TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

meringue-smooth Archive

View 2 posts and 114 comments by meringue-smooth 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)
50

Intersectionalist feminism - and all identity politics really - actually thrives because of class struggle. By misrepresenting class differences as being caused by innate characteristics, they can claim to justify their focus on the "real working class: all women" at the cost of the dismissal of everybody else. This is why we see modern feminism's emphasis on finances: "unpaid emotional labour", the "wage gap", the "pink tax". It's all an attempt to present women as the true lower class who suff…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/20 06:54 AM
12

I think that's kind of the problem with questions like this. I mean, just ask 3 people to define a "successful adult" and you'll get 4 different answers. I suspect definitions would broadly vary along gender lines though. A successful woman to a conservative might be a good mum with a part-time job teaching community college, while a successful man might be a yacht-owning shareholder with an underwear model wife. These are huge generalisations and exaggerations of course, but I think it's a vali…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 07:23 AM
5

This is such a great example to illustrate the double standard, I wish I could upvote twice. I'll remember this next time I'm arguing against the term.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 11:36 PM
26

At least someone's paying attention to how this crap is received rather than just revelling in the sound of their own condescension. And sometimes this style of humor comes full circle, too, and ends up reinforcing sexist stereotypes about women No shit, Sherlock! What this demonstrates is that they are self-aware, they do realise what they're doing. "This type of humor targeting men has been all fun and games for years, but it's hurting women now, so it's time to stop." Fuck's sake.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 06:40 AM
6

Maybe "female abusers" would be a little less inflammatory? I get what you're saying about tone, but I do think an awareness of male abuse victims is slowly spreading, at least in my country. We're seeing increasing numbers of female teachers being brought up on child sexual abuse charges, and during this pandemic I'm now seeing posters go up speaking of domestic violence with portrayals of male victims. I'd also not worry too much about the cries of 'WoMaN HaTiNg'. Being semantically correct is…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/20 10:09 PM
10

Maybe slide 7 should be re-phrased? The highlighted line doesn't exclude male victims, it excludes female perpetrators.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/20 07:50 PM
37

This describes me to a tee. I was brought up thinking feminism is just equal rights across the sexes, and as a teen was comfortable calling myself a male feminist. As I grew up the female feminists around me started doing weird things: complaining they earned less than men when they also worked fewer hours, accusing men of sexual misconduct just for awkward flirting but still always expecting men to "make the first move", that kind of thing. I saw the demands made of my father by my mother, and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/20 07:17 AM
10

Those people were just ignorant and using a trendy word to isolate and bully you. Their behaviour wasn't even about you really, it was that they couldn't understand your position and rather than admit that, they banded together to push you out of the group. The word "incel" is fashionable and very good for shaming people because of the associations it conjures up, but in this case they may as well have called you a Nazi or a slave trader for all the sense it makes but it would have the same effe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/20 07:08 AM
17

Meh, I've worked for companies whose political stances I disagree with. It's possible she aligns with her employer's stance on every issue, but I see no reason to assume that she does.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/20 08:39 PM
2

Similar story with me really, but I'm re-thinking whether that actually puts me on "the left" any more, given how infected it has become with this identity politics nonsense. I'm especially curious about your opening statement Being gay kind of forced me to remain left-wing As a gay man myself I can kind of relate, and I'm also conscious of homophobia on the right, but I don't think it's nearly as prevalent there as left-leaning liberals would have us believe, it's just more overt than the homop…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/20 12:06 PM
5

Care to tell your story? I'm very interested in the process of reducing fanaticism, and the social justice types scare me, latgely because of how they tend to push non-believers and apostates to the right. Can you explain how you escaped the fanaticism while remaining left-wing?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/20 07:18 AM
1

It's still true that black people get much worse hiring/callback rates when their race is known though right? Funnily enough I stumbled upon an article a few days ago that argued that blind auditions have helped women into orchestras, but that they actually hinder ethnic minorities Personally, I have strong reservations about this article's entire premise. I'm just providing it here to show that the consensus on blind auditions is far from settled (and because you expressed a passing interest in…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/20 10:58 PM
7

Excellent news! This may seem like a small victory, but it gives me hope that the narrative can be changed. Use of language is important in these issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/20 05:22 AM
4

Wow, excellent post. So nicely explained.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/20 08:00 PM
33

