TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Puzzleheaded_Pea_889 Archive

View 0 posts and 98 comments by Puzzleheaded_Pea_889 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Not gonna lie I’m a little annoyed by the negative responses on this thread, I say we encourage more articles by feminists like this. I don’t care one way or another whether the author self-identifies as a feminist - as long as she’s willing to criticize corruption by other feminists I don’t see why the label matters. If anything that’s an advantage - if other feminists share her criticisms but hesitate to speak out for fear of conflict with their peers, they’ll be emboldened by knowing they’re …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/26 11:34 PM
4

Oh of course, I’m not criticizing the study for that. I’ve just learned from experience that communities like ours need reminders to keep our epistemic certainty proportional to the evidence or else we’ll become overly attached to the results which prove us right and start cherry-picking (ie the mistake that feminists make).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/05/26 01:06 AM
12

Over 50% of participants were rated for machiavellianism and almost 45% for narcissism. Gonna have to correct this bit - what table 1 says is that the average score for machiavellianism was 50.75 and 44.67 on a 0-100 Likert scale. It's not saying that 50% of subjects were narcissists. Actually this should give us more confidence in the results though - it suggests the sample population was around the population average for machiavellianism, and so the results can't be chalked up to an abnormally…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 10:01 PM
28

OP didn't even mention the best part - 8% of participants had already made a false accusation, with 7.1% having made the accusation to their friends or family and 1.8% to an authority figure. Just because I always have to be that guy though - the study was conducted only in one community and so we should be prepared for the possibility that studies on broader populations may find very different numbers. Feminists may do that kind of thing all the time, but it's our job to be better than them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 09:51 PM
6

Scott Alexander is goated beyond all possible comprehension
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/26 11:55 PM
8

Yeah, came here to say this. I’ve just reported the above comment for violating subreddit rules against spreading misleading claims and I’d recommend everyone else does the same. None of us benefit from being misinformed and it’s a bad look for us if misleading comments get upvoted to the top.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/04/26 05:08 PM
4

🤣🤣🤣 Way to dodge. If you'd wanted to actually debate this subject I'd have been open to it but if you're just going to dodge questions then I've done everything I can. To other LWMA's - if we want our movement to succeed it's necessary that we avoid this sort of misinformation and disingenuous debate tactics and distance ourselves from the ones who won't. Feminists engaged in these tactics for years and they're suffering the consequences now. It's critical that we not make the same mistake.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/25 01:10 AM
3

I believe that it's an intrinsic characteristic of femininity and women have a tendency to be more feminine than masculine That doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the tendency to decide moral stances purely based on ethos is intrinsic to women or not? It is not correct to say that he believed them inferior As I explained above, he believed that women had increased tendency for hysteria (which he referred to as "a more serious form of inferiority" and a "mental disturbance") and that wome…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/07/25 12:15 AM
3

I've rarely met a woman who does not decide moral stances solely on ethos. I most certainly have, and wouldn't say I've met any more women than men who do the same thing... it sounds to me like you're conflating "women" with "feminists". Furthermore, do you believe that this is an intrinsic characteristic of women as Bax argues, or that this is some socially conditioned response? As for opposing suffrage, these sources we've provided contradict one another. That gets back to what I said about bu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/25 11:56 PM
7

Regardless of his reasons for opposing suffrage, he was still opposed to suffrage and so the title of this thread is misleading. More importantly though, the above quote is out of context. He writes elsewhere in the same article: We will, therefore, pass on to a more serious form of inferiority. I refer to the special tendency of women to hysteria... The symptoms of true hysteria, in women, the exaggeration of trifles into issues of absorbing importance, the flushing, the stertorous breathing, &…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/25 11:21 PM
8

I hate to be that guy but the title of the thread is incorrect - Bax absolutely did oppose suffrage and did indeed believe in the mental inferiority of women. Furthermore we really can't be making such a bold claim about what most MRA's over 100 years ago believed based on a single article by a single guy (especially when remembering that political figures back then bullshat to make themselves look good just as much as they do today). Yes, feminists do that kind of thing all the time, but if we …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/25 10:37 PM
1

