TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

spudmix Archive

View 0 posts and 697 comments by spudmix on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Yeah, that's definitely a fair critique.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 07:00 PM
-1

Thanks for answering the question.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 06:42 AM
0

Criticism of feminism as some kind of monolith is inherently unconstructive and not solutions-focused, which violates their rules. Go in there and make a comment about how some specific feminist missed the point with a certain chapter in their book, do so politely and with good reason, and I very much doubt your criticism would be removed. I'm not willing to get into a slapfight about this, but it's interesting that you think speaking "honestly" about feminism will certainly be moderated. Do you…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 02:39 AM
0

No, but perhaps if anyone else had asked.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/20 02:17 AM
0

MensLib isn't really changing, but the appetite for conspiracy theories about them is fading away and acknowledgement of what that sub has always been is growing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 10:37 PM
13

Bullshit you're not stereotyping lmao. Who's "they" who pouts and complains like spoiled children, again? Not a stereotype? The "actual, real problem" is multi-factored; commodification and virtualisation of our social networks, parasocial marketing and entertainment as proxy for human connection, men's liberation from gender roles lagging behind women's, a lack of funding and overall empathy towards men's mental health, all of which contribute to an epidemic of loneliness. These are real issues…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 11:25 PM
11

Stereotypical "incel" behaviour is an unreasonable reaction to a very real problem. I suggest the more valuable discussion is about the very real problem, not tossing agency and blame fruitlessly at people who are definitely not going to change because you decided to stereotype and shame them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 10:45 PM
7

Technically correct but missing the point IMO.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 10:02 PM
2

I do.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 12:50 AM
-3

I don't think there's any value in this sub holding referendums on the behaviour of other subreddits. Better if we stick to the issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 11:31 PM
2

There's a tonne of disagreement right there in that thread lmao. What are you on about?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 11:30 PM
9

I don't doubt this happens to some people, but I think we need better evidence if we're to conclude that it's a systemic issue. I strongly suggest that, to the extent that this does happen, it's part of the whole pursuer/pursued dynamic that's so prevalent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 10:52 PM
3

In no way is the celebration of the first ever female vice presidency "pointless female entitlement". In no way does that celebration take away from any other issue in any significant way. Why are you taking such completely unfounded potshots at feminists and "female entitlement"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 04:46 AM
7

What? Since when has celebrating one issue prevented people from making progress on others? Do you really think the average person celebrating the election results is going to neglect whatever impact they might have on the pandemic to do more celebrating of the VP? This is a completely imagined premise to justify feminist hate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/11/20 03:41 AM
1

Who the fucking what now, bud?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 04:00 AM
4

Thanks. I'm an AI researcher so it's only a little facetious.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 03:44 AM
7

On slide 7, the word "bias" should instead be "biased". On slide 8, the phrasing of the title should be either "has impacts on research" or just "impacts research". I think this is a good way to disseminate important information. I like that your wording avoids unnecessary aggravation or finger pointing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/20 02:29 AM
-4

It's part of reddit mate, they couldn't take it away if they wanted to. Blindfold off.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 11:52 PM
-2

You can literally check the mod list, pal. The information that you're wrong is right there, directly available to you, and all you need to do is take off the blindfold.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 10:41 PM
-7

Parents have a duty of care towards a child or potential child that overrides their financial autonomy, but not their bodily autonomy. That's all there is to it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 10:13 PM
-7

I can't count the number of people who decide to accuse TiTrC of being a Menslib mod, but it's amusing watching you get it wrong every time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/20 10:09 PM
1

You're projecting your own opinions of bad ideological research onto something you admit you didn't even read. This is a ridiculous take, go actually read the research before you start taking wild swings at straw-men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/20 03:31 AM
2

You're welcome! Feel free to disagree/chat/argue about it, I'm not the arbiter of equality lol.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/20 01:43 AM
9

I found this one to be a bit weaker than your usual offerings. I really liked many of your previous presentations, but this one betrays a bit of (what looks like) a shallow understanding of the issues. Nearly nobody argues for "equality of outcome" as presented here. The division normally lies either in whether arguments are made for formal equality of opportunity or substantive equality of opportunity - or secondarily, in the extent to which the former implies the latter, or the extent to which…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/20 01:36 AM
2

Harassment and abuse cause real, lasting emotional and mental harm, and it is not "I'm suffering from too much success and I don't like it". I am not interested in a "who has it worse" competition or invalidation of emotional and mental harm.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/20 03:27 AM
2

Your argument does not contest what I said unless you're trying to say that women's complaints about abuse and harassment are just as trivial as having too many sub-standard men contacting them. I'm not interested in a "who has it worse" competition.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/20 02:37 AM
1

The fact that this happens - and it does, yes - does not mean people get to make absolutist statements like "the answer is inevitably <shitty thing>". "I see people say <shitty thing> too often" - fine "I wish people wouldn't say <shitty thing>" - fine "The answer is inevitably <shitty thing>" - not fine, dishonest and overly emotive Language is important.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 10:34 PM
2

Absolutely, I think everyone benefits from breaking away from our current model. I don't really think there are unilaterally sexist issues; everything sexist is multifaceted and usually hurts everyone. I'm not arguing against any of this, I'm arguing specifically against this characterisation of the issues women as a group have with online dating.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 11:54 AM
1

But if men are underreporting what they would count as harassment. would that not skew the numbers as you understand them? It would, and I don't doubt it does, but without further data to explain how much the data is skewed then the best information we have is still just... the data. To think otherwise is too susceptible to confirmation bias.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 06:26 AM
7

I think you're right that pressure via sexual selection is probably the strongest pressure on men's behaviour. One thing that I also think needs to be addressed (and I get a bit of flak for this opinion) is the socialisation of unnecessary fear for women. I hope that we can both stop teaching women to fear victimisation beyond the extent to which it is reasonable, and also teach men to hold their own self-worth independent of the opinions of prospective sexual partners, we could make some headwa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 06:22 AM
2

Yep, absolutely :) I think the problem has a somewhat more significant impact on men, but certainly isn't unique to them. Strongly agree with your third paragraph.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 05:55 AM
-3

I'm well aware of the differences in perceptions of harassment, thank you. Your study is less specific and so I stand by my own (in that it's specifically about online dating) unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. It is perfectly consistent for men to be targets of online harassment more often than women, but for women to be the targets of online harassment on dating apps more often than men. So then give me a solid example of a system that is responsible for womens toxic expectations…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 04:04 AM
10

I think the main point is that men's "worth" is partially contingent on how much they get laid. Women's is the reverse, to a first approximation. If we can encourage ways for men to feel fulfilled and worthy outside of their ability to "win" sex, we break the desperation and lack of self-worth that causes many of these issues. Normalise physical contact between friends, especially male friends, to combat touch starvation. Normalise vulnerability and the building of support networks. Push back ag…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 02:43 AM
-6

Women are roughly twice as likely to experience threats of physical harm in online dating as men, among other disparate statistics of harassment. While men do experience these phenomena, it is dishonest to use that as a counterpoint without also recognising the gendered differences in that behaviour. It is also no excuse to say that women's behaviour is the cause of this behaviour in men. The answer to systemic behavioural issues is to shift blame from people to systems, not from people to other…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 02:05 AM
0

I don't disagree. Now how does any of that justify your reductionist characterisation of women's troubles in dating?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 01:33 AM
9

Or, you know, "I've been sexually harassed by strangers online multiple times". "Those men are too forward and trample my boundaries". "I'm regularly verbally attacked for rejecting someone". Yes, shallow women exist, but summarising women's complaints about online dating as "But those men don't meet my standards" is absurdly reductionist. Women do hold larger levels control over the dating process than men, especially as we continue to commodify and automate things, but let's not delude ourselv…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/08/20 12:36 AM
2

Not one feminist cares about mens issues. You can't seriously believe this?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/20 01:23 AM
2

Without knowing your sampling methodology your results are very challenging to draw any kind of meaning from. It's fine if that methodology is "I posted it in <XYZ> subs" or "I used <XYZ> public survey platform" but it does need to be known.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/20 05:29 AM
4

Remember to include information about your sampling methodology when sharing these results - it would be especially good if you could track how many samples came from which populations. Were most of these samples from this sub? From related subs? From a random sampling of Reddit? A random sampling of the general population? All of this is highly relevant to interpreting the results of your survey.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/20 05:01 AM
1

I think reducing racism to skin tone is probably a little reductionist. I can certainly see and empathise with why you would feel that way, especially if you feel you have been (or actually have been) "lambasted" for it. Concentrating on your own situation, though, may not be the best lense through which to analyse societal trends. Do you think there are trends of racism in your country?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/20 09:14 AM
1

Do you think that an aboriginal person in your position would have been subject to racism - perhaps in the form of suspicion, or undue attention from police, or lessened chances of promotion or hiring - that you would otherwise have been spared?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/20 05:44 AM
1

It does seem that you have some relative disadvantages on certain axes to aboriginal populations then, yes. Do you think that if you could somehow sum up all of your relative advantages and disadvantages compared to someone in your position who was instead aboriginal, you would be better off in the aggregate? Do you think this holds true for the average person in your country?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/20 05:04 AM
1

Have you been denied access to mental health resources, social security, or resources to fight isolation or ostracism specifically based on your race? I don't know where you live exactly but it would surprise me to learn of social programs that are racially provisioned. Affirmative action is not "help". It is not per se intended to get more people into education, nor to make education more accessible overall. Its strict purpose is to make educational attainment more proportional along racial/rel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 11:22 AM
1

Affirmative action has greater goods in mind than your particular education and that of the person you once knew, but yes - it is a blunt tool and could probably use improvement. That's also a minor portion of white privilege and the reactions to it, mind.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 10:13 AM
1

If you're a homeless white man, you would still likely be worse off being a homeless black man, ceteris paribus. If you're a wealthy black man, you would still likely be better off being a wealthy white man, ceteris paribus. White privilege does not say "the most advantaged black man is still less advantaged than the least advantaged white man" - that would be idiotic, and moreover would require a one-dimensional view of advantage/privilege.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 04:27 AM
1

They don't see it as in they're "normal" or "not advantaged"? In relative terms this is impossible. If we are speaking in relative terms - and we should be - then someone cannot be disadvantaged compared to you without you being advantaged compared to them. If you do not want to speak in relative terms then you need to propose some objective standard of "no advantage or disadvantage" and I guarantee you cannot.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 12:12 AM
1

“white people and are handed better circumstances” when in reality it’s "minorities have bad circumstances disproportionately” These are the same thing, are they not? Relative disadvantage to one is relative advantage to the other.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/06/20 01:01 AM
1

100% of all tax in NZ is not paid by men. Women pay almost exactly a third of personal income tax (based on mean income at current marginal rates). Properly worded, you mean that average net tax contributions are positive for men and negative for women, which I haven't checked, but that is very different to what you're actually saying.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/06/20 12:57 AM
4

Is this your submission statement? You've got a single sentence praising the other post then copy/paste info about a different topic...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/06/20 09:47 PM
2

We have not yet discovered if fully viable, fertile offspring are able to be reproduced by two fathers. I suggest it is probably at least theoretically possible - the latest results survived a few days, and I consider that to be 95% of the difficult stuff out of the way. Whether this technology becomes available to the public remains to be seen, even if it is possible. The price of CRISPR and related technologies continues to push the overall cost of "genetic programming" downwards, but the ethi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/06/20 03:03 AM
2

By definition no, embryos created via parthenogenesis contain maternal DNA only. There are two other forms: gynogenesis, where fertilisation occurs normally but male chromosomes are lost or destroyed resulting in a fully maternal chromosomal structure; and androgenesis which contain only paternal DNA. Androgenesis is the concept you're looking for. In the article, they do indicate hope for bipaternal offspring as well as bimaternal. "We saw that the defects in bimaternal mice can be eliminated a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/20 11:22 PM
8

