TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SirT6 Archive

View 2 posts and 184 comments by SirT6 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

That doesn't mean that the propensity of males to use violence isn't an important social issue. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, upon men. Understanding and resolving the demographic and sociological factors that drive this phenomenon are key mensrights issues.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 01:04 AM
3

Being a parent and being financially responsible for a child are not even close to the same thing. You seem to have a very dismal view on parenting if that is what you think.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:03 PM
0

I would encourage you to go back and re-read his/her post. It oozes of racial bias: I'm not saying every black single mother did or has done so, but Whenever I hear that construct, I immediately brace my self for something offensive and/or prejudiced. And yet all it took to completely undermine the black family was a government who said, "hey, we're willing to pay women with children a monthly check, so long as there's no able-bodied man in the house." Unless you believe this is an issue specifi…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 07:48 PM
1

So girlwriteswhat was just being casually racist and sexist then, implying that there is something about the intersection of blackness and femininity which makes black women likely to "kick the men out" for some extra government money? That's reassuring. I think we are learning more about girlwriteswhat than we are about social support systems in America. I thought people stopped thinking like this after the fiasco that was the Moynihan report.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:24 PM
1

(S)he is arguing that some form of the 'welfare state' has had a worse impact on the black family unit than slavery did. I think it should be pretty obvious that that is absurd. If you still have doubts I would recommend reading Hortense Spiller's Mama's baby, papa's maybe (PDF) for insight into how slavery impacted the black family unit. She goes through the history of Africans in America, starting with the first time European and African met, and tracing the history of the slave trade. She arg…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:49 AM
1

Well then let this be a good lesson for you on why critical thinking and echo-chambers don't go hand-in-hand. What you said was idiotic. And the fact that you seem to believe that type of drivel doesn't say much about you either.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 05:56 PM
-5

The black family survived slavery. It survived a system that forcibly broke up families through selling wives out from under husbands and children out from under mothers. And yet all it took to completely undermine the black family was a government who said, "hey, we're willing to pay women with children a monthly check, so long as there's no able-bodied man in the house." I hope you are being deliberately hyperbolic, because this is the stupidest thing I have seen on Reddit in a long time. Sham…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 02:30 PM
0

How so? It seemed to me that you had several misconceptions about the research. I was just trying to clarify your confusion. Your original comment seemed quite angry. I was hoping a better understanding of the context of the research would make you feel better.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 11:15 PM
1

The research wasn't trying to make "broad-ranging, comprehensive" claims about how college-aged men behave. Rather it was following up on multiple studies which reported (using much larger sample sizes) that a large fraction of men would "force sex" on a woman but not "rape" her. Since the researchers define "force sex" in a way that equates to rape, the difference in response rate, based on semantics is quite interesting, with implications in rape education and awareness.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 09:49 PM
1

Did you read the article? Don't let OP's shitty title fool you. The actual research is quite interesting -- it gets at key issues of how language interfaces with behavior and self-identification. The paper is here if you want to read it. It's a short, but interesting read.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 09:36 PM
1

I don't think you read the article correctly. They students weren't asked if they would rape a woman. They were asked, if they could be guaranteed to get away with it would they "force sex with a woman" or "rape a woman". The research wasn't even really interested in the percentage who answered yes to each question -- there is already a large body of studies which have shown that people do answer yes in large quantities (roughly equivalent to what the researchers saw in their study). What they w…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 09:24 PM
1

Well that sounds nice, but it is largely ignorant to how science works. Science doesn't give us 'facts', rather we use science to make observations about the world. And from these observations, we construct informed opinions as to what they tell us about the world. So let's apply that logic to the example you brought up: Larry Summers and female aptitude for math. You seem to be suggesting that there isn't any evidence supporting the idea that men and women have similar aptitudes for math. As su…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 01:30 PM
5

If those are common Red Pill opinions, then that just reinforces my dislike of the group. At best, those opinions vastly underestimate the utility of understanding how power dynamics and cultural mores inform behavior. At worst they are deliberately ignorant and sexist.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 02:40 AM
2

Interesting. What are some examples of things that Red Pill-ers think are supported by evolution, but MRAs do not?
/r/MensRights31/10/14 02:04 AM
2

I am being completely serious, what do you find redeeming about the Red Pill and the philosophy it espouses? On the few occasions I've been exposed to it, I got the impression it was all about reinforcing outdated notions of masculinity in order to help men get with women. What distinguishes the red pill from this subreddit, in your opinion?
/r/MensRights31/10/14 01:40 AM
2

I like to discuss controversial topics with people every chance I get. You should read Christopher Hitchens' Letters to a Young Contrarian. He talks about the importance of being critical thinking and the willingness to adopt a contrarian perspective. Importantly, though, he is very much against the notion of being contrarian just for the sake of it: The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks -- i.e. just asking people for taking points to argue with fem…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 01:17 AM
0

I didn't say they considered themselves victims, although I would be curious to know what percentage did. I just said that they reported having been in situations which met the survey-defined standard for sexual assault. It would be interesting to know more about the details of each incident. On the whole, however, the data seems to speak to a need for more dialogue before initiating sexual actions. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Is mens rea not a thing anymore? Actually, it's not -- in …
/r/MensRights30/10/14 02:12 AM
-2

So then provide me evidence suggesting that feminism is systematically acting as a barrier to men's health. I've provided several studies which have suggested that it is actually women's health which had historically received less medical attention. Are you disagreeing with those studies? Putting attention on health issues that predominantly affect men is a fine policy (as is placing similar resources on other gender or race specific conditions). I'm just not convinced that i) male health concer…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:54 AM
-4

But I am still not seeing the link between whether a university has a male studies course and a national healthcare policy.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:31 AM
-3

35% is actually a pretty damn impressive response rate for a survey like this. Additionally, $10 is a pretty significant incentive. This lowers the magnitude to which response bias impacts results. Finally, 1 in 6 respondents self reported that they met the conditions for being victims of sexual assault. That is startlingly high. I lost a lot of respect for the author of this piece. Shitty analysis and callous lack of concern for a serious social problem. This is why no one reads the Washington …
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:20 AM
-11

PhD in biology; I work in cancer and aging research at a major U.S. research hospital -- a portion of my work includes working with human study participants. While this article flirts with some reasonable points concerning healthcare practices, it also participates in some major historical revisionism, contorts logic in very strange ways and seems to have decided a priori that feminists are preventing advances in male healthcare (rather than arriving at the conclusion through deductive reasoning…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:00 AM
2

The link is here -- you forgot to 'np' it. I'm not really seeing what you are complaining about. You went into a very politically active subreddit and spouted off some vague platitudes that weren't really supported by any evidence and didn't really engage the linked article in any meaningful way. It looks like the worst you got called was a 'fucking moron', which wasn't very nice -- but were you expecting to be complimented? A lot of people in the thread explain why they disagree and refer you t…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 03:36 PM
3

