM
3

It's the same as other dating if you're looking for short term casual flings, then it's a massively slanted field. An average straight woman will get more offers in a day than an average straight man will in a month. Visit any of the poly-subs and you'll see the usual complaints. But it's vastly different for longer-term dating in a large social network. The opportunity-cost of saying "yes" to something is so much smaller you know? Of the 6 women closest to me, I think only one would've picked m…
/r/MensRights13/06/23 03:39 PM
8

This sounds like gender-essentialist toxic crap. Thank you for the heads-up! She's right about one thing though: dating is a hell of a lot nicer when you're not needy, and when you can't as easily be manipulated by things you yourself want, because you have alternatives. I've been dating polyamorously for the last 4+ years, and in this respect it's a completely different world. If I get to know someone that I like, then in principle everything is on the table; we MIGHT become lovers or partners …
/r/MensRights12/06/23 05:37 PM
57

Eh. She understood some fragments -- generally ones anyone would've told her had she asked. Meanwhile she painted a grotesque caricature of several other parts of what it means to be a man and completely failed to examing her own privileges. Example? When she outs herself to the bowling-group, one of the men is skeptical. So she offers to take him to the bathroom and show him that she's a woman. He explicitly says no, he does NOT wanna see that. So what does she do? She flashes him in the parkin…
/r/MensRights11/06/23 03:06 PM
2

Agreed. I worded myself sloppily. My point was just that triads are the exception, the norm for those folks who do have 2+ partners, is that the partners aren't romantically or sexually involved with each other. But you're entirely right that it's completely normal to be in a poly relationship and have 1 partner. One of my metas says straight out that 1/2 girlfriend is the right amount for him.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/23 01:25 PM
7

The define "health disparity" this way: health disparities are systematic, plausibly avoidable health differences adversely affecting socially disadvantaged groups; they may reflect social disadvantage, but causality need not be established. This definition, grounded in ethical and human rights principles, focuses on the subset of health differences reflecting social injustice, distinguishing health disparities from other health differences also warranting concerted attention, and from health di…
/r/MensRights09/06/23 12:44 PM
3

I don't think living like this is dirt cheap actually; did you consider the location of that apartment? What's the view like? Is it up high or down in the slums? (I get that that wasn't your point though, I'm just saying you could have reasonable furniture and less of a view; at no extra overall cost)
/r/MensRights08/06/23 05:52 PM
9

Men don't pay less for everyday products though; instead we pay similar or identical amounts for most products. Plane-tickets, new mobile phone, electricity, apartment, internet-connection, night at a hotel, etc -- these cost identical because they're literally the exact same product. Then there's some things we spend less on for purely biological reasons, for example products relating to menstruation. But there's other things we spend MORE on for purely biological reasons; the biggest being FOO…
/r/MensRights08/06/23 02:57 PM
1

I'm not exactly Don Juan or Casanova, the better is the enemy of the good, and so I have only ever been in monogamous relationships. Neither am I. I'm a balding, obese autistic guy with crooked teeth who went involuntarily celibate for half a dozen years as young man. I don't actually think it's harder to date polyamorously; though you're certainly right that only a minority of potential partners are going to be interested in that. There's many more people who are open to it than who are current…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/06/23 09:56 AM
1

You're mixing unrelated things here. This thread started with talking about the risk that even if you are not legally married, you may be considered common law married which could have negative consequences like needing to split property if you break up. It's true that in quite a few places, people who have merely cohabitated can get some of the same privileges as married people do, for example as you say the right to immigrate and live together. But *that* right doesn't pose any extra risk to a…
/r/MensRights07/06/23 11:37 PM
41

Excellent essay! Thank you for sharing this with us! I agree entirely that the "male gaze" is frequently demonized more than is warranted. I mean of course it's true that it's possible to objectify others in rude or even harassing ways. But this isn't the entire story; sexuality is complex and multifaceted and should not be treated as if it's solely a problem. Marilyn acknowledges this in a good way when she goes: ​ What if I am an object for sexual fantasy? (What if I’m not?) Because that's the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/06/23 09:28 PM
1

Yes okay, but I'd say that's still an example of something being counted as a "suicide attempt" where they "failed" because of my reason #1 -- because they had less actual motivation to die.
/r/MensRights07/06/23 12:00 PM
3

Triads are uncommon in polyamory. The vast majority of poly folks have 2+ romantic and sexual relationships; but their partners are not partners of each other so there's no triad. In other words, imagine 3 people in a V arrangement rather than a triangle-arrangement. In the cases where 3 people ARE all dating the other two then yes, that requires at least two of the 3 involved to NOT be straight.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/06/23 10:46 AM
0

That would be an example of being less motivated to actually die, no?
/r/MensRights07/06/23 10:43 AM
1

Well, if they're annoyed when people assume they're gay just because they're close to some male friends -- but they have zero issues when people assume they're having sex with some female friends they're close to, then that looks kinda homophobic to me, yes. I mean, the situations are identical. In both cases you're in reality close platonic friends, but you get mistaken for lovers. If someone finds BOTH situations equally annoying then fair enough; then I agree there's nothing homophobic about …
/r/MensRights07/06/23 10:42 AM
1

I think that would be an example of 1 or 2 to be honest. I mean if they're ridiculous in the sense of "clearly she doesn't ACTUALLY want to die", then that would mean she's less motivated to die. Meanwhile if they're ridiculous in the sense of "she *does* have a genuine wish to die, but there's no way that could possibly ever kill anyone!", then that'd be incompetence, no?
/r/MensRights07/06/23 06:34 AM
4

A good way of dealing with this dishonesty is to frame it like this: If it's true that women "attempt" suicide a lot more than men, but nevertheless die a lot less from it, then that can only have two possible explanations. (or a combination of these two) The women who "attempt" suicide are less motivated to actually die than the men are. The women are just vastly more incompetent; given the same motivation to die, they just can't manage it. Gynocentric folks never want to assert that women are …
/r/MensRights06/06/23 11:40 PM
6

A circle is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes there's rather substantial overlap. We ran a poll in the largest Norway-centric poly space last year, and like 60% of the women and 35% of the men said they're also LGBT. (The higher fration of women *mostly* because there's more bisexual women than bisexual men. I think at least PART of that is about stigma; see men LOVE bisexual women, while women dislike bisexual men in a dating-context -- I have some theories on why that is, but that's sort of a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/23 11:36 PM
12

I think many of the things you mention are about toxic attitudes in mainstream gender-roles more than about cis women as such. I've made a transition myself in my life; not in coming out as nonbinary and pan like you have, but instead in moving from traditional monogamous mainstream dating and to polyamorous dating. And yet my experiences matches yours pretty well. There's less assumptions that you "should" play a given role because you're a given gender. There's better balance in who initiates …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/23 10:17 PM
36

Thing is though, if someone is a wealthy man, and wants to hire the services of a sex-worker, he'd have no troubles finding better candidates.
/r/MensRights06/06/23 01:23 PM
6

If you read the studies, they get into that. They don't prove it or anything, but they hypothesize that social activism can attract narcissists who see it as a vehicle for virtue-signalling and making themselves feel important, in addition to a space for feeling "above" others and be justified in attacking them. This study is on feminist activism, other studies look at anti-sexual-assault activism and find the same results: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04591-4 Which makes…
/r/MensRights06/06/23 10:12 AM
2

It’s annoying and probably puts non-gay guys off of having close male friends for for fear of being labelled “gay”. Only if you have sufficient internalized homophobia to consider it a negative if someone erroneously believes you're gay. Like u/Tanman55555 says -- I also don't give a shit if someone thinks I'm gay. I mean, factually speaking they are wrong, but the mistake is not hurtful to me in any way, and I'd see no negatives at all to actually being gay. People do the same thing (just even …
/r/MensRights06/06/23 06:51 AM
2

Where in the world do you live? The international trend is that "common-law" marriages are less and less recognized, and that even where they exist at all, there's specific requirements that MUST be fulfilled (beyond simply living together!) in order for something to qualify, so that it's usually easy to avoid that risk. In USA only a small fraction of states recognize them at all; and the ones who do typically have requirements beyond living together. (typically things like MUST be engaged AND …
/r/MensRights06/06/23 06:42 AM
2

If unequal divorce-law is the problem; then simply refrain from getting married. Problem solved. I'm not married to any of my partners, and I have no plans of ever being either. (though in my country divorce-laws are more or less fine; I'm once divorced myself, and financially speaking it was fine: no unfairness at all.)
/r/MensRights05/06/23 05:00 PM
2

I trust the people who's showns themselves worthy of trust. Of course you're never 100% certain of no betrayals. But the cost of going through life eternally skeptical of EVERYONE close to you is lots higher than the cost of suffering the occasional disappointment when someone you trusted does something that hurt you.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 04:59 PM
2

If you're straight and only want intimacy with women; and at the same time you don't trust any women enough to want genuine intimacy with them; then there's no solution. But in that case you're in a corner you've painted yourself into. It's a bit as if someone said they want to be slim, yet also to eat a LOT of high-calorie foods every day and not work out. And I'm like; bro; gently; you can't have two or more mutually exclusive things. That's not anyones fault, that's just how the world works. …
/r/MensRights05/06/23 04:56 PM
13

No, I don't really find that weird. First, it's my understanding that Pride has been a thing for substantially longer than men's mental health month. Secondly though, there's only 12 months in a year and there's a lot more causes than that, so it's a given that many things will overlap; there's simply no way at all of avoiding that. Besides, Pride is just as important for men as for anyone else; gay men have historically faced MORE stigma and MORE discrimination than lesbian women have, and ther…
/r/MensRights05/06/23 10:50 AM
2

I didn't want some kinda "special" praise though. It'd be sufficient if they'd treat me the same as the many women who are primary caregivers for their young children. But those women are never degraded to helper or assistant; instead they're recognized as full parents.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 09:55 PM
12

I used to get this a lot too. A lot of people automatically see mom as the primary parent, and dad at best as a competent "assistant" or "helper". When my oldest was born, his mother returned to full-time employment 2 months after the birth while I remained at home on parental leave and took care of him full-time. Without shadow of a doubt, I was his primary caregiver from then and until he started attending kindergarden and I returned to work somewhat more than a year later. And people would st…
/r/MensRights03/06/23 09:50 PM
0

Street-harassment is a cultural problem, not a clothing-problem. If your theory was right, then street-harassment would be a small problem in places like Egypt and India; and a big problem in places like Norway and Netherlands -- given that the women in the latter two countries tend to show a lot more skin and dress a lot more provocatively. But in reality it's the other way around.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 09:32 PM
1

Yesterday. One of my girlfriends bought me flowers. No anniversary or special day or anything else, nor was she making amends for any wrongdoing -- she just wanted to, she said. They're right here and make me smile every time I look at them. Also yesterday, one of my FWBs told me that she loves me. We're not compatible enough for a full-blown partnership; but we're happy mushy friends with benefits that enjoy having shared vacations a few times a year; and being loved is an *awesome* compliment.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 01:22 PM
2