What an adfuck of a website! But on the topic in hand, I think it's tragic that Crews isn't able to speak about an issue he clearly cares deeply about, without a bunch of outrage addicts telling him to sit down and shut up. Especially when it's outrage addicts that aren't actually in the best position to speak on the topic (i.e. women assuming they are the authority on men's issues). This is why Twitter is such a toxic idea; it gives any idiot with a web connection a direct line of communication…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/08/20 08:51 PM
13

Exactly this. Their movement has such circular logic baked into it that they cannot afford even the slightest crack in the narrative because that would expose its flawed innards. It's the classic behaviour of someone who's losing an argument. If their ideas stood up to scrutiny they would be fine allowing them to be scrutinised.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/08/20 10:45 PM
6

Janet Street Porter is a hate-fuelled ideologue who masks it well using a "comedic" way with words. I hate that this post got me to give her a click on her article tbh.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/20 11:11 PM
8

I didn't know that. That just further demonstrates what a zero-sum thinker she is: "Amber Heard made an accusation, therefore she can't possibly be a perpetrator." "I'm the only woman in this room, therefore we can't possibly discuss the male mental health crisis." What a fucking idiot. It's appalling that people like that achieve positions of power.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/20 10:04 PM
19

Jess Phillips is a nasty piece of work. The sentiment itself was bad enough, but that she was mocking in her tone absolutely turned my stomach.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/07/20 04:23 PM
3

That's a valid point. Although I never got the impression that men who say "bitches be crazy" are actually making a distinction between "bitches" and women. But I guess I could be wrong about that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/07/20 09:51 PM
3

Who downvoted you? I just saw your comment. Intent and context matter more for if something is sexist than the word used Agreed. And the context and intent of "bitches be crazy" is to be derogative towards women. I've never heard it directed towards men. What century are you living in? Maybe it's not about time periods and more about geography. I'm in the UK.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 10:58 PM
5

Exactly. Within the context of "bitches be crazy", it's quite clearly directed at women. Btw, Wikipedia is not a good source of information. It can be (and is) tampered with by activists quite regularly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 06:47 PM
7

"Bitch" is literally the English word for a female dog. To claim it's not a gendered slur is nonsense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 06:06 PM
3

They're all largely the same thing as far as I can tell, except the TERFs which are the same thing with the very specific addition of the belief that society shouldn't just uncritically allow people to self-identify their gender and use whichever gendered space they want to. Non-TERF feminists think that's fine.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 12:14 PM
41

I share your suspicion that it's radfem refugees for the most part, but I also think that while Reddit population is largely male, certain subs do skew female due to their subject matter. I didn't read all the comments on that post, and I don't doubt there is misandry in there, but I did see a few half-sensible comments in there about how "men are trash" is just like a female equivalent of "bitches be crazy" and other such phrases. That rings true to me, but the problem with it is that it still …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 07:00 AM
6

Beautifully put.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/20 09:04 AM
1

Totally agree with that, her testimony carries less weight generally speaking, but legally speaking the court ought to hear her out with impartiality. Revealing her past dishonesty runs the risk of a jury dismissing her testimony entirely, which could itself pervert the course of justice. It's an imperfect system, but it's the best we can hope for. The fable of the boy who cried wolf actually contains two lessons to learn: first is that the testimony of liars is seldom believed. But second is th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 03:29 PM
2

I'll probably be downvoted for saying this, but this is actually the only way to ensure a fair trial. Each case must be judged on its own merits, regardless of past indiscretions. We see this in murder trials too. Just because a convicted murderer is up on trial for a murder, that doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty of this murder, so their history may well be kept from the jury to ensure impartiality. Similarly, just because the complainant has falsely cried rape in the past, it would be a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 01:51 PM
1

All very good points. I totally agree and admit I was probably conflating feminism with women's rights. In modern parlance they are pretty interchangeable terms, but I agree we should make an effort to differentiate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 08:13 PM
1

Good question. I guess I'm using the term "good movement" quite loosely, but while I do recognise feminism is rooted in resentment towards men's economic domination and takes credit for social progression that it played little part in, I do consider the early days of feminism to be valuable socially, again, using the term loosely. Feminism initially did work to gain recognition for women's usefulness to society beyond their capacity for child-rearing and home-making. It helped diversify the work…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 05:41 PM
9

The Venn diagram of modern feminism and identity politics basically has idpol completely enveloping feminism. In my opinion, identity politicking is the predominant part of what ruined feminism - a movement that used to be about winning and protecting the rights of women, but has become a movement largely about defining and protecting the identities of women. And different factions of feminism have different views of what those identities are/should be. In 2020, you don't have to be a feminist t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 12:01 AM
1