Thank you very much for being willing to engage with us. You are indeed missing the point though. You correctly understand that men are placed in situations where nothing we do is correct, but miss the fact that feminists exclusive blame and punish men when things inevitably go wrong, and moreover any attempts to point out the contradictions are met with exactly the victimhood tactics and finger-pointing which you've just engaged in. It's not about women (even those who reject gender roles) bein…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/25 03:43 AM
2

Oh look, the new buzzword for dismissing men's feelings just dropped! I guess "fragile", "entitled", "emotional labor" and "making her your therapist" are passé now? But remember everyone, it's patriarchy that teaches men not to express their feelings, not women or feminism! But seriously though, this stuff is deliberate rage-bait. Might be better not to share these kinds of articles unless such buzzwords become widespread in popular use, or else we'll just encourage it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/06/25 12:39 AM
3

In case anyone wants concise name for this fallacy, it's called a Kafka trap.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/06/25 12:31 AM
2

I'm not the op, I was just answering your question... and why would the choice of using the "discussion" vs "misandry" flare even matter...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/25 05:14 AM
2

Here you go: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/25 04:31 AM
3

The original source, in case anyone else wants it. Not much better in context though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/25 03:20 AM
2

"Patriarchy" is a vague motte-and-bailey who's definition changes to whatever it needs to be to win the current argument. For example, we might be told that men are in a position of power because of "patriarchy" in order to justify discriminatory policies such as campus affirmative action, but if we point out that most men do not actually have much more power than most women we're told that "patriarchy" actually just means that most of the people in power are men, therefore "patriarchy" is real …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/06/25 12:33 AM
7

Here is the email I intend to send. Anyone is free to copy or modify it as they see fit: Dear [senator], It has come to my attention that the democratic party is putting considerable effort into figuring out how to better reach men. From what has been released to public thus far however, it sounds like you're mostly focusing on word choice and where to advertise - in other words focusing on the messaging instead of the policies, which is simply doubling down on the exact problems costing you vot…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/05/25 12:58 AM
3

Thank you very much for being willing to engage with us, and I'm so sorry about everything that's happened to you. You've already understood the fundamental problem, that feminists don't care about men's issues, so we're not going to spend much effort caring about yours. I would expand on that further and add that feminists actively exploit men's empathy for women as a means of abusing us, silencing critics and obtaining political power. Pretty much every man has had at least one woman in their …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/25 09:44 PM
2

Haha, glad to see you recognize me! Don't expect me to comment that often though, I mostly only comment when I see research-related threads.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/25 06:22 PM
2

Another fantastic post. Could we get the mods to pin some of these lists?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/25 05:15 AM
14

Thanks so much for gathering all these together, incredibly helpful!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/01/25 04:30 AM
2

Thank you for being willing to engage with us. My grievance is that the term "patriarchy" is a vague motte-and-bailey who's definition changes to whatever it needs to be to win the current argument. For example, we might be told that men are in a position of power because of "patriarchy" in order to justify discriminatory policies such as campus affirmative action, but if we point out that most men do not actually have much more power than most women we're told that "patriarchy" actually just me…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/25 11:33 PM
1

Although the popular thing for activists to demand is "RaDICaL CHaNGE" (usually involving some very nebulous end-goals), if we want our movement to succeed we'll need to start with small but concrete, actionable goals which will still have a noticeable effect and gain attention. Some objectives I propose: Pressuring the APA to rescind their guidelines on psychological treatment for boys and men. If even that's too much, we could alternatively ask them to remove passages recommending therapy invo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/25 08:11 PM
2

This statement clearly shows that women's perpetration rate is still more than men's Lmaoo I didn't even catch that one. One more thing, what do you think about the second paper? Pretty much all my same criticisms of the first one, plus this little gem: "Accounting for both false negatives and false positives, women’s overall SV victimization rate would decrease by 3.2% (one participant; from 90.32% to 87.10%) and cis men’s would decrease by 14.3% (three participants; from 71.43% to 57.14%). Tak…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/25 03:04 AM
3