There's more than one way of doing dating, and more than one way of doing relationships. I think alternatives to traditional monogamy are under-examined by many men. I'm NOT saying the alternatives are right for everyone; they're definitely not. But if you're sick and tired with the norms of "default" dating, perhaps it'd be worth it to at least learn enough about the main alternatives to be able to judge whether or not it's right for you? For me personally, here's some of the things that's surp…
/r/MensRights03/06/23 01:07 PM
3

(I have two distinct answers to this. Since they are about unrelated aspects; I'll post them as two different comments.) Dating is difficult for young straight men in particular. The typical response to complaints from them is to accuse them of being "toxic" or "incels" while refusing to acknowledge that structural issues makes dating inherently more difficult for them than for other demographics. Age-patterns in dating means that there's substantially more single young men than single young wom…
/r/MensRights03/06/23 12:33 PM
7

In some countries this is true -- and it's often cited by gynocentric folks as evidence that no bias in disfavor of fathers exist. But this is incorrect, it ignores the fact that most sensible people talk to a lawyer and receive advice PRIOR to taking things to court; and then they only take it to court if they have reasonable odds of a win. Consider the following hypothetical situation: 100 fathers lack custody and/or sufficient time with their kids, want to change this and go talk to a lawyer …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/23 08:47 AM
1

Ah yes, of course, typo. Fixed now.
/r/MensRights28/05/23 03:39 PM
19

You're allowed to have standards. For me personally, being honest and open and willing to extend reasonable amounts of trust to me are non-negotiable; if someone isn't willing to do that they're NOT a match. I do have sympathy for someone who's suffered abuse or other trauma in the past, so if someone openly and honestly approached me and told me they like me, but want to be careful to avoid a repeat of past trauma, I'd understand. I'd also offer to do what I can to reassure them -- hell if they…
/r/MensRights28/05/23 08:54 AM
1

Probably some of it is just cultural differences; I live in Norway and with a single exception (an American woman from CA) my partners have also been European. I do think that makes a difference to at least some gender-roles. I'm also demiromantic -- i.e. I usually only develop a crush on someone after we're already emotionally close, which tends to mean people start out as friends and only later (often years later) I fall in love with them. This helps in the sense that I know them very well lon…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 10:51 PM
1

This particular observation I don't share, no. I've been married once (for 16 years), and I've also had 5 other multi-year relationships including my two current partners -- and I can't say I've ever noticed that there's an expectation that men should put more effort into keeping their partners happy than women should. I HAVE noticed this pattern in the early stages of dating, where it's often a bit as if the men are competing for the attention of the women. But in the context of an established …
/r/MensRights27/05/23 07:50 PM
4

Lots better! In that form, as you say, it applies even if the people they're responsible for are adults. I mean it's still a problem when university-professors have sex with their students; even if the students are 18-19.
/r/MensRights27/05/23 06:37 PM
21

Adults should not be fucking kids I get what you mean; but in this space it's important to be careful to phrase things such that you're saying what you actually mean. In most of the world (including most US states) the age of consent is in the 15-17 range OR there's exceptions for couples that are similar in age and/or development. In other words; in the vast majority of jurisdictions, it's perfectly fine for someone who is a young adult to have sex with someone who is an older "child". (I put c…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 06:02 PM
5

This isn't about weddings; it's about cheating in connection with pre-wedding parties, i.e. bachelor/bachelorette-parties. The point is, even if the fraction of women and men who WOULD cheat in this situation was identical; the women would be LOTS more likely to be propositioned by someone and basically only need to say "yes!" in order to get laid.
/r/MensRights23/05/23 07:39 PM
20

I came here to say this. Given equal interest in cheating, a straight woman will have orders of magnitude more opportunity than a straight man.
/r/MensRights23/05/23 01:26 PM
24

Norwegian guy here. Here's some of my thoughts about Norway. Some of this is probably the same in other Scandinavian countries, but not all of it. I'd say it's mixed fare. It's easy to mention several examples of genuine and important progress in gender-equality to the advantage of men here. Some examples include: A few years ago we changed our military law to make it gender-neutral; women are now conscripted under rules identical to the rules for men; and so about 1/3rd of our armed forces are …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/23 10:05 PM
2

Sure. This particular law is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 10:05 PM
7

That's what we do here in Norway for national standardized exams, such as the exit-exams at the end of our equivalent of High School. Here's a paper that analyzes how this works out when you then compare to the way the same students have been graded openly by their own teachers: https://folk.ntnu.no/torbergf/Articles/Gender%20and%20achievement.pdf Quote: Compared to the results at anonymously evaluated central exit exams, girls get significantly higher grades than boys when the same skills are a…
/r/MensRights15/05/23 04:31 PM
1

This sucks but is in at least some cases understandable. The way it works in Norway is something like this: The cost of raising the child(ren) is calculated based on the income of the parents. That cost is split proportionally between the parents, according to how the income is distributed between them; so if for example parent A earns twice as much as parent B, then A should pay 2/3rds of the cost of raising the child(ren). (since they have 2/3rds of the income) With an equal split in time taki…
/r/MensRights15/05/23 08:26 AM
3

You don't even need to go to India for that. Even wealthy western democratic countries like the UK has laws in substance similar to that; where the law fails to recognize that it's possible for a cis woman to be a rapist.
/r/MensRights14/05/23 12:30 PM
2

It'd depend on specifics I imagine. But you're right that it's worth considering; and concerns like these were why I said that it's worth it to be aware of the relevant laws.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/23 09:00 AM
3

The AI isn't the problem here. Instead the problem is that the AI has had specific topics and issues deliberately censored by the company training it, and will give boilerplate responses to those rather than the answer that would've ACTUALLY been produced by the AI itself. But of course it's a problem that this demonstrates that corporate America is now de-facto sexist against men in their judgement of what kinda content is acceptable; and that again is evidence that the general public is. Corpo…
/r/MensRights11/05/23 12:16 PM
0

Does systemic and/or institutional misogyny exist? Yes it clearly does. If you're an adult Iranian woman you're nevertheless legally barred from getting a passport, unless you're chaperoned by your father or your husband; or in the case where you have neither: your brother. Can't get much more institutional than being by LAW. And that's just one example from one country, it's trivially easy to list a 100 other clear examples. Perhaps you meant to ask whether or not it exists in western democraci…
/r/MensRights11/05/23 10:35 AM
10

The sexual market-place is very gendered. If an average straight man and an average straight woman both enter some space centered on sexuality be it a nightclub, a online dating app or anything else; she'll get more offers in a day than he will in a month. The reasons WHY that happens are complex, but for the purposes of this comment, it's sufficient to accept that this WILL happen. A result of that is that men with a high body-count are, by necessity, privileged. They are physically attractive,…
/r/MensRights11/05/23 09:16 AM
4

Notice how they shifted the goalposts. You said men are the majority of victims of VIOLENT crime and they responded that most victims of rape & sexual assault are female. That doesn't actually contradict your statement. You were talking about *violent* crime not *sexual* crime. The two are distinct; even though of course sometimes a given crime is both. Of course their response is also wrong. But my point here is that EVEN IF they were spot on in their stats (which they're not!) -- it'd still no…
/r/MensRights11/05/23 09:02 AM
15

I think that's a good point. And there's one additional factor which makes this even worse. Being a feminist is a voluntary label and identity. Someone who wants to can at any point stop being a feminist, simply by declaring that they no longer feel part of the movement. Your gender on the other hand, is an innate part of who you are that most people don't feel they have any power to arbitrarily change. Even trans people generally tend to feel that they've ALWAYS been the gender that they identi…
/r/MensRights10/05/23 03:08 PM
4

It's increasingly rarely possible though. In USA only 8 states recognize it as POSSIBLE, and in Europe it's similarly law. In the states where it's possible, it's frequently impossible to ending up married by accident since a majority of them including Texas, New Hampshire, Utah and South Carolina requires as a condition that the couple represent themselves as married to others. In other words long cohabitation alone is typically not enough; instead you usually need to ALSO present as married, f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/23 03:02 PM
5

I've been married once before; for 15 years. And it was perfectly fine. I don't see any major problems with the distribution of rights and privileges and obligations in marriages here in Norway. I got divorced 4 years ago, and there were no issues with that at all. It took me and my now ex-wife an evening to go through the things we'd acquired together during our marriage and split them up; and the formal part of divorcing can be done online and at zero cost where I live. No issues. From my pers…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/23 02:48 PM
4

It's indeed true that the specific phrase "cishet men" (on occasion expanded to "white cishet men") has become the default go-to phrase meaning roughly "very privileged folks who have no clue about discrimination and is in all things perpetrators; never victims. And it's worth it to examine the phrase in a bit more detail, to discover a core of feminists appropriating a victim-status that it's not reasonable for them to have. The phrase has three parts: Cis -- someone is cis if the gender they w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/23 09:04 PM
4

Both happens. I'm polyamorous and have 2 girlfriends plus a couple of FWBs. And the typical reactions I get are along several different axes; here's a few example-reactions I've gotten: I get why a man would want something like that, men want to have as many sex partners as possible; but no woman with a choice would ever voluntarily opt into that. (in reality both of my girlfriends were poly for years before they started dating me!) So, do you have a lot of threesomes? You're the king! Why not h…
/r/MensRights08/05/23 09:50 PM
1

This usually works, yes. I'd say approximately 75% of the time when I ask, they just send me a copy of the study. (and the remaining 25% of the time I simply get no response; they never ever say "no")
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/23 11:29 AM
3

60 percent of the students at the University of Zurich are female. In the case of professorships, it is only 24 percent This kind of statistics are often repeated, and listed as evidence that there's some kind of glass ceiling preventing women from climbing to the academic peaks. What's systematically ignored is what I call the calendar-problem. The fact that even in a world entirely without discrimination, it would take time, several decades to be more specific, from the point in time where wom…
/r/MensRights08/05/23 08:56 AM
1

My primary attitude is that gender-segregation is bullshit in general and is essentially the same attitude as the Taliban has to how people of different genders should be treated. Of course where they'd like to segregate people in pretty much ALL parts of society ranging from on public transport to in restaurants and houses of worship; people in our parts of the world generally segregate only in a smaller set of circumstances such as changing rooms, public toilets and so on. But the core idea is…
/r/MensRights05/05/23 01:44 PM
1

Right. So when VERY demonstrably people who have gone through things like war, abusive parents, bullying, serious illness and a loooong list of other ills end up actually being negatively impacted by those things; it's because they "let" that happen. They should just be a "press forward kinda person" and then they'd emerge simply strengthened from any and all traumatic situation. People with PTSD after traumatic events are simply losers. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights03/05/23 03:20 PM
2

Then perhaps take that up with them; not with me?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/23 10:44 PM
3

That's a strange comment to post as a response to a comment of mine where I make no mention of hypergamy at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/23 10:37 PM
4

It's a variant of the claim that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. It's not true. Lots of things do not kill you; but they don't make you "stronger" either, instead they leave you traumatized, disabled, disconnected, depressed or all of the above. It takes a lot of time, sometimes measured in *generations* to heal from that.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 09:45 AM
0