Thanks for that. So am I to understand that we're both right: testosterone is involved in aggression in a complex way, but does not directly induce it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/20 05:14 PM
7

In response to your side question, the claim that testosterone induces aggression was refuted by this study in 2009. It's not without its flaws, but I'm sure there have been others since. Edit: clarity
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/20 11:02 PM
4

Totall. It's a major hurdle trying to get people in support of circumcision to consider it mutilation, I'm just saying we need to be persistent enough that it becomes a prevailing narrative. Much like feminists have done with their "patriarchy" and "emotional labour" talking points (although in contrast these are obviously bullshit, but they're still accepted as part of the conversation because feminists just wouldn't stop banging on about them).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 03:21 PM
13

I remember the days when FGM was actually called 'female circumcision'. Now that it has been re-branded as FGM, it's no longer held in the same category as male circumcision. I suspect we need to follow suit; really push to re-brand male circumcision as Male Genital Mutilation - abolish the term 'circumcision' entirely - if the issue is ever to gain the recognition it deserves.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 07:35 AM
13

You're right that it's not rational. How anyone can leap from "women working in strip clubs are valuable to the strip club and its clientele because of their sex appeal due to the context" to... It really is depressing to see how women are only* seen as valuable when we can be sexualized or considered attractive ...is beyond me. It ignores all nuance, all context, all other instances where women are valued for reasons other than their sexual attractiveness. If we are to talk about this way of th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/05/20 01:04 PM
1

Why was I downvoted? No idea dude. Is this sub against gay adoption? As a gay man myself, I hope not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/20 11:55 AM
3

Possibly. He used the "there are studies" argument a few times in that debate if I remember correctly, but he never named any or presented any data from them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/20 11:14 PM
4

Then whenever Warren said something his sect would regard as outdated (any references to biological differences between men and women) he gave the camera a different kind of goofy look. Yes, those smug glances to camera very much annoyed me. I could practically hear him saying "Hear that dog whistle guys?"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 08:56 PM
11

I recently watched a couple of his streams (one with Warren Farrell and one with Shoe0nHead) to get a read on him, and I can't say I was impressed. His conversation about feminism with Warren Farrell exemplified a lot of my issues with Vaush: he was largely in agreement with Farrell most of the way through, but about halfway through he appeared to realise that this was meant to be a debate and he'd better disagree at some point, so he started to make intellectually dishonest arguments in opposit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 04:16 PM
8

Excellent video, thanks for posting this. What a bunch of lovely men (especially Tom Golden; when he speaks it's like a hug in audio form).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/20 05:11 PM
15

I couldn't agree more. The social "sciences" are riddled with this post-modern idea that there are no universal truths, only subjective experiences of reality. That's how we end up with people saying things like "what's your truth?". The danger with this idea is that some people's "truth" can be allowed to carry more weight than others. And we see that in this article: the women's truth reflects reality better than the men's truth, according to its author. They disregard the men's experience bec…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 04:28 PM
19

Totally. The N Y Times has defaulted to believing the women are telling the truth, and therefore doubt must be cast upon what the men said. That's illogical. Why not doubt both and determine who is being truthful by actually monitoring each partner's homeschooling contributions? Oh right, because that's difficult and time-consuming. Why bother when the women's claims back up the point the N Y Times wants to make: that household labour always falls to women. It's a totally non-scientific study be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 03:55 PM
16

The data presented in the article doesn't necessarily prove what the article claims it does: it's completely open to interpretation. We could interpret that men think they do more homeschooling than they actually do (if we believe the women). We could interpret that women think they do more homeschooling than they actually do (if we believe the men). We could interpret that women are more likely to claim the credit for the homeschooling their partners actually did. We could interpret that men ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/20 03:35 PM
11

That's exactly right. When people are ideologically possessed, critical thinking ceases to contribute to their conclusions, and ideological dogma takes its place. Those people actually cannot help it, and once an ideology has caught somebody it's very difficult for them to escape it. Those who realise what's happening and try to wrench themselves out of the brainwashing inevitably suffer cognitive dissonance in the process, and that's somewhat painful. It's way more comfortable to remain ideolog…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 06:21 PM
2

The video is a dissection of how ideologies and religions use dogma to incite a state of perpetual insecurity in its followers. It also explains how followers are able to attribute imagined motives to the actions of others. The first segment about the therapy patient being late for a session holds up in terms of male advocacy. In the example, the therapist attributes the patient's lateness to deep-seated fear of therapy, or a passive aggressive manoeuvre. But it could equally just be that the tr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/20 08:50 AM
5

