TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

palagoon Archive

View 3 posts and 77 comments by palagoon 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)
8

Meh. It's just a joke. Sometimes I wish EVERYONE would stop getting offended and disturbed at every little thing.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 02:45 PM
42

It is so awful that this is true. And yet it's MRAs that are trivializing rape, right?
/r/MensRights28/02/14 02:16 PM
4

I disagree with you, and here is why. I came to the MRM from a very feminist graduate department. For years I had the idea that men had all the power drilled into my head incessantly. The cover of the book should be shocking. It should attempt to destroy the idea that men are universally privileged and challenge ideas. Most people who see the book wont read the book. But these proposed pictures? I think an uninformed person would assume the book was satire or tongue in cheek if they saw MM on th…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 03:55 PM
2

I assume the woman's lawyer.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 08:10 AM
12

Not really surprised by the outcome, but I'm truly at a loss here. What are men supposed to do, always use a condom (even when there's no sex)? Freeze your sperm and get a vasectomy at 21?
/r/MensRights18/11/13 11:31 PM
2

You still don't have any support for these assertions. I just have her own words. I guess that's not good enough? The point is, she's fabricating danger in her own head and then painting herself as a victim of sexism or danger that wasn't present. The fact that she's so outraged essentially proves that she feels like a powerless victim. Feeling like a victim does not make you a victim. I'm starting to get the vibe that you came here to argue (you aren't OP). I'm not going to engage this line of …
/r/MensRights31/08/13 01:59 AM
-8

But you can't say women have in-group bias and men have out-group bias when men show in-group bias in other areas (the Communism example above). This isn't an example of in-group/out-group, it's an example of societal preference towards women. It's a subtle difference, and I'm not going to try to debate it anymore, but it is important to understand. Source: I have a degree in Social Psychology.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:53 PM
-6

Oh my goodness, yes men do have the same tendencies for in-group bias. Look at the anti-Communist sentiment throughout the Cold War... it was presented as "Us vs. Them" because that's how humans process information and sort ourselves into groups. Now, the tendency to assume women are devoid of agency and always innocent? That has nothing to do with in-group. If men are ALSO jumping into protect women, then clearly this isn't an in-group/out-group thing.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:39 PM
-4

yes, but women within our own group. In-group bias is not a strictly gendered phenomenon, and to characterize it as such is misleading. We all prefer people in our group to people outside of our group. We evolved to think women need protection and (to an extent) that they lack agency. Subtle but important difference.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:30 PM
11

Women and the Unequal Pay Myth Why men earn more, the startling truth behind the pay gap. The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap (article) also, I haven't looked, but /r/mensrightslinks might have something of interest.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:29 PM
-7

To be fair, we all have an in group bias. Evolutionarily speaking, women are predisposed to have slightly more of an in-group bias, but we all do it. I think this speaks more to the unspoken assumption that women have no agency. She couldn't have caused an accident, an accident must have happened to her. Hopefully she was forthright, cooperative, and generally a good person to OP.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:18 PM
7

What about that displays more agency than walking away? She had no reason to walk away. The guy wasn't rude, wasn't pushy, wasn't anything, but she construed it in her head that she was a victim and needed to flee. Only in the dystopia of the feminist mind could she be perceived as anything other than a hysterical, illogical, and sensationalist troll. When she runs away and writes a blog post like this, she's basically saying "I was so powerless I had to run away from the mean scary man-rapist!"…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:12 PM
12

I'm glad to answer this, but please understand one important point: These aren't even really situations In the first quoted example, she could have... uh, not reacted like she had just encountered a wild grizzly bear. Look at it from the guys' perspective: So there I was, hanging out with my friends, and these three girls were behind us. One was wearing a backwards baseball cap, which was unusual, but I kind of liked it. I kept looking back at them, trying to work up the courage to say something…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 09:17 PM
21

First off, welcome to Reddit and /r/MensRights, I don't want to speak for anyone else here but I hope you'll find this place to be one that encourages open discussion and mature discourse. Now, onto this actual article. It sensationalist garbage that sacrifices any valid kernel of a point in order to make itself more sensationalist. Two men in front of us turn around—three, four, five times before they say something. I comment back, and they see this as an opportunity. They ask if they can join …
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:31 PM
1