Is that "more" as in one out of 10000 instead of 1 out of 100000? To a first approximation, people become religious by being born into it and raised in a setting where a given faith is simply taken for granted. By comparison to this dominant mechanism, very few people ever take up a religion as adults. Most people born in Iran to Iranian parents end up muslims. Exceedingly few people born on Iceland to Icelandic parents end up muslims. When people *do* change faith of their own accord; it's usua…
/r/MensRights29/04/23 08:32 AM
1

"I've had friends that were girls before" kinda illustrates the problem, doesn't it? I'm not saying go meet girls with the goal of hitting on them. Don't do that. It's dishonest and manipulative to pretend you're into friendship if in reality you're just hoping to find a partner or get laid. No, go and meet people of all genders by way of shared hobbies and interests, then make friends with those you seem to have good chemistry with because friends are awesome in their own right. Odds are by the…
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:21 PM
1

It's true dating-apps don't work unless you're very good-looking; most are 10:1 men:women among active users, and as an inevitable result most women are flooded while men who aren't among the most attractive, get incredibly close to zero attention at all -- so yes, definitely forget about those. I frankly think you're in a situation where you need to learn to walk before you can run. It's both easy, fun and comfortable getting to know women by way of shared hobbies, shared activities, shared sub…
/r/MensRights26/04/23 05:02 PM
0

I'm entirely certain that both of my girlfriends and all of the other women close to me would pick the house without a second of hesitation. I suppose it's likely that women like the ones you describe exist; but in my social circiles I'm pretty sure they're a small minority.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 04:47 PM
3

Yes; but the problem is both that it's usually hard to prove (and criminal cases have a HIGH burden of proof, as they must have!), and also that court-cases take time, and while they're ongoing, the alienated parent and the children both continue to suffer. So I think the even more important change is to make shared custody and comparable time spent with both parents the legal default and if one parent wants a different arrangement than that; then the burden of proof should be on THEM.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 08:16 AM
8

As a 22 year old with $5K - $7K of income -- which you can take with you anywhere because it's made online, you're WAAAAAAY ahead of the curve financially. In fact that makes you more financially privileged than a majority of men double your age. Money ain't everything in dating of course, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt. So what's the crippling problem that makes you imagine you're doomed in the American dating-market? Also, what exactly stops you from staying longer-term elsewhere in the worl…
/r/MensRights25/04/23 06:39 PM
2

Sure!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/23 03:15 PM
5

It's quite astonishing really. About half of the women I know well have a relationship with me today that they just flat COULD NOT back when I was in a monogamous relationship. And yet only 2 have what a mono person would recognize as a "girlfriend" type relationship to me. Here's some examples of relationships that mean a lot to me, yet just couldn't exist if I was still mono: Sam started out my penpal 15 years ago. We quickly become affectionate and close high-trust friends, though she was nev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/23 02:15 PM
19

My perspective here is a bit different from most. From where I'm standing monogamy and the assumptions that frequently come with it, is a big part of the problem here. Thing is, with monogamy these things are extremely binary. It's all or nothing. Either you find someone who thinks you're both able and willing to fulfill EVERY romantic, sexual and couple-related wish that they have better than ANY other candidate; or else you can't hold hands or share a 2-minute cuddle. It's all or nothing. In t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/23 07:38 PM
1

Sure. But that doesn't negate any of the points I already made in this other response: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12wuu71/comment/jhj98c7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:19 PM
0

There's no contradiction. Your weight is indeed to a significant degree influenced by genetics. But of course it's not the ONLY influence, other factors including your own choices and the circumstances of your life also plays a big role. Here's an example (among MANY) that go into the degree to which overweight is influenced by genetics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119832/ Quote: There are differences in prevalence between populations and between various groups within populatio…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:08 PM
-17

Nobody said it's impossible? All I said was that your weight is partially influenced by factors that are entirely or partly outside your control, such as for example genetics. This isn't a controversial statement, you can look up a hundred studies all confirming this claim.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 10:36 AM
-31

Yes more. Your weight is to some degree under your conscious control -- yet ALSO influenced by things that you cannot change (such as your genetics). So you have essentially zero influence over height, and some influence over weight. Some influence is *more* influence than near-zero influence is.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 10:04 AM
-48

I agree people have more influence over height than weight; but there's factors outside an individuals control in both. For example, we know that overweight is to a significant degree genetic. We know this because the weight of identical twins correlate to a substantially larger degree than the weight of fraternal twins do, and there's few plausible explanations for that other than genetic components playing a major role.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 09:11 AM
3

Sure. Both slut-shaming as in shaming a woman for "too many" sexual partners, and incel-shaming which is just the reverse; shaming a man for "too few" sexual partners would fit as sexual harassment in my opinion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/04/23 08:59 AM
2

I think this is to a substantial degree simply algorithms prioritizing the controversial because things that induce strong FEELINGS in people tend to increase engagement, and it doesn't matter all that much if the feeling happens to be rage or frustration. The things you mention exist, but frankly they're not new. And overall sociey is moving towards increased tolerance in many important ways. I'm bisexual. Nobody even bats an eyelid when I mention it. I'm also polyamorous. That *does* draw some…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/23 12:21 PM
1

This is true for some forms of harassment, but not all. Women definitely DO suffer more sexual harassment online than men do, even given identical behavior. Sure as a man you'll suffer things like homophobic slurs in some spaces, but odds are you'll get few unwanted vulva-picks, few unwanted requests to lick someones pussy, and few sexualized comments on your appearance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/23 12:17 PM
19

One thing that strikes me in these conversations, is that things are often worded in ways that are technically correct, but clearly misleading. Take this quote as an example: in couples where both partners have paid jobs, women often spend significantly more time than men on household chores and caring work This makes it sound as if in such couples women usually spend more time overall on work; after all they both have paid work, and yet she spends "significantly more" time on unpaid work. But w…
/r/MensRights12/04/23 10:18 AM
2

I think it's probably about even; but a lot of DV is mutual, and given the fact that men are usually physically both stronger and more robust, a majority of the people who suffer sufficient injury to require treatment are women. And that fact colors the impression people have of DV, where people tend to believe it's strictly, or at least overwhelmingly a male problem, while reality is that it's fairly evenly divided.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/23 11:57 AM
4

The main thing about physical attractiveness, is that it matters a lot in low-context situations where what someone looks like is close to the ONLY thing you know about them, but progressively less the more you know about them and the better you know them. And this makes perfect sense. If you're somewhere like Tinder, where the average user swipes a profile after 2-3 seconds, it's clear that given that timeframe, glancing at your pictures is the only thing many users are doing. In contrast, at t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/23 11:24 AM
2

Yeah, and the graph in there by age shows pretty clearly what I said, that age-preferences in dating are rough on young men. Notice the trend: 18-29: There are 29% more single among men than women 30-49: There are 8% more single among men 50-64: There are 2% more single among women 65+: There are 14% more single among women
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/23 05:52 AM
25

Exactly. That's the way. IF someone thinks that terms like "mansplaining" are reasonable, you can try asking them which gendered slurs against women they find reasonable. I mean if there's certain negative behaviors men are more likely to engage in, so that it's reasonable to use gendered words to refer to it; what then are the equivalent but gender-reversed examples? But of course gender-reversed terms are opposed. Toxic femininity is not a thing, apparently. Why not, is never adequately explai…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 08:28 PM
2

Some men will date more than 1 woman, huh? I agree Sorry, that part was a typo. Fixed now. Polyamory isn't a big enough thing as of yet to materially change any of this, and in this example I was assuming everyone is monogamous. But I do actually think polyamory can play a role in reducing this problem. Groups that have many poly people in them can overcome modest gender-imbalances in a much less devastating way. Consider these two hypothetical scenarios: If like in the above example everyone is…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 08:12 PM
11

Agreed. But then they should admit that they DO see "incel" as a synonym for "any man who struggles with finding partners". I mean that follows logically if someone: Believes that only people who are misogynist struggle with finding partners Defines "incel" as "person who struggles with finding partners, and is misogynist". But yes, the belief that if there's nothing deeply WRONG or OBECITONABLE about you, then you're guaranteed to have a steady supply of partners is behind a lot of this. And th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 11:31 AM
6

There's good reason to be skeptical of that. Thing is, since these are split-second timings, what's measured is your brains very first "knee-jerk" ("brain-jerk"?) reaction if you will. But we're thinking and reasoning beings, and we're NOT limited to only our first hunch in making judgements, we can also rationally evaluate things and come to conclusions. And often, IAT-tests probably measure simply culture. For example IAT-tests show that people associate women (more than men) with nursing. Tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 10:01 AM
2

They did indeed, and that included the cases where a physically attractive person had a literally completely empty profile. People still claimed that they found that profile attractive. The halo-effect is strong! There's good experimental evidence for the claim that the ONLY thing that matters when people evaluate the attractiveness of dating-profiles, is the pictures.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 07:52 AM
3

You don't have to just guess about these things, you can look up what the science actually say about this. Test-retest reliability of IAT-tests typically show a pretty strong repeatability, strong enough that conclusions about this on group-levels are valid, though not strong enough that a single test should be taken as conclusive proof of the attitudes of a single individual. Here's what a meta-study built on 58 other studies that examined this concludes: The IAT’s average test–retest reliabili…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/23 07:48 AM
6

They measure reaction speed, which in itself is already an issue, because depending on how sleepy you are that day, your performances may vary widely, which is an issue one repeatability in itself. That's too critical of a view. They don't measure speed and accuracy but instead differences in speed and accuracy based on how you're asked to sort along two distinct axes. The idea is that brains have an easier time with putting in the same bin concepts that are associated in the brain. So if someon…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/23 07:43 PM
3

It's better to be single than to date someone who has toxic attitudes towards men and/or that require you to play a role that isn't genuinely you in order to both love you and lust for you though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/23 10:04 AM
4

I'm 47, so age isn't the big difference between us here. (and my current sex-partners are between 51 and 32, so also roughly similar in age to us both) It probably varies with culture though, I'm polyamorous and the poly subculture is substantially more progressive, and gender-egalitarian than mono/mainstream culture is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/23 10:03 AM
15

I think there's a confusion between the casual sex market and the committed romantic relationship market going on. Here's the thing; if you're a perfectly average-looking woman, you have essentially infinite access to willing casual sex-partners. Even if you're very picky and only accept proposals from men who are (say) in the top-10% by physical looks and charisma, you'll nevertheless have many more offers than you could possibly take advantage of. Some have repeated flings with these men, and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/23 09:54 AM
13

Self-defense only makes sense as a last resort if you fear for your life. Self-defense applies to any application of force that you reasonably believe is necessary and proportionate to the threat you're facing. Including threats that do not make you fear for your life. Whether it must be "last resort" varies with jurisdictions; in some jurisdictions you have a "duty to retreat" if you safely can. In other jurisdictions you're allowed to "stand your ground". (You can read more here if you're curi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/23 09:04 AM
28