This is a showcase on how not to advance the discourse and have valuable discussion. We can be so much better. Please don't do any of the above, except perhaps "parenthood paygap" where it is properly contextualised.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/20 11:02 PM
3

I think your rhetoric could really use some work if you hope to be persuasive. Consider basing your arguments not on your own (over)confidence in your correctness, but rather in how much confidence in those arguments you expect others to have.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/05/20 11:59 PM
2

Wat
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/20 12:03 PM
1

Mods don't see everything, nor is it possible to be perfectly consistent. The subject here is whether or not your comment had reason to be deleted. Are you still maintaining that it didn't?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/20 11:09 AM
1

You describe your own comment as indignant and low-effort, a clear violation of their rules. Are you still claiming to be confused as to why they removed it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/20 01:37 AM
2

I did read the OP, yes. Did you read the depth and quality of the other top-level comments in the thread expressing the same sentiment? Your comment was a clear outlier in terms of bitter tone and lack of effort. I remain unsurprised at the outcome.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/20 01:15 AM
2

Oh wow, aren't we a little misandrist? What will it take for feminists to change and not blame "men at large" for everything they perceive is wrong in society? You know, I'm not a mod over there, but I find myself totally unsurprised that content like this as a top level comment gets removed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/20 11:18 PM
14

I think the semi-obvious answer is the out-group homogeneity effect; groups tend to overgeneralise judgements about other out-groups. Everyone does this, and it has strong connections to other social biases (for example, emphasising the "monolith" factor of group attribution error).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/20 09:06 PM
1

Such a shame, I was really looking for your approval this time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 11:19 PM
-1

Hey bud, you're doing the thing again. You've been asked not to engage in the notification-bomb thing, haven't you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 11:05 PM
1

I direct you to this highly relevant comment
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 10:38 PM
-1

Address the argument at hand or pipe down, please. These vague attacks on my character are of no value to anyone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 03:48 AM
1

How then could one not question how women as a group feel about men? Highly heterogeneous groups do not "feel" anything in any meaningful sense. The only response to that question is "There are 3.5 billion women and any answer would mean nothing." The smart response to propaganda is critical thought, not giving up or shutting it off. Your last sentence is an incredibly sad thing to believe.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/20 03:46 AM
1

And how have you accounted for the human bias towards irrational categorisation while forming that opinion?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 09:16 PM
1

I don't know what you're trying to say, but if you think I'm defending myself here you're mistaken. The object of this conversation is clearly not me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 03:22 AM
3

Are you doing the same thing you're talking about?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 01:08 AM
1

Who's "they"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/05/20 12:25 AM
2

That's an odd way to take "whenever it happens".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 11:50 PM
2

Yeah, it's a strong and pervasive bias, and we're all subject to it. There will be people doing dumb, misinformed or miscalculated things everywhere. Humans gonna human.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 11:45 PM
0

Yes, I mean the presentation of your thoughts here. If you are surprised that a feminist might speak positively of men, then I am concerned you are absorbing most of your opinions on feminism from reading about them rather than talking to them, or otherwise interacting with the ideas they put forward. It is not IMO unfamiliar or surprising at all, except perhaps if Twitter and Reddit are your sources of information. If you are struggling with the idea that women-as-a-category might like whoever …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 11:37 PM
3

I'm critical of irrational categorisation whenever it happens. What's your point and how is it relevant?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 11:26 PM
0

Cool cool, glad to hear it. Apologies for making those assumptions then. I'm still concerned about the presentation here but I'll temper that a little.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 10:27 PM
8

I mean... women must like us for some reasons right? My dude, I think you have spent way too much time reading crap on the internet. It's not healthy to see the world as being organised into groups like "women" and "us", or to see the actions of one of seven billion individuals as having much relation to your expectations of that group. I can empathise with what you call "gender self esteem", and I think the best course of action is to attend some counselling or therapy sessions if you have the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 10:11 PM
1

Yeah, I'm happy to see this happening but I don't really understand, especially seeing as Serpentine still appears silent. I'll also admit to a touch of schadenfreude as folks turn from "free speech no censorship!" to "all our content so dumb and angry and that's bad".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 08:08 PM
-2

These are literal pants-on-head conspiracy theories and I can't find it in me to address this kindly, so I'll say only this: Toxic masculinity was being discussed before Emma Watson was born, nevermind famous and making speeches. MensLib are a totally boring, normal bunch of human beings who agree with 99% of your goals, and differ in their analysis and methods. Go read up on Men's Liberation movements in the 1970s. You are falling prey to some seriously fucked up thinking if you actually believ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 11:24 AM
0

Welcome to the sub, you must be new here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 10:58 AM
8

I understand and respect the arguments put forward here by the author, but I disagree. My major contention is with the idea that we should avoid working on one area of inequality because it is currently in tension with another area - expressed here as the concept that the disparate impact of childbirth and rearing on women should affect our decisions on conscription. This kind of "tit-for-tat" inequality, where the argument is that equality of a sort can be reached by a balance of inequalities, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/05/20 05:08 AM
1

I should make a compilation of all the times commenters in this sub have expressed surprise that ML hosts good content. Really makes you think, huh?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/05/20 03:45 AM
1

Don't editorialise post titles, please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/20 09:57 PM
-1

You guys make an absolute artform out of beating up strawmen.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/20 10:40 AM
-5

I still have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/05/20 12:20 AM
-6

That doesn't sound like science to me, nor anything about divisions of paid/unpaid labour. The hell are you on about?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 11:41 PM
-3

Lot of speculation and generalisation in this thread. Y'all need some science.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 10:17 PM
5

I like this post! Thanks for the effort you've put in. As a teacher, do you think that encouraging for example a more balanced presentation of scenarios in Topic 8 would be meaningful for those students who undertake this curriculum? Are you in a position to recommend changes to this curriculum?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/05/20 08:57 AM
1

Why does it have to be one or the other? You can't pretend its unilateral.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/20 09:29 AM
0

Effective, constructive advocacy is robust in the face of the inevitable opposition. When we look at effective advocacy and effective advocates, we see clear themes in behaviour; one of these is persistence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/20 02:56 AM
4

Fully agree, and further I believe this space should strive to reject that status quo and concentrate on promoting effective, constructive advocacy. The typical response to that in this sub has been less than stellar, though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/05/20 11:39 PM
1

I don't think most people are capable of correctly delineating constructive and destructive forms of anger, nor between justified and unjustified anger. I think this is multiplied when any group gets together and starts talking. In my executive role I have lead organisations through large issues of group anger at external parties, and I can confidently say that most people do not understand how to funnel and control anger in positive ways, and fewer who do have the tools to stand up and take tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 11:03 PM
2

The article linked does comment on parity in labour force participation as well. Even if it didn't, its a complicated puzzle and I have no issue with an op-ed concentrating on one facet.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 07:51 PM
5

I'm surprised you've not met this concept yet, but in LGBT+ circles it's quite common to advertise your preferred pronouns. The point is to avoid others having to ask you "How do you want me to refer to you?" in a community where a lot of folks don't go by the pronouns that might be assumed. It's not gloating or reinforcing anything, and I seriously struggle to see how it might be supremacist even under your assumptions...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 07:56 AM
5

Sorry if I'm misreading you, but I don't think anyone suggested all men are parasites on women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 05:23 AM
2

But it just feels like microaggressive airconditioner feminism especially during a global pandemic which is killing men at twice the rate of women. I don't understand what you mean by this. This phenomena hasn't suddenly been discovered in the last few months.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 05:18 AM
3

Respectfully, I don't think it's useless. If men are pushed by societal pressure out of the home and into work, and women are pushed out of the workplace to go be at home, that's still no good even if they both "work" the same amount. Tit-for-tat inequality is still inequality and still needs to be addressed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 05:04 AM
6

These figures come as no surprise to anyone who's familiar with the issues, but they're interesting and worth discussing nonetheless. In my opinion, there is no issue with specialisation occurring within any relationship, where one partner earns for example more money and the other does more housework - as long as that agreement is consensual and free of undue external pressure. It would be difficult but interesting to quantify and display the total effort spent supporting the relationship, incl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 04:59 AM
3

same height, but wider Not quite how distributions work, you're looking for "the male bell curve for intelligence peaks in the same place, but is wider than the female bell curve", or more properly that they share a single mean but male variance is larger.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 04:46 AM
0

Stoking the usual "feminists are the devil" outrage machine. Yawn.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/05/20 02:29 AM
3

I've been following discussions around this hypothesis since the first paper was published on it (reputable article by the same authors here). It's exciting to see a "new" cognitive distortion identified and I think gamma bias fits well, facially, with a lot of people's experiences. What I want to see next for this hypothesis is two things: 1) Proper rebuttals. I want to see what other psychologists disagree with about this hypothesis, so we're not taking some bald hypothesis at face value. 2) E…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 10:28 PM
2

Hey, can't say I didn't try and have an actual conversation. Have it your way I guess.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 05:49 AM
3

I don't think stating moral nihilism as an incontestable truth is all that smart. The alternatives are at least arguable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 05:43 AM
1

Are you describing men as having no resilience or strength, or are you stating that society does not perceive resilience and strength as valuable for men to have?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 04:57 AM
2

I agree that resilience and strength are, in moderation, positive injunctive norms on behaviour. I do not think those norms should be gendered. Men should strive to be resilient and strong only insofar as all people should strive to be resilient and strong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 03:54 AM
1

It does sound like you're talking about injunctive norms.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 03:31 AM
4

Are you asking about descriptive norms or injunctive norms? If you are talking about injunctive norms, which I think you are, then to the greatest extent possible there should be no norms for men specifically. Good behaviour should not be gendered. I like Farrel's ideal of "gender liberation" to support this. Feminism's largest recent successes, in my opinion, have been in the liberation of women from the pressures of the traditional female gender role. Men have not had the same magnitude of lib…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/04/20 02:34 AM
-6

What do you mean "become"? It's always been that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/20 06:00 AM
2

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2013.pdf, Exhibit 5–C Selected Maltreatment Types of Perpetrators by Sex. See the "Sexual Abuse" columns.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/20 05:10 AM
1

That's unfortunate. Are you talking about being overruled by upper moderation?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/20 04:17 AM
2

I used to hope this sub could, too. I've mostly given up. Nobody can put down their "righteous" anger for long enough to think about anything else - the comments in this thread are more than evidence enough.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/20 04:15 AM
1

If you're looking to provoke discussion on a particular topic, I think a text post is far more effective. No need to prime people with an image designed to provoke negative reactions, nor a title that has little to do with your stated topic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/20 01:33 AM
1

Ragebait, not worthy of discussion or acknowledgement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/04/20 01:24 AM
6

If any of what you're saying is true, then the police are already on their way. This is a problem for the authorities, not for Reddit. Posting on Reddit is not helping you, and I suggest you stop because at best you're going to get a tonne of people calling you a liar. Call CPS or your country's equivalent if the police do not assist with getting you food.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/20 12:49 AM
1

I'm really interested in seeing how this looks on paper, do you have links to the laws in question or employment data that supports your view? I don't doubt that you experience what you do, but the only employment data I can find does not agree with you on a large scale.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/04/20 08:50 PM
1

Formal equality of opportunity says "No laws against men being teachers" Substantive equality of opportunity says "Men should actually have the same opportunity to become teachers, and as such we need to address societal discrimination as well as de jure discrimination." Equality of outcome says "The lazy man who teaches 5 students in the same time as the average man teaches 30 should be paid the same", and nothing about the opportunities presented. This is one of those issues where someone prob…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/04/20 10:48 PM
5

Do this. Ignore ideology, concentrate on issues only. There is little to no value (and PLENTY of pointless bickering) to be had by framing issues as if there are "teams" on opposite "sides" of issues. Ignore ideology entirely, speak to issues and solutions, forget labels, forget blame and finger-pointing. Everyone would do so much better.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/04/20 09:31 PM
1