If enough samples were collected I'd guess they would find a statistically significant difference but at a much smaller difference than what was reported (eg women would overreport at a somewhat higher rate than men but not double the rate), but that's mostly because I would expect the authors to be biased in that direction. If the study methods were better (eg by having a small jury of randomly selected participants make the classifications rather than the authors), I'm not sure what would be f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/25 07:27 AM
1

That's true but as I mentioned, that would cause you to find a false negative, not a false positive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/25 06:37 AM
7

No problem at all. When I say their conclusion contradicts their results, I mean they concluded that there was a difference in overreporting but in their results they found no significant difference (so I'm not claiming they found a significant difference in the opposite direction of what they concluded, I hope that's clear). How much do you know about statistics? To say a difference is statistically significant means that there is a less than 5% chance (5% is the accepted standard in the vast m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/25 06:17 AM
3

For the sake of maintaining good epistemic norms, I do need to correct a common misunderstanding I see - there is no universal correct number of samples. The number of samples required to detect a significant difference will vary depending on the effect size (so in other words, 20 samples may be adequate if there is a very large difference between groups or very small variance in measurements, and similarly 1000 samples may be inadequate if the difference between groups is small or variance is l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/25 05:18 AM
11

I'll focus on the first paper since it garnered more citations but my criticisms of each are similar. Claim Normal Surveys are Flawed Due to Findings that Women and Men Perpetrate SV at the Same Rates: They point out in the intro that recent surveys have found women and men to perpetrate sexual violence at the same rate... leading them to suspect the surveys were flawed and that men were actually under-reporting their rates of perpetration (gotta love feminists). They make valid points about the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/25 04:58 AM
2

I’m 100% open - we both have a lot more to gain from cooperation than competition. I actually do join certain women’s rights protests and used to be a regular member of a campus feminist organization but I gradually cut ties with them as they did not seem to appreciate contrarian views from dudes and were more focused on competitive victimhood, purity policing and buzzword-filled virtue signaling than actually solving problems. One feminist I do like is Claudia Goldin who recently won the Nobel …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/24 06:31 PM
1

Since nothing is provided showing how they asked questions nor how they interpreted the results, it is hard to say. No, they did, the details such as exact question wording were just placed in a separate document. And most likely, those karens are the ones defining how to interpret results to the answers. Which is how a minority view gets overrepresented in studies. That's true regarding the interpretation of the results, yes, but you can still view the exact results (ie the exact fraction of pe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 10:52 AM
2

Yes, what do you think I've misread? Her 1/50 number isn't just influenced by under reporting, it's completely comparing apples and oranges. The number she provides came from a period of 12 months, not a lifetime as she claims. Her number isn't just a slight underestimate, it's completely off and misleading.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 07:47 AM
5

While there is indeed plenty wrong with the NISVS study, for the sake of maintaining good epistemic norms in our community I need to criticize several of your points: The main issue is in one detail : they counted as "non consensual" if the participants had consumed a non specified amount of alcohol beforehand. You celebrate your 20th anniversary of a happy marriage with a cup of champagne in front of the fireplace before making swift love ? Miracle, both of you have been victimised by the other…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 07:24 AM
2

I really wouldn't cite her 1 in 50 number... Hoff Sommers is a little unclear about specifically which survey she's referencing as the Bureau of Justice Statistics does several, but she appears to be citing a number which only includes attacks which happened within the past 12 months and which only includes rape from force or threats. In that same source you'll find a different survey including "unwanted sexual contact due to force and due to incapacitation, but excludes unwanted sexual contact …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 03:36 AM
1