Maybe, but that just hasn't been my experience -- that's why I was hoping for some context from OP. I don't really buy into the paradigm that I see on here a lot that says MRA is by definition opposed to feminism and vice versa.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 01:24 PM
3

Wow. You're an asshole. Just google image " slut walk" and see the level of attraction 99% of the women in the photos have. ... Its like a club for ugly disillusioned and bitter rejects. Ummm...ok. Seems like a pretty normal distribution of physical attractiveness to me.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 11:43 AM
2

Can you give some examples? What did you disagree with and how did that engender hate and anger towards you? If it happened online, some links/screenshots would be informative for discussion's sake. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted for asking a question designed to help guide conversation.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 11:33 AM
0

the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study That's a nice bit of Darwinian storytelling, but the genetic evidence appears to be essentially zero. Even if a trait appears heritable, that does not mean it is genetic. Social effects clearly impact on trait heritability in ways that are not always immediately intuitive. As a side not this guy, Hamer, is a bit of a outsider in the field of population genetics -- he also has claimed to discover the 'gay gene'. A claim foun…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 01:42 AM
1

I'll bite. What argument would that be? Evolution isn't an entirely genetic process -- if you are interested look into extended evolutionary synthesis.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 12:52 AM
0

These are all (almost) universal too -- are they genetic? mourning of the dead the use of names rites of passage rules against murder music and dance fashion the use of tools the use of shelters division of territory and property rules against murder
/r/MensRights28/10/14 10:28 PM
-4

Shh... the echo chamber doesn't tolerate dissent, especially about the plight of the white man.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 12:25 AM
0

Tell me more about this genetic instinct to protect women. Surely social conditioning is a more parsimonious explanation.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 12:09 AM
0

Many browsers' find features don't work very well on PDFs. I explained the stats in a comment below, let me know if you want a more detailed explanation.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 12:51 PM
0

I think you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that OP was wrong because the article did not 'statistically' validate his claim. Why you chose to view that as an invitation to harass me across multiple subreddits while I was sleeping I won't ever understand.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 12:41 PM
0

Yeah, sorry about that -- quoted the wrong part of the text! A chi-squared test is a statistical tool for determining whether an observed distribution happened by chance. Imagine you flip a quarter 100 times and get 42 heads -- is this something that is likely to have happened, or did someone give you a loaded quarter? The chi-squared test gives you this answer. In the case of the study, more male DV victims were arrested than their partners. The same question arises -- was this a likely outcome…
/r/MensRights27/10/14 12:30 PM
-3

Ah, good catch. I haven't done this for a while, so feel free to check my math. The give a chi-squared of .81. Looking it up in the table give a p-value of about 0.35 (using one degree of freedom). So if we ask how likely is the observed deviation from ratio of arrests that we would expect (the authors don't list this number), then we would say that there is a 36 percent chance that this difference occurred by chance. Most people wouldn't call that statistically significant. However, it is worth…
/r/MensRights27/10/14 01:59 AM
-4

But as the report indicates, the difference is not statistically significant. Which is what OP claimed it was.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 01:03 AM
-5

The statement presented as TIL is actually incorrect and not supported by the document linked by OP. To wit, OP claims that statistically male DV victims are more likely to be arrested than their female partner. From the paper itself (in reference to Table 4): Chi-square analysis found no difference between the proportion of helpseekers [male DV victims] and partners [the female partners referenced by OP] who were arrested and those who were placed in jail I think bringing attention to the probl…
/r/MensRights26/10/14 11:49 PM
-9

The statement presented as TIL is actually incorrect and not supported by the document linked by OP. To wit, OP claims that statistically male DV victims are more likely to be arrested than their female partner. From the paper itself (in reference to Table 4): Chi-square analysis found no difference between the proportion of helpseekers [male DV victims] and partners [the female partners referenced by OP] who were arrested and those who were placed in jail I think bringing attention to the probl…
/r/MensRights26/10/14 11:48 PM
1

Then I assume you resent anyone who talks about 'democracy', 'liberty', 'freedom', 'capitalism' or any other equally fluid concept/ideology.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 01:56 AM
1

It doesn't mean anything. It just means "this is the black box which I use to justify all of my completely irrational ideas, and ignore all actual facts." While it is certainly a fluid concepts, and often defined differently by different scholars, most people who use he term understand it to at least mean, "a system of values and/or social institutions which typically confer economic and/or political power to men at the expense of women". monarchy is not an ideology which describes interpersonal…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 01:45 AM
1

It's not the patriarchy (other men) that determined men need to be stoic, ambitious and practical. Women expect them to be like this as well. I don't really get this (common) misconception. Patriarchy theory doesn't preclude men from doing things that hurt men. By analogy, consider monarchy - a value system made by the rich and powerful to benefit the rich and powerful. That doesn't mean that monarchs can't hurt other monarchs. In fact the same value system that enables their power rewards their…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 12:06 AM
-4

Ahhh... the Tender Years Doctrine is no longer [formally] used. When it was in place, however, was during the heyday of the "oppressive, woman-hating patriarchy", and it was implemented in the before women had the vote. Benevolent sexism (here making inferences that a person is better able to raise a child because of her gender) is still sexism. And it is still deleterious and wrong. Judges are "trained" by "experts" and "research" to make discretionary decisions that lie within the broad scope …
/r/MensRights09/10/14 02:25 AM
-6

That's not what /u/tries_to_explain said. Let's go through it again: Feminism is an attempt to eliminate systemic inequality based on gender Sounds like that goes both ways. where the systemic inequality benefits men to the detriment of women It is about averages. On average, these systemic inequalities favor men at the expense of women. You can attempt to dispute that assertion (though that seems contrary to mounds of empirical and historical evidence), but don't twist it to make it seem as if …
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:55 PM
7

Does the school practice of forcing boys children to write sentences as a form of punishment turn them off to writing? Fixed that title for you.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:30 PM
-3

Discussions of the so-called tender years doctrine on this sub tend to be fairly misinformed. This doctrine is no longer used (best interest of the child is now the major focus). Most courts actually prefer joint custody agreements to single custody agreements (this is tied to child welfare). Feminists certainly played a role in helping to overturn this doctrine (as did father's rights advocacy groups). In fact, today, when controlling for obvious factors (employment, criminal history etc.) most…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:23 PM
-2

I'm glad you brought up the CONSAD report -- it is useful in conversations like these to ground discussion in empirical reality. Just so you know, however, the CONSAD report has a number of problems and is largely laughed at in academic and political circles. To enumerate a few of them: the report uses a methodology that varies rather dramatically from most peer-reviewed papers on this issue. Namely, the standard wage gap figure only includes full-time, year-round workers --CONSAD, however, incl…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 12:19 PM
2