I don't doubt that for a second, and I support it from that angle. But I've also heard feminists decry prostitution as a patriarchal subjugation of women. So feminism's split down the middle on the issue. It's almost like it can't make up its mind and isn't a cohesive political movement at all, to the point that the word itself is practically meaningless. When someone identifies as "feminist", that invariably necessitates digging deeper to find out what that means for them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/20 09:23 PM
5

Feminism damages sex workers' ability to earn: women most affected. Seriously though, I can't even tell whether feminism is pro- or anti-prostitution these days.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/20 06:40 PM
17

When Anita Sarkeesian was trending/causing controversy I tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. This led me to stumble upon the Honey Badgers on YouTube, and the way Hannah Wallen picked apart feminist "logic" really opened my eyes to how self-contradictory the whole movement is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/20 10:16 AM
3

The only thing I'd quibble with is that STEM fields don't have a lot of focus on interpersonal skills. I think many of those fields, and those who work in them, benefit hugely when there's a bit more focus on "soft" skills around effective teamwork and communication. Absolutely, for sure communication is often key in STEM too, and people with such soft skills do have an additional advantage as they would in any role. My point was more that interpersonal skills are often not where its focus lies …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/20 07:12 AM
5

Honestly I think it's a natural lack of interest coupled with a large dose of socialisation. On the nature argument: studies show males tend to like to work with their hands and objects, whereas females tend to like to work with people and language. So women naturally gravitate away from STEM, which requires the use of lots of tools and doesn't have a lot of focus on interpersonal skills. On the socialisation argument: historically (and still somewhat today), scientists, mathematicians etc were …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/20 10:45 PM
4

So what's actually the problem in your view? Surely not "men's jobs" going to women? Personally I think if there's more of a gender balance appearing in all strata of employment that's a good thing, provided both sexes are able to earn enough to support themselves and their families. I only take issue where there's an attempt to turn something from male-dominated to female-dominated, as that's just the same problem but in reverse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/20 10:29 PM
5

Are they successful? Are a lot of manual jobs occupied by women?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/20 07:07 PM
18

I think subconsciously a lot of women are somewhat afraid of more manual jobs and want nice, comfortable - and most importantly, safe - office jobs. STEM has jobs like that in droves, it tends to pay quite well, and those roles aren't considered subordinate to men, like receptionist/secretary or other admin roles often are. So here's where the push really comes from: Feminism wants women to close the earnings gap (not the wage gap, which is a myth, but the earnings gap, which is real) by taking …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/20 06:37 PM
1

I've never actually tried this out, but I read somewhere that if you right-click then "Inspect" the webpage, you can find the code that produces the content that's blocking your view and just delete it from the DOM. I'm a web developer so can confirm that the theory absolutely holds up, but I daresay there are sites out there that have found a way around this technique. This technique also requires that you can at least partially find your way around a site's markup, but that only takes a little…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/04/20 04:54 PM
2

I can't see the comments there, am I banned or something? Edit: weirdly, it only seems to affect that one post, I can see the comments on other posts there.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/04/20 07:11 PM
5

Dude, this is a low-effort outrage post. It does nothing more than showcase an instance of sexist content. It's totally non-constructive and does nothing to advance the MRM in any meaningful way. Pointing out how it lowers the overall quality of the sub is actually quite a good thing to do. Your contribution is to interpret that as "moaning"; that's not advancing the MRM at all, in fact, it's more likely to hinder it.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 10:50 PM
3

I'd agree with that. It actually stunts personal growth, hence we get this behaviour from intersectionalists that comes off as acting like a petulant child. Some people just don't want to grow up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/04/20 06:48 PM
8

Personally I think it appeals to two personality traits that are particularly strong in younger people: a wish to avoid personal responsibility where that's achievable, and a desire to simplify the social environment into an easy-to-process binary (a lot like we see in religious groups). It's not universally the case of course, but I find in this age of what I think of as "internet feminism", there are a lot of predominantly younger people who like the idea of absolving themselves of their agenc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/04/20 03:52 PM
2

Cool, I'm totally on the same page as you. I also used to visit MensLib until it became apparent that feminist doctrine always trumped men's issues there, so I gave up on it after I got censored there. And thanks for those responses to my questions, and with citations too. Very much appreciated.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 04:13 PM
-1