I guess we will have to disagree then. But you might want to evaluate your endgame... we need people who dont agree with us NOW to change their minds. When someone does change their mind, its not a good idea to call them a sociopath. I welcome all in roads to progress... even if she is still a feminist and donates to feminist causes, she agrees with me on THIS. The first domino has fallen, don't get pissy because the rest haven't fallen yet.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 02:16 PM
11

They still got the answer right in the end. Really, thats all that matters. Also, your analogy is a false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 11:07 PM
18

Allow me to enlighten you, then. Feminists claim they want to dismantle gender roles, but in order to get men to parrot their message they use phrases like "man up" which further reinforces the gender roles they claim to hate. So yeah, using "man up" to shame men into caring about trumped up feminist issues is a hallmark of modern feminism, regardless of what source it comes from.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:43 PM
29

I don't really care about how this woman came to see the problems with university rape policies -- I am contented with the fact that she realized it at all. Seriously, don't criticize individuals on how they came to see the light, just be glad some dominoes are starting to fall. We need more women and more self-described feminists to advocate for these issues.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:40 PM
90

Dear Cosmo, Why do YOU have to be the mainstream source to print something like this? I feel like this is a cruel joke played by someone... and is likely to be taken about as seriously as your sex and relationship "tips." But I guess any coverage is good coverage...
/r/MensRights19/07/13 12:39 PM
1

This is the best source I can come up with on a really short notice Basically, in order to disprove #2 we would need to prove that gender is actually biologically determined (with some social influences on the expression of that gender, to be sure)... and I think GWW does that in the above video (or you can read the transcript, whatever floats your boat). Gender is not socially constructed. How gender is expressed changes by society and culture, but 99% of people identifying as "male" or "female…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 06:59 AM
38

“What these posters are going to do, when people see them, is play into this myth that there’s a huge problem with false allegations, which we know empirically is wrong." I think it's the height of irony that a women's study professor who thinks false rape allegations don't happen wants to talk about empiricism.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 06:20 AM
4

I don't like to take this attitude, because I really try to argue to a point of mutual agreement, but I'm just going to stop here. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Go read some legal theory and/or some philosophy. You're advocating a very dangerous position: one that is at odds with commonly-accepted guidelines of human rights as well as the foundation of legal theory. In other words: you're being intentionally dense. You may have your heart in the right place, but you are mis…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:43 PM
5

But people aren't on trial because they're accused of being INNOCENT of something. The fact that they are on trial means that someone is accusing them of a crime. The only fair way to approach that is to assume the opposite (i.e. innocence) until the evidence proves otherwise beyond a shadow of a doubt. When we start putting people on trial for petting puppies and giving out free candy, we can start "assuming nothing" as a rule.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:25 PM
7

No. No. No. No. No. A million times no. You have a very misguided understanding of why "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is important. EVERYONE deserves a fair trial. EVERYONE. You ever heard the line "Justice is blind"? That's because when you start assuming things without the benefit of a legal setting, you get bias. And bias gets innocent people convicted, and guilty people exonerated. The only way to ensure that justice is meted out fairly is to assume nothing. Even in cases with overwhelming e…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:08 PM
9

Article 11 of the aforementioned Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. So, you're against the commonly accepted precepts of what constitutes "human rights." Thank you, the witness is dismissed.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 05:39 PM
2

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Your mileage with sociology may vary, but I've been blacklisted for having my opinions. I don't think I spew hateful things, I just want to be as unbiased as possible and get to the truth. The people that I'm around and the people that have authority in that environment are incredibly hostile to me. I'm glad your experience has been different, but I'm really jaded with Sociology. Patriarchal theory has no place in an empirical discussio…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:44 PM
1

Here's a link to a picture I posted on this sub about a month (ish) ago. I'm blue. Yellow is another student in the department. This is the general attitude that I get.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:11 PM
0

Am I looking into the future right now? Or am I only dreaming of a better place?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:51 PM
2

I'm a sociology grad student who thought I wanted to study gender. 1) I was told by a professor that experiments are unreliable. 2) When I brought up Myth of Male Power and the issues raised in the book, I was called a misogynist and a rape-apologist by someone about a semester or two from her PhD. 3) Our Sociological Theory course had a week just on radical feminists like Judith Butler, Pat Hill Collins, bell hooks, Mary Daly, etc. Keep in mind this wasn't a gender theory course, this was a Soc…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:31 PM
5