Like we (men) are so incompetent that even in world where we have all the power and put in place a system to oppress women, we can't do it without hurting ourselves. Consider the MRA banner issue, child custody agreements. The argument is usually men infrequently get sole custody of the child -- misandry! Yet, most judges are men. Most lawyers are men. Most politicians are men. So a male dominated system is working against men. By your logic the men are a) stupid or b) under the influence of pat…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:50 AM
2

Stop defining yourself by your job, sexuality, religion, political party affiliation and any other descriptor. I'm confused. Why are these descriptors bad, but gender is a perfectly fine descriptor?
/r/MensRights07/10/14 03:01 AM
0

Hmmm... you are positing that I didn't read the article, despite multiple references to said article in my post. Bold critique.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 10:08 PM
-11

Faith must be enforced by reason, when it becomes blind it dies. When you are in a leadership position you need to be able to reflect critically on the dark sides of your organization, otherwise you just aren't doing your job.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:09 AM
-17

That sort of misses the point, and is essentially 'victim blaming'. Should fraternities have better guidelines for managing drunkenness, male or female, at their parties? Sure. The problem is, though, that this article was essentially saying female drunkenness is the problem. No, it's not. Rape is the problem (in the context of this discussion and the current political environment -- there are clearly many other problems associated with the college drinking culture as well). It is hard to take h…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:06 AM
-44

I have no idea why he was fired. But let's not pretend like this is an insightful article. The guy's argument is so out of touch with reality. He is saying drunk women are the biggest threat to fraternities. He might as well have said that Western journalists in Syria and Iraq are the biggest threat to ISIS. What links both of these statements is that they are essentially victim blaming and don't force the perpetrators of violence (rape or murder) to consider their culpability. Let's look a litt…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:00 AM
13

It's pretty clear he wrote the title. He even references it, and its click-baity nature, in the first paragraph.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 04:07 PM
1

You're going to have to be more specific. The top Google hit for "national organization of women alimony reform" was this article.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:08 AM
4

Yeah, I'm not sure an out of print, theory heavy, controversial book on political ideology is really appropriate for 10-16 year old kids.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:54 PM
1

Her use of evidence wasn't so great. What about the Swedish version of feminism that she was experiencing did she dislike? How did this relate to Julian Assange (that certainly wasn't obvious to me)?
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:51 PM
4

NPR ran an interesting piece the other day that talked about why it is important to get more men involved in pre-K education and some of the barriers that stand in the way. I thought it was pretty interesting and thoughtful.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:43 PM
1

The relevant quote: The CDC survey finds so many more victims than the criminal justice-based statistics because it asks about people's actual experiences. It is a strength of this survey that it asks behavior-specific questions and includes many types of unwanted sexual violence experiences, in addition to rape. The FBI -- until this month -- only recorded statistics of vaginal rape that are voluntarily reported by the police departments. The National Crime Victimization Survey asks only about …
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:39 PM
1

Yeah, let's see. Hobbit, Diary of a Young Girl, Dracula and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are probably better for 4th-7th graders. The Crucible, Tuesdays with Morrie, A Man for All Seasons, Persepolis, Lord of the Flies would probably be better for 7th-9th graders. The Awakening, Kindred, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Beloved, Gatsby would probably be better for 9th-11th graders. A lot will depend on reading level (not grade level), not grade level though. If literature isn't your backg…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 08:20 PM
1

Off of the top of my head, these were books that I very much enjoyed in middle school high school, grade appropriateness will probably vary: Lord of the Flies One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest The Great Gatsby The Catcher in the Rye The Hobbit / LOTR The Diary of a Young Girl Tuesdays with Morrie Dracula The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe The Awakening Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Kindred The Crucible Beloved A Man for All Seasons Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood Good luck! Encouragi…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 08:02 PM
1

Instead, it focuses on how to keep men in the traditional roles which are beneficial to women, while relieving them only of the ones women find threatening. What wave/branch of feminsim does that? Creating strawman arguments is another bad habit of this subreddit. Can you give evidence of a concerted effort made by influential academic or political feminists to 'keep men in traditional roles which benefit women'?
/r/MensRights10/09/14 02:32 PM
-2

Just looking at what is 'hot' on this subreddit right now, I have my doubts. The top post is mocking an advert that opposes sexism against women. That kind of attitude is not a productive one. How about someone make an advert about MR issues and post it instead? The second highest post attempts to engender false outage over a story that doesn't have its facts straight regarding NHS health policy. The top comment is a user pointing this out, true, but the post is still being upvoted. The third hi…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 02:00 AM
0

The notion if the "stoic man" seems to be a direct consequence of a binary system of gender roles. Work to undermine outdated and outmoded understandings of gender performativity if you want to advance gender equality. Hating on feminists doesn't accomplish that, and it makes the movement look politically backwards and hateful.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 07:05 PM
-5

Actions speak louder than words. The best approach would be to tone down the misogyny on sites like this one. Then less people would accuse the movement of hate speech. Use forums like this to discuss and promote activism on true MR issues; work with feminists to dismantle traditional and societal expectations of gender performativity; don't make women the enemy. These all seem like good first steps to me. Gender equality isn't a zero sum game, stop acting like it is.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 03:26 PM
3

I would suggest you are thinking about this in the wrong way. Gender politics isn't a zero sum game where every slight against one gender needs to be met by pointing out how another gender is similarly slighted. The fact is, women have historically faced a lot of oppression in terms of their educational, career and family planning prospects simply by being women. There just isn't really a lot of room for denying that. The aftermath of this oppression is still present in our social architecture t…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 03:20 PM
1

Testosterone has been studied for decades, but never convincingly linked to the behaviors we are discussing Largely based on pre-theory that ties high testosterone (T) to masculinity, and low T to femininity, high T is mainly studied in relation to aggression, mating, sexuality, and challenge, and low T with parenting. Evidence, however, fails to support this, and the social variability in T is better accounted for by a competition-nurturance trade-off as per the Steroid/Peptide Theory of Social…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:23 PM
0

You are still missing the point. There just isn't a lot of evidence to support the idea that the genes which determine gender also mediate the complex behaviors we are discussing.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 07:17 PM
0

You're right. Most people are advised to set aside a larger fraction of their annual income for retirement, and are typically advised to save for closer to 40 years. I was just trying to make the math easy, but you are right I may very we'll be underestimating the difference in retirement savings.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:58 AM
1

Please enlighten me then with evidence of how the genetics of gender determination also drive sex biases in the behavioral categories listed (i.e. likelihood to commit crime, educational preference, suicide rate etc). Almost all studies discussing sexually dimorphic behaviors focus on either simple neural networks (ie attraction to odorants) or broadly focus on mating behavior. If you are looking for evidence regarding the impact social conditioning has on our lives, I invite you to read any of …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:55 AM
0