I highly doubt women can give accurate answers to their own experiences Why do you believe that women would be any less capable of giving accurate answers to their own experiences than men are? It seems to me like you could dismiss the results of any survey this way regardless of the question wording or gender of the participants...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 03:34 AM
2

its called p-hacking stats. I hate to be that guy but that's not what p-hacking is... P-hacking is when you do a buttload of slightly different tests on the same thing or the same dataset until by coincidence one of the tests gives a statistically significant result. Rigging the study methods to produce a certain result isn't the same thing. In the context of rigged survey design, this would probably be called "leading questions".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/10/24 03:28 AM
37

So no, rape statistics against women are not 'overinflated'. Sexual violence is a scourge on our society that deserves orders of magnitude more coverage than it gets. Instead, male victims are erased to create a narrative that men are the "the predatory sex", when - while a trend exists - the numbers are absolutely comparable and should be taken just as seriously as one another. This is the correct answer right here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/24 08:51 PM
2

I've thought about that same question a lot and unfortunately I don't have any answers... the only thing I've used successfully is just getting awkwardly silent, and even that's not always enough to elicit curiosity. I suspect that even asking questions will be enough to make someone feel attacked if they figure out that your motivation is to change their mind. It's one thing when someone casually throws out bigoted comments because they've never thought about it (as tends to be the case with ca…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/24 01:41 AM
10

Trolllllll in the dungeon!!!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/24 03:35 AM
23

The only times I've been successful at challenging those kinds of comments was when it was from someone close to me (specifically a gf), after which I went silent, at which point she asked me about it herself. Those two conditions are important: 1) it has to be someone who actually cares about you and trusts that you're not just some entitled asshole and 2) they have to be curious themselves, you can't bring up the subject unprompted or they'll take it as a personal attack. As for spiraling... i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/24 11:20 PM
1

Yeah sure, the reason you won't engage is because of your superior intelligence. It has nothing to do with being unable to find a counterargument for how ridiculous it is that you think I could have made dozens of fake reddit accounts to provide fake examples for this argument years in advance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/24 10:21 AM
2

Interesting, so you're willing to debate the proper use of the term 'ad hominem fallacy' but not whether it's possible for me to create and maintain dozens of fake reddit accounts with full histories years in advance to provide fake examples as evidence for an argument (ie what this debate is actually about). I believe that's an example of a red herring fallacy. And dismissing someone's argument by accusing them of having inadequate reading and logical reasoning is absolutely, indisputably an ad…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/24 12:18 AM
2

I never said anything about a burden of proof Please look up what a 'burden of proof' is. You do not need to say the phrase 'burden of proof' to demand a high burden of proof. The very person making the claim could just use one of their sock accounts Do you seriously think I could have created dozens of sock puppet accounts, spent years filling up their account histories with self-consistent comments and then made several reddit threads filled with comments about this subject years in advance in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 10:51 PM
3

A specific example is a person, identified by their legal name, who can be shown via documentary evidence to have said the necessary things to qualify as an example Is that a joke? That's a comedically high burden of proof that's never applied to other subjects of debate, and doesn't even make sense to begin with as there's no reason to believe someone isn't trolling just because they're using their real name, people do it all the time. And do you seriously think that out of an entire reddit thr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 11:48 AM
2

Oh shit really? Didn't know that... I'm going to leave them there for the sake of the argument and hopefully the mods will understand and not ban me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 05:50 AM
4

You didn't give any specific examples. I will generously assume that you did in fact look for more examples yourself and are not simply trying to waste the OP's time, however I literally just googled the phrase "is men not interacting with women misogyny" and the second result was multiple reddit threads filled with examples of exactly what the OP is describing so I'm really not sure why you weren't able to find any yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/111oegt/how_do_you_feel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 03:00 AM
2

u/AdSpecial7366 Is correct, the sample size does matter but it does so indirectly through the degree of precision in your estimate. If you're concerned about the sample size, rather than dismissing the study entirely, a better practice is to compute a range of possible values (such as by calculating the range of possible total rapists from the confidence interval of the estimated fraction of the population who are rapists). But that's assuming the sample is even representative - as u/AdSpecial73…
/r/MensRights22/09/24 09:06 PM
1