My explanation for that is that they have a simplified view of privilege where all privileges are pure -- what I mean with that is that the privileged group holds an advantage in every way, and is never discriminated against. And this is (fairly) true for many privileges. There are very few disadvantages worth mentioning of being white, of being cis, of being straight, of being well-educated, or of being able-bodied. But gender is different from this. It's a heavily mixed privilege, which means …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 10:38 PM
13

Pick better girlfriends. Seriously. I mean it IS true that the expectation exists that men should be "strong" and "confident" and never express sadness, anxiety and related emotions; but that trend isn't so strong that it's particularly hard to find women who don't subscribe to it. Every single partner I've ever had, and all of the partners I have today, have zero problems with lusting for a man who's expressed vulnerability in front of them recently.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 10:14 PM
71

It's worse than that. You don't even have to use the word. Simply showing up in one of these spaces and expressing that you're experiencing that you're sad, lonely or frustrated about your lack of sexual partners will do it. Even if you take extreme care to not say anything that could reasonably be construed as entitled or misogynist. You might for example say: "I feel sad and lonely because even though I've tried, I've never managed to find any sex-partners." There's a motte and bailey argument…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 10:12 PM
3

Yes. I mean assuming they listen to the advice of lawyers, and lawyers are competent at their job, it'd make sense that in general people who take a case to court will usually win. Simply because in the cases where the hopes of winning are slim, a competent lawyer would recognize that, and recommend you save yourself the money and the emotional devastation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 12:23 PM
14

That's about pure physical attractiveness. And you're right. If you ask men to rank pictures of women on a 1-5 scale, you get a classical centered bell-curve where the average woman is ranked average, and where there's a similar number of women ranked 1 and 5. In contrast, if you ask women to rank men on the same scale, you get a result where they'll rank on the order of 75% as less attractive than average, and where something like 20% of men will receive the lowest ranking while only 1-2% of me…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 09:26 AM
4

Yes. And results of court-cases aren't a reliable indicator anyway. You sometimes see feminists quoting the fact that fathers fairly often win in court as evidence that there's no systematic problem, but that's a mistake. Consider this hypothetical sequence of events: 100 alienated fathers wonder what to do, and go talk to a competent lawyer about it. The lawyer, being good at his job, evaluates the information they give him, and *accurately* judges that 30 of them have a case good enough that t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/23 09:04 AM
39

It seems to me that "the mating gap" is in essence simply claiming that in the aggreagate, men are inferior as partners. There's simply not enough "eligible" men, i.e. men who are able and willing to fulfill the same standards that the women presumably ARE fulfilling.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/23 10:44 PM
18

You say the higher count of mothers doing this could simply be because children spend more time with mom. But that's a case where it's hard to disentangle cause and effect. Because a common and devastating effect of parental alienation is that the child(ren) do in fact become alienated from the other parent, and as a result has scarce or no contact with that parent at all. The practical result is that parents, but mostly men, can lose most or ALL contact with their own children, despite neither …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/23 03:17 PM
13

The idea that erection = consent is very depressing. It's not as if it's specific to men that physical arousal can happen as a result of unwanted sexual stimulation; a significant fraction of female rape-victims report physical arousal and/or orgasm happening during the rape, and that does NOT in any way equate to consent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/03/23 12:07 AM
3

The sub has a diverse set of people with lots of different opinions on this. I personally don't see any reason to encourage or promote traditional gender-roles, I'd vastly prefer living in a world where outside of dating gender just wasn't that important and where it was taken for granted that anything that's acceptable for people of one gender, is equally acceptable for people of any gender.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/23 02:59 PM
6

Sure. There's no way to get this round peg to fit the square hole. Gynocentric folks REALLY want all of the following to be true: Men are NOT suffering mental anguish more than women are, i.e. do NOT have a stronger or more frequent actual wish to die. Men are NOT more competent than women, i.e. the discrepancy in suicide can NOT be explained by similar strength of death-wish in people of both binary genders, but much higher competency in men. But this is transparent bullshit. If women want to d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/23 08:51 PM
13

It depends on area of life. I mean societies are complex, not all parts will by synchronized. But one example of a localized extreme would be higher education here in Norway. We now have 153 female students for every 100 male students, and yet DESPITE that over 85% of the people who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action on the basis of gender, are women. In cleartext, we're explicitly and deliberately discriminating in FAVOR of the gender who is already the solid majority of students when …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/23 12:22 PM
23

Because "white cishet men" has become the formulaic, automatic, knee-jerk shorthand for "ultra-privileged person who has never experienced suffering and is solely a PERPETRATOR never a victim of anything at all"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/23 09:42 PM
3

There can be more than one explanation for a given type of hatred. Understanding TERFs as being partially motivated by misandry does not imply that they can't also be motivated by other mechanisms.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/23 11:13 AM
2

I don't think that's true. Women used to cook an awful lot of meals from scratch that today are bought ready, or at least half-ready. My grandmother made sausage by starting with meat and intestines; she made jam by starting with planting berry-bushes, she made cured meats by starting with a deer-carcass. Similarly, women used to wash clothes, do dishes and keep things clean in labour-intensive ways. Today washing and drying the clothes for a family of 5 takes about 15 minutes of work, and is do…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/23 11:09 AM
7

Yes. I've seen couple-therapists says that in households where both are pulling their weight, it's common for both to have the impression that they do 60% of the chores. Reason being that you're always aware of EVERYTHING that you yourself do, but it's likely that your partner is taking care of some things that you don't even notice.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/23 11:02 AM
10

There's some truth to this. Time use surveys show that women spend more time on things like shopping and household chores than men -- even when we limit the statistics to people who live alone and are childless. And at least SOME of that extra work, could and should perhaps be classified as a hobby rather than "work" -- If I spend 3 hours per year on buying clothes and a female partner spend 3 hours per WEEK on the same task, does that really mean 150 hours more per year of working for the share…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/23 08:22 AM
4

I think it's perfectly useful. It's a good counter to the frequent claims that women work "double" in doing paid work, and then doing the lions share of unpaid work in addition. According to the data we have for time use; that simply isn't TRUE -- instead on the average men and women work about equally much (including all forms of work, both paid and unpaid)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/23 08:03 PM
6

No, this ain't true in the reasonably designed time-use studies. And the researchers who make these are NOT all idiots; nor are they all gynocentric gender-studies-folks. Here's a typical example of such a time-use study. This one is from USA in 2021. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm If you add up time spent "working" (both paid work and unpaid work and care-work) you find that women and men come out pretty equal. And contrary to your objection transport IS included in the time used…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/23 06:41 PM
41

The implication usually is that women do more work than men overall if you include all forms of work in other words paid work plus household chores plus care work. If you go and look at actual time-use surveys, then in at least many countries (including both USA, and Norway where I live) this just plain isn't true. Instead, men and women on the average do fairly identical amount of work. Women do a bit more household chores and care work, but men do more paid work and in sum total, it more or le…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/23 05:44 PM
6

Yeah. And this view of privilege is actually not that super-wrong when we're talking of fairly pure privileges, i.e. those factors that come with a LOT of advantages, but few or no substantially disadvantages. As an example, where I live I experience very close to zero disadvantages from being white. A discussion about racism in Norway can reasonably take place without me at the table -- I genuinely have not-much to add to that discussion anyway. (other than being in favor of putting an end to r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/02/23 10:51 AM
10

Yes. An interesting factoid to consider when people inevitably say that women risk DEATH from pregnancy and therefore that the stakes are much higher, is that it's a very reasonable guesstimate in countries with decent health-care like North America and Europe that there's more men who die while working to pay child-support for a child they never wanted than there are women who die as a result of complications in pregnancy or childbirth.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/02/23 10:44 AM
22

It's unlikely that women actually have more years in poor health. A more likely explanation is that women are more likely to be diagnosed and treated whereas the men are a bit more likely to be in poor health -- but not in a manner that shows up in the statistics -- because they're less likely to be diagnosed and/or in treatment. Our health system uses a clear majority of the resources on treating women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/02/23 12:28 AM
18

Exactly so. I got permabanned from the sub. Why? I used the word "gynocentric" -- as part of a reasonable and constructive comment attempting to explain why a certain thing happens. And it turns out that using that word EVER is an automatic permaban. Which would be evidence of an echo-chamber where no dissenting voices are tolerated even if it was a Feminist sub centered on womens experiences; but in a sub called "MensLib" it's even wilder.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/23 03:56 PM
12

It'd be bad enough if this was simply ancient law that hasn't been updated for generations and is in urgent need of an overhaul. But that's not the case. As this post says; the current law-definition was discussed, voted on, and enacted as recently as 2003. The change that was made in 2003 was that law-makers discussed the issue, and agreed that not only the vagina and the anus needs to be protected, but also penetration of the mouth of someone needs to be included as "rape". Similarly, being pe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/02/23 08:05 PM
1

this is essentially saying if we take 100 American men and 100 American women, those men will die at 1.4 times the rate as the women. That's a bit confusing though -- because of course if you take 100 American men and 100 American women -- then after a while you'll have 200 dead Americans. Everyone dies. The question is just when they die. And it's not clear what it means for men to die at a rate of 1.4 times that of women in terms of how much earlier they die.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/02/23 10:21 AM
12

"Hatred" is a pretty strong word. I don't think there's all that many people who hate men. But there's piles and piles and piles of people, even in the mainstream, who'll casually make generalizing strongly negative claims about men as a group that they'd throw a FIT about if something similar was said about any other demographic group. If you press them about it, they'll often claim it's "just a joke" or you need to "lighten up" and "not take things so literally" -- but it's very VERY noticeabl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/23 03:04 PM
6

Living-situation does make a difference though. Because it's really the power-differential that makes a young and inexperienced person often be vulnerable. (but note: being vulnerable is NOT the same thing as being taken advantage of necessarily. It makes someone more likely to have a bad end IF they run into someone who is unethical and manipulative, but of course not everyone is, and if they have a kind and considerate partner who just happens to be a decade or more older, they'll likely be fi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/23 11:19 PM
6

People aren't that judgey about age-gap relationships unless the younger person is very young. Many feel that even though (depending on where you live) people who are 16-19 might be above the age of consent, they're only just barely so and though the people who are 18-19 are legally adults, they're still only barely so. One of my girlfriends is 15 years younger than I am. I've never met any noticeable level of critique for that. But the thing is, that's probably because she was 29 when I started…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/23 08:50 PM
6

/r/AretheMonogamousOK? If you're not in an exclusive relationship with Lady A it doesn't matter who else you might be dating, it's none of her concern. And of course on top of that to equate being in contact with lady B at all to *dating* her is another level of nonsense on top of that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/23 01:08 PM
10

The way you have phrased this question, it's a truism that the answer is "no". Because if I cut away the fluff and distill your question down to it's essence, then it can be rephrased like this: Am I allowed to discuss misandry in a setting where I'm not allowed to say anything that might offend women? No of course not, in such a setting you can't discuss misandry. But it strikes me as pointless to start with to want to discuss any gendered issue if it's a rule of the conversation that nothing c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/23 11:37 AM
3