Stop blaming 'patriarchy' and accept that there are biological differences between the sexes that lead to privilege for either side. Men and women are biologically different. That is true. But you will be hard pressed to come up with a biological explanation for observed sex differences in complex social behavior. Propensity for crime, educational interests, leadership status, social capital and likelihood to commit suicide are all examples of behaviors that have sex biases.There is essentially …
/r/MensRights04/09/14 12:27 AM
1

u/devilwaif said men seek power because they don't have it by default. I pointed out that most politicians (and those who run for office) come from classically 'powerful' backgrounds, which seems at odds with his or her argument. I fail to see how the fact that women can also come from 'powerful' backgrounds impacts on this argument. My understanding is that most female politicians also tend to come from more powerful backgrounds.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 11:27 PM
1

Yikes, this is how you end up on /r/badscience. You seem to be perpetuating some logical fallacies while simultaneously misconstruing the science of behavioral genetics. Let's unwind the big logical fallacy first. You jump through a number of hoops to try to convince me that men seeking power via wealth and/or higher office is a form of sexual selection which is based on the genetics of 'maleness' (although where the evidence for genetic input is in this example is unclear). Let's allow though, …
/r/MensRights03/09/14 08:40 PM
0

Well I had considered the possibility, but dismissed it as unlikely and at odds with everything we know about how capitalism and economic independence is measured. Sure, some people can get what they want without money. But you seem to be suggesting that women, as a group, value money less than men. I don't see any good evidence for that. If you don't want to use money as a metric for measuring economic independence, what would you use instead?
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:49 PM
0

Nope. My reading skills seem to be intact. Refer to Supplementary Table S2 which lists the individual questions that were asked in reference to 'Questionable Research Practices'. You will see that the vast majority of questions that relate to deliberate manipulation of data (which is what this conversation pertains to) have very low incidences of poor behavior. The categories which do have higher 'yes rates' tend to be related to issues of cutting corners experimentally or allowing a funding sou…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:31 PM
0

That interpretation seems at odds with most of what economists tell us about how economic independence works. But let's follow your train of thought, to see how its logic plays out. We agree that women are broadly under-represented across most jobs in Western economies, especially at the managerial level. You assert that this in some way indicates that women are privileged, and need income less than men do. If that is so, we can ask some questions to test your theory. Let's use the typical defin…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:17 PM
-1

I can't really comment on email exchanges between you and faculty without having seen the actual emails. Regarding the '77 cents' fact, however, I would suggest that the idea that there is one 'true' way of interpreting demographic data is not a terribly productive mindset. For instance, it is true that women make less money than men, on average. This suggests a problematic social trend wherein women are less likely to have economic independence, and likely hints at the notion that women bare a …
/r/MensRights03/09/14 02:38 PM
0

The article you linked says that less than 2% of scientists admitted to having deliberately manipulated or falsified data: A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once A 98.03% rate of integrity seems pretty good to me. I'm not sure what larger point you were hoping to make with this link.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 02:17 PM
1

That sounds like something that is easy to say but hard to prove. Do you have any references or sources that could substantiate that claim?
/r/MensRights03/09/14 02:11 PM
1

There really isn't a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the same sets of genes which determine sex also modulate complex behaviors, especially when those behaviors are not related to sexuality or reproduction. Social construction theories just do a much better job explaining gender gaps in complex behaviors, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 12:17 PM
2

I'm not a huge fan of "the truth lies in the middle" type arguments. They tend to encourage polarization and operate from the presumption that each 'side' is equally and partially correct. Regarding statistics, I have taken my fair share of stats courses. My point wasn't that stats don't get abused in academic circles. Rather that they are not routinely deliberately abused. Getting caught doing that is a great way to get discredited and fired.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 01:49 AM
4

I literally wrote: Yes. I work at a major U.S. University (as a professor of biology). I work with a great number of colleagues who would likely self-describe as feminist. Your reading comprehension skills worry me.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:12 PM
1

I'm not really buying that logic. Most politicians are from 'powerful' backgrounds. They tend do be rich. They are better educated. They tend to be white. By most metrics, politicians are powerful before they even run for office. So how does a need for power explain why the already powerful run for office, but the those not in power do not (i.e. less wealthy, less educated men) run for office?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:34 PM
11

What? I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say to me. You asked me if I had ever met a feminist. I answered, yes I work with a number of people who self-identify as feminist. I then suggested that you reflect on the hypocrisy of making broad, largely untrue claims about people in light of the linked article. I'm not clear on what happened next. You appear to be suggesting that "reality" agrees with you, and that feminists (some, most, all? I'm not sure) do routinely manipulate facts t…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:24 PM
14

Yes. I work at a major U.S. University (as a professor of biology). I work with a great number of colleagues who would likely self-describe as feminist (from a variety of disciplines). I don't think my colleagues are prone to willful exaggeration of fact. Much as Christina, the author of the Time article linked by OP, suggests that feminists must be careful not to spread 'myths' because they actually hurt the feminist cause, I would suggest that MR advocates not make off-the-cuff comments such a…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:05 PM
15

Actually in this case, that isn't a concern. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the source of many of these types of statistics, defines intimate partner violence such that they only count the victim of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. While I suppose that it is possible that some number of people will claim to be victims, when in fact they are perpetrators, I imagine that would be a relative…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:55 PM
2

Do you have sources for any of those notions? That seems to be rather essentializing of both male and female behavior. Read differently, it looks as if you are implying that men are status hungry (point 1), crave power (point 2), and have some sort of inbuilt tolerance for the negative side of politics (point 3). All of those points seem pretty counter MRM, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:43 PM
0

While the incidence of violent crimes has dropped precipitously in the U.S. over the past two decades, the incidence of intimate partner abuse remains sadly flat. Source.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:30 PM
27

Yeah, I'm not sure why there is a need to inflate the figure. Simply saying 203,500 women go to the ER each year as a result of intimate partner abuse would, in-of-itself, be a pretty saddening statistic (for the curious, about 50,000 men go to the ER each year as a result of intimate partner abuse).
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:08 PM
1

I don't know, simply saying that a majority of voters are female doesn't really get at the issue of representation in any meaningful way. Honestly, it sort of feels like a cheap way of ignoring the problem. A priori, presuming egalitarian principles, there is no reason to expect a large gender gap in Congress or other major political institutions in the U.S. (sure, maybe lifestyle, family planning etc. can explain small gender gaps, but a large gap doesn't make a whole lot of sense). Yet, empiri…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:56 PM
1

Your question doesn't really make sense. What is 203,500 incidents of emergency-room warranting domestic violence disgusting relative to? That is a pretty obnoxious question. We don't typically ask victims of crime to justify their abuse in the context of lesser or more severe abuse. But, since you brought it up, we can compare those numbers to how many men sought out emergent care as the result of intimate partner abuse. From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:44 PM
2