The real divide in my experience is between formal equality of opportunity and substantive equality of opportunity (or, alternatively, on the position which supports substantive equality). Actual support for "equality of outcome" is so low as to be irrelevant - a good analogue is the amount of people complaining about "socialists" in America vs. the amount of actual seize the means of production Socialists. Don't confuse violations of formal equality of opportunity in pursuit of substantive equa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/04/20 09:26 PM
4

Came here to ask about participation rates, but it looks like you've already covered it. Cheers.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/04/20 09:05 PM
1

If the poor white dude banked his entire life on securing a single spot as an astronaut he's well to blame for everything falling apart when he doesn't get it. It's entirely unrealistic to suggest that someone with all the prerequisites to become an astronaut and who has benefited from discriminatory advantage as required by your analogy will lose out on life by not becoming an astronaut. Perhaps you want to choose a more mundane or realistic profession? It seems that we both agree that a utilit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/04/20 07:23 AM
1

I disagree that we cannot address past discrimination in a constructive way and I think your objection to accelerated astronaut training camp fails on the assumption that attempts must be as zero-sum as denying the rightful recipient their place in order to promote those previously discriminated against. Even if it is a zero-sum problem, then in your example, your poor white dude applicant would only have succeeded without reparations because the truly rightful applicant (Erica) was held back du…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/20 10:06 PM
1

Yes, sadly it may be the best option. Are you aware of the terms "formal equality of opportunity" and "substantive equality of opportunity"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/20 06:39 AM
1

If we ignore gender now then we ignore the damage that has already been done due to discrimination on gender. It is insufficient to say "Welp bad luck on the whole sexism thing but we're doing formal equality now". Societal attitudes don't just change because the law changes. People harmed by discrimination don't magically become unharmed just because we are no longer discriminating.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/20 04:02 AM
1

I don't see how this addresses the real, current and ongoing effects on people of prior and present discrimination if we only prevent that discrimination in the future. This is my major point and is how public policy is currently implemented in most countries I'm aware of. Could you explain your solution to the ongoing effects of prior/present discrimination if your solution is "no future discrimination"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/04/20 02:28 AM
1

By substantive equality of opportunity I mean that the average person under reasonable circumstances will experience de facto equality of opportunity. This stands in contrast to formal equality of opportunity, which limits its concerns to that of law and rules; to de jure equality of opportunity. For example, in a town where men are strongly pressured away from teaching jobs by public ridicule, soft discrimination such as being passed over for promotions, and other such issues, but where there i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 11:11 PM
1

No.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 08:19 PM
1

We don't agree but I can see where you're coming from. Formal equality of opportunity is insufficient to achieve substantive equality of opportunity where there is existing discrimination. We can see this by, for example, the outcomes of women entrepreneurs receiving venture capital (pretty much on par with men) vs. the opportunities for women to receive venture capital (women receive VC at a significantly lower rate). Given the above, and your refusal to accept group-based identification of dis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 08:18 PM
1

Do you have any examples of this being the case? It is not obvious to me that the inability to pinpoint exact victims means that we cannot address victimisation of groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 09:28 AM
1

Its a plausibly hypothesis, but what reason do you have to believe this is actually the case?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 09:18 AM
4

I see no reason to value natural states over artificial ones, nor vice versa. I value happiness, which I believe occurs most when we have as close to equity as we can find.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 03:29 AM
1

That criticism exists does not mean we accept that criticism as convincing and the argument debunked. I acknowledge the criticism exists. I believe that formal equality of outcome is insufficient due to failing to address historical inequality, and therefore substantive equality of outcome is the next best option. You never made an argument about equitable outcomes. If we're not bothered with both civility and respect then I'll probably just bow out. Nothing good comes of these spats.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 03:27 AM
6

I absolutely do not believe in a blank slate, neither that we currently have nor that we could achieve one. That does not mean we shouldn't aim towards one. What do you mean by "unduly tampered with"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 02:55 AM
4

In the blank-slate case, no double standards are acceptable. In our current societies, some double standards are justified temporarily to correct for past and present differences in treatment. Hopefully not for much longer. For example, I think men should receive more praise for being emotionally vulnerable than women, because there currently exists a double standard in the opposite direction (men are shamed for vulnerability more than women) and it will take some time and effort displaying the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 02:41 AM
1

If you can't see how affirmative action can be a violation of formal equality in pursuit of substantive equality, I think you'd best read up on it. Perhaps it's just cultural, but telling someone their arguments are "fact-free" or asking them to employ "actual arguments" when they plainly would not characterise their own arguments that way comes across as scorn.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 02:37 AM
1

Okay, Americans either don't find formal violations of equality persuasive in pursuit of substantive equality when it comes to college admissions. I'll cede that. I'm relatively unconcerned with how persuasive the arguments are to Americans when it comes to college admissions. Back to our core point, though - do you agree that affirmative action can indeed be about the pursuit of substantive equality of outcome? I don't appreciate you starting up this whole "fact-free" and "actual arguments" bul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 02:12 AM
1

Temporary minor violations of formal equality in pursuit of substantive equality are quite persuasive as long as they are effective.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 01:32 AM
1

Quotas are a means toward equal opportunities, not an end.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 01:12 AM
1

The research isn't entirely convergent but there is a reasonable consensus that women entrepreneurs get less capital, that women in business are taken less seriously, that more "female"-coded entrepreneurship such as social enterprise are taken more seriously when women are the leaders, and so on. I think your view that women in Western societies are not held back is a bit myopic. The legal rights are mostly there, but the gender roles that discourage women in entrepreneurship (and men in teachi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/03/20 12:01 AM
1

Nobody doubts there are not "many factors at play" or that there aren't industries where comparative advantage differs from the mean across gender lines. Research consistently suggests that, in the aggregate, women are disadvantaged in entrepreneurship. One source, although there are hundreds The risk taken by tradespeople is miniscule, and while they sit within the fuzzy set of "entrepreneurs" they are not in my experience considered as such. I'm sorry if you think my tone was condescending and…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 09:35 PM
1

I do not suggest it is "unilateral" at all. Self employment is not necessarily entrepreneurship and your examples of painters and decorators display little to no entrepreneurship - tradespeople and contractors are not usually considered entrepreneurs. Your counterpoint seems to be based on mistaken assumptions and misunderstandings of the terms at hand. I also do not appreciate your condescension.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 08:30 PM
1

Affirmative action is about increasing opportunities for marginalised segments of society. A balancing of the scales for those to whom equal opportunity has been or is being denied. It is about equality of opportunity. I don't think any significant portion of people believe in equality of outcome; it may as well be a boogieman. A rhetorical trick designed to scare people into making dumb arguments.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 06:35 AM
1

Gender is not irrelevant to those who have been held back by mistreatment due to their gender. Equality of treatment fails to be equality of opportunity when people have already been affected by prior inequality of treatment.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 05:05 AM
0

Affirmative action is about equality of opportunity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 05:05 AM
0

Your question contains the assumption that I support equality of outcome over opportunity. That assumption is wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 03:40 AM
0

Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly, without the sarcasm, then.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 03:37 AM
-1

Nope. I have no idea how you managed to infer that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 02:48 AM
0

You seem to be suggesting that we ignore disadvantages at a population level. Why is that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 02:47 AM
2

Absolutely. Why not?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 12:12 AM
2

You don't seem to agree with my points, as you haven't addressed them. Can you tell me specifically why you don't?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/20 12:12 AM
-3

No, I disagree. It only requires that in the aggregate women are disadvantaged in entrepreneurship. It would be mindlessly stupid for whoever wrote that message to believe what you suggest they do, so I don't think it's likely that's what they mean. I have already addressed your concerns about removing negative discrimination and the ineffectiveness of that as the sole strategy in another comment, so I won't split us up by addressing it again here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 10:59 PM
-2

Removal of negative discrimination and temporary positive discrimination to address the momentum of that previous negative discrimination, yes. This is how it's already been done for decades. It is unfair to those currently held back by negative discrimination to say "too bad you got fucked by the system, and your kids get fucked too because you have less to pass on". Positive discrimination is partially negative, yes; it's often actually worse for those who receive it. The net utility is positi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 10:55 PM
2

I don't understand the point you're trying to make, sorry. You're concerned that more women will mean more of the wrong women?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 10:46 PM
-5

No, I disagree. When we support "the best or most qualified" then we lock out those women who have already been held back (or equivalently have not received the same push forwards). In the rowing upstream analogy, it is not sufficient to say "those who have rowed the furthest are the best and will receive support going forwards" when we know that women were given cracked oars. Addressing societal problems by instating pure equality - by handing out decent oars to everyone and taking away /u/spud…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 10:44 PM
1

As someone who's in the entrepreneurship space, and has watched my own success absolutely eclipse that of women who were smarter, worked harder, had more relevant skills - there is definitely still a "boy's club" culture to entrepreneurial networks. It's subtle, and it feels like my aggressive optimism being rewarded while women are considered "naive", or my own authoritative mode of speech being taken as reliable while women are considered "bossy", and many other examples. If this were just onc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 10:09 PM
1

Misogyny and misandry are the same thing CMV.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/03/20 09:50 PM
4

You're right that there's a point to be made on female-on-male rape being ignored, and also right about incarceration being a poor remedy to such issues, but even as a thought experiment this needs some cleaning up before it's convincing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/20 11:29 PM
2

Your numbers assume the rate of rape would not go down at all even after we put 100% of rapists in jail each year, and that rape in prison doesn't get further prosecutions, and 10 years at even your maximum incarceration rate of 3.3 million per year barely breaks 10% of the US population, not 30%, and on and on and on the errors go. Your point about not incarcerating people to try and solve societal issues isn't wrong, but your twisting of the numbers means this is not an effective argument at a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/20 09:42 PM
1

What measures other than providing information are you rejecting here? Scholarship funds etc.?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/20 06:39 PM
1

What if re-education was also show to have significant positive utility?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/03/20 02:23 AM
1

Your position seems to have changed from your post. At first, you said It does not matter if there is a gene that causes this difference or if parents from young age teach their daughters through "unconscious bias" that some things are not for them... And now you seem to say that it does matter - that we should care if we know the parents are teaching unconscious bias, but only where we can prove it's bias?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 10:23 PM
1

There is also always a call to replace intuition with analytical reasoning where we know intuition to be faulty. Intuition is fast, but error-prone, and I see no reason why we should be averse to retraining erroneous intuitive responses.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 08:02 PM
6

/r/GenderCritical don't strike me as a group we should really care about the opinions of.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 09:06 AM
1

This boils down to whether or not we consider pressures on someone's behaviour due to socially constructed gender to be negative. I do - because they are at minimum an imposition on one's liberty, if only in a soft way, and that's ignoring all the other real harm they cause. I agree with your points that we should accept someone's ability to exercise their self-determination, of course. I do not agree that we should accept arbitrary impositions on liberty. If a man is biologically pressured away…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 04:31 AM
1

How many ban evasions are you gonna pull before you get more serious consequences, I wonder?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/03/20 01:36 AM
1

If we see a statistically significant difference in men's vs. women's interest in a subject, and we know that it's not biological, then we should change something somewhere along the line. I agree with you that we should respect the choices of individuals, but if parents as a group are teaching daughters as a group to avoid engineering (or sons to avoid nursing/teaching, etc. etc.) then that's still an issue we should worry about. Free will isn't really free.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/20 11:45 PM
5

Agree. I generally think everyone needs to be more open about changing their own beliefs, but in this case I don't think "compile a list of studies that show sexism exists in the west and he will debunk them" shows much of a willingness to discuss rather than argue. I wouldn't be confident that any time spent addressing that particular attitude would be fruitful, either.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/03/20 11:19 PM
1

Pretty sure I've literally never posted there, so in keeping with the level of conversation: No u
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/20 12:18 AM
4