I’d be interested in hearing about the experiences which drive men into incel communities, what caused men to leave such communities (dm me if you want a first-hand account), and ways men respond to casual misandry. Also - if you haven’t done so already, consider making a podcast where you either read your blog posts or have text2speech software do it. You can reach a larger audience that way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/08/24 01:08 AM
2

Lmaooo a lot of people have talked about that actually. The less sex-positive feminists have weirdly conservative beliefs. It's more common among second-wavers than it is today, but Bell Hooks is a bit of a relic. I don't recall Hooks ever mentioning women who watch porn or have casual sex, she seems to just assume only men do it. Extrapolating from other sex-negative feminists I've read though, she would probably either find some vague, contrived explanation of how it's different when women do …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/07/24 01:43 PM
5

Don't apologize, thank you very much for the rant! It was highly informative and I was definitely not familiar with this issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/24 11:04 PM
5

stop downvoting people and allow for discussion; I dont freaking like Bell Hooks You can be strong in disagreement without running people off from an opportunity to have intelligent critique of a very influential feminist figure Thats what this sub should be for Completely agree, I don't like Hooks either but OP is asking perfectly good questions and we need a place for honest debate. Let's keep this place intelligent and civil.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/24 07:03 PM
11

Neither, contrary to what you seem to believe, is intersectionality I personally think intersectionality as it was initially described by Crenshaw (ie how different problems can compound to something greater than the sum of their parts) is a useful concept in principle, what I have a problem with is how it's applied selectively and inconsistently in order to jerrymander different groups together to justify whatever agenda someone is currently pushing. If a you're a gay black man and someone agre…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/24 05:08 PM
19

I had a lengthy discussion on exactly this book on a different thread, so I'll just copy my main criticism of it here. Do note that most of my criticisms stem from later chapters, so you may not yet have gotten to the parts I'm referring to: I would consider [Bell Hooks's] writings to be closer to gaslighting disguised as sympathy than a real discussion of male issues. She plays off the usual feminist stereotypes and negative attitudes towards men such as the "male obsession with sex" and "male …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/24 05:00 PM
2

Page 35 here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/24 11:58 PM
36

Good god, this is an egregiously bad study. There's a lot wrong, but I'll just highlight some of the most obvious flaws in the methodology and analysis: The study measures "misandry" by directly asking subjects if they hate men. If you asked a racist or misogynist if they "hated" black people or women, how many do you think would answer "yes"? Not many. Anyone can say they don't "hate" black people or women because that's the socially acceptable answer, but they may then assume a predominantly b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/07/24 03:16 AM
3

Shoe's not telling me things I don't already know. I agree, that's why I said she holds "middle-of-the-road common sense stances". More importantly, you were asking for people who do a better job of representing men's problems than Bell Hooks, and Shoe is an answer to your question. Where is JBP getting this idea that men are failing while women are thriving because of factors that affect both genders and a narrative that masculinity is bad? What evidence is there that this is true? Not entirely…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/07/24 01:41 PM
4

Doesn't shoe just criticize feminists rather than provide answers? For the most part, yes - I provided her as an example of someone who describes men's issues well (since that was part of your question). However, it's important to keep in mind that criticizing feminists is itself part of the answer. Misandry (much of which unfortunately comes from feminists) is a source of men's problems and men therefore can't simply solve our problems entirely by changing our own behavior. Women can't solve th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/24 11:02 PM
5

insulting comments towards believers of Johnny Depp's victimhood, as wall as when she referred to her relatively shallow empathy for men as her "pick-me" phase. Oh shit really? Do you remember where she said this? I mostly only follow her main youtube channel so if she said this elsewhere I would have missed it. That definitely would cause me to reverse my opinion of her. Edit: I just tracked down some of her tweets about Johnny Depp's believers... I might be willing to give her the benefit of t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/24 05:42 AM
13