I don't disagree with any of what you've said here, you're making very valid points. However I'd need to see evidence that this senator was dismissive towards male workplace deaths until it affected women. I've never come across her before, is she even a self-proclaimed feminist? And regarding COVID-19 affecting men more due to genetics, has that been proven? I was under the impression that men were just more likely to be exposed due to the fact that industries involving travelling over large ge…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 11:37 AM
5

Where's the male advocacy in this post? This senator is behaving like an idealogue here, I agree, but pointing out idelogical behaviour isn't what this sub's about. I really don't want this sub to degenerate into an anti-feminist sub like so many others.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/20 11:18 PM
8

Exactly. Nobody said women aren't needed, only that nobody's saying men aren't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/20 12:27 PM
11

What needed jobs men are doing that women are not? I don't think anybody made that point, only the point that men are needed, whereas before the pandemic there was a strong rhetoric of "we are strong independent women who don't need no man, and they're all useless anyway" and this has quickly faded in the recent crisis.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/20 08:51 AM
1

I recently saw a stand-up comedian doing a bit about Gender Studies.... https://youtu.be/J61mDnxTYVg?t=2m40s
/r/MensRights18/03/20 05:04 PM
2

Everything he says towards the end is exactly how I feel about the culture wars. Especially the whole "if we all let our guards down just a little bit", and "a little bit of intellectual humility can go a long way". I always appreciate Boyce's calm, vaguely philosophical approach to these things. He's able to step back and consider the possibility of resolution, not just focus on victory over an opponent. It's refreshing in the current YouTube climate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 06:28 PM
4

Are there studies and theories on why boys lag behind girls in school? I am certain that there are, but unfortunately I don't have them at my fingertips. Hopefully another Redditor can help out here. Would you look at this article as well? I had a read, and this is a very niche topic and far outside my personal frame of reference. I'm no expert on these things. However, I did spot some telling little phrases that make me suspect the author is pushing an agenda, most notably the use of the word "…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 12:35 PM
8

The article posits the notion of a 'confidence gap' based solely on anecdotal evidence ("my patients remark" etc). It then runs with this hypothesis and applies it indiscriminately as though it explains the majority of differences in employment stats between men and women. I'm not saying any of what they're saying isn't true, only that their logic is bad and their method unscientific. Their conclusions may well bear out, but many years of rigorous studies would be required in order to prove the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:39 AM
5

Yeah, probably. They definitely have the moral framework of teens/kids.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/20 07:42 PM
37

AITA is a drama sub almost entirely populated with people who suffer from the "women are wonderful" effect, and in the majority of discussions on there they decide that a male was the asshole (no matter their role in the scenario presented). My advice is to disregard all those comments (on both posts), unsubscribe from the sub and go about your life without worrying about what the biased hivemind of Reddit thinks of you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/20 06:02 PM
5

Not untrue, but that's not the sole purpose of sperm banks. That was my point. So your sweeping statement that donating to one makes a man a "gender traitor" is very uncharitable and ignores the nuance of the issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 12:05 AM
6

Men who donate to sperm banks are straight up gender traitors What the hell are you talking about? Sperm banks can help infertile couples (specifically couples where the male is sterile) to have children. The men who donated those sperm have done a favour for their fellow man in that circumstance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 11:03 PM
3

I don't doubt it, but when it falls nothing much seems to happen, at least not where I live, so I do believe loads of people genuinely don't know.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 07:34 PM
15

Or even "The future is equal/equality".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 04:46 PM
11

This is anecdotal, but someone told me that there was a male comedian who would donate to a female charity whenever he saw a man ask "when's IMD?" on IWD. So that seems to me like IMD is so poorly publicised that many men are unaware of it, but this person in the public eye would actually then give a sort of financial benefit to women's charities off the back of the fact that IMD is poorly publicised. That's a total mess on a whole number of levels if true. Edit: found him... https://inews.co.uk…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 12:10 PM
2

I was listening to an interview the other day where someone said something along the lines of "lived experience? We used to call that 'anecdotal evidence'". And it really hit me, that's where the double standard and circular logic really lies. You're right, anecdotal evidence isn't valid; it's unscientific, non-objective, it's not the truth it's only your truth. There's a specific type of activist that embraces the "lived experience", but dig deeper and you'll find this mindset is rooted in a be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/20 08:08 AM
3