You've provided a one-sentence opinion and steadfastly refused to back it up, despite the stats being quite readily available. Can you see how this would appear to be low-effort to many? What do you hope to gain by "debating" whether women are a "majority"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/20 09:22 PM
0

"A summary of all content by the user formerly known as /u/blueorange22_"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/20 08:56 PM
1

Or, in other words, "let's get constantly diverted away from any resolution of our original points". If (and this is a very bold "if" at this point) we can consistently reach some kind of mutual understanding on our major points in this sub, I'll reconsider my stance on these segue conversations. As it stands I spend far too much time already on just those major points.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 08:03 PM
0

If you're still gonna argue that that's civil then we are just not gonna see eye to eye on this, sorry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 03:11 AM
1

"Kindly go fuck your civility" = civility now?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/20 02:06 AM
1

I've aired my own thoughts on this before, here, as well but in short - I also see no value in telling others how to speak. We can only take the high road ourselves. Criticism towards out-groups, and especially centering our focus here on criticising out-groups, just breeds mutual contempt and division.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 11:21 PM
1

I find no value in not taking the palatable interpretation, really. What do we learn from someone who says something dumb? Nothing. What do we learn from the palatable interpretation? Potentially quite a lot. I understand if this isn't the attitude others want to take, though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 10:32 PM
0

May I direct your attention here? I struggle to characterise this discussion as anything near "civil".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 10:30 PM
1

Are you sure there's not a single source? Because the poster above claims there's no source but it certainly looks like they're there to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 10:19 PM
2

Not something I really keep track of, sorry, nor the other way around. I'll think about it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 10:17 PM
1

I acknowledged the gender difference multiple times. Your example is not representative of "most women" or "most men", and even then you see over two hundred matches for the man. You are not proving the point that you're trying to make at all. I don't answer your "why do they go on so many dates" because it's based on a contestable premise - a loaded question that presumes that the average woman does, in fact, go on many dates and brag about it. If you want me to engage that you need to support …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 09:07 PM
3

Welp, can't argue with that. I'll take my own advice.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 08:55 PM
1

I provided numbers up above that directly dispute both your first argument, and also this latest "almost every swipe" and "70 matches in one day" nonsense. That's not "ignoring your argument" in the slightest, but it is clear you are ignoring mine. Either respond to my actual points or stop wasting my time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 04:30 AM
1

Tinder has a variable swipe limit around 100/12hrs for women, and women have about a 10% match rate. Presuming that a woman used up every swipe every day for a week (spoiler: this will almost never be the case) she won't even receive half of your "500+ matches per week" figure. Further, when I left Tinder I had 70 matches waiting for me, so I'm not exactly on board with your "Just own up to it. Make a tinder and test it out yourself." rudeness. These are some of the many reasons why I "invalidat…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 03:33 AM
1

I'm gonna be honest man, this whole tirade sounds like it's coming from someone who never talks to women. Have you had an honest, open conversation with any women about their experience dating and how they feel about it? Let's be a bit more humble about this whole thing and not argue about caricatures.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/20 12:54 AM
2

I think acknowledging the things you don't know is a really smart idea. Dunning-Kruger and all that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 11:51 PM
2

Seems you're aware of the research, in which case I wonder why you were asking me about it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 10:54 PM
2

The research is contested, but has previously favored minor differences in colour perception (women better) and spatial reasoning (men better). There is also contested research about brain structures, whether the larger relative size of men's brains means anything, and how they interact. The neurons I work with are digital though, so I shouldn't speak too strongly on the neuroscience side of things.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 10:32 PM
2

In my view, which I believe is backed up by the data, where there are any essential differences in cognition or behaviour they are minor and easily overcome by small corrections such as training. I don't subscribe to the idea that there are no essential differences (I don't know if there are), but I am fairly certain that whatever differences might exist are far, far smaller than social conditioning, environmental influences, etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 09:59 PM
2

It's important not to invalidate your feelings about the matter, but it is also important to recognise the extent to which they reflect reality. There's nothing wrong with feeling what you're feeling - you're not in charge of what your brain decides to feel to any great extent. It sounds like one of your concerns (and correct me if I'm wrong here, please) is that men really may be inferior to women, and through a removal of sexist systems we may discover that men have a diminished place in the w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 08:53 PM
2

I think thats more of a product of your anxiety than something to be worried about, to be honest. What's the worst that could reasonably happen?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 07:40 PM
2

Where in the article does it hint at such things? Or is this just a personal concern?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 07:27 PM
3

I think it definitely happened, and I think to a lesser extent it still happens today. I would hope that the loosening of our normative gender roles has meant that people are more likely to see women as inventors, creators, scientists - and also on the other side, to see men not constrained to those roles. We're on our way, but not there yet. I have experiences in upper management (and research backs this up) which lead me to believe that women still get shorted when they invent, create, or do s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 07:12 PM
1

Because this discussion is not about the underutilization of mental health resources, really. We are discussing whether Flood, the author of this piece, is employing internally inconsistent support for his points in section 4.1. The topic of discussion is "Do Salter and Rivers contradict one another in their respective papers", and hence our opinions (uncited and probably thoroughly undereducated, sorry) on the subjects of those papers is irrelevant. It is their relation to one another that we c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 06:45 PM
1

Thank you for understanding. I find it very difficult, especially in a setting where I get attacked as often as I do, to respond appropriately to comments which change in substance and tone after I've replied.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 06:38 PM
1

Talking about pointless anger is not saying that all anger is pointless.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 06:36 PM
3

You're welcome to, sure.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 06:30 PM
1

The bottom half of this comment outlines my views on this pretty well. Effective advocacy often does not have room for being the loud abrasive pariah. Excessive or inaccurate outward criticism, any confrontation, failure to properly assess facts, conspiratorial bents, focus on negativity, focus on trying to "beat" the opponent to "win" rather than reconcile and collaborate - these things kill advocacy movements. Feminism is a great example of an umbrella of movements who, in general, failed to c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 11:29 AM
1

I don't know if the fact that you did it again should concern me or whether it was tongue-in-cheek.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 11:12 AM
1

Thanks for the examples. I wouldn't stretch to "lies" about any of those but I can see how they're tenuous, or outright false under certain interpretations.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 11:07 AM
4

If I can offer some criticism of your approach, the way you respond may seem to some people to be pedantic and I honestly think you leaned a little towards contrarianism in choosing to ignore the generalising of MRAs in the article based on the principle of charity. I appreciate that, and I think you're right that my comments could be read as being overly positive towards the piece. I often don't find the patience to put the positive aspects of my thoughts into my comments, or see them as superf…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 10:37 AM
0

I'm not about to point out every academic misstep in the piece after I called the whole premise "dumb" already. Yes, their citing is poor. No, that's not uncommon in published work, regrettable as that is. Do you want me to also point out the various ways in which the author fails to support their own points, or the tenuous readings of source material? It's bad academic work. Most academic work I read is pretty bad, to be honest. I'm a bit surprised when I get a good Master's thesis to moderate …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 07:46 AM
2

I think there's certainly a stereotype of the male leader that leads to a bias - myself and a lot of my social circle are C-level executives, or similarly high-power individuals and there's a very strong preference towards tall, white, overconfident men dressed in business casual with a bit of a British tint to their accent and who display overly optimistic attitudes. The homogeneity of the group is actually a little shocking if you step back and think about it. My personal opinion on the subjec…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 07:32 AM
1

Have you noticed how much nobody cares about what /r/MensRights has to say? My "MO" is for this sub to avoid the same fate. That's it. Men's issues are important to me and "MRAs" have a terrible public reputation because they (we?) can't stop fucking complaining about feminists (and women in general, in the worst cases) long enough to actually achieve anything. You'll notice that I try and argue against other outrage-focused complaints here, too - it's just the sub has such a hard-on for complai…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 05:18 AM
0

You presume wrong, there are zero comments out of the eight posted that agree with the article. Further, this point makes no sense at all to me. Valid criticism in this sub ends up being toothless because you imagine MensLib said something else? What? Sit down and have a think about what causes you to make these mistaken assumptions, you'll be better off for it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 05:04 AM
-1

To your question first, I think the answer is probably two-fold: 1) They understand the term and mean what the they say by it, and in their eyes the complaints generally misunderstand and are therefore invalid. 2) Men's complaining, especially about "being offended" which is ultimately about their feelings, face significant societal pressure to be ignored and derided. Academics are not impervious to these pressures. With all that said I think in your description of feminists strawmanning things …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 04:51 AM
0

I think point four is an incomplete argument, yes. That said the contention that 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are internally inconsistent, which is what we're discussing here, is both incorrect and not relevant to the fact that they both support 4.1 If men reject a service, how can that service be considered to be appropriate? If men rejected every possible otherwise-appropriate health service for no reason, would we contend the problem was with the services or with the rejection? Note that I don't think thi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:46 AM
1

/u/mewacketergi accusing me once again of some kind of bad faith engagement? Shocking! I might cry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:39 AM
-1

Thanks, but your opinion on that (which I agree with, don't get me wrong) has no bearing on the subject of this discussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:38 AM
-4

The paper could be interpreted as generalising, but it does not explicitly generalise. The principle of charity dictates we do not choose the weaker option.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:33 AM
1

Can you please cite which lies you are referring to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:28 AM
2

...maybe, yes? I don't know what you're trying to add to the conversation, sorry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 03:03 AM
2

I'm well aware of the bias in academia. Known bias doesn't mean "false" or "to be discounted", it means "tread carefully". What's being asked of me here is to ignore citations when we don't like the source, and also infer citations where none are supplied when we do like the source. That is a massive confirmation bias and I will not subscribe to it. I would accept a peer-reviewed paper from a Catholic psychologist showing that as some kind of evidence, yes - we should not discount information be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 02:58 AM
-2

Neither do I see any explicit generalisations. Therefore, in the interests of the principle of charity, it makes far more sense to believe the author intended the sensible interpretation of their words and not the silly one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 02:51 AM
3

That's a fair concern. I'm aware of the documented bias against men's advocacy in academics (hell, I've been in the middle of it) but we can't let that make us sloppy in terms of what counter-arguments we accept.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 01:43 AM
1

I explicitly stated that the article doesn't do that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 01:07 AM
1

It's pretty rude to say something, have it countered, and then edit it out of your comment without noting so. I'm also not really interested in responding to the tu quoque you've got going.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 01:05 AM
1

That's not what the two points are claiming - the papers aren't in full agreement, but they both strongly indicate what the author is suggesting which is that health services don't fail to cater for men because they are oriented towards women. Both articles are also strongly in support of the hypothesis that men reject available health services, rather than those services being inappropriate - it's just that River goes on to then explore why that rejection happens (men apparently hate it when su…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 01:01 AM
-2

Surely you can see how you claiming that the post with no citations does have citations while the article that cites nearly every sentence is lacking in citation is not convincing? Especially when you fail to provide any of those missing citations yourself? I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it certainly looks like you just disagree with the article and agree with OP, and are therefore supporting whichever confirms your existing views.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 12:49 AM
2

Fair point. In that case I would hope there's some stronger motivation behind this that we're missing and not just "dunking on MRAs when they've said dumb stuff", but perhaps not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 12:45 AM
3

Eh, it's not peer-reviewed and we're missing the required context, so there's only so much you can expect. I've never heard of xyonline and the eventual result of any valid criticism here will probably be "Yeah they're dumb but they don't matter and nobody's quite sure why we looked there in the first place".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 12:27 AM
0

I think you're reading this in the wrong framing. The article is not saying "MRAs in general" or "All MRAs act like this", but rather "Certain claims have been made by MRAs (which I believe, I've read them), here's why those claims are wrong". It's a pretty dumb idea for a research piece to be honest, but every time you mention "generally MRAs" or talk about "the men's rights movement" as a monolith, you miss the point of the article. Finally, I won't go into each point as you've done here, but …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 12:18 AM
-1