This is the case for many, perhaps even most taxes on individuals. People who are comfortably middle-class, say have household-income in the $100K to $250K range generally pay a lot more taxes compared to households that have income under $50K. But among the REALLY wealthy, i.e. people with income north of $1M/year and/or net-worth north of $10M -- real taxes paid as fraction of real income (including unrealized capital gains!) is generally LOWER. Main reason is that it's a lot easier to either …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/23 12:44 PM
1

The problem isn't property-taxes, the problem is that USA lacks a GENERAL wealth-tax that applies to all wealth. Ideally speaking with a high enough standard deduction that average folks end up excempt. For example there could be a wealth-tax roughly like this: 0% tax on any net-worth less than $500K 0.25% tax on the fraction of net-worth that exceeds $500K 0.5% tax on the fraction of net-worth that exceeds $1M 1% tax on the fraction exceeding $2M 2% tax on the fraction exceeding $10M Or somethi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/23 12:40 PM
2

I'm critical of this aspect of monogamous culture. I mean "officially" monogamy restricts only sex and romance to a single person. But in practice there's a tendency that all physical touch gets treated as suspect on account of being associated with sex; and all emotional closeness and affection gets treated as suspect on account of being associated with romance. And lacking someone to share sex and romance with is one thing. Lacking pretty close to ALL physical touch and ALL affection though, i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/23 04:52 PM
13

I don't feel any actual pressure -- and it'd be pretty ridiculous if I did. I'm openly polyamorous and currently have sexual relationships with 4 people (3 women and 1 enby) You'd think that'd make me pretty much immune to this kinda nonsense, and I am immune to actually feeling pressured -- but this also gives me an interesting vantage-point to observe this problem from. Here's some of my observations. Attempting to shame men for the "sin" of not having "sufficient" sexual "conquests" is depres…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/23 08:27 AM
1

No, it didn't take me years. I met the woman who became my first serious girlfriend when we were both 13. We were a couple between age 15 and 18; it was a good relationship in every way and neither of us have any regrets. We remain trusting friends today almost 3 decades later. Since then I've had 5 more traditional partners (plus a couple FWBs and a couple queerplatonic partners -- I've been living as openly poly for the last ~4 years) I regret exactly zero of those choices, and all of them are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/23 01:48 PM
15

Good gender balance is a plus in most lines of work. But it doesn't matter equally much everywhere. It matters most where part of the work involved dealing with heavily gendered problems. And that's most definitely true for psychology. Not every part of psychology is gendered, of course, but there's no doubt that women and men are on the average socialized differently, and that for a long list of situations relevant to psychology, gender is of relevance. To name just a few examples men and women…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/23 09:42 PM
11

It's nonsense. Women are human beings just like men. Of course there's some inconsiderate assholes; but the vast majority are kind, generous, loving and considerate -- just like men. Let me put it this way; it's no more true about women that all the want is a "provider" than it's true about men that all we want is to have sex with the highest possible count of fertile women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/23 12:03 AM
2

Sure. Here's a few: NKfs own statement explaining why they oppose gender-neutral military law which was introduced in Norway in 2013: https://www.womenalliance.org/no-to-female-conscription/ (NKF is one of the largest and the oldest feminist organization in Norway) Edition of NKFs magazine which explains why they OPPOSE making it a legal requirement that municipalities must offer the same type and same quality of services to victims of partner-violence regardless of gender. (page 6) http://kvinn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/23 02:28 PM
6

True enough. The point though is that there's a narrative that says girls access to schooling is under threat and need particular protection. If you ask 100 people on the street whether girls or boys are most likely to NOT be in school, my guess is that the vast majority of people will say "Girls!" In other words people do not have an accurate picture of reality. They believe that for this particular thing, girls face risks higher than boys -- but it's quite simply not true.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/23 10:04 AM
2

Ideally it'd not impact me much -- if she's dating someone I don't much like, there's no reason I need to have a lot of contact with that person, I might not even meet him at all. But in practice sure, things are more comfortable and easier if people are feeling at a minimum neutral about the other people in the network, that makes it more comfortable, for example, to host people at home. If two people in the network gets along poorly, the first thing I'd try is simply to reduce the contact betw…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/23 09:35 AM
1

It's in the word itself. "poly" means many or multiple while "amor" means love. A relationship is polyamorous if the involved are free to pursue 2+ concurrent romantic relationships (that usually ALSO include sex, for the same reason monogamous romantic relationships usually include sex) FWBs are friendships that include sex, but that does NOT have romantic attachment as a main component, whereas polyamorous relationships are full-blown romantic relationships. Many polyamorous people consider al…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/23 12:06 AM
1

Both my girlfriends have other partners, yes. They have 2 other partners each i.e. a total of 3 boyfriends where I'm one of those 3. If this all sounds kinda complicated, I made a *map* for my dad actually, who wanted to keep track of the people important in my life. Here that map is in anonymized form: https://ibb.co/vB3JPHz If you're not familiar with the word "metamour" it refers to someone that is dating one of your partners. So if you started dating one of my girlfriends, then you and I wou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 11:31 PM
2

Says who? FWBs are *also* free to make whatever agreements they want to make with each other, and sometimes they do. (for example agreements about NOT dating close friends or relatives of your FWB are reasonably common) The difference isn't about this. The difference is that FWBs are friends, i.e. romantic attachment isn't an important component of their relationship, instead it's a friendship that includes sex. In contrast, polyamory is about love by definition -- amor means love as in romantic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 11:18 PM
2

Autistic people are vastly overrepresented in polyamory, actually. Both I myself and one of my girlfriends are autistic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:59 PM
2

They're usually left-wing, progressive and liberal. But that's true for most people in this sub too. I don't think it's accurate that a majority of poly folks are "woke" in any negative sense. I *do* think it's accurate in the sense of being usually sex-positive, trans-positive and LGB-friendly though. But I take it you have no issue with any of that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:58 PM
3

That *could* happen, but triad relationships where 3 people are all dating the 2 others are fairly rare. Much more common is that one person has 2+ partners, but those partners are NOT dating each other -- they probably know each other and might be friends, but that they're dating would only happen if they happen to like each other enough to WANT to do that. (and also: that can only happen if at least two of the involved are bisexual, or if everyone is the same gender) I do for example have 2 gi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:56 PM
3

Polyamory implies similar restrictions on behavior like a marriage or BF/GF relationship. No it doesn't. What it implies is in the word itself. Poly means many or multiple, while amor means love. Someone is polyamorous if they're open to having 2+ concurrent romantic relationships. A relationship is polyamorous if it allows the people in it the possibility of 2+ concurrent loving relationships. What restrictions, if any, exist on that vary over a very wide spectrum, there are some poly relations…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:53 PM
8

Yes sure, there's at least a few poly folks in this sub. I'm one of them. I started learning about polyamory about a decade ago, and have been living as openly polyamorous for the last ~4 years. You're correct that many polyamory-subs, just like many left-wing progressive and liberal spaces in general are dominated by gynocentric thinking and for example that harshly critical posts or comments about especially "cishet men" are tolerated or even encouraged where they would not be about any other …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:48 PM
3

It's 1/3rd reserved for the mother, 1/3rd reserved for the father, remaining 1/3rd to be divided however the parents see fit, i.e. by their own wishes. But in practice, on account of gender-roles being what they are, most women feel entitled to the ENTIRETY of the "shared" period, and it's quite rare for fathers to end up taking any fraction of it. But yes, there's some feminists who think that reserving 1/3rd for the fathers is too much, and it should all be free choice. (they know perfectly we…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/23 11:44 PM
6

The point isn't to feel pity for Tate. He's an idiot. The point is that if you use "small dick" as an insult, then you're insulting not only Tate, but in addition to him *all* the men on the planet who by no fault of their own happen to have a dick that is smaller than average. None of them are responsible for Tate, and yet this kind of shaming stomps on them all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/23 09:24 PM
5

Even that mental gymnastics fail to actually work. See, they're saying there's a type of energy that is bad, that some people have, and that is named "small dick energy". In other words small dicks are associated with badness, more specifically with a type of bad energy. Which is, of course, 100% body-shaming. I'd argue it's slightly WORSE than fat-shaming since people have some amount of influence over their own amount of fat, but people have no influence whatsoever over their dick-size. (but b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/23 09:22 PM
22

Where I live (Norway) I feel as if feminists have a not-horrible track-record of caring about men as long as the issue at stake is NOT one where progress for men by necessity means a disadvantage for women. Let me give some examples. It's important progress for men that there's less stigma around showing emotions as a man, and feminists have been supportive of this. It's important progress for men that there's a more equal distribution of paid work, and that things like alimony are no longer a t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/23 08:51 PM
2

That's true. The good news is though, that it's fairly easy to bypass most of these concerns simply by better communication. It's one of the big cultural differences between poly and mono society that the former tends to do a whole lot more of explicit communication about this. Because here's the thing; yes someone must initiate and in effect move a relationship, you can't start out strangers and end up lovers WITHOUT a series of steps of increasing intimacy. And someone has to take those steps.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/22 12:25 AM
6

Yes sure. No if's or but's about it at all. I've gradually become convinced that the CORE problem with a lot of spaces on the left centered on minorities, discrimination and equality is that people believe that all privileges are pure in the sense that on all axes of discrimination, one end has solely advantages, ang therefore no genuine disadvantages at all. Let me explain. Some privileges are fairly "pure" -- when I say that what I mean is, being in this demographic has lots of advantages, and…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/22 02:34 PM
2

I dunno. I mean yes there's a difference, but I don't think I buy the claim that this is necessarily mainly about biology. If it was, you'd expect demographic factors and cultural background and things like the local dating-market to make scant difference; and yet that can easily be observed to make a HUGE difference. If you doubt this, I recommend you sign up for social dancing of some sort. It's an example of a setting where a majority of the people present prefer dancing with an opposite-gend…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/12/22 07:01 PM
1

That's commendable; but descriptively will harm your dating-success by a LOT. I think a middle way is possible. (but I agree it can be difficult to navigate perfectly) First, if/when you do touch someone, make sure that it's in a way that is appropriate to the setting. There's a (big!) difference between what's appropriate at the end of a cozy date with someone that you felt as if you had excellent chemistry with; and what's an appropriate way to touch (say) a female colleague who's never displa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 08:10 PM
5

That's what it feels like having to make half the effort; when you're USED TO a dating-experience where your male partner will carry most of that burden.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 08:03 PM
6

It's definitely true, there's plenty of science that generally show a VERY clear trend of touch being (on the average) important for womens romantic and/or sexual response. Here's an example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510701316177 (summary: The odds that a random woman in a night-club says yes to a request to dance goes up by 50% when the request is accompanied by a short 1-2 second touch in a non-intimate area. The odds that a woman asked for her phone-number gives out h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/22 08:01 PM
2