Some of these new "words" don't even make sense as a shitty pun e.g. "mundermine"? Really? They just tagged an m onto the front to make it gendered? Clearly these people know nothing about linguistics. I gave up when I got to "femwork" (which actually just sounds like a 21st-century update of the misogynistic phrase "women's work" to me). Utter nonsense article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 08:49 AM
6

I agree with that. I'm not saying specifically gay issues should be ignored and not discussed - it'll come up and that's fine by me - I just don't want to be singled out any more than straight men are. Gay men and issues that affect gay men are just as valid here as straight men and issues that affect straight men. But I would call them all "men's issues", I don't need to qualify some as "gay men's issues". That is exactly what I mean by "singling out". I just want equal recognition, not special…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/20 09:57 PM
6

I don't disagree with that, but I don't think that's what this sub is for. This is for people advocating for men, I don't think sexual orientation should necessarily be a major part of that. I mean, yeah, it'll come up from time to time, but if I want to talk about issues specific to gay men, there are other subreddits for that (r/TrueGayMen for one - a sub I only recently found after being shouted out of LGBDroptheT by radfems).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/20 09:28 PM
5

As a gay man, I don't want the fact that I'm gay to have any bearing on the quality of the discussions here. I don't want people to pander to me because of my sexuality, or ask for my opinion "as a member of the LGBT community", or worse still, applaud me for offering a "gay perspective". As long as the subreddit doesn't take an intersectional, identity politics approach, and start regarding me as a "gay man" before regarding me as a "man", or start presenting issues as "gay men's issues" and no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/20 07:31 PM
1

I'd love to agree with this line of logic, but the presenters followed up with "water under the bridge, let's all move on" as though now that it is confirmed Heard was violent there's nothing more to discuss, no condolences for Depp at all really. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm genuinely interested.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 03:19 PM
2

The OC corrected her comment from "good" to "bad", as English is not her mother tongue. Turns out it was just a typo.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/20 08:36 PM
2

I hadn't thought of it that way tbh, and I prefer your reading really. I really just thought it was the show dodging the problem of having a female publicly pronounce such vicious things. But I guess someone had to read it out. My gut reaction initially was more that the show was trying to be more "palatable" by having a man say the words "I was hitting you". It's less incongruous within a gynocentric media.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/20 08:33 PM
7

Personally I found it creepy that they defaulted to have the aggressive statements vocalised by a man, and the defensive statements vocalised by a woman. It was like they didn't dare to have a woman say those words because it makes it too easy to imagine Heard herself say them (which since I think of it, why not just play the audio clip in the first place?). I also felt uneasy that the show's hosts were so quick to throw their hands up saying "anyway, water under the bridge, nobody's getting hur…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/02/20 04:25 AM
2

Cool, me too. I suspected your comment was misworded, as the contradiction was so clear. Thanks for clarifying!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 01:31 PM
3

I don't think criticizing "the left" in general is a good thing, even if you yourself are leftleaning I'm always surprised when I see people say things like this. It seems to me that the only way to improve the left-wing is to recognise its flaws and make people aware of them. Just as we want members of the right-wing to recognise when it is being misogynistic/racist/problematic/whatever and work to change those things, it seems hypocritical to not expect the same of those who are left-wing. I t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 01:12 PM
2

Absolutely not. I've been trying to explain to people for a long time, that that's a logical fallacy: criticism of X is not the same as an endorsement of Y.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/02/20 09:09 AM
3

P.s. Why would he need to criticise Trump: literally everybody on the left is already doing that all the time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/20 09:19 PM
3

I'm not familiar enough with his work to see these days and days of Biden-bashing of which you speak. And as I'm trying to explain, it might make him partisan, but it's not definitive proof of which party he supports: criticisms of the Left don't automatically put him on the Right. The Left should be self-critical. That's all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/20 09:12 PM
3

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that by not commenting on every horrendous thing Trump has done he's lacking in integrity? I'm not familiar with all of Pool's work, but it seems like his main agenda is to hold the Left to account, so it would make sense that he doesn't comment on the Right all that often. In fact, I think it's healthy for someone on the Left to be looking inward, as most of the time members of the Left are so obsessed with the atrocities to the Right that it fails to notic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/20 04:23 PM
1

I'm curious what a tavern is exactly, to a Canadian? In the UK, we'd understand that to be a pub: a place to get meals and alcoholic drinks, and to socialise. I actually think it's not unreasonable to allow women into such an establishment: they need to eat and drink and socialise too. But it's equally not unreasonable to have male-only pubs as long as female-only pubs can exist too. It's crossed my mind in the past that perhaps a female-only pub isn't a viable business model though. I've notice…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/20 04:17 PM
5