I think they state their case too strongly - I wouldn't go with "These claims are false" as a lead-in. That said, their arguments are relatively sound and well-sourced. Their statements about gender norms being the primary concern instead of women or feminism are convincing, and while it would be better for it to be cited, the fact that certain men's groups blame women and feminism for their issues over and above societal causes isn't really debatable. I think they could have avoided the term "p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/20 12:06 AM
1

And it boils down to what, exactly? Assigning numbers to the relative difficulty of being rejected vs. being harassed and summing them up? Which people are we talking about when we say "dating is objectively harder for men" - middle-class white men/women in western anglophone countries? All men/women? How much does perceived vs. real oppression count, and how do we decide what is perceived vs. real? Any answer given will either be subjective, or contain so many assumptions as to be worthless. /u…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/20 11:50 PM
1

I say this seriously - you need to get off the internet and go get some therapy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/20 11:09 PM
4

I was disappointed to find that they misinterpreted the one actual example of a meta-analysis that favoured women as better leaders. They claim that "large meta-analyses have shown that there are either no differences or differences favoring women" - but the link to the study apparently showing differences favouring women explicitly states Our review has not considered the extent to which the sex differences in leadership style that we have documented might produce differences in the effectivene…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/20 10:12 PM
2

Look man, I'm trying to be gentle but besides being super obvious that really doesn't make any difference to this conversation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 09:40 PM
2

If you haven't done any research, your use of Occam's Razor to deduce that the UN and other groups are being sexist is mere assumption. You propositions are reasonable explanations, but are entirely without supporting evidence or attempts to falsify. You're not dumb enough to think you need the prime minister's phone number to get information from a national government...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 09:18 PM
2

Is that a "no"? I don't have Trudeau's number, sorry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 08:56 PM
2

Have you asked them or researched the issue?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 07:56 PM
2

Occam's Razor is abductive, and only defines plausible solutions - it does not mean we can discriminate between plausible solutions, only provide a preference for testing. If our competing hypotheses are "UN is sexist because of feminism" and "UN bows to pragmatism in emergencies", the razor is no good for informing us which is right. Have you researched the claim you're making? Even a query to the UN themselves would probably be fruitful.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 07:25 PM
2

No, I asked you how you knew that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 06:56 PM
2

How do you know that was the reason?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 06:47 PM
2

That's evidence of a decision, not of a decision made lightly. You may have once again identified an area where pragmatism overrides principle, which is acceptable in a war zone. Prima facie the decision is horridly sexist, of course, but I don't think either of us are aware of the basis on which that decision was made. If you have a citation for the research (or lack thereof) that lead to that decision then we can start thinking about value judgements, but until then...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 06:36 PM
2

Are you aware that there aren't, or are you presuming that there aren't? The UN typically does not take such decisions lightly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 09:33 AM
2

With the greatest cost comes the greatest necessity for evidence-based decision making. When there are human lives at stake, we absolutely need to have data on which decision is best. There are often no need for experiments - historical data is strong enough.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 09:05 AM
1

Your arguments are possible, but without support are just guesses - we can't believe that unless we see the data, preferably the data that caused this decision to be made in the first place. You also make the ancillary point about enforcing gender norms, which in the end comes down to whether you want to take a utilitarian stance on things. I think an emergency will always necessitate the most pragmatic response, regardless of principles.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 07:39 AM
1

None of your comments have any bearing on the actual argument at hand, so I'm ending my involvement in this. Pretending you can read people's minds because you don't like them is pathetic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 04:23 AM
0

Engage the argument, not a strawman built from your preconceptions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 03:33 AM
0

Of course I bloody would. What's wrong with you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 02:29 AM
-2

I'd need to see the data on the efficacy of such measures to have a proper opinion. In principle of course it's wrong to deny food to anyone based on their gender, but if giving it to women and not men is truly the best way of distributing food, then this is the last time to be valuing principles. If these strategies work as they are intended to, then that's just too bad and we should still be doing them. If they don't, then we shouldn't. Pragmatism takes precedence in an emergency.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/20 12:00 AM
1

I'd ask you to edit your top comment to add the correct info, but I guess nobody's reading this thread any more so it won't matter. I think the study accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish. It was never about women vs. men, and this whole thread seems to have started from misunderstanding that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 11:24 PM
3

I agree, one of my least favourite things in the whole world is the "oh boo hoo man the fuck up" responses that men get when they share frustration at these same issues. Meanwhile, suicide epidemic. That's not to discount the very real frustration I'm sure some marginalised folk feel when their conversations are taken over by the "when's international men's day?" crowd, but both groups need to do a lot more empathising and realising we're on the same side.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 11:23 PM
1

Sorry to pester you, but this conversation kind of petered out without resolution. Do you agree with my reading of the numbers?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 11:17 PM
2

I think that's all that needs to be said.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 09:13 AM
1

Doubt it. "Mainstream feminism" (to whatever extent it exists) has never and will never hear of this particular objectionable article. It is critical we do not mistake a lack of attention with tacit approval. It is far more likely the lack of attention is simply because almost nobody reads this shit in the first place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 09:07 AM
5

Mental health, and specifically the effects of loneliness and purposelessness on men. Our communities and social gatherings are slowly going away - church is dying, neighbours hardly talk in my country, our relationships are quickly becoming digitised and commoditised. All of these things have positive sides and are somewhat inevitable, but we haven't seen the local sports club being replaced with the local e-sports club, yet. There might be some vile behavior attributed to "incels", but they do…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 09:03 AM
3

I don't think we need to pay any attention to this kind of thing. I disagree with the author strongly, of course, but I don't think they're anyone of any consequence. Our attention is fuel on their fire.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/20 06:20 AM
9

Sounds to me like you shouldn't be doing that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 09:17 PM
16

Let's not use tearing down women as a tool for building up men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 09:02 PM
2

We only disagree on the extent to which they should have addressed the out-of-scope phenomena. That's subjective at best.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 10:47 AM
1

You're not saying anything different to me but you're phrasing it like you disagree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 10:44 AM
3

For studying their hypothesis within genders, not for studying other hypotheses between genders.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 03:02 AM
3

Male applicants were included to study the same phenomena as they intended to study for women, and they undertook the study with the explicit intention to choose fields which were likely to advantage female employment. The difference in male and female callback ratios is irrelevant, and nevertheless they did note it and provide comment/citations for possible causes. If your argument is "they should've paid more attention to phenomena irrelevant to their hypothesis" then we'll just agree to disag…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 02:57 AM
1

Lmao bud I'm not a radfem, but cheers for assuming shit about me I guess. Australian data is generally best found through the Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Your query is still way too vague to actually help with, so I'll leave you with that. If you want to try something more specific than "police trends" it'll be easier to help.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/20 12:38 AM
2

I don't think that's really what p-hacking is, although I can see how the two might be related if you then conduct significance tests on that same data set to try and prove your newfound correlation. How do you figure that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 11:06 PM
3

Each study should be assessed on its own merits. Disregarding the product of a discipline because you don't trust it, or because they've been wrong in the past, is a genetic fallacy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 09:41 PM
2

Full-Time (calculated values in [square brackets]) Occupation pct n Count Accountant 16.72 1124 [ ≈ 188] Secretary 7.11 1321 [ ≈ 94] Total 11.53 [11.53] 2445 [2445] - Their numbers match up perfectly. I think you are reading the figures wrong. Edit: Typo Edit 2: Sorry for multiple edits - it must be pointed out that this in fact proves that they only sampled those two occupations, it is not just a refutation of your point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 09:16 PM
3

I agree, the discrepancy is worth looking at in its own research papers.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 08:40 PM
1

I can find no evidence that they applied to any other jobs than those two, and two sections plus a footnote (1 para 7, 4.3 para 2, footnote 16) which heavily imply that only those two occupations were sampled, including justification for that choice. It also fits the experimental design to sample female-coded jobs only. Similarly, when the data are filtered for reporting only those two occupations are reported. Please cite where you read the study as saying that they sampled "a ton of others" be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 08:06 PM
1

Are you arguing that a secretary or accounting role isn't considered "women's work", or that they picked jobs outside of those two which are not "women's work"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 07:55 PM
1

What are you actually asking for?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 07:06 PM
1

Much like the title of this post, these charts lack needed context; that all applications were for deliberately chosen "women's jobs". If I have some time today maybe we can think about a better presentation than a raw bar chart too.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 07:04 PM
2

You fail to mention the most pertinent and obvious piece of information; they deliberately picked jobs they thought would be the most female-friendly (accountant and secretary). It is not surprising that jobs typically coded as women's work are more likely to hire women. Did you miss this as you were reading or just not think it was important to mention?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 06:58 PM
1

You're dead right, hopefully people read this and realise that getting angry isn't the correct option.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 06:55 PM
4

Respectfully, no, that is not at all how science works. The finding of unexpected or novel results unrelated to your hypothesis is worthy of a note or "possible future work" reference at best. Producing a paper that shifts focus from your hypothesis to whatever interesting other facts you may discover is bad practice, would be a significant black mark against your academic credentials, and could even constitute a soft kind of fraud if you are operating under a specific research grant. If you wan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 06:46 PM
1

When have I called anyone an enemy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 06:18 PM
1

And I'll end by saying I think civility is a prerequisite for robust intellectual discussion, not a detriment.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 05:28 AM
1

I see great potential in the sub. I've watched the culture here evolve from the day it started; it needs the rough edges filed off, but it could be very worthwhile.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:46 AM
1

By quality in MensLib, I mean things like positive/collaborative discussion, minimal bickering, lack of whinging and pointless criticism, civility and assumptions of good faith, depth and intelligence of conversation, a culture of general neutral-to-upvoted comments rather than the antagonistic downvoting of contrary opinions, pragmatism, and other such things. Despite the censorship and my own views which are contrary in many ways to the typical flow over there, I feel free to disagree and to s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:40 AM
1

They certainly censor more than I would consider prudent. On the other hand, I've moderated online communities myself and I think the extent to which censorship is demonised is generally overstated. It's a balance point that each community has to decide, and I think there's a marked increase in the quality of conversations over there that speaks to some kind of benefit. If your major disagreement is simply where they put that balance point, I think that just becomes an impasse of opinions. It'd …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:15 AM
2

Are you exploring all the things that are both good and perceived as valuable? That's... a lot of stuff. Independence, charity, self-sustenance and actualisation, leadership, courage, self-control and "being the bigger man", brotherhood, physical ability, and on and on and on we could go. The set of actions overlaps heavily with "positive masculinity", and may even be synonymous in some people's eyes. I think the far more interesting question is the opposite: what things are good, but are also n…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 04:08 AM
1

It's interesting to see the parallels (except the criticism about censorship) between your opinion of MensLib and the same opinion coming right back from the other side.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 03:43 AM
1

I can see why you'd believe that, but regarding that post as "patently incorrect" is the product of finding the various attempts at debunking convincing. If one did not find those debunkings convincing, which is at least arguable, then it would not be correct to accuse the sub of promoting misinformation "amd [sic] refusing to correct it when it's brought to their attention" - which seems to imply a kind of knowing refusal to align their beliefs with reality. Do you think the MensLib mods are ac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 02:57 AM
3

I don't have time to scrub through comments at work, but this one's a good example: "MensLib mods are RadFems pretending to be men".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/03/20 01:04 AM
-6

Cool. Bye.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:32 PM
-2

Do you want to try accepting criticism just once without it becoming a "b-b-but the other guys!" session?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:26 PM
-3

Great feedback for this sub, too
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/03/20 11:01 PM
4

Don't post outrage porn.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/20 10:17 PM
1

Its a balance, and the balance here falls far on the "too much volume too low quality" side IMO. Warning people off the KKK doesn't help much if you're primarily known for hating the KKK.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/20 05:21 AM
0