Well, the mods are doing their best to avoid that fate. Might still happen I guess. But yes, the sub is definitely *anti* hatred and misogynism and *pro* normalized and healthy relationships.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 11:15 PM
9

In my ideal world there'd be *one* movement centered on gender-equality. Today there's too often MRAs and Feminists in separate trenches, both making attacks on each other, and neither showing much nuance or understanding of the other binary gender.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 11:12 PM
4

Building and nurturing (emotionally and/or physically) intimate relationships is a social skill. Like all skills, it tends to get better with training, and can be learned. Romantic relationships can start the same way friendships start; but in order to become romances, there has to be a series of mutual emotional escalations. Nothing dramatic necessarily, but one of the two involved must in SOME way take a small step forward, and pay attention to the response of the other. These days we hear a L…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 11:10 PM
2

Why? It's pretty tightly moderated and has a CLEAR agenda of helping people who want to EXIT toxic misogynist bitter subcultures.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 10:50 PM
1

There's a dedicated /r/IncelExit that usually gives kind and good advice. It's geared mostly for people who have been exposed to redpill or other toxic messages about dating and now wants to normalize their relationship to women -- but it's open and welcome for people like the OP here who are struggling with dating; but are not bitter or misogynist about it too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 10:48 PM
10

Works both ways though, men often systematically FAIL to get areas of life that are "uphills" for women. It's hard, I guess, to really wrap your head around how different parts of the world can look if you're in a different demographic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 10:34 PM
30

Right, and yet one thing she DOESN'T talk about in that video, and probably haven't considered, is that as a bi woman she has NOT experienced what it's like being a man into women. What she's experienced is a change from downhill to flat terrain. But that's not the reality straight men are dating in; they're experiencing uphill. For example, women dating women will by necessity on the average end up paying HALF the time, I mean that MUST be true. Sure, that's more than the 10% of times or someth…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 09:59 PM
51

Men are frequently critiqued for inept initiating. But people rarely pay attention to the fact that the sole reason women aren't seen messing that up as badly and as often, is simply because most women rarely or never initiate AT ALL. You see this the clearest if you look at how bi women describe trying to date other women and how they consistently describe it as SOOO EFFING DIFFICULT! That's how they react to a BALANCED situation. I mean as a woman dating women you are (by definition!) being in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/12/22 07:02 PM
2

"Being anti-MRA means being misandrist."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/12/22 11:59 AM
5

The claim that human beings are inherently monogamous is highly dubious. It's not true for most of our closest relatives among animals, and it's not been true across a particularly large cross-section of humanity across time and space either. It looks true to you mostly because monogamy is socially, culturally and politically dominant these days, but there's no reason to believe that's been true for most of human history and prehistory. Now, I agree that fathers have value of course. But the ide…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/22 12:16 AM
11

There's very few things I love about being a man specifically. I do have perks in some parts of life but those give me no joy since I'd vastly prefer living in a more gender-egalitarian world with LESS gendered perks for people of all genders and instead with your gender playing no role in how you're treated in most situations. I suppose that leaves me with the few perks that result from being biologically male. I'm taller and stronger than most women, especially my strength has practical advant…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/11/22 03:04 PM
20

The left has no problems at all recognizing that there are "serious issues" going on with men and boys. Where we have a problem, instead, is in recognizing that it's NOT the case that men themselves are always 100% to blame for any and all trouble we as a group experience, and therefore always in the *perpetrator* role and *never* in the victim-role. If you ask people on the left whether there's any serious issues with men or boys; everyone will say yes. If you ask the same people whether exampl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/22 11:18 PM
5

"evolution, biology, and natural sciences" is a super-weird category to ask about since these are subcategories of each other, it's a bit like asking: "Did you ever read any book about Ford Mustangs, Cars or Vehicles?"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/22 10:59 PM
5

"the Pill might raise environmental levels of endocrine disruptive compounds (EDCs) -- which include by-products of oral contraceptive metabolism. These don't break down easily, so can be passed into the urine and end up in the drinking water supply or the food chain, exposing the general population, say the authors." This, frankly, sounds like a stretch, especially in more developed countries. I can't see ANY realistic way noticeable amounts of urine ends up in the drinking water or food chain …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/22 01:35 AM
3

They didn't find a "link" -- they found correlation. Piles of things correlate without being causally related AT ALL. Did you know babies that grow up in homes with marble countertops are more likely to go to College?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/22 01:32 AM
5

I don't know if it's at the heart of most gender-issues, but it's at least extremely prevalent and one of those things that once you're aware of it, you see it everywhere. Yes gender-roles definitely play into it; men are supposed to be confident, assertive, in control, capable, and so on. So men systematically downplay vulnerability and society goes along with it and pretends men HAVE none, taking everything at face value. But nobody ever asks whether it's TRUE when for example less men systema…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/22 12:26 AM
42

I think your observations are right, but your framing is questionable. I don't see feminists fighting for equality of opportunity for men. Zero fucks are given about inequality in law, culture or biology when that inequality happens to be favoring women. Instead I think a better framing for this is to talk about agency. Many people see men as having infinite agency, and women has having no agency whatsoever. Men are subjects, women are objects. Men do things, women have things done to them. So a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/22 06:59 PM
8

I have a bit of a counterpoint to this narrative. One of the "geek spaces" I care about and have been deeply embedded in for decades is gaming. And yes, male dominance has definitely gone away. Franchises previously dominated by very macho men are getting first women as side-kicks, later fully fleshed out women who are as interesting as deep and as important characters as the men are, and in some cases the women are now taking center stage with the men relegated to side-kick status. And I mean, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/22 12:50 AM
79

"They're taking away our reproductive freedoms" The narrative that access to abortion is about men wanting to control womens bodies is a popular one in feminist circles, and for understandable reasons. It builds in-group cohesion by painting women as a victim-group under attack from evil men. Reality, however, looks different. Attitudes towards abortion track only VERY modestly by gender, and tracks a whole lot more strongly with many other demographic factors. Here's some examples: 12% of women…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/22 02:55 AM
19

Also worth mention is that this is NOT taken into account when calculating retirement-benefits and similar things. Example from Norway: Here in Norway when we calculate retirement-benefits we take into account the average longevity of people born in your cohort, where a "cohort" is everyone born in a given 5-year so that for example when it's time to calculate my retirement-benefits, they'll look at the calculated expected longevity of people born 1975-1980 in Norway. If we're expected to live l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/22 02:05 AM
29

You'd think. But in reality, despite the name, they are THE branch of the UN dedicated to gender-equality. From their own tagline on Twitter: UN Women is the United Nations entity for gender equality and women's empowerment. Clearly, in practice they're more for the latter and not so much for the former, but in principle they're for both. This is roughly how many feminists explain that we do not need a movement centered on mens rights, because feminism is already adressing all forms of gendered …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/22 10:58 PM
1

Being Feminist might technically mean you support equality of the sexes, sure. Here's what I get if I look up "Feminism" in some dictionaries: Webster: "The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes" Cambridge: "The belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men" Dictionary.com: 1) the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/22 03:04 PM
3

Of course, but individual men are different too, so not equal in every way in THAT sense. But I do think I'd prefer a world where for example laws are entirely gender-neutral. This would mean mostly progress for men in my part of the world because we already had a liberation-movement for women that succeeded with eradicating laws that were discriminating against women. We've not had a similar movement for men, so laws that discriminate against men still exist. And yes I'd apply that even to laws…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/22 02:58 PM
15

It's a common pattern that when women struggle with something, we seek explanations in culture and society, while when men do we seek explanations in the men themselves such as "men are afraid to be vulnerable" -- the thing about these explanations is that they place the blame squarely SOLELY on the men themselves, and absolve society of ALL guilt. There's no reason for society to change ANYTHING, or even to have much empathy with those who suffer, if the entire truth is that they themselves hav…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/10/22 04:49 PM
12

This kinda thing is a systematic problem in the area of laws connected to sexuality. Most of the laws are gender-neutral in principle. But in practice they're used almost exclusively to put men in prison. The fraction of convicts that are men is MUCH larger than the fraction of perpetrators that are men. As an example, here in Norway if you believe surveys then roughly 25% of rapists are women, while 75% are men -- men are 3 times as likely to rape someone as women are. Feminists who say men are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/22 07:08 PM
12

Some people want to label every single thing that they disapprove of and see as unethical "rape". I think this is a bad idea, both because it trivializes rape and is an insult to actual rape-victims, and because it's a slippery slope in many cases. Sex without consent is rape. The term isn't, and shouldn't be "informed consent" -- especially not without specifying the set of circumstances you'd have to be informed about. Because the set of things that someone could potentially care about in a se…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/22 06:42 PM
14

Agreed. Deception might be morally wrong, but it's not *necessarily* rape. It's a slippery slope too. Where do you draw the line? Is someone guilty of rape by deception if they've lead their partner to believe that they're wealthier than they actually are? If they've failed to disclose that they're unemployed? How much information are people entitled to before "informed consent" is fulfilled?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/22 06:38 PM
13

The problem is though, that in the REAL world we have men actually convicted of sexual assault or rape on the basis of ghosting, by the theory that her consent to condom-protected sex does NOT imply consent to unprotected sex, so therefore what happened was sex without consent, aka rape. But as far as I know it's NEVER happened in ANY western nation that a woman has been convicted of rape or sexual assault on a man by the same rationale. And of course lying about contraceptive use is a lot easie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/10/22 06:36 PM
2

Yeah, it's a common CLAIM that gender is super-important politically. But usually it's dwarfed by other demographic factors. As an example -- it's true that men were a bit more likely than women to vote for Trump, but it's also true that while a majority of white women voted for Trump, over 80% of black men (and an even higher fraction of black women) voted for Biden. So race matters a whole lot MORE than gender does; and yet it's very easy to find people who want to blame it all on men. The sam…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/10/22 06:51 PM
10

I think it's usually simply an attempt to define misandry out of existence. Because obviously, if it doesn't exist, then we don't need to do anything about it. The claim that while discrimination of individual men exist, it's never "systemic" is quite simply untrue. The two largest and most important areas of systematic discrimination of men, are parenthood and education. Let me take education here in Norway as an example. Here's a short bullet-point list listing some key facts about the situati…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/22 02:17 PM
1

I don't know what you mean either; please don't pretend to talk for all men on this. It's pretty common for me to be in social situations with only women, and no I don't generally think they'd be more comfy without me there, to the contrary I often feel they'd be more comfortable with a more even gender-balance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/22 11:26 PM
14

You're using quote-marks here, but what you put inside them is not in the text of the first link. Can you explain which part of the article that you interpret this way?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/22 05:28 PM
15

"there is absolutely a component to male sexuality that is surface level." Sure. But I see no good evidence that this is more true for men than it is for women. It's typically expressed differently, sure. But when zillions of women go gaga over some male musician or actor it's not at all a platonic thing. You're right that men are frequently under-sexualized in a rough mirror of how women are over-sexualized, and people don't have that on the radar as a problem in any way. But it is. Because one…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/22 09:47 PM
1