I've watched a handful of his videos, and he seems to be one of the very few earnest journalists out there prepared to discuss topics while putting his own partisan views to one side and kick things around in a relatively neutral manner. Tribalism has infected journalism, and he has managed to immunise himself from that. I see a lot comments (ITT and elsewhere) claiming he's right-wing because he criticises the far Left: if that's all it takes then call me Trump. But I've seen him criticise the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/20 10:42 AM
2

Religion, and specifically Christianity, is a different kettle of fish though. Like feminism, there are many types of Christian: Protestants, Catholics, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Latter-Day Saints... but they all pretty much recognise that a belief in Jesus Christ is something they have in common and they can be linguistically grouped under the umbrella term "Christianity", because it differentiates them from those who don't follow Jesus. Whereas feminism likes to pr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 10:26 PM
2

Oh, I don't disagree with any of that. My point was more that it's just seen as "normal" for there to be a lot of (non-industrial) female-only spaces but not so much for non-industrial male-only spaces. I don't think it's right, but that's the current zeitgeist because it was born out of a past zeitgeist. As for men's clubs, here in the UK we used to have what we call "Working Men's Clubs" or WMCs, which were like bars for working class men to go to after they had finished their shifts, notional…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 09:51 PM
2

I still regard myself as a feminist, but there are a lot more types of feminist than just the ones who are officially allowed in the core subs. I once would have called myself a feminist too, but I feel I've had to retire that label due to the kind of "internet feminism" that dominates the discussion. You're right, there are many types of feminist, but the core forums have declared themselves as an authority on what feminism stands for, and their definition just does not align with my views, in …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 09:23 PM
3

I think of it like this: historically men of all classes dominated industry, and that was the male-only space. (Lower class) Women did work, but it was often within the homes of the upper classes (as maids and housekeepers), or on farms (as milkmaids and so on) or as prostitutes. Women who didn't work (upper classes) would form crochet circles, book clubs and the like (aside: it's interesting to look up how women covertly taught each other to read via sewing patterns and then would meet to discu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 05:39 PM
11

My comment in r/MensLib got removed because I said something like "gender roles have a connection to biological differences between males and females" and the mods told me "biological absolutism" would not be tolerated there. It then dawned on me that debating on men's issues is utterly pointless if there isn't even a scientific consensus on what a man actually is. It's an explicitly feminist sub, and modern feminism is now actively denying science wherever necessary to suppot its rhetoric (huma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/20 09:55 AM
1

That does make sense, but universally considering all gay men to be "high-risk people" is what I take issue with. I refuse to accept that I present as much of a risk as a sex worker or someone who engages in drug-induced sexual activity. Plenty of homosexual and bisexual people have very responsible sexual behaviours, so to discriminate based solely on sexual orientation (rather than sexual behaviour) is a problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 11:07 AM
5

I think this stems from a bi-partisan mindset coupled with the myth that "if you support gender equality, you're a feminist". Feminism is popularly seen as a left-wing movement (spoiler: it isn't), so if you're not a feminist you must therefore be right-wing by that logic. It's a laughable dismissal of the nuance of an individual's political beliefs. For example, people can be racist but still support women's right to bodily autonomy, they can be in favour of LGBT rights and still be an anti-Sem…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 10:59 AM
4

I am a gay man who has benefitted from blood transfusions myself (ruptured stomach ulcer in my teens) and wanted to donate some blood by way of gratitude. I was so frustrated when I learned I was not permitted to donate. Twenty years later, I've never had an STI or STD. I'm in a sexually safe, monogamous long-term relationship, so there's probably less risk attached to my blood than that of a promiscuous heterosexual man. And yet I am still forbidden from contributing. When I think about it, it …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/01/20 12:07 AM
3

I don't see much difference between spending two hours doing stuff for your kids (like taking them to the doctor or whatever) and working at a job for 2 hours to make money that is spent on family needs. From the employee's perspective, no, there's not much difference in terms of workload. But from the perspective of the employer - the person paying - there is a world of difference. One activity results in value for the employer, and so they're prepared to pay for it, while the other is purely t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 09:09 AM
3

the costs of parenthood are disproportionately borne by women Do you mean the financial cost? I'd love to see a study on the proportion of a father's salary that gets spent on their children and/or partner vs the proportion of a mother's salary that gets spent on their children and/or partner. In the case of single mothers, I suspect they do pay significantly more (if not all) towards child-rearing than the father does. In fact I know women in exactly that situation. But I also know parents who …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 08:41 AM
2