Frankly if you found any random dude on the street and asked him, you'd probably get better answers than anything Bell Hooks has to say. If you're looking for a particular public figure to learn from though, I'd suggest shoeonhead's youtube channel - her videos are silly and entertaining but her views are solid, middle-of-the-road common sense stances which criticize both feminist and red pill views in equal parts. Jordan Peterson says a lot of crazy stuff that I can't always defend, however man…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/24 03:35 AM
6

I'd argue that the word "gaslighting" has undergone semantic shift - in other words people aren't using the term incorrectly, but rather that the meaning of the word (in the descriptivist sense) has expanded. There is a semantic void for a word describing various methods for misleading or manipulating people without technically "lying" (eg half-truths, equivocation, obscurantism, unfalsifiably vague claims, claiming to believe one thing while doing the opposite, claiming you shouldn't trust your…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/24 11:32 PM
16

Related to my previous comment - I'd argue that she actually does hate men in the sense that she plays off negative stereotypes and advances hateful attitudes. Her writings are reminiscent of evangelical Christians who will claim that they don't hate gay people only to then send their children off to pray-the-gay-away camps to "cure" them of their "perversion" in the attempt to "save" them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/24 11:01 PM
11

This isn't related to race specifically, but I recently wrote this comment in another thread critiquing her. Basically, she plays on exactly the same negative stereotypes men have to deal with from other feminists (eg about being obsessed with sex or dismissing our problems as us being fragile) but attempts to sound sympathetic by insisting she's saying it all for our own good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/24 10:55 PM
20

Ehhh the only book I've read by Bell Hooks was "The Will to Change" so feel free to suggest others if you consider that a bad example, but I would consider her writings to be closer to gaslighting disguised as sympathy than a real discussion of male issues. She plays off the usual feminist stereotypes and negative attitudes towards men such as the "male obsession with sex" and "male fragility" but tries to convince us she's saying it for our own good. For example, in several sections she insists…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/24 07:50 PM
3

Thank you for your question, it's clear that you're asking in good faith. I'd argue that most of the "strawman arguments" are not actually strawmen at all, but accurate descriptions of the true beliefs of many feminists which they obfuscate with motte-and-bailey tactics, equivocation, vague slogans, double standards, and internally inconsistent logic. For example, a feminist may deny thinking that domestic abuse against men is okay, but upon being presented with a case of domestic abuse against …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/06/24 09:49 PM
1

I’ve faced this problem for more times than I can count. If it’s a casual acquaintance I just cut them out. I did once have a friend though who was really fun as long as I could keep her off the subject of politics, so that’s all I did with her. Another time I had a gf who kept noticing that I went silent every time she said something misandrist, so she asked if she was being an asshole and got surprised when I said “kinda”. I’m guessing she was expecting me to validate her sentiments or somethi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/06/24 01:54 PM
1

I 1000% second this idea. And make sure to include the times women have played the victim into to perpetrate abuse. I think the situation for men right now is similar to what it was like for female SA and harassment victims prior to MeToo - many women were victimized, but men assumed SA was a rarity and women were afraid of talking about their experiences because they didn't think they'd be believed. Similarly, people currently think the Amber Heard's of the world are an extreme rarity when in r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/24 04:40 AM
2

That's not ignorant at all, that's a very good question! It would indeed vary per question. Specifically, the confidence interval for the proportion of samples falling into a binary outcome will be widest when when the samples are split 50-50 between each outcome. The confidence interval will be narrowest when all samples fall into just one outcome. For example, the 95% confidence interval for question 9 would be 42.4–51.7%.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/24 06:53 PM
2

Nope, you should be able to just make an account for free and then you can view the book.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/24 04:55 PM
4

Oh damn you're right, it's not on scihub... I found it on Internet Archive though: https://archive.org/details/isbn_1572301651/page/78/mode/2up You'll need to make an account to view the book but it's free to do so. The relevant chapter starts on page 78.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/24 06:25 AM
11