It depends on what context you're asking about. If you're asking about my own local context, i.e. left-wing liberal Norwegians, then I agree with you - it's a LOT more common and a LOT more accepted to toss around casual deeply misandrist claims than the reverse would be. It's sometimes "justified" by claims that it amounts to "kicking upwards" -- but this justification rings hollow to me. Norway is one of the most gender-equal countries on the planet, and it's NOT clear to me that women are ove…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/22 10:22 PM
5

Well, it's possible that the police in Iran go lighter on the women -- but do keep in mind that the morality-police in Iran often SPECIFICALLY target women, and they're subject to much more limiting "modesty rules" than men are. There's zero issue with a man showing his hair, for example.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/22 08:54 PM
2

Sure. But Norway isn't unique about all of these, for example parental leave for fathers too, and not only for mothers is a whole lot more common in the world today than it was a generation or two ago. It's still not the case EVERYWHERE like it should be, but many countries hacve it now, but did NOT have it 50 years ago.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/22 08:52 PM
3

It'll depend on where in the world you live, but in many parts, including where I live (Norway), yes I'd say things are a bit better for men (and lots better for women). Here's a few specific examples of things that have changed for the better in my lifetime: It used to be maternal leave -- now it's parental leave and a minimum of 1/3rd of the leave is reserved for the father. (another 1/3rd for the mother, the last third to be divided among the two however they want) It used to be military serv…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/22 07:56 PM
8

One of my dearest friends is from Iran. I first met her as a penpal 14 years ago; at the time she still lived in Iran and suffered pretty badly from the ridiculous restrictions they have on even very basic freedoms. I remember once asking her what she'd do if magically she could have complete freedom to do anything she wants for a day, without suffering any negative consequences. I expected her answer to be something wildly sinful (by muslim ideas about sin), such as drink a bottle of wine and t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/22 07:45 PM
2

Ideally I'd prefer it to mean a whole lot less. To be more specific, I'd prefer it if the difference in rights, duties and opportunities by gender were smaller than they are today. I'd also prefer it if the expectations we have for things like acceptable and unacceptable behavior were gender-neutral to the point where anything that's acceptable for one gender, is seen as equally acceptable for ANY gender, and treated more or less identically. In such a world, your gender would be a whole lot les…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/09/22 11:38 PM
1

It'd in principle be fine for them to say that -- but then they'd also have to consider MRA-groups natural allies in the fight for gender-equality. Feminists focus on problems faced mostly by women, MRAs focus on problems faced mostly by men, and together we get closer to equality. But that's never the case, instead they insist EITHER that MRA-groups are not needed because men do not ever face gender-based discrimination OR that MRA-groups are not needed because feminism are adressing all gender…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/22 11:45 PM
2

Fair enough. I meant primarily being heterosexual as opposed to being homosexual. No privilege is ever *completely* pure though, you can always find SOME advantage to being in the minority, for example you could point out that gay men find partners for casual sex more easily than heterosexual men do. Or that white people get skin-cancer more easily than black people do. But it's still true that gender is more heavily mixed than most other privileges are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/22 07:48 PM
10

It's a curious thing that in GENERAL we argue that children have the right to financial support from two parents if the mother wishes that to be the case, but not otherwise. It's a blatant case of hypocrysi and it's used both to justify this unequal treatment, and to deny men reproductive autonomy by for example making paper-abortions not-a-thing. Here are some examples: If a single woman wishes to adopt a child, or have a child by sperm-donor in a clinic, we're okay with both, and with the fact…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 04:40 PM
1

This is true but a bit of a tangent from my point here. Yes of course individual lives differ from statistical results for a group. Being black is a systematic disadvantage in many ways, but it does NOT follow from that that the likes of Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey are not enormously MORE privileged than most white folks. But that wasn't at all my point here. My point was: Look for important and large areas of life where white folks are clearly having a large DISADVANTAGE relative to black pe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 12:17 PM
3

Often yes. But here my main point was the binary thinking. A "privilege" is assumed to be something that brings you ONLY advantages, and zero or close to it disadvantages worth mentioning. And that's true for many privileges. I can't recall ever having suffered any disadvantage worth mentioning on account of being cis, for example. But it's not true for being male. I have suffered several large and important disadvantages on account of being male. As simply one out of MANY examples, I entered hi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 12:11 PM
4

I'd argue that this tendency BEGINS when boys are extremely young. Certainly by the time they start school it's already established and accepted that boys are unruly and disobedient and in general a source of chaos and problems.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 12:07 PM
4

Yes, passivity-privilege is real. If you can get offers of romantic and/or sexual relationships without being forced to initiate, that privilege comes with several perks such as: You'll not be rejected, I mean if you never ask, nobody will ever tell you "no". There's low to no risk anyone will ever feel intruded on by you. You don't have to try to guesstimate who is interested and who isn't based on more or less subtle cues. (women frequently complain that men mistake friendliness for flirting, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/22 01:55 PM
20

And that if I wanted a relationship I should just be nice and "treat them like humans" and relationships will bloom from that organically. I honestly think that often happens -- but there's one crucial part missing. You're entirely right that gender-roles dictate men are expected to do most of the initiating. So in addition to just treating women well, you'll ALSO have to take concrete steps towards initiating romance and/or sexuality. At a minimum somehow making it clear that it's something you…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/09/22 12:26 PM
1

The link has numbers in NOK, I got dollar-amounts by doing conversion according to approximately the current exchange-rate. What's your point here? With the calculator at the link you can see what amounts are estimated for food and beverages for households of different ages and genders. I used a household comprised of a single person between 30 and 50 as my example for "adult man" and "adult woman" -- if you use different ages you get slightly different numbers of course. But for all ages above …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/09/22 08:22 AM
1

"food and beverage" is exactly what men need more of than women. (on the average) They don't split it up any more detailed than that. But frankly it's not hard to find 1789 sources that give credible numbers for the average amount of calories needed per day by gender. There is no doubt whatsoever that it's genuinely true that men need on the average more food than women. There's also no doubt that more food costs more. I mean that's a "duh" level insight if ever I saw one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/09/22 08:39 PM
1

Sure -- those costs are by the standard reference-budget for Norway, meant to enable a modest (but not minimal) standard of living for a household with a given composition. Here's a link to a calculator by the University of Oslo where you can put in ages and genders of a household, and have it tell you what the reference-budget for a household of that composition would be: https://www.oslomet.no/en/about/sifo/reference-budget In other words, these are as "official" numbers for what is "normal" s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/22 10:35 AM
2

It's worth reflecting on the deep misandry of sex being judged in a way where being a good lover for a man is often interpreted more or less literally as do NOT have an orgasm. There's extremely strong evolutionary reasons why the vast majority of men will pretty reliably ejaculate from a modest amount of vaginal intercourse. (to be blunt: those men who do not are EXTINCT) Yes of course men should take note of this and take care that their partner is also having fun and experiencing pleasure dur…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/22 09:05 AM
1

There's no doubt that menstruation costs money, and in principle it'd be fine to compensate for it. Problem is, there's lots of things that cost money, including lots of things that differ by gender, and we do NOT try to compensate for them all. Instead women and men get identical payment for things like disability or welfare, and on the overall balance I think that's the best policy. The biggie is food. The average man needs about 25% more food than the average woman does, this costs 25% more. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/22 08:50 AM
6

"feels less during sex" --> "win!" That's a pretty sad view of male sexuality, don't you think?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/22 05:48 PM
2

Improve gender-equality generally. This tends to shrink average age-gaps in relationships and therefore helps especially young men. (part of the reason why there's a lack of young single women is that age-patterns in dating means that quite a few of the young women date older men, and young men can't solve this by dating even younger women both age of consent and maturity-issues makes that a horrible idea.) Solve the gender-gap in education. Status matters a LOT for mens dating-prospects and so …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 11:35 PM
3

It doesn't balance out, no. And one of the important reasons for this is age-patterns in dating. Notice that the vast majority of complaints about troubles finding a partner comes from YOUNG men. That's not accidental. Imagine a hypothetical town with 1000 straight women and 1000 straight men between 18-25 and interested in finding a partner. Here's how that might work out: 700 of the women date 700 of the men 250 of the women and 50 of the men date a partner who is OVER 25 50 of the men date a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 11:22 PM
4

If you want these kinds of comparisons to be fair, you need to consider the SUM TOTAL of how people spend their time, otherwise there's a huge risk that you'll (accidentally or deliberately!) include only some uses of time while ignoring other uses of time. For example you might fail to consider commutes to be part of "time that is spent in order to earn money" despite that obviously being the case. As it happens, here in Norway we do have statistics like these -- i.e. stats that look at the sum…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 04:37 PM
3

I thought I did, but couldn't find it with a quick search now. Instead the sources I DO find seem to say that in most western countries "only" 70% - 85% of single parents are women -- so it not seems likely to me that the 10 times claim was exaggerated. In any case the imbalance is vastly larger than 60/40 which was my bigger point here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 01:34 PM
22

In my cultural context it's valid, but it's "most" only in the sense of a slight majority, not in the sense of "the vast majority of". More specifically, our parliament currently has 45.6% women -- several of the political parties represented have a majority of women in their group, for example the green party has 2/3rds women and the socialist left party has 62% women among their representatives. Among government ministers we have 47% women (it's 10/9) but as recently as a year ago it was 53% w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 01:02 PM
3

I couldn't have a partner like that. I don't require my partners to have opinions that are identical to mine of course, but there's an upper limit to HOW far someone can be from me on issues that are emotionally important to me, before I'll just have to consider them incompatible with me. What bar I have for that depends on what kind of relationship I have to them. I share a home with a partner that is nonbinary and a gender-abolitionist; that is, they want gender to in general play a MUCH small…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 08:23 PM
7

Yes. True. And if you believe feminists then this is SOLELY evidence of discrimination of mothers. But reality is that most people who become parents do so because they WANT to parent, so it's not at all clear that getting the freedom to do most of the parenting, while your partner works hard to finance it, is an example of discrimination AGAINST you. It might just as well be a privilege for you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 07:03 PM
17

The "because we don't have structural power" claim is particularly laughable in my cultural context. (Norway) Let's take ONE example -- the way boys systematically lose out relative to girls in education: Over 80% of primary and secondary school teachers are women, tendency growing. Women are also a majority of school-administrators, and the same numerical dominance continues all the way to the top with the department of education which *also* has a clear majority of women. This school-system pr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:09 PM
2

Bingo! And women are more likely to get help from mental health professionals to begin with, so the odds that they tell someone who actually reports it so that it gets added to the statistics, is a lot higher than for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/08/22 09:03 PM
30

The laws surrounding sexuality are full of sexist definitions like this one, and it's symptomatic for how low compassion exists for men as victims -- and how little concern exists over women as perpetrators. The UK law is horribly sexist, and yet it's just not a topic at all, most people, even people who have spent hundreds of hours discussing rape and the laws and cultural attitudes surrounding it over the last several years, are likely to never even have heard of it. If this was ancient law th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/22 11:46 AM
11