But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. u/MacGrimey did use the contextually correct number. And it is disgusting.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:30 PM
5

Did you seriously just use a white supremacist magazine as a source? That's disgusting.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:18 PM
6

Let's eat grandpa. / Let's eat, grandpa. Stop clubbing, baby seals. / Stop clubbing baby seals. Women, without her, man is nothing. / Women, without her man, is nothing. Comma usage matters, u/QueenofDrogo. Title of the article is, "Male scientists, don't harass young female colleagues" And seriously, don't do that. Sexual harassment, of all forms, initiated by any gender, in the workplace is unprofessional and uncool.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:31 PM
6

r/feminism also posted the article. Top comment there was, "The day this isn't news…".
/r/MensRights09/08/14 10:37 PM
15

That's too bad. Pretending like domestic violence doesn't happen is a great way to ensure that it keeps happening. Very brave of him to admit to it in such a public forum. ESPN really shut down a chance for public dialogue on an important issue.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 09:02 PM
21

I don't know. It looks like this article was posted on 2XC a week ago. The comments by and large seem fair and sympathetic. No reason to make this a MR vs feminist issue.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 05:48 PM
1

They are all a year old. Anything newer?
/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:57 PM
1

OK, I am up for a social experiment. I've never posed in either of those subs before, so I don't know much about them. What issue in particular would you like to see discussed?
/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:48 PM
66

Good for him. Live your life in a way that is intended to maximize happiness. People who try to tell you otherwise are punks.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:37 PM
-2

False assumption #1: Pair bonds held. I think everything you say supports a different way in which feminism has likely benefited men (and women), on average. Increases in single parent-homes, less formalized rules and mores regarding marriage, increased flexibility in being able to divorce a spouse etc. all seem to indicate an erosion of traditional family values which enforced pretty distinct gender, sexual and behavioral expectations. That said, within households which chose to remain two work…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 09:18 PM
0

Can you clarify that? How does (A) more women in the workforce lead to (B) less relative wealth and disposable income? I just don't follow the logic.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 09:00 PM
0

Google any of those search terms, you'll get plenty of hits. What sort of evidence are you looking for? I think I have all the negative votes, your concerns of brigading seem misplaced.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 08:15 PM
-4

we are all grateful for Judging by the downvotes, I might surmise otherwise. So you want active evidence of feminists advocating for specific MR issues? I'm not sure that I like viewing these issues in a MR or feminism only way, but here are some examples: Women supporting stay at home dads. Women against the draft. Women against male circumcision. There are plenty of examples of feminists caring about 'canonical' MR issues. We often chose to ignore them, or let them get lost in the midst of pol…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 07:23 PM
-14

I have no idea why you are being upvoted. Everything you have written is wrong and a little bit offensive. Uhm, no. If you look at the 50's, "June Clever's" time, people had about the same quality of life as they do now. Patently false. As this CATO public policy report outlines, quality of life has improved dramatically in pretty much ever major way over the past 100 years. This includes life expectancy, GDP per capita, poverty rates, pollution, rates of education, number of patents filed etc. …
/r/MensRights08/08/14 05:14 PM
3

Here are two articles on the issue, one from the Economist, the other from Forbes that get into more depth on the issue. In short, as you might expect of a social and labor movement of this scale, the mobilization of women to join the workforce has many causes and has had many consequences (mostly good). You can claim that this wan't entirely the result of feminist movements, but to claim that feminism had nothing to do with it is misinformed at best.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 03:38 PM
-8

Why? Did you expect US abolitionists should have pushed as hard for the end of slavery in the Far East as they did in the US? Do you expect proponents of immigration reform to be as concerned about the plight of Canadian immigrants to the US as they are about Central and South American immigrants? Should men's rights activists be arguing just as passionately for increased representation of women in government as they do for awareness about domestic violence directed towards men? I think it is in…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 02:01 PM
-18

I think feminism has done a lot for men, for example: Two working partners in a marriage affords a better quality of life than when just the husband provides the income. Increased female participation in the arts. From Harry Potter to the films of Katheryn Bigelow, feminism has certainly raised the bar in film and literature. More educated women typically make better partners and better friends. Those are just a few off the top of my head, I'm probably missing a bunch. In response to some of you…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 01:01 PM
0

At the end of the day, does it really matter 'who is most oppressed'? Maybe a more productive way to frame the issue (and I think OP is alluding to this in his post) would be to acknowledge that people, both men and women, face oppression/repression associated with gender politics and traditional gender roles in their lives. The specific issues faced by men and women may differ, on average, but collaboration and friendship seems like a better ground for closing gender gaps than animosity and pet…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 03:07 AM
-3

Hey, great post! I really appreciate that you took the time to write this. For me, I think the most important point you hit on is that there is no need for an 'us versus them' or 'men versus women' mentality. Gender equality isn't a zero sum game, and it is best achieved by cooperation between genders, not quarreling between MRAs and feminists. If you don't mind, I would make a few minor suggestions: I'm glad that we live in an age of equality. Maybe something along the lines of 'an age where eq…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 02:57 AM
1

Are you asking me for a legal interpretation of the law? Statutory rape consists of sexual intercourse with a minor, defined in most states as someone who is under age 18 or 16 (depending on the state) at the time intercourse takes place. The minor's outward consent to intercourse is irrelevant. Statutory rape laws are strict liability laws that make a minor legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. The assumption behind statutory rape laws is that someone under the age of 16 or eve…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 09:22 PM
1

Most men in the early 1900's also did not have the right to vote The 15th Amendment, which granted all men the right to vote, was ratified in 1870. if you are male and choose not to pay your child support through the agency you will go to jail for contempt of court. If you cannot make any money because you are sick or injured you will go to jail for contempt of court Well, in this case (presuming you can afford the payments), you are in breach of the law. That is why jail (after multiple warning…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 08:33 PM
-9

OK, so you are alleging that a 16 year old who is black out drunk is capable of mentally consenting to sex with an adult? Never mind being photographed and filmed. If you want to generalize beyond this case, then yes, obviously there are difficulties in defining who is and is not mentally able to offer consent in cases like this. That is why the law sets an age of consent. It is also worth noting that the legal system is typically pretty lenient in this context. Very few cases of statutory rape …
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:16 PM
0

What do you think an appropriate amount of money would be for Puff Daddy to pay?
/r/MensRights07/08/14 03:12 PM
-9

So because a law is unfair in some circumstances, we should make it unfair in all circumstances? That is like saying to women in the early 1900s who wanted the right to vote, 'no, instead we will just take away men's right to vote to make it even instead'. How about trying to reform legislation so that niche cases like you mention don't happen as much?
/r/MensRights07/08/14 02:59 PM
-3

physically capable of rationalizing consent What does that even mean? How does one physically consent to something?
/r/MensRights07/08/14 02:46 PM
-9