Okay, there's our core misunderstanding: I don't care if you think the criticism is justified. I don't particularly care if the criticism is justified. I am not arguing that the criticism is wrong (although some of it here is outright lies, or gross exaggerations) - some of it is actually quite good criticism. Criticism is only useful when it is taken positively by the recipient, which for important matters usually means that the the recipient trusts the one delivering it. When the volume of cri…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 10:19 PM
2

Would I be accurate in surmising that your argument could be stated as "Yes, this sub criticises MensLib, but it is justified"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 09:56 PM
0

Tell me how you think this summary is inaccurate: Me: This sub devolves into in-group/out-group outrage You: MensLib are bad Me: How is that relevant? You: MensLib does bad things Me: How is that relevant? You: This sub needs to criticize those getting in the way of men's equality I'm honestly not trying to be a twat here, and I recognise your criticisms are more substantial than "bad", but I don't understand how any of this follows from the comment you responded to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 09:51 PM
1

I don't understand why you think criticism is relevant either.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 09:08 PM
1

Ingroup favoritism is not a preference for an objectively superior option. It is a flaw in your ability to assess objectively in the first place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 08:54 PM
11

Only a good idea if you stick to articles/media that have actual reach - things that have citations, large audiences or highly respected authors, that kind of thing. If this becomes a repository of shitty blog posts it'll just be more fuel for division.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 08:12 PM
0

...and how is that relevant to my saying "don't demonise out-groups"? Are you doing exactly the thing I'm warning against doing to prove a point?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 01:33 AM
0

Glad you agree that this is an echo chamber. I'm still waiting on that explanation of how "menslib is bad" is relevant to me saying "don't demonise out-groups" though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 01:03 AM
1

Us: Truthful, fact-based opposition to dishonest streaks in feminism Them: Subordinate to feminism, liars and manipulators of statistics in the face of obvious reality If you can't see the blatant ingroup favoritism you're applying then we have nothing more to talk about.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 10:00 PM
0

Of course there is calm, positive conversation to be had. I do not believe you are too stupid to make your points intelligently and without fuelling the echo chamber.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 08:58 PM
1

Oh, you've gone and done it again. There is absolutely no utility in you sitting here in your in-group leveling criticisms and encouraging "righteous" anger at an out-group. Your criticisms are ineffective towards feminism and menslib and whatever else, because you're complaining about them to people who already agree with you and who aren't the subjects of that criticism. Echo chamber 101. Maybe you want to add some more insults just to really make sure you achieve nothing?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 07:16 PM
1

The most charitable interpretation of your point I can find is a kind of "they did it first!" deflection of responsibility. I cannot otherwise see how what you've said is relevant to my comment at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 07:01 PM
-1

Not good enough. You deliberately identified the out-group in your post, the lack of individual identification means little. I'm not going to break down your whole post here but just the title: "<out-group member> WEAKLY DEFENDS the BANKRUPT CONCEPT of the patriarchy" is completely past the line. This is not an invitation to positively and intelligently discuss some concept. This reads as an invitation to once again sit in your echo chamber and trash people you disagree with. You can do so much …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 06:37 PM
1

You've just used a comment about this sub's habit of demonising out-groups as a cue for you to come in and start demonising out-groups.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/03/20 06:27 PM
7

This is a fantasy world you've created out of stereotypes. Even if this were all true (and trust me, there's only small grains of truth in some of your gross generalizations here), you would not be justified in presenting such a one-sided utopian view of things. What are you trying to achieve with this? Fostering division and outrage is what it looks like.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 08:00 PM
3

Discuss ideas, not people. Refuse to participate in in-group/out-group behaviors. If you feel righteous anger or superiority about someone else's behavior, you are probably in the wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 07:57 PM
0

I can see the argument for that side, although I disagree about it's strength. Thanks for keeping it civil.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 07:33 PM
0

I'm taking that as a statement that you won't be reassessing your opinions then, yes? I think I've made my position clear in that case.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 09:34 AM
1

Presuming I go through all this effort of researching, writing, refining and posting something worthy of being read, what do we get out of it? Are you just going to go "oh okay" and cede the one point? Are you going to argue or say "oh sure but MensLib still sucks"? Because presuming I even want to do this, if there's any chance this isn't a massive shift in your views it's not worth my time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 08:17 AM
0

Why am I the one doing this again?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 07:28 AM
0

If there's a particular piece of active legislation you don't like, I think a call to action around that might be appropriate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 07:22 AM
0

Condemning people isn't really a pragmatic solution to anything. Not gonna fly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 07:16 AM
1

They absolutely do allow that kind of discussion, but just like the rest of the sub it has to be positive and solutions focused.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 06:45 AM
1

Imagining motivations for people's actions is pretty poor form.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/03/20 04:48 AM
0

I'm taking that as a "no".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 11:07 PM
0

I'm not getting into who did what first, because we'll just disagree forever. I'm happy for this to be more pleasant but I need an actual commitment from you that you'll follow through, and not as a "You first then I will".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:45 PM
0

like you would be in MensLib This is entirely wrong lmao. you want some of that, start showing it Do you honestly promise to reciprocate? Because I'd be very happy for these conversations to be more positive and productive. At least some of the examples given were factual and substantial I never disputed that. In fact, I spelled that out quite explicitly. you can't put 2+2 together I understand exactly what you're trying to say. I can see why you've formed that opinion but I disagree. That isn't…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:39 PM
0

No thanks, this conversation is specifically about this sub's propensity to slander MensLib by way of example: literal bullshit conspiracies that get upvoted here. We're not shifting the goalposts to "MensLib's top 3 priorities are arguably in a different order than I'd prefer".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:01 PM
-1

You're right, good people don't. The average feminist is a good person. Pick your path to reconciling that, I guess.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:58 PM
1

It certainly seems to be, but if it's not it might explain the miscommunication issues. Perhaps this is an issue of academic writing vs. common vernacular, then? Are you familiar with literature in an academic context?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:07 PM
1

Absolutely not. It is clear to me exactly what the author means in this case. Is English your primary language?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:03 PM
0

Do you think the perspective this sub takes towards MensLib is fair and balanced?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:58 PM
0

That's an interesting opinion. I disagree, obviously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:55 PM
0

Are you pulling a no-true-scotsman "only the bad feminists are real feminists" right now? It certainly seems like you are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:55 PM
1

Of course. In this case it was blatantly clear to me what the writer meant, however, so I'm hesitant to agree they bear much responsibility.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:53 PM
0

Are you going to continue to accuse me of lying? I'm happy to continue this conversation but we must assume good faith. I'm out of time for "slapstick" as you call it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:12 PM
2

I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. I disagree about your assertion. When the atmosphere is full of hostility and confusion, everyone has a responsibility to put effort into clear communication.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:09 PM
0

We're not talking about metaphors or conceptual accuracy. The conspiracy bullshit literally had the word "literally" in it. The fact that people would believe that bullshit is the point here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:07 PM
2

I mean this kindly, even though it's not going to sound that way: you should step back and consider how this bias affects your thinking on all these kinds of issues. You made an extremely uncharitable assumption about an authors intent - one which, from an outside point of view, was obviously not the most parsimonious interpretation. What about all the outrage you've read that you didn't apply this level of thought to? How much of that was overblown, exaggerated, misinterpreted? I guarantee you …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:29 PM
0

Any point you might make on this is overshadowed by your generalisation. Criticise individual actions and ideas. Your condemnation of feminism as a monolith is ineffective and only fosters division. You do have a point. But you need to be way more specific, and especially so when you're surrounded by people who will agree with nearly any anti-feminist tirade without question.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:22 PM
0

Sorry, am I reading this right? You think 70% of this sub's content about MensLib are the "slanderous bits"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:15 PM
-1

This particular slapfight is very bad form, you're right. That said, after the response to my last long-form content here I'm not exactly excited about putting more cognitive load into explaining myself. People just want to tell me how evil feminists are. That's all this sub devolves into, every chance it gets. I have no interest in fostering conversations that turn into in-group/out-group outrage fests.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 06:50 PM
0

I've seen many of their faces, heard many of them speak, etc. etc.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 06:27 PM
1

I think you're mistaking my not quoting your content for my not responding to it, perhaps? I asked you to lay out your point, you did, and I responded to your conclusion. That's how these things work. I think my favourite concern for men comment is right here at the top of this thread. Perhaps you didn't read it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 06:25 PM
0

...no, it's not the MensLib mods haha. Nice try though. At least one sub that could not be described as feminist by any means. I can't take your doubt of my sincerely seriously considering my recent comment history here, and wouldn't be particarly concerned even if I did.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 11:02 AM
1

Did you, or did you not accuse me of committing the fallacy fallacy? And have you ever tried to drawing parallels between this behavior of yours and you being banned from these spaces? I know I criticize feminists a lot, but their decision to ban someone who only wants to talk about that's wrong with you is beginning to look understandable to me. I contribute plenty alongside the criticism, typically, but some places only want the positive bits without any of the negative. That's fine, and they'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:32 AM
-1

Restate your point, clearly and in simple terms, without reference to prior comments. These conversations often go off into tangent after diversion after rebuttal and counter-rebuttal - I don't want us wasting energy discussing different things. Your point about tone is noted. I came back to three confrontational notifications from you in a short period of time - you have a bit of a reputation among the moderators of multiple different subs now for displaying that particular unpleasant behaviour…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:27 AM
1

I said you committed it, not me. You accused me of the fallacy fallacy, yes? That requires that you commit a fallacy, and I use that to argue the negation to your conclusion. That's what the fallacy fallacy is - one fallacy committed, the fallacy fallacy committed in response. I want to know which fallacy you are arguing that you committed in the first instance, seeing as you rejected my assertion of the genetic fallacy. you must have some sort of weird policy mandating that you only discuss the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:19 AM
2

But I think that content does serve the purpose of demonstrating that many of these misandrist beliefs are prevalent and/or influential within feminism, affecting laws and so on. Honestly, I think it does you far more harm than good. From a (relatively) outside perspective, it doesn't look like you're exposing harsh truths about feminism. It looks like you're yet another outrage-centric angry men's group - and the actually useful criticism (which obviously exists) gets discarded alongside all th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:10 AM
2

I'm not trying to pin you to anything, I'm just sincerely very curious what fallacy you thought you'd committed. You claimed as much, unless you don't think the fallacy fallacy is what the dictionary says it is. I'd still like an answer to that. To your actual point, negative generalisations of anyone are destructive to discourse. Positive ones are generally benign. I hold all groups to that standard, but I already told you that, so I'm not sure what you're going on about with the double-standar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 10:02 AM
0

It'd be ad-hom if I was trying to counter your arguments by calling you illiterate. I wasn't. My request for clearer communication was purely and simply that; a request for clearer communication. Honestly I very much doubted we were going to see eye to eye on anything, considering the slapfight-level of our recent conversations. If you want me to, I'm happy to engage that point, but I need you to restate it in clear and simple terms first.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:56 AM
2

Hey, that was an honest and good-faith attempt at getting you to write more clearly. Seriously. That's not slander but I can understand how you might read it that way if you misinterpreted. The "outbursts" bit might be a little bit slanderous if you're not being as aggressive as you seem, perhaps.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:17 AM
-1

Could you answer the question please? I'm curious what fallacy you think you committed if you also say "no" to it being the genetic fallacy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:11 AM
0

I'm banned from multiple feminist subs for saying the exact same thing to them. I don't know who you think you're talking to but I suggest you take a moment to calm down and rethink your outbursts. My standards are fairly and evenly applied, to a very reasonable extent. As a side note (and I mean this seriously and with snark), do you think you could try putting a bit more thought into your grammar and word choice? The mistakes are actually pretty difficult to read around.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 09:03 AM
-1

No, it's the Fallacy fallacy, which you are commiting. Hang on, the fallacy fallacy requires that I conclude the negation of your conclusion because your argument was fallacious. Yet you claim I'm wrong to point out your genetic fallacy. Which fallacy did you commit if not the genetic fallacy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:57 AM
-1