Partly -- but not solely. I mean on the one hand it focuses solely on being penetrated as the condition for being victim of rape. This is inherently a sexist definition since in ordinary vaginal intercourse the woman is being penetrated while the man is doing the penetration. But on top of that it specifically demands that the penetration MUST happen with the perpetrators penis. So someone who non-consensually penetrates another with their fingers or with a sex-toy, are NOT guilty of rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/22 11:35 AM
1

And she didn't have "opportunity" to actually fulfill her pledges because she got sued. Except -- 13 months passed after she received all the money and BEFORE she got sued. And apparently 13 months was not a long enough time-period to actually manage to transfer the money.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/06/22 02:02 PM
1

You're moving the goalposts. Yes sure, it's still possible for there to be imbalances of other sorts. What if 80% want to date a blond woman, but only 20% are blonde? What if 80% want to date a dominant woman, but 80% are subs? But these imbalances are possible in heterosexual dating too, so there's no difference there. I was merely pointing out that an imbalance in GENDER isn't possible in same-gender dating. In all spaces, however many women exist in that space interested in dating other women…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/22 04:46 AM
5

True if flirting with random women, not true if flirting with women you know are bi/gay. On the flipside, women wanting to date women is by definition a balanced market. So unlike a man wanting to date a woman, you'll never find yourself in a environment where there's 100 men wanting to date 10 women, like is currently the case on most dating-apps. Instead there'll be 10 women wanting to date 10 women, i.e. balance.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/22 09:11 AM
1

Well, most of the time at least one of the two involved feels pretty sure that they're interested; otherwise nobody would've initiated anything. Of course whether a happy relationship results is always going to be unknown.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/22 12:31 PM
4

Yepp. But benevolent sexism is a type of sexism. (just like blue balloon is a type of balloon) It's just not what is most commonly considered.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/21 03:12 PM
7

Yeah. I've seen that, and it doesn't at all measure what they claim to measure -- instead it's complete bullshit. Take this one question: "Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores" Any answer other than "strongly disagree" will have you pegged sexist. But I happen to think that in a world where (roughly) half the people are women and roughly half are men -- if there's not even one person from the opposite gender that you like a lot; that's a pretty clear sign that you're probably misogynis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/21 12:22 PM
3

This looks like a clear case of "to the privileged, equality looks like oppression" to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/21 01:50 PM
2

I don't think any of that is a significant factor, frankly. I already said that in situations where the woman knows you better before deciding, such as when you've met her through shared hobbies the problem is much smaller. On dating-apps and other low-context platforms, the problem for #3 guys isn't typically that they're rejected after a date or two and don't get to prove long-term worth. Instead the problem typically is that they're rejected after a 5-second glance at their profile, long befo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/21 04:16 PM
2

That nonsense is all pretty circular though. Like, men can't be friends with women because we want to fuck them. And yet if we don't, then that's somehow a problem too, because it's a requirement in order to qualify as a "man" that you want to fuck every woman on the planet, apparently. At the same time they treat monogamy as the only reasonable relationship-structure, so apparently all men want to fuck all women; and then despite that, they opt for promising ONE woman that they'll be sexually a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/21 03:06 PM
1

Fair enough. Another example would be if you're a white American and then you don't get into a given college because someone black gets in by the help of affirmative action. So examples exist. No privilege is COMPLETELY pure, i.e. consists of SOLELY advantages in EVERY situation. But many are fairly pure, few substantial disadvantages. Gender is at the other extreme, especially in the countries where women do best, like here in Scandinavia. I do think it's fair to say that on the overall balance…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/21 02:17 PM
12

All of this. In addition, I'd add that this mode of thinking is very sex-negative. The idea is that if someone experiences lust, then that's some sort of poison that unavoidably harms all the relationships where lust is a nonzero component. But most adults are able to deal with lust just fine, including lust that isn't mutual or that can't be acted upon for other reasons. It's just a feeling. It's just noticing that you have a libido and attractive people exist. News at 11! I doubt it's common t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/21 11:45 AM
4

Have you reflected on why #1 tends to happen? In most dating-spaces, most women get lots more offers than they could possibly accept. So by necessity they'll have to prioritise somehow. Most commonly, they prioritise by who is attractive, and good at initiating, i.e. charming and good at flirting. Problem is, this has the PRACTICAL effect of selecting in favor of men who are hot, but single. And for the obvious reason, men who are both hot, have good relationship-skills *and* have an interest in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 02:01 PM
4

Attractiveness certainly plays a role in friendship too, but it's silly to argue as if this was somehow specific to men; it's not as if women are completely uninfluenced by attractiveness when choosing friends and how to prioritise between them. It's a human thing. But being to some degree influenced by attractiveness, isn't at all the same thing as being friends with people solely because you hope to get laid.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 01:49 PM
12

Willing sexual partners are often very scarce for young men, as a result they often spend a lot of time and energy on searching for them. So it seems they're a lot more obsessed with it than they actually are. Consider this hypothetical: Person A wants a sexual partner, so they approach someone they like and attempt to initiate a sexual relationship; it works out fine. Person B wants a sexual partner, so they approach someone they like and attempt to initiate a sexual relationship. They get reje…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 09:09 PM
3

I think the way it typically works is different. "Intersectional" feminists care about the intersection between different axis of discrimination. But they also imagine that every axis is pure, that is, associated purely with advantages, or purely with disadvantages. For some axes, that's close to true. For example I can't remember ever having suffered discrimination on account of being white, cis or straight. But for other axes, notably gender, privilege works differently: it might be an advanta…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 08:55 PM
2

Isn't it just, at the end of the day, chores though? Extend an expression enough, and it ends up meaning nothing at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 01:37 PM
30

"Emotional labour" originally referred to what people especially in the service-industry do as part of their paid work, where they have to be smiling and polite and friendly day out and day in while working in hospitality, nursing, education and many other woman-dominated jobs. These days it's also used for private stuff meant to take care of the emotions of others such as planning birthday-parties and sending christmas-cards. I do think women tend to do more than half of that, but it's worth no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/21 08:30 AM
1

22 million "parents" -- let me guess; at least 20 million of those "parents" are in reality "fathers".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/21 09:26 PM
2

Not ignoring, but I wasn't planning on writing a novel and even try to cover ALL factors that can play a role. In my corner of the poly world, i.e. the nonhierarchical polyamorous and/or RAs women and men generally have the same freedom to seek other partners, and the overall gender-balance is more or less even.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/21 03:55 PM
5

I think the monogamous world can be incredibly hostile to men who aren't very handsome or very assertice and socially dominant, and that's a huge pity. The way I see it, that world has essentially two markets for sex. First there's romantic relationships. The vast majority of both women and men want those; but given monogamy that's a incredibly high bar. It's not enough that she likes you. It's not enough that she might enjoy sharing a romance and a bed with you. No, instead for a mono romantic …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/04/21 02:29 PM
1

That's why I wrote "attempted" -- I think the most plausible explanation for why women die less, is simply that they're less motivated to die. Instead, like you said, at least many of the attempts are in reality a bid for help.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/21 09:05 AM
6

The logic goes something like this when gynocentric people talk about gender and suicide. More men than women die from suicide. But they can't accept that men ever have larger problems than women, so they'll say that actually women are just as suicidal as men. They'll support #2 by pointing out that there's actually slightly more recorded "attempted" suicides for women than for men. But if women are just as suicidal as men, and attempt it just as often, yet die a lot less, that must mean that wo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/21 11:37 PM
3

I don't think the terms as such are necessarily sexist. What is sexist however, is the double standard where it's fine and perfectly reasonable to use, or invent slurs against men and behaviours that are perceived as more common in men -- but at the same time to be STRICTLY opposed to *ever* inventing or using similar language about any negative traits associated with femininity. These folks will talk about mansplaining, manspreading, toxic masculinity, and several other similar terms all day lo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/21 01:38 PM
12

You're not responsible for having been traumatized. But you remain responsible for what you say and do even if you've been traumatized in the past. So if you say and do shitty things, then you are in fact being a shitty person -- even if there's trauma in your past.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/21 12:02 PM
13

Sure. But that's still a pale shadow of what people actually want. I'd say the average man want something like this from a relationship: Romance Sex Friendship Shared activities Feeling wanted and desired Love (sometimes) Family (often) Someone to live with and wake up with. sex workers will go through the physical motions of sex, and might also share some other physical intimacy with you -- because they're paid to do so, not because they ACTUALLY want to be close to you. They don't even pretend…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/21 10:42 PM
1

I think it's a safe bet that there'd be less demand for sex-workers if sex and intimacy generally speaking was less scarce than it is for many men. I know there's some men who visit prostitutes even though they've got reasonable access to willing partners, but then it tends to have other reasons; for example they might be in a sexless monogamous relationship and want the discretion that typically comes with using sex-workers rather than having an affair with someone. I see the current dating-mar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/21 10:39 PM
6

It's a very silly article. Leftist men hate women because only 18% identify as feminist? If that's the bar, then by the same survey, 68% of women also hate women, since only 32% of them identify as feminist. The author has essentially redefined "hate women" to mean: "Doesn't support every single movement that the author personally think they should support".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/21 10:40 PM
1

True. There are two logical positions: Consent to sex implies consent to all the possible consequences thereof such as pregnancy and parenthood. Consent to sex does NOT imply consent to all of the possible consequences thereof. The current rule appears to be #1 if you're male, #2 if you're female, and that's not remotely reasonable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/21 06:51 AM
15

I dunno. Here in Norway stalking is actually one of the least gendered among the sexual crimes. According to our latest survey on the topic, 42% of women and 31% of men report having been stalked. https://www.nkvts.no/content/uploads/2015/11/vold_og_voldtekt_i_norge.pdf (page 17) And even this difference is almost certainly exaggerated as men are almost certainly less likely to interpret a given behaviour as stalking, and report it was such, than a woman is, even if the underlying behaviour is t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/21 03:50 PM
12

Good point. The claim is that they are over 50% of the victims. That's NOT the same claim as being the victim in over 50% of the cases reported to the police. It's almost certainly the case that a higher fraction of male-on-female domestic violence is reported to the police, compared to the reverse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/21 03:43 PM
9

The way English works, "all" or at least "most" is implied when no quantifier is used. So if I say things like: Giraffes have a long neck. Elephants are very large. Men are violent. Then any competent user of English will (correctly!) understand me as claiming that all, or at the very least most giraffes, elephants and men are as described. So it's a dishonest bait-and-switch when someone says something like the third example here, and then when someone points out that the statement is not gener…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/21 12:10 AM
15

There stereotypical "be killed by a stranger" is vanishingly rare anyway, certainly not in the top-100 of causes of death. It gets a lot of attention when it happens because media live from outrage and will always focus on the most spectacular and gruesome outliers, but reality is the murder, especially at the hands of a stranger, is tons less likely to kill you than, say, falling down the stairs is. (but yes, it's even -more- rare for women than for men) One important factor that is rarely ment…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/21 11:56 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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