Why? Child support isn't intended to be a punitive measure, but rather a social contract that has the child's best interest at heart. Most (but not all) adoptions have pretty pretty severe economic disparities between birth parents and adoptive parents. Suggesting that birth parents should pay child support strikes me as odd. Moreover, it is not in the terms of the adoptive contract, though I suppose it could be added (I can't imagine a situation in which it would be though).
/r/MensRights07/08/14 02:34 PM
18

When a girl say she consented to it, how can you still say she did not. Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual. Another rationale comes from the fact that minors are generally economically, socially, and legally unequal to adults. By making it illegal for an adult to h…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 01:30 PM
-4

Guys were over, she was under.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 01:20 PM
1

What about child support because of divorce, following the birth of children? What about a case where conception was mutually agreed upon, but then the father decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child? I think there are certainly some cases where it is hard to justify court ordered child support, but those seem to me the exception rather than the rule.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:58 PM
1

I thought I would share this article, it is a perspective that I haven't really heard before. I figured some people in this community might find it interesting. In addition to what the author mentions, some other benefits that occur to me are: Two working partners in a marriage affords a better quality of life than when just the husband provides the income. Increased female participation in the arts. From Harry Potter to the films of Katheryn Bigelow, feminism has certainly raised the bar in fil…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:40 PM
-11

Men should not be forced to parent children against their will. Men aren't forced to parent children against their will. Are you referring to child support payments? That hardly qualifies as parenting in any meaningful sense of the word. You could make an argument that in a few cases court mandated child support payments are unfair, but that is as far as I would be willing to go.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:30 PM
-7

A lonely voice of reason in an otherwise perturbing comment thread.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:16 PM
1

Did you actually see the clip in question? She is clearly joking...
/r/MensRights07/08/14 03:34 AM
-1

Hmm, I suspect the reason the clip isn't easily visible in the piece linked by OP is because it is so obvious that she is not serious. It would be much harder to rile people up if that is what they saw (I wonder how many commentators in this thread have seen the clip). I'm sorry I opened that click bait article.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 03:01 AM
1

I thought I would share this article, it is a perspective that I haven't really heard before. I figured some people in this community might find it interesting. In addition to what the author mentions, some other benefits that occur to me are: Two working partners in a marriage affords a better quality of life than when just the husband provides the income. Increased female participation in the arts. From Harry Potter to the films of Katheryn Bigelow, feminism has certainly raised the bar in fil…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 02:39 AM
1

I thought I would share this article, it is a perspective that I haven't really heard before. I figured some people in this community might find it interesting. In addition to what the author mentions, some other benefits that occur to me are: Two working partners in a marriage affords a better quality of life than when just the husband provides the income. Increased female participation in the arts. From Harry Potter to the films of Katheryn Bigelow, feminism has certainly raised the bar in fil…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 02:11 AM
0

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, feminism is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." That's it. That's all it is. Some of you might be saying to yourselves, "But don't feminists want to destroy us all and hate men and eat babies and stuff?" To which I respond: I think you are confusing feminism with Dr. Evil. They aren't really the same. That's not a terrible premise. I think feminism is one of those terms that evokes many different reactions from …
/r/MensRights07/08/14 12:32 AM
1

Yeah, everything she says in the video seems very reasonable, especially as the context is economic development in Africa.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 06:44 PM
0

I agree, searches like this don't really give insight into the extent to which the academic community agrees or disagrees with patriarchy and any of its various definitions. I was simply replying to u/iethatis, who was questioning the existence of patriarchy as a serious topic of academic discourse. That said, in your initial post you literally write, "the patriarchy doesn't exist". You do go on to modify that statement somewhat, but the reader is left with the basic premise that you think patri…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 03:16 PM
1

Search JSTOR for "Animism", "Phogiston", "Geocentrism", "Luminiferous aether", etc. Number of hits does not correlate to validity of claim. Ok. Animism, 7,901 results. Phogiston, 4 results. Geocentrism, 337 results. Luminiferous aether, 208 results. I would argue number of hits is directly proportional to amount of academic attention given to a concept. Again, you may not like patriarchy as a theoretical framework for conceptualizing power dynamics, but that does not mean it is not a commonly us…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 02:41 PM
0

It's a humanities discipline, not a science. Which means, it's bullcrap. Are literature, philosophy, history and language also bullcrap? Just trying to understand your perspective. In educated circles, women's studies majors aren't exactly known for their intellectual rigor. Patently false. Moreover, most academic feminists don't have PhDs in WGS. They typically hold PhDs in literature, cultural studies, history, philosophy or psychology. As a science, it's more or less a complete and utter joke…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:41 PM
1

Consider this analogy: Historically the institution of monarchy has granted a great deal of privileges to people of regal descent (wealth, power, immunity from the law etc.). However, at the same time, because of how the institution is designed, things like fratricide and regicide become much more common, even incentivized by the power system. So while monarchy confers enormous benefits to nobility, it also has downsides inherent to how the system is constructed that negatively impact nobility. …
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:30 PM
1

I agree actions speak much louder than words, especially in instances of social injustice. I don't think you'll find too many feminists who think it is acceptable to rape men, let alone boys, so that seems like a bit of a red herring. However, certainly oppose anyone who does. I would be happy to consider you feminists. I just wish that so many people would in forums like this would stop defining themselves as anti-feminist and stop seeing women as the source of male problems. That is an unprodu…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:25 PM
1

JSTOR search using just the term patriarchy. It returns 43,201 results. I think that is pretty sufficient proof that patriarchy is taken seriously as an academic concept. Regarding scholars who deny the existence of patriarchy, I'm not sure how to prove such a person does not exist. However, I provided examples of patriarchy related scholarship. Perhaps you could show me some deniers.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 03:23 AM
1

Without giving too much personal information, can you clarify what you mean when you say you teach at a university? Are you a professor? Do you have a doctorate? What is your specialty? The reason I ask is because I am an assistant professor (of Biology) at a major US research university, and the opinion you are expressing is certainly a minority one, even within science departments. "the patriarchy doesn't exist." If it did exist in any real form at all, it fell apart quickly with modernity, me…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 03:04 AM
1

I've read through the full comment train. I still have no idea what you are trying it prove. But hey thanks for calling me a moron rather than trying to clarify your thoughts. And do everyone a favour and stop with the pseudo intellectual bullshit and linking to Wikipedia. It's tiring. It's what 16 year olds . Providing references to support a claim is a form of courtesy in conversations like this. I wish more people would similarly use evidence to support their claims, it would make for much mo…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:40 AM
-3