Women weren't excluded, and men were labeled as nerds or outcasts for playing on the computer. This one of the of the things about feminism that pisses me off the most. This is actually a very good point I never considered before: only a couple of decades ago men were criticised, even bullied by both men and women for working in STEM, called nerds and geeks. In general, women didn't want to be part of that shunned group, and it was societally accepted as fact that STEM men weren't desirable to w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 11:01 PM
2

Haha, I get your point, but the article isn't talking about mothers, it's talking about women. I understand that there's more housework when there are children involved, but the proposition isn't taking into account the reproductive status of women. It doesn't say "sterile and childless women don't get this pay rise". I'm being facetious I know, but I don't see why I should be paid a lower hourly rate because I'm a childless man if my work has the same value to my employer as the work of a singl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:36 PM
10

No, and I appreciate that having kids would affect household chores exponentially. However, I don't see the relevance of that. This article is talking about women as a class, regardless of whether they have children. Kids are work, granted, but parents reap the rewards of that on an emotional level, not a monetary one. Are people saying they should be financially compensated for having children? And if so, why should that apply exclusively to women, when studies are now showing men are more invo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 01:21 PM
15

This article claims that women spend 4.5 hours every day doing unpaid household chores. That's completely baffling to me. I'm a man in a gay relationship and neither of us spend that much time doing housework, and we're not living in squalor. Who are these people who think it's normal/necessary to spend that much time on unpaid work? And why can't they swap their mangle for a washing machine?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 07:42 AM
10

Thank you for putting into words what I've always struggled to express! My issue with feminism isn't that I disagree with the notion that women are "oppressed" (using their definition of oppression). It's that the patriarchy theory only goes so far, but feminism calls it a complete explanation and then uses it as a stick to beat men (with the whole "it's men's fault we live in a patriarchy, so it's the responsibility of men to fix it" argument). The "kin corporate mode of production" theory as y…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 01:39 PM
5

I never heard of the "women are wonderful" effect, but having read the link you posted it makes a kind of sense to me. Thank you for all this info. Much food for thought here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/19 03:19 PM
1

Yes, I already agreed with that point. The point I'm making is that the culture has changed in recent decades, and without a complete overhaul of the economic model. This demonstrates that culture shifts independently of economic systems as well as interdependently. So jumping to overthrowing capitalism seems a bit drastic when the culture can still change even if we don't. That's all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/10/19 09:11 PM
1

I'm no expert on cancer, but it strikes me that if the measure of how harmful a cancer is is based exclusively on how likely it is to kill you, and the quality of life of those suffering from it (and their families) is not considered, that's a poor measure of harmfulness. In short, the claim that prostate cancer is less harmful because it kills fewer people completely ignores all effects and symptoms except death, which doesn't seem fair to me. That's a bit like saying having a stroke or heart a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 08:10 PM
2

Very well explained! I was a little baffled by the concept of a "male-leaning health model" tbh, as I just don't see it. In my country, the healthcare system is far more geared towards and utilised by women. Funding for breast cancer research dwarfs that of prostate cancer charities, more emotional support resources made far more accessible for women, and so on. Your point about the iron and calcium really helped clarify the use of the term "model". And now I'm wracking my brains to think of a m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 01:06 AM
10

Circumcision when it is not medically necessary. Of course it is occasionally necessary, but there's a prevailing narrative that circumcision is more hygienic and/or reduces the risk of STIs, which are simply myths and not good reasons for male genital mutilation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 10:59 AM
6

Yes, but you could equally argue that eliminating religion would be a start. Any major national shift like that would have some impact, but whether it would affect the overall narrative in any significant way is debatable. This is not an economic problem, but a cultural one. This is demonstrated by the study, showing that America has a narrative of men being expected to be breadwinners moreso than women (even by men themselves, interestingly). And even more interestingly, this is despite women's…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 10:03 PM
7

And switch to what exactly? What's the alternative? I don't think capitalism is the whole problem. Plenty of countries have capitalist economic systems, but it's only America (where this study was done) that has culturally embraced such a nihilistic, unadulterated, worship-the-dollar-as-a-god, use-financial-success-as-the-only-measure-of-a-person's-worth version of capitalism. There are some pretty egalitarian parts of the world operating under capitalism, but America has allowed itself to turn …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 08:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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