I'm a graduate student in Sociology (for now). I think they're trying to use Parsons to show that feminist theory is right and supported by some classical theory (though I think Parsons himself would probably disagree quite strongly). If you're studying gender in Sociology in the US, you might as well be taking Women's Studies.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:18 PM
5

It makes no sense. It uses bias and bad research to push a research agenda. That 1997 study cited in the second paragraph is a load of shit. Women are treated leniently by the courts because society doesn't want to think of women as anything other than innocent. If this theory held any merit, we would see women criminals being punished HARSHER. But we don't.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:55 PM
2

Ah, but if they can use Parsonian theory to advance this model of the Patriarchy and gender as a social construct, then it makes their feminist circlejerk look a little more legitimate.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:53 PM
3

As a Sociology grad student on the outs with my program (just trying to find a nice, soft landing spot before my funding runs out), I cannot tell you how tickled I am that all of this insanity is getting out. This is standard sociology. Standard. The people who fight against this bullshit? They're the radicals.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:43 PM
1

I've been laughing for two years. ...you're the first person to laugh with me.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:41 PM
2

Also, people tend to think of Psychology as a load of crap because Psychoanalysis was the dominant perspective for so long. Psychoanalysis makes me cringe... it suffers from the same biased perspective and unfalsifiability that gender research does.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:37 PM
3

Sociology grad student here: --Nope, gender ideologues posing as social scientists dismiss all the old research out of hand. It's weak science, apparently.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:34 PM
4

That's part of the problem. I'm sitting in classes reading feminist theory and none of it is making sense but everyone else seems to think it does... so I just sit there quietly assuming I'm incapable of learning anymore. I think it's purposely confusing and dense, so it leaves more up to the individual... you can make of it what you want. Which is, of course, exactly the problem.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:32 PM
2

Fractions are inherently racist. Check your derivative privilege, shitlord. /s
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:29 PM
3

It was less about which gender "won out" but more about the pressures surrounding them. If a society had access to food, and was free from the threat of invasion, they were less patriarchal, in general. This also extends to views on courting/sex and the family. When resources are limited, family structure is very rigid (Inuits, for an example). The Tahitians are the example Dr. Farrell uses to show this phenomenon: From the wikipedia page: Commerçon also described the practice of public sex,[10]…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:19 PM
3

I thought that way, too. I really did. I wish you luck.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:14 PM
2

I agree! Maybe my undergrad program was just awesome, but I felt like the faculty were really dedicated to the idea of Psychology as a hard science (which is actually interesting because the degree is a Bachelor of Arts, they're in the social science building, and they don't really care about that... it seems they're more interested in what they're teaching than how they're perceived). As an undergrad, I had: -A class on neuroscience and neurophysiology. We talked about brain structure and funct…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:14 PM
1

In my experience, Cultural Marxism is the thing now. In my theory class (again, we had a unit on radical feminism. In a Sociological theory course), we talked about functionalism for about 20 minutes ("Parsons is dumb, lolz, let's move on") and ignored Modernism. We spent a whole week just on Foucault, by contrast.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:59 PM
1

As /u/double-happiness said, 'your mileage may vary' depending on the program. After my falling-out in my first semester, one of the 5th year students pulled me aside and told me of a couple schools he knows that do experiments. Maybe I should have transferred, but I've really found I don't want to be in academia. Fighting this wave of pseudo-science activism is soul-sucking, and I don't know if it's worth it for me personally.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:57 PM
1

It does concern me that that kind of attitude gets you into a top-flight program though.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:53 PM
1

Huh... that's never been the case at the schools I've attended in the US. Generally you need to maintain a 3.0 to avoid losing scholarships, but I knew a couple guys that graduated with a sub-2.0 GPA. (D+ average, basically)
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:50 PM
3

I hope we can chuckle together at what they call science?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:49 PM
1

Absolutely. My undergraduate methods course was broken up into two semesters: The first semester we learned statistics and spent a solid 2-3 weeks just on confounding variables (after we had learned z-scores and t-tests and a little bit on ANOVA)... then the second semester we put that to practice with an experiment. We were graded on our ability to draw a good sample (I believe we had to have at least 60 people, if memory serves), and how well we controlled for confounding.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:49 PM
3