This is an important issue, so I will try to walk you through it slowly. If you are truly interested in learning more, please let me know and I will put you in touch with resources that are useful for getting an understanding of how damaging the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery as practiced in the U.S. were, and continue to be today. Black people in the U.S. aren't still struggling to overcome the legacy of slavery because they inherited their ancestors' 'slave ways'. That notion is simply…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:12 AM
3

JSTOR search using just the term patriarchy. It returns 43,201 results. You might not like the idea of patriarchy, but that is does not mean that it is not a topic of scholarship.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 12:22 AM
0

I have heard of evolutionary psychology. It is a field that largely concerns itself with trying to understand the emergence of complex traits like cognition, language and consciousness. Some evolutionary psychologists certainly do focus on family behavior (ranging from parenting roles to kin selection and altruism), but again, please show me a credible researcher making a claim anywhere near 'reproductive drives are the underpinnings of much of human behavior'. Do you really think reproductive d…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 12:04 AM
1

There is a substantial amount of evidence that most social stratification on the basis of sex is in fact the basic reproductive drives of humans carried out on a large scale. I am going to have to ask for some references to support that. I have a PhD in genetics, and I have a hard time believing a credible researcher would make claims even close to what you are saying.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 10:53 PM
1

A Yale Philosophy course is an apology piece? That seems dubious. The legal one certainly is more in favor of using patriarchy as a tool for understanding power dynamics. But what better way to understand an argument than to engage with proponents of it? Bentham and Foucault are simply must-reads for anyone trying to understand anything about the construction of power (not just for feminist theory, but literally any study of power benefits from their theories).
/r/MensRights05/08/14 10:45 PM
5

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say 'play the race card', but it is pretty well established that black people in America, on average, are still struggling with the legacy of slavery and the subsequent years of economic, political and legal discrimination. Even if you think we live in a world where race is absolutely not an issue, several hundred years of intense discrimination takes generations to work its way out of the system. I would be very hesitant to make arguments along the li…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 09:06 PM
5

Not a problem. My primary advice would still be to try and slog through it (take notes, ask questions etc.). Many of the points, readings and critics outlined in the encyclopedia entry are just critical for an intelligent discussion on the issue. That said, a bit of Googling turned up some less dense readings: A lawyer's primer on feminist theory and tort (PDF warning - although it is skewed towards a legal analysis of patriarchy, it still provides information that can be generalized to other do…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 08:56 PM
4

Most discussions of patriarchy are essentially discussions of power dynamics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on feminist perspectives on power and how they have evolved over time. It can be a bit dense at first, but it is a very well compiled reference. Let me know if you are looking for something a bit easier to digest, and I will see if I can dig something up for you. Good luck!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 08:22 PM
1

I'm not sure what you think egalitarian means. It generally confers the notion that people are equal (as in no one is inherently better than another) and deserving of equal (the same) rights. Are you interpreting equal is functionally identical? That would be an insane definition.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 06:06 PM
1

Then I am still confused as to why you are asking about sexual dimorphism in the context of the evolution of human body size. It seems like you are using size biases to justify something (otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned them). I am just not clear on what.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:49 PM
1

Are you looking for a biological answer? It is interesting to note that across the animal kingdom, for most species females are actually larger than males. Why that is has been the subject of debate since at least the writings of Charles Darwin. Rench's rule get more into this if you are interested. As for why human are an exception to this rule, it is obviously some combination of natural and sexual selection paired with population bottle-necking. We have pretty good insight into the molecular …
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:58 PM
1

Can you provide a link? I am not familiar with this story. Thanks!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:45 PM
1

Classical feminist theory would define patriarchy as something along the lines of: a system of social stratification that disproportionately benefits men/oppresses women. This stratification is enforced by disproportionate representation of men in academic, economic, legal and moral authority positions . Gender coded normative values help to maintain and justify these imbalances. It is important to note, however, patriarchal theory does not indicate that all men are patriarchs, it does not sugge…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:44 PM
1

Thanks for the links! Like I said in my post, I read through much of the sidebar, but still remain unconvinced that the MRM is just using classical feminist theory to make arguments about how patriarchal/traditional gender roles are at times harmful to men as well. Many of the quotes you link to (though not all), seem to support that position. Thanks again for the response though!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:43 PM
0

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate the post! Sorry it took me so long to respond, my inbox filled up last night. As a newcomer to most things MRM it seems to me that 'the movement' as yet, is tiny, and that what is happening, is the establishing, very much against the general flow of public discourse, that issues affecting men and boys are real, serious and important. In of itself there is nothing wrong with this. I might want to analyze different claims on a point by point basis, but certai…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:39 PM
-1

You're falling victim to what is know as the apex fallacy, or rather believing that because a few men were in positions of power, all men held power. I certainly don't believe that. That would be a ridiculous position. Patriarchy is just one of many means of social stratification. Plutocracy, capitalism, meritocracy etc. are all other means of stratification. The notion of patriarchy, though, is that all else equal, men are much more likely to have a position of authority than women; this power …
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:29 PM
1

The name refers more to the historical origins of the term. Most of the gender coded norms that define patriarchal values originate from historical periods wherein men were almost exclusively the academic, legal, economic and moral authorities. Patriarchy can certainly be detrimental to men. I think it might be a bit much to claim that men are systematically oppressed by patriarchal values, but certainly there is room for men to feel the negative effects of a patriarchal value system.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:20 PM
-2

I think it would be fair to argue that most of these traditional gender roles originate from a time period when men were vested with nearly all academic, economic, legal and moral authority. That doesn't mean all men are patriarchs or that we should hate men, however.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 03:12 AM
0

What choices are you referring to? Family planning? The traditional response would be that pressures to raise a family (especially at the expense of a career) are exactly the types of patriarchal/traditional gender roles that are so problematic. Equal opportunities for both partners to take leave to raise the child and better daycare options are usually the easiest solutions to dilemmas like this.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 03:10 AM
0

Can you provide a link please? My impression is that this is incorrect, but I would be curious to see their rationale. Thanks!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 03:00 AM
-2

Thanks, I appreciate how courteous your response was! I've read some of the sidebar already, I'll give the rest of it a read tomorrow. I think a lot of issues you raise are certainly worth fighting for. The point of my post wasn't to suggest otherwise. Rather I was trying to convey the opinion that many such problems have their roots in patriarchal/tradition interpretations of gender roles.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:59 AM
1

Re: kyriarchy versus patriarchy, kyriarchy is very likely the better term (and when pushed to define patriarchy, most people come up with a definition that looks like kyriarchy). The problem is kyriarchy isn't really part of the common lexicon as of yet.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:54 AM
-2

Are women actively being excluded from such jobs? Discrimination in this case can only occur in the face of deliberate exclusion. Any feminist would argue that a system which excludes solely on the basis of gender is very likely problematic. You would also probably find a bunch of feminists who agree with the proposition that pressuring men to take on dangerous and dirty careers may also be problematic.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:47 AM
0