Of course they're not. What good to shitty generalisations do?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:44 AM
-1

Does this even mean something? You keep making awfully-argued comments in a thread I care about, then want me not to respond to them. It means you're unpleasant and aggressive with your engagement style. Would be nice if you weren't. When a certain group almost exclusively uses this argument in this way, it does invalidate it. Genetic fallacy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:38 AM
1

Please don't lie.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:35 AM
0

Thank god.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:26 AM
1

Haven't you been warned about finding every opportunity to reply to someone's comments before? That is just another variation on the "various feminisms" argument, which is commonly used to shut down factual and legitimate criticisms. That an argument is used wrongly does not make the argument wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:25 AM
1

Not at all, I just disagree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:22 AM
2

I'm dumb as a brick, you're going to have to spell things out if you want me to actually engage.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:20 AM
-1

There is no monolithic "men's movement". Holding out-groups to behaviour standards is pointless and therefore stupid.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 08:19 AM
-1

Holding women to any kind of behaviour isn't really the prerogative of MensLib. There was also never had a policy (that I'm aware of) of discouraging discussion on that topic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:59 AM
1

I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Can you explain that logic for me, please?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:21 AM
1

A comment that was resoundingly downvoted and then deleted by the mods? Yeah, that's the prevailing attitude in the sub...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:11 AM
-2

I am aware of undeniable evidence of the true identities of many of the MensLib mods. They are definitely not pretending to be anything and the ones who say they're men are definitely men. The conspiracy theories are good comedy value though, if a bit sad.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 07:07 AM
1

I'm much the same, hence my (partially) satirical flair here, but I acknowledge that not everyone has the same understanding of labels.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 04:02 AM
1

Do you actively search for and publically denounce the actions of people who fit your labels? If you do so, how many people do you think pay attention to that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 02:58 AM
1

No, I don't think a plain and reasonable reading of what I wrote implies that. Regardless, I'm sorry for the confusion if it did. I don't believe everything that this sub says is slander, only the slanderous bits.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 01:14 AM
1

I agree, I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned it and after reading a little, it seems like their arguments for opposing that specific joint custody have some kind of merit. With that said, the "probably haven't heard of the issues" bit was ancillary to the main point. Holding individuals at fault for actions of others within a huge, nebulous and highly heterogenous group they nominally belong to isn't reasonable. If you're concerned that someone supports something you disagree with, just ask…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 01:13 AM
0

Did I dismiss everything as slander?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 12:56 AM
1

I don't exactly think it was a good thing he did over here, and I wouldn't have done it myself That explicitly says it wasn't the moral high ground...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 12:18 AM
-1

I said "when they contradict each other", not "every feminist /u/SchalaZeal01 personally disagrees with is contradicted". The point of that sentence was not that I wanted to go scavenging around the internet for examples of contradictions that you'd dismiss off-hand anyway. The point was that "feminist leaders speak for you" doesn't make sense when they can and have contradicted each other. Your own example of TERFs are more than enough to make the point. The various groups within the vast, fuzz…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/20 12:15 AM
1

I can guarantee you they're not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 11:47 PM
1

All the feminist "leaders"? Even when they contradict each other? Even when you believe in a platform that they don't? Even when you disagree that a person is a leader at all? Even when you disagree with the concept of a single "feminism" or that anyone could be a "leader" in it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 10:00 PM
-5

You gonna tell me how the mods are "radfems pretending to be men"?. Maybe the userbase here can upvote that particular line of absolute bullshit again, or maybe even twice in one thread? """""Every bit of it is true"""""
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 09:40 PM
-4

I agree, feminists are very much not members of that group. There is no group.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 09:04 PM
-7

Given the way you lot rage and rant about /r/MensLib? Lol. I don't exactly think it was a good thing he did over here, and I wouldn't have done it myself, but I'm also utterly unsurprised. If I ran /r/MensLib and read the way you lot slander it, I'd certainly have trouble not thinking this sub is a completely lost cause.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 08:54 PM
8

Stereotyping hugely here, but yes; the left* has an empathy problem. Issues are approached as if cis/straight/white/male people are at 100% happiness/power/generic positive value, and therefore we do not need to address their concerns with any urgency - let's concentrate on anyone else. But of course, that's not the case. Throwing an arbitrary number at it, cis/straight/white/male folks are at 45% happiness/power/positive things and while there are definitely disadvantages that come with not bei…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 08:24 PM
1

Disability is listed as a single putative partial cause for the decline in employment. That in no way suggests that disability is mental, nor that mental disability is a cause (only that it might be), and the list given is plainly not exhaustive. Further, even if you leap to all three of those prior conclusions there is no suggestion that mental disability is the sole cause. I think you should apply the principle of charity to these things. I do not believe you're dumb enough to think that your …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 12:47 AM
2

I don't read it as saying that at all. Which part specifically are you referring to?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/03/20 12:17 AM
2

Impossibly vague questions. If I was forced to give an answer I'd very cautiously say "no" to all of them, however understand that I don't think there can be a meaningful answer to any of these without far more context and specificity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 10:09 PM
2

I've lost track of what you're actually trying to glean from this conversation, sorry. Could you restate it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 09:01 PM
2

Egalitarian is a better descriptor IMO but you can't just "replace" language like that, no matter how right it might be to do so. Given the above, there is no point discussing feminism. We should be more specific if we want to have any kind of intelligent discussion. If we're pulling the usual trick of gross over-generalisations to make ourselves feel like we're better than the out-group, though, then we should definitely carry on like we are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 07:33 PM
0

Talking about feminism as a monolith is invariably wrong. We should identify individuals or specific ideas to discuss, otherwise this is just the LWMA in-group talking about their favourite out-group and that will never be anything near reality.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 07:07 PM
1

I'm gonna be honest man, this sounds like something you should be talking out with a therapist. I feel for you, and I can empathise with the twinge of "ouch" when someone gracelessly generalises men, but I've also been actually depressed and that is a VERY different thing. If your interpretation of internet gender politics causes you depression, I strongly suggest therapy and also extracting yourself from this kind of environment. When dealing with people who say things that I disagree with, or …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 06:58 PM
3

Children are definitely an exception to the "usually a dumb idea" guideline.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 01:44 AM
5

Policies are usually a dumb idea, everyone's an individual and when it comes to something as personal as dating it's easy to assess each person as such. People don't fit neatly into boxes and labels.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/20 12:31 AM
2

Strictly I don't think that's exactly the same thing. The fallacy fallacy would be more like me making a mistake, and you subsequently inferring that my conclusion was wrong. I say "if cats are birds or reptiles they have claws, cats have claws and aren't birds, therefore cats are reptiles", you say "that's not a valid argument therefore cats are birds". The fallacy fallacy is still important to know about and look for, of course. What I'm trying to point out here is more like unfair hypercritic…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 10:26 PM
2

That's a very broad question. I support the vast majority of what egalitarians, feminists, and MRAs say they're for. I'm happy to answer more specific questions if you'd like.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 10:24 PM
3

Ah, I see what you're saying. I'll keep thinking about it, but you've got a good point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 10:09 PM
2

I like a lot of these, and I think maintaining a fair and balanced view of the world requires us to also maintain a critical view of our own beliefs. One way to do so is to ensure that we are aware of and attempt to detect when we fall prey to such biases. It's also critical not to get too caught up in lists and definitions of biases, though - and perhaps even more important than that not to try and apply them to someone's argument just because you disagree with them. I believe we should apply a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 09:56 PM
3

When you say the Peter Principle isn't true, what makes you believe that? It certainly seems true in my anecdotal experience, but that's obviously just anecdotes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/20 09:50 PM
0

I think we'll be fine, thank you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 09:25 PM
0

"If" women have more power or "if" they're committed? State your point clearly please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 08:44 PM
0

Sorry you feel that way. Thankfully I've never had that happen to any of my friends who are med students or are dating med students.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 05:18 AM
0

You'll have to be more specific, please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 05:04 AM
-1

Even if that were true (I don't think power can be simplified down to a "more" or "less"), you're painting with an awfully broad brush.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 04:54 AM
1

I like this idea, but I think it's generally better to consider both time and effort spent. Perhaps that's what you meant already, I'm not sure.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 12:16 AM
0

Not in my experience thankfully. I'm sorry your experience is that way inclined, sounds like a shit time tbh.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 12:11 AM
1

I object to it being relating to employment on the grounds that it may not substantially impact the family income, particularly when including the tuition costs. It is related to employment in a sense, but in the 10-year or even 15-year forecast may end may end up as productive as a pet project unless she truly commits to full time nursing. Ah, fair enough. In my country nursing is consistently on the skill shortage list and degrees in nursing are only really gained in order to take full-time nu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/03/20 12:10 AM
1

I'm not sure what you mean by "vocational" here, sorry. In my vernacular it just means "relating to work or employment", which a nursing degree certainly is (as opposed to studying art history for curiosity's sake, for example).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/02/20 11:11 PM
3

I do not agree that him enabling her schooling makes the relationship one-sided at all. If they're committed to their relationship then taking one partner out of work to study can be an investment in their shared future. If that's the case (highly likely, they're betrothed and she's studying nursing), then I don't believe she owes him anything. I could see the argument if she had quit her job to study something for fun or passion, or if it was clear she did this unilaterally without discussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/02/20 11:09 PM
2

I'll cautiously agree, with the caveat that two people committed to one another who see one partner's education as an investment in their shared future is a valid form of "paying it back".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/02/20 11:02 PM
10

Disagree. A partner's primary contribution to a relationship isn't the money they earn, but the time/effort they spend contributing. Consider a couple with a disabled child, for example, who requires 40 solid hours a week of care. If one partner works to provide income and the other works to care for the child, they are both contributing roughly equally. It would not be fair to then ask the carer to do a majority of the chores on top of their workload. The partner in your AITA link is studying f…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/02/20 09:41 PM
1

This is what I mean when I say this is a weak method of argumentation, it's just preaching to the choir. Hello, you must be new here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/02/20 07:03 PM
1

Link's 404ing for me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 08:01 PM
1

Heya, I spend most of my work and leisure time dealing with this and adjacent issues - either through my research at conferences on AI and the future of work, or in my role as a CEO and tech lead for a company that automates businesses. One of the most critical things to remember about this topic is that the "automation and AI revolution" isn't sitting a few years around the corner, nor did it start a few years ago - we've been living it for decades now. If you want to know what a workforce hitt…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/02/20 07:54 PM
0

If you're an academic who changes their terminology every time someone disagrees, you waste tonnes of time debating terminology and your previous work becomes unintelligible (or, at least, prone to misinterpretation itself). MensLib are not doctors. They do not refuse to use any term but toxic masculinity. They do draw heavily on academic influence. It is not the case that they are looking at an issue with an obvious answer and disregarding it. They are looking at an issue with two possibilities…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 07:32 PM
1

And they simply disagree that they shouldn't be allowed to use the original definition. I don't know what about that you don't see.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 08:00 AM
1

Denigration is intentional. They plainly do not hold that intent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 07:37 AM
0

There's not a single valid point that I could make that you wouldn't immediately handwave away. This is not a discussion. You've convinced yourself that the mythopoetics were self-flaggelating because you have a bad opinion of people with no relation to them who happen to disagree on your personal choices of language. If you can't see the ridiculous bias you're bringing to this then nothing will help you. Don't bother replying, I'm not going to read it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 07:36 AM
1

Then they are not "choosing to denigrate their own subscribers". This rhetoric is ridiculous.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 07:22 AM
1

It's not intentionally designed that way, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Look up who invented the term. Saying "lead based paint" doesn't imply all paint hasead in it. I understand the confusion, truly, and I wouldn't be upset if the term changed at all, but the level of vitriol towards any group who chooses consistency in language in the face of confusion is way the fuck over the top. You can choose at any moment to just stop being angry about this and understand. It's that stupidly sim…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:29 AM
1