Just an aside for ensuring good epistemic norms within our community - you shouldn't be accepting or dismissing results based on sample size, what you want to care about are other characteristics such as confidence intervals which are proportional to sample size but not entirely dependent on it. For example, even if a sample size is small, you may have a narrow confidence interval (and thus high confidence in the accuracy of your measurement) if you're measuring a continuous variable and the sta…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/24 01:09 AM
20

it feels kinda illegal how much information you can get access to with sci-hub Speaking as a scientist, I assure you *none* of us mind. We both write and peer-review these papers for free, and then not only do we not make money from them, we actually have to pay submission fees to the publishers who then sell our own work back to us at huge paywall fees. Corporate publishers contribute pretty much nothing to the process other than maybe web-hosting and organizing reviewers (which is cheap af), a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/24 12:27 AM
13

I'm personally an AI researcher at Harvard... my name wouldn't carry much weight in the poli sci field and I'm not anyone big to begin with, although I'm certainly open to collaboration. I can definitely offer skills in programming, statistical analysis, or experimental design along with help in getting any papers published. A better option though would be to track down some established researcher in the field you expect to be sympathetic (eg by looking through the authors of related papers), co…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/24 04:26 AM
4

Here's one of my favorites: Bridgerton. A woman rapes a man to prove that he was lying about being infertile. And who was depicted as the asshole? The man for having lied about his infertility, when in reality he just had personal reasons for not wanting children that he wasn't comfortable sharing with other people. The woman is portrayed as being in the right and gives the man a whole self-righteous lecture about dishonesty for the episode's climax. It's truly remarkable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/24 10:02 PM
2

I really wouldn't cite her 1 in 50 number... Hoff Sommers is a little unclear about specifically which survey she's referencing as the Bureau of Justice Statistics does several, but she appears to be citing a number which only includes attacks which happened within the past 12 months and which only includes rape from force or threats. In that same source you'll find a different survey including "unwanted sexual contact due to force and due to incapacitation, but excludes unwanted sexual contact …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/24 03:59 AM
11

*Attack - physical assault, mental assault, feeling uncomfortable around …. Or exist in the same physical plane. Hit the nail on the head there, it's insane how many studies do this. And not just random internet surveys either, you'll find this in widely cited peer-reviewed publications written by academics paid with taxpayer-funded grants. And my favorite part is that authors will obfuscate their definitions by hiding them behind a paywall and several pages of statistical jargon that people wit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/05/24 12:29 AM
1

When I was a young child (~5 I think), my babysitter's teenage son would frequently fondle me, tickle my junk or lick me and play it off as a gross joke. I didn't suffer any PTSD though, and so when people ask me if I've ever been molested I usually say 'no' just because I think I would get more sympathy than I really deserve, especially since my brother got it way worse (specifically anal penetration) from the same guy. On top of that, I later learned that the guy who molested me was also getti…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/05/24 05:04 AM
-3

The reason we don't like this opinion is because we can't solve a problem without first understanding it you fucking idiot. I guarantee you that no one on this thread has any intention of keeping this limited to reddit forever. A shared understanding of the problems needs to be reached and made widespread before IRL activism becomes tractable. Every other movement in history began with "complaining" too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/24 06:33 AM
34

Excellent job of proving the OP right
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/24 01:14 AM
66

This is the correct answer right here. They want men to solve their own problems on the condition that the solution doesn't challenge them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/24 01:04 AM
51

Adding to OP's point - the concept of intersectionality is applied inconsistently and selectively to jerrymander groups together to fit whatever narrative someone is currently trying to push. For example, if someone agrees with a gay Black man, they call him a queer POC, but if they disagree with him then suddenly he's a cis man (and therefore all his opinions can be dismissed as attempts to maintain his privilege). Furthermore, Asians and Jews are either minorities or 'white-adjacent' so that t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/24 10:39 PM
1

Unfortunately I’m gonna have to defend Bernie on the grounds that politics is politics, and you can only fight one battle at a time. Regardless of whether it’s right or wrong, people either care more about women or are more inclined to assume male casualties are soldiers, and so if you’re attempting to reduce support for Israel’s policies it makes more sense to appeal to what they already find persuasive rather than risk compromising your goal by introducing principles they disagree with. I woul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/24 06:19 PM
5