A state wherein economic, academic and representative equality cannot be achieved is certainly suppressive just by definition. Whether it can be classified as 'subjugation' depends on definitions most likely. Moreover, I don't think it is particularly useful to conceptualizer patriarchy as a binary concept where a state or society is patriarchal or not. Certainly Saudi Arabia is more patriarchal than France, but that does not mean patriarchal institutions do not exert influence or authority in F…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:43 AM
0

I'm glad you acknowledge such gender roles exist. And I am glad you ate trying to confront them (so are feminists)! The reason most scholars call the 'patriarchal' is because they stem from a period in history when nearly all thought leadership positions (academics, economic, governmental and moral authority) were held by men. I really don't like to be rude Then best to not say anything at all!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:37 AM
-2

Thanks for the response, I appreciate the dialogue on the topic! Patriarchy is an highly sexist and offensive theory which really has no merit in a proper discussion. Can you please explain why (this is the top comment in the thread after all)? Patriarchy, as defined by most feminist critics, typiclly stipulates something along the lines of: Patriarchy is a form of social stratification (note that other form of stratification are also possible) in which leadership status, economic authority and …
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:21 AM
-1

If ending sexism means equal representation in all jobs, that includes the crappy ones like garbage collectors and cannon fodder infantry. That seems like a bit of a strawman argument. Are women being turned down from or discriminated from careers in garbage collecting? Discrimination only exists if there is exclusion. The notion of completely equal representation in all careers is an odd idea that no one is really arguing for. What people are opposed to is the idea that people are excluded from…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:06 AM
1

Can you explain that please. I am interested in hearing alternative perspectives, and that is potentially a provocative idea.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 01:54 AM
0

Well that is strangely non-specific. I would love to engage in dialogue, but that doesn't really lend itself to conversation.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 01:53 AM
-2

The thing is, and the point I was trying to make, for many of those issues the problem is patriarchy. Men would no longer make up the majority of suicides, workplace deaths, cancer deaths Why do you think many men commit suicide? There is certainly some evidence that it stems from stress related to gendered expectations relating to how men should perform. Work place deaths are likely similarly tied to the notion that 'man is strong' and 'man must provide'. Cancer deaths. This one is a bit more c…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 01:26 AM
-2

Which stems from patriarchal gender values. And it is problematic, I agree.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 11:35 PM
-2

If the imposed gender roles makes it impossible for a man to achieve happiness, then certainly yes. The struggles faced by many gay men certainly fall into this category, but there is certainly room for straight men to feel similar oppression (derision for being a 'stay-at-home dad', for example). Do I feel that men are systematically the victims of patriarchy? I find that claim to be a bit harder to swallow.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 11:06 PM
-2

Women = mother = nurturing. Male = bread winner = aggressive. Those are just some classic gender roles/stereotypes that are prevalent in patriarchal value systems. Definitions of patriarchy do vary. Here's a fairly typical one: haracterised by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. This takes place across almost every sphere of life but is particularly noticeable in women’s under-representation in key state…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:51 PM
-5

Thanks for the response. I read your article. If I am following your thoughts correctly you consider yourself an 'antifeminist' because you think the patriarchy is dead. My response to that would be, patriarchy, and the resulting disparity in gender inequality, may be better in Western culture than it was 200 years ago, but it is by no means dead. Women still are underrepresented in government, law, executive positions and moral positions. Moreover, I think you might be underestimating the ways …
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:46 PM
-4

I think most feminists would agree with that as well. The notion that women somehow need to be cared for and protected by men is indeed dogshit.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:35 PM
-3

I think it is probably a very good idea to restrict access to/and or monitor the use of proscription medicines that can be used to commit suicide in the context of individuals who have expressed thoughts of suicide.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:28 PM
-4

Women are also enriched in positions of legal, economic and moral power. I'm not sure you know what 'enriched' means.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:24 PM
-4

Which 'men's issues' do you feel aren't supported by feminism?
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:23 PM
-11

So the imposition of patriarchal gender roles in no way bothers you or applies to the Men's Rights movement? That seems like a suspect position.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 10:22 PM
-6

Why is NOW against shared parenting? You can read their opinion on the matter here. I don't necessarily agree with all their points though. But feminism, like the MR movement I imagine, is far from a homogeneous institution. Why are so many feminist academics covering up evidence of female battering? I would need to see evidence of that to comment.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:17 PM
-7

technical term used to denote a system of power wherein males are the primary authority figures, especially within the context of legal, economic and moral institutions Are men enriched in positions of legal, economic and moral power? If yes, then you have your answer.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:13 PM
-5

If men's rights is concerned about the higher incidence of male death at the hands of gun violence, gun safety and control seems like it would be a priority. Is that incorrect?
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:12 PM
-4

we don't have institutions of male rule or female subjugation What percent of Congress is female? What percent of CEOs are female? What percent of religious leaders are female? The answer for each is well below 50%. So while you can argue that we don't have legalized patriarchy (which is still a contentious point, as many laws do seem to promote patriarchal values), we at the very least have a de facto patriarchy. How exactly are men's problems the fault of something that no longer exists, excep…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:06 PM
-2

Patriarchy is a technical term used to denote a system of power wherein males are the primary authority figures, especially within the context of legal, economic and moral institutions. While it does have an etymological root in notions of 'father', the scope of the term is considerably broader in academic conversations.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:01 PM
-6

Hmm, I would love to hear some evidence for that claim. Patriarchy is widely established as a social structure underlying much of Western civilization.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:55 PM
-5

Should mentally unstable people be allowed to purchase firearms? I think that is what most people mean when they urge for gun control in the context of suicide. Actually addressing the depression. I think everyone agrees that is a good idea. What has the MR movement done to address the issue?
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:53 PM
-8

I have no problem with feminism remaining specific to women "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression", according to bell hooks (a leading feminist scholar). It is a common misconception that feminism is only concerned with "women's issues". The movement is broadly concerned with combating attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. That is why, for example, many feminists are vocal proponents of gay rights. I've …
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:50 PM
-5

patriarchy v. feminism is a false dichotomy? There may be something to this line of reasoning. Patriarchy has imposed negative consequences across a broad spectrum of social issues. But I would suggest that feminism has a large academic and social discourse surrounding issues of patriarchy and how to overturn them. The MR movement, from what I have observed, seems hesitant to acknowledge or embrace this. patriarchy is just a made up boogey man? That is somewhat absurd, and would be contrary to p…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:36 PM
-4

If higher incidence of male suicide is a major issue for MRAs, then it seems that advocating for stricter gun control makes sense. If higher incidence of gun-related deaths for men is an issue for MRAs, then it makes sense to advocate for more gun control.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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