Here's the problem with gender research in Sociology: Instead of using data to reinforce and reify theory, feminist research uses theory to reify data. In other words, feminist theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy through rose-colored glasses.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:47 PM
3

That's the power of feminist propaganda. The book is very even-handed and I would say less critical of feminism specifically than Who Stole Feminism?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:45 PM
5

Well, obviously. That's some weak science. /s From my theory class (which had an entire section devoted to radical feminism...), I gathered the following: -In my program, at least, the wealth of knowledge about Psychology extends to about Freud and stops. Nothing on Behavioralism (which I really don't like, but deserves credit for pushing Psych towards the natural sciences), nothing on cognition, nothing on anything. To be clear, I don't expect other fields to have intimate knowledge of each oth…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:43 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:33 PM
1

I think qualitative research can be interesting. I also think case studies are interesting. I just don't think you can generalize either type of study to anyone other than the exact people you interviewed and/or studied.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:29 PM
1

Regression can be useful, I don't mean to deny that. My problem is that I've taken three graduate statistics courses, and they've all been entirely about regression. ANOVA was skipped, multi-factorial analysis was skipped, experimental design was obviously skipped. And, maybe I'm wrong about this, but it feels to me that if you are using someone else's data (like I said above, they all use big datasets that other researchers have collected), and using regression, it's nearly impossible to make c…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:27 PM
1

"I don't disdain you... as a matter of fact, I deign you."
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:17 PM
2

Which is actually kind of ironic... I've heard it's a feminist paradise down under with the legal system and stuff.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:42 AM
10

Sociology grad student here. You are correct. Sociology itself isn't the problem, but Sociology has been mostly subverted by feminist ideology... though that will vary by program.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:33 AM
0

I think they're cousins, but same difference. (I believe they say cousin in the documentary)
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:41 AM
4

D is one step above failing. There are two grading systems in the US that I've personally been exposed to, here's what they are: A: 100-90 OR 100-93 B: 89-80 OR 92-85 C: 79-70 OR 84-77 D: 69-60 OR 76-69 F: <60 OR <69 I've only seen the second one for a couple years in elementary school, but it's worth mentioning. I kind of like it more, because grade inflation is out of control as it is and the second is more restrictive.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:40 AM
20

Dr. Farrell tackles a wide range of topics, but he essentially provides a very salient counterpoint to feminist theories about masculinity. There's a pretty decent summary on the Wikipedia page: The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex (Simon and Schuster, 1st Ed., 1993; 2nd Ed., Berkely, 2000) is an internationally best-selling book by Warren Farrell. In the book, Farrell argues that the widespread perception of men having inordinate social and economic power is false, and that me…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:22 AM
19

Man, I would not stuck with a major if I got a D in the 101 class. But I guess that's just me. FWIW I had an AWESOME gender studies professor for my undergrad (I had a minor in Gender Studies with my BA in Psych). She divorced herself from radical feminism in the 80s and went her own way, and her classes were awesome. I actually contacted her recently after my "awakening" led to a lot of really nasty comments from my former "friends." Her response was typical: "If anyone thinks you hate women be…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:01 AM
14

I was sticking with the program because I had so much invested in it... moving across the country with my fiancee wasn't exactly easy. But at the same time, I was really unhappy... I didn't know how to answer feminist theory that I was reading because it was so contrary to what I knew from my Psychology days. So then when I read Myth, it all clicked and I didn't stop reading for about a week. For what it's worth, I think Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers is even better than Myth.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:16 AM
34

I was doing some research and a book called "The Myth of Male Power" caught my eye. Checked it out from the library, read it in about a day and a half, and never looked back.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 11:47 PM
2

Two students (one has now moved on to a top-flight program... my biggest fear is that she becomes the next Rebecca Watson), and a professor explicitly told me experiments were unreliable.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 11:08 PM
12

This unprecedented collapse of the American family led sociologist James S. Coleman to note in his Presidential Address to the American Sociological Association that the primary social organization of our society, the family, is transforming and it is up to sociologists to aid in the reconstruction of the next primary social unit, which will not be based on the family and related institutions such as religion. Because investing time and effort into research that might explain why the family was …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:50 PM
14

The vast majority of physics can't be proven True, but it can be thrown into question. Also, I was under the impression that Physics is grounded in math; math is pretty unbiased. And in the case of physicists who are on the cutting edge... like those who are testing to see if the universe is a complex computer simulation: they are still playing by the rules of empiricism. They aren't going to run out and claim anything unless they can prove it. Gender Feminism and Gender Sociology has been debun…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:36 PM
17