That sounds amazing actually
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/24 07:52 PM
5

Thanks so much for everything you do! People like you really give me hope.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/24 04:03 AM
1

I'd personally be interested in any recommendations, provided they aren't full of misandrist sentiment or misinformation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/24 12:43 AM
4

If you're willing to endure the brutality of graduate school and academia, I think the world would greatly benefit from more humanities professors and researchers who study men's rights issues. As of right now, humanities academia is skewed towards feminism, and that's in turn skewing society's knowledge and perceptions about gender and men's issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/24 12:41 AM
1

The differing rate at which sexual assault occurs between men and women is another common measure. Imo this is one of the few measures demonstrating a major social problem experienced by women more than men, but even then feminists try to downplay the rate at which it happens to men by cherry-picking studies that don’t include “made-to-penetrate” or other forms of assault more commonly experienced by men in their definition of rape. It’s been a major source of frustration of mine, as they get ma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/24 06:11 PM
31

I look for whether they constantly complain about men or pride themselves on being an asshole to men - especially if they think of it as some cutesy personality quirk. Everyone might complain about something the opposite sex does occasionally, but if it’s a core part of their personality then it’s a problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/24 10:04 PM
1

Omg thank you you’re way too nice 😊
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/24 04:12 PM
3

Fantastic post! Especially the one about the false friend. Here's a few more I would add: Unquestioned Assumptions and Prejudices People may have negative beliefs they don't consider 'hateful' because they wrongfully believe it's objective fact. An example in racism is assuming some neighborhood is high in crime just because it's predominantly Black. In misandry, an example is assuming sexualization implies dehumanization (ie the belief that if a man views a woman as sexually desirable than he m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/24 03:26 AM
14

While I agree women are definitely oversexualized and we should tone it down, I feel like we shouldn't equate sexualization with some form of hate or dehumanization Hit the nail on the head right there
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/04/24 07:51 PM
3

Don't know why your response got downvoted, I 100% agree. We need to begin unifying and setting an example.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/24 06:54 PM
3

I personally would hesitate to protest in favor of men's rights for fear of being lumped in with more misogynist factions such as Andrew Tate's supporters (a common response by misandrists). Men are taught to fend for themselves rather than "whine" about their problems It's actually quite difficult to organize any form of protest, activist organization, or support group without the aid of existing groups and social infrastructure, as you need someone with an existing platform or follower base ju…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/24 01:32 AM
3

Well... the salmon study has in fact become pretty widely known within the neuroscience community. It's gotten over 600 citations, was given an IgNobel prize (a prize for comedic studies) and been featured in plenty of news articles. The issue of large numbers of comparisons gaining false positive results is also a well-known across all the scientific fields, so it's far from the first study to point it out. But as you know, bullshit spreads much faster the debunkings, especially when it support…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/24 04:23 AM
0

Regarding the label 'incel' itself, part of the problem comes from the fact that many who openly self-identify as incels (most notably the ones on incels.is) do in fact have genuinely insane, stupid, or hateful beliefs, which gives 'incels' a bad reputation, and so men may avoid openly self-describing as an 'incel' for fear of being associated with them, which results in a feedback loop in which the only men self-describing as 'incels' are the ones who openly hate women. If we do want to reclaim…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/24 04:06 AM
7

This study and many others like it have actually largely been invalidated - this now famous study showed you can use the same technique used in that paper to find evidence of facial emotion recognition in a dead salmon bought at the grocery store. Basically, there's a lot of different regions of the brain that can be activated at random times, so if someone unfamiliar with statistics tries to find any correlation between any two parts of the brain, the odds of finding a spurious correlation by c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/24 03:34 AM
5

So which is it do men care about women issues or their own issues? They can't have it both ways. It's either both genders work together. Or both genders focused on their own issues. Honestly I'm fine with both. It's just that most feminists aren't fine with both. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. You've just summarized my entire view on this issue in one paragraph, well done.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/24 03:52 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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