But there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that. THAT'S the problem. When you do experiments or any statistically-based study, people can critique your methods, they can give you legitimate reasons why your research is valid or invalid based on scientific principles. Qualitative work? No one ever sees my notes, no one ever sees my coding, no one ever sees anything. They just have to trust I'm being honest. I'll say it again: Qualitative research is bad science. Anything that can't be proven …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:23 PM
15

The host merely shows gender researchers parts of interviews he's conducted with psychologist Anna Campbell (Durham University) and biologist Simon Baron-Cohen (Cambridge University)... the gender researchers dismiss it out of hand as "weak science" and say it is not their job to listen to other perspectives (basically). It's pretty damning, it's near the end.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:10 PM
28

One of the big problems I have with qualitative research (and I say this having conducted two qualitative projects now): It is HIGHLY subjective. You might have 1000 pages of transcripts and notes, but MAYBE 1000-2000 words will ever make it into your final draft. I could tell basically any story I wanted with the data. Subjective science isn't science. Also, reporting her would have done no good. She was a tenured professor who had just finished a 5-year stint as department chair. What good do …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:07 PM
13

I did reply with more details on that particular story... but in part 1 of this very documentary we see two gender researchers completely discredit experiments and call them "weak science." Maybe not completely on the basis of the fact they were experiments, but they clearly have no regard for WHY experiments are the gold standard in the first place.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:03 PM
31

I know it's hard to believe. I promise you it is true. Let me give you the context. It was the first semester of my graduate career. I had come into this Sociology program with a BA in Psychology (which is, for all intents and purposes, a BS, as I did 2 solo experiments as an undergrad). I came to Sociology because they had a "Social Psychology" concentration that I thought appealed to me. Within the first month, we had to give a presentation about our research interests (I was in a class about …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:56 PM
23

Part 1 exquisitely eviscerates the social science perspective. The host seems to want to believe that gender is a social construct: he goes to great lengths to point out how society shapes male and female roles. When push comes to shove, however, he finds the social science perspective hypocritical and seriously questionable. This should be showed to everyone who doesn't understand what MRAs are complaining about. Academia is rife with idiots who deign to call themselves "Scientists" but who hav…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:07 PM
143

Current Grad Student in Sociology reporting in. Can confirm: Sociologists who work in gender are almost exclusively batshit insane like the two researchers in Norway. In the two years I've been in my program, I have been told: 1) Experiments are unreliable and not worth conducting (by a professor). 2) Gender is a social construct of the Patriarchy. 3) Anything that disagrees with 1 + 2 is weak science and easily discredited. Waking up to reality (as I did about two months ago) has made my life p…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:03 PM
5

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the party, but here's what strikes me about this article: The article starts off by talking about Miss Utah butchering a question (as beauty queens who are not required to know anything about politics or policy are wont to do when asked about politics or policy)... but that has absolutely nothing to do with what Miranda Kerr said. No, the author presented that story about Miss Utah because it automatically discredits whatever Kerr says. The narrative is literally "Wow,…
/r/TheRedPill25/06/13 04:11 PM
0

You wouldn't buy Fire Insurance after your house burned down. You wouldn't buy Flood Insurance after your living room was waist-deep with water. You probably shouldn't buy Health Insurance after you're already sick or injured.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:29 AM
14

Somewhat similar to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5kQbUl5_o (Drunk women don't want to pay cab fare, accuse cabbie of molesting them... but joke is on them when the cabbie is recording everything... I'm sure most have seen it by now) Apparently, for some women, potentially ruining a man's life is worth about as much as a cab fare.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:20 AM
0

I feel weird pointing this out, but: If we're going to be in agreement that "1 in 4 women are victims" is the result of shoddy statistics and misleading survey design, then I am going to be VERY skeptical of anything that says "1 in 6" of ANYONE are victims of sexual assault and abuse. I don't know these studies cited (under Myth #1), and it's 2am, so I don't care to read them right now, but I do wonder: How many of these studies actually asked boys/men "Do you identify as a victim?" Similar stu…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:12 AM
2

Good work. We don't need to go trumpeting urban legends, we have enough to be pissed about.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:43 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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