Sure. Go find the CEO of feminism and argue that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:19 AM
1

I work in a field where we suffer the exact same problem. It does us no good to continuously cater to the common definitions. There is a point at which having a static definition despite the misunderstandings is valuable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:05 AM
1

They don't. Jesus. You can't impose your own definitions on people then claim that the resulting perversions of their arguments were in fact their intention.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 06:01 AM
1

No. I'd argue MensLib is far more like an academic group than a medical one. It is not common for an academic group to change their language to suit every disagreement. There is value in language remaining static and well-defined, at minimum to avoid the time spent arguing over syntax.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 05:59 AM
1

It's just the sad reality of language. When a term is twisted beyond its original meaning, you either keep it (and deal with people interpretting it wrongly) or replace it (and then again when it's once again misinterpreted in two year's time, and again and again and again). There is value in language remaining static, and there is value in changing it. A group choosing to keep or discard their vernacular in face of broad misinterpretation is a complicated choice, and the fact that you personall…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 05:45 AM
0

MensLib are not doctors.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 02:10 AM
1

No, the people doing the disagreeing are criticism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 02:07 AM
1

You're more than welcome to use whatever language you want, but just because people disagree with you on reclaiming vs. replacing does not mean you get to demand they change their language to suit your opinions. Your reply seems to ignore the above point entirely.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 12:57 AM
1

It's literally not. You've had examples of those criticisms being visible and well-discussed already.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 12:47 AM
1

That sounds like a good idea. I feel like I'm misinterpreting you a little, but it's hard to say without reading what we're actually talking about.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 12:44 AM
1

When reading other's comments, you need to use their definitions. Toxic masculinity, by the academic definition (which I can nearly guarantee was the one being used), is not an individual's fault and is rarely used in the sense of a person doing things - it's something a society or culture does to a person. If your criticism acknowledges their definitions (which you absolutely should) then it's something of a non-sequitur. How is it victim blaming to tell a victim that their situation is because…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/02/20 12:16 AM
1

Masculinity is a set of characteristics associated with maleness and men, and those characteristics vary by culture and over time. Ergo, there are many masculinities. Do you claim that Japanese bushido-esque masculinity "belongs" to you? What about butch lesbian masculinity? Do you lay claim to both Victorian-era puritan masculinity and modern rave-drugs-party-with-sluts masculinity? Even if you want to say "yes" to all that I'm sure MensLib as a group don't really care if you find yourself at a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 11:39 PM
1

You made a strong claim attacking something, you were shown it was obviously false, and instead of apologising you try and turn actions by a group into indictments for inaction against that same group. I refuse to accept that anyone is "stubbornly sticking to" a term that I've shown you can and has been discussed, in depth, by those very same people. You're more than welcome to use whatever language you want, but just because people disagree with you on reclaiming vs. replacing does not mean you…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 11:00 PM
1

They disagree with you on whether or not to reclaim or replace a term that's become twisted far away from its original definition. Much like many specialist subjects, a vernacular is allowed to exist that differs from the common one. They choose reclaim, you choose replace. That's not anywhere near enough justification to say "they're clearly not a genuine sub for men's issues". Moreover, what's this about? they don't even allow people to speak about how toxic terminology is harmful to men I lit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 09:01 PM
1

In your view, what specifically is it that you think I could write that would be worth sharing?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 08:11 PM
1

I'm bowing out of this one because I can't connect the meaning of your replies to a good number of the comments. MensLib literally not being a different sub means they're not a sub for men's issue? We're not understanding each other here at all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 08:11 PM
1

"we're the best space for mentally handicapped people to talk about their issues, but we can only refer to them as retards. any attempt at nit picking and being a disruptive shit about it will get you banned" This is a total mischaracterisation. Try this: "We attempt to model a [nobody claims they're the best] positive and solutions-focussed discussion of mental health. We don't find utility in changing academic definitions to suit people who misinterpret them. You're welcome to use whatever lan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:49 PM
1

And? That's not a refusal to acknowledge something. Having a blanket ban on arguing semantics isn't a refusal to acknowledge that other people use terms differently. It might preclude people making positive arguments for the existence of separate vernaculars, but it isn't in itself a negation of those arguments. Did you perhaps mean to say that people like MensLib refuse to use the common definitions of the terms?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:31 PM
1

Thank you for engaging the way you have. I agree with what you've said and I'm going to continue to try and be better at communicating with folks here myself. I'll think about making a post, that might be a good idea.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:07 PM
3

The government isn't real.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 09:51 AM
1

Yet talking about male privilege isn't some oppression olympics BS? Sounds like one hell of a double standard that's holding women above men. Recognising and introspecting on those areas where men have privilege is a good thing for men to do. Holding women to any sort of standard is absolutely not a MensLib thing to do - it's pointless. I can show you dozens of posts on symmetrical subs for women's issues that talk about male privilege. Why the double standard? ...different people have different…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 09:47 AM
1

Having talked about it with many of them, I don't think any of them care particularly much which term people use. That said, I'm presuming they consider quibbling over semantics to be ineffective. Their rules specifically state "this isn't the place to debate terminology". If they want to say "we're using the formal definition and there's no point diluting good conversations with pointless nit-picking", I haven't got an issue with that. You'd get a much more authoritative answer if you politely …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 09:30 AM
1

That's my mistake, the other poster described themselves as being entitled to demand the changes in definitions and I hadn't realised you'd jumped in in their stead. I think reclaiming terminology that's used in a shitty way is a perfectly valid strategy. I certainly know in my own field we have to stubbornly cling to terms that the general public use wrong, as is the way with most academia. I don't think it's always the correct thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't argue if MensLib as a group d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:58 AM
1

People like those in menslib refuse to even acknowledge that this may be the case Do they really? I've never seen this. I've seen many of them attempt to correct the common parlance definitions, for sure. The common parlance definitions are rubbish. That's not a refusal to acknowledge that they're common.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:49 AM
1

I'm not gonna go complain to MensLib about how women are privileged because 1) oppression olympics and 2) that's fundamentally not what MensLib is about. Women do have some relative privilege over men, and vice-versa, but MensLib isn't the place to put a "women have it better!" post. Rethinking it as "let's push for paternity rights" or "let's push for lowering unfair prison sentences on men" is a far better way to address the issues. I'm also not going to go copy your post about privilege becau…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:45 AM
0

MensLib is a conversation you are welcome to join, not your doctor. They owe you no duty of care and are happy to dispose of your opinions if you try and demand changes to their behaviour because of your self-described entitlement. You are phrasing this as if you're right, they're wrong, and they're refusing to acquiesce. That argument holds no water when they disagree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:41 AM
0

I'm glad you don't want that. Would've been rather disappointing, so thank you for clarifying. I wouldn't give yourself too much credit on the Heard, though. There's a Slack for MensLib and discussions about the issue and a post on it were well underway before all the ruckus over here. LWMA might have provided a bit of impetus, but I don't know. They're largely unconcerned with what this lot think. I think "antagonistic" is probably a fair reading of my interactions here. I just wish I knew a mo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 07:05 AM
1

...you're not seriously suggesting you want a big, angry, lie-filled echo chamber, are you? Or is this just another opportunity to take a jab at another group you'd be better off ignoring?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:35 AM
1

I have minimal use for the discussion here. If you check my posting history you'll find the extent to which I get dogpiled and accused of bad faith behaviour the moment my opinion steps slightly out of line. MensLib is far from my favourite sub. I criticise the lies and exaggerations made here because I want this sub to be better, not because I want to "defend" anything. If I were interested in defending them I'd find a far larger audience elsewhere. I see potential here and I see it being squan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:34 AM
1

You'd prefer yet another echo chamber full of outrage and false accusations about other's behaviour? Seems pretty negative to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:31 AM
1

If you aren't open to using other people's definitions for their own terms, you're not going to get far in discussions. You can suggest they change but if they disagree then it's you choosing to be at an impasse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:29 AM
0

In the end, this debate comes down to whether you accuse people of lying about the way they use words, or not. You will not be convinced one way or another. I choose to apply the principle of charity and I do not see sufficient evidence that those who I know to be engaging in good faith are lying.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 06:27 AM
2

That doesn't seem to actually be a response to the content of the links I provided, and you hand-waved a third of the examples. It is wrong to claim that ML believes "women shall be held to lower ethical, moral and legal standards because they are less than men", whether through ignorance or malicious intent. It is wrong to claim ML believes "men are always more privileged no matter" when they outline intersectionality in their own sidebar. It's beyond ridiculous to claim the mods are women pret…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 02:29 AM
1

Is it "everyone" who misunderstands a term of art? I don't think so. The vernacular of MensLib seems relatively consistent, with little confusion - in part no doubt because they remove content which significantly misunderstands their terminology, as they may have done with you. That said, I do actually agree on your point about modifying language to suit your target audience, but only to an extent. MensLib is better viewed as a curated conversation you can join with an open mind than a group of …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 01:10 AM
1

Ah, my mistake. I was mistaken in my first comment, then. I'll note as such.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 12:50 AM
1

Can you link to the thread and your comments? It's hard to parse exactly what happened, but if you've interpreted "toxic masculinity" as being something a victim does then I think I can probably see why they removed them. I think perhaps you used a different definition of "toxic masculinity" than the accepted one and therefore your arguments wouldn't have made much sense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 12:30 AM
1

Is a thread that ran its course and was then locked "ya'lled"? I don't speak American. I was presuming that meant deleted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 12:21 AM
2

I'm at work and don't have time to scrub for content, but a few examples from one thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ezxgmi/men_cant_be_victims_of_domestic_violence_amber/fgqejqc/ [Edited, duplicated link before] https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ezxgmi/men_cant_be_victims_of_domestic_violence_amber/fgrwkm5/ [These prior two are outright lies lmao] https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ezxgmi/men_cant_be_victims_of_domestic_vio…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/20 12:19 AM
-1

Calm the fucking rhetoric down lmao. You've got one example that might be worth labeling "self-hating" from someone who wandered into the community and who had their comment locked to prevent escalation. It is absolutely not the norm. The rest might be uncomfortable conversations but they seem valuable to the posters that made them and certainly don't warrant being labeled "self hating incels".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 10:48 PM
-7

I presume you're trying to use these as evidence that some statements made here about MensLib are not gross exaggerations. But which actual statements are you trying to back up? You haven't said, these are just links to content.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 08:26 PM
-2

Edit: I misinterpreted "ya'lled" as meaning deleted, whoops. First paragraph doesn't apply. No lol. There's been two with 100+ comments (which, for a sub that concentrates on a low volume of high-effort threads, is about par). Any time anyone says anything about MensLib in this sub, it's worth checking it out for yourself. Most of what's said in this sub about MensLib is gross exaggeration.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 07:50 PM
1

I agree. Do you think those moderate spaces are more or less effective due to that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/20 08:27 AM
1

How about you just state your core point in simple terms, then. We're obviously not capable of communicating clearly otherwise.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 05:22 AM
1

Yes, I know what steelmanning is. I'm surprised you asked that when I already referred to it by another name up-thread. The whole thread's useful content could be summed up as "in-group/out-group biases exist", and sadly there are plenty of examples of that within the thread that lead me to believe that those next steps are not, in fact, obvious. Huh. That's totally not an non-sequitur, then. I'll believe in this skepticism when I see it, then. I'm banned from /r/askfeminism for telling them muc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 04:12 AM
2

I fit all three of the defining values. The topics here occasionally interest me. While I'm certainly very critical of many feminist actions and ideas, I am strongly invested in that criticism being fair, balanced, and pragmatic - many (most?) men's issues communities fall prey to being anti-feminist echo chambers which achieves nothing except fostering tribalism and outrage. That's why you'll mostly see me in here defending "feminist talking points". Let's take this thread as an example - there…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 03:42 AM
2

It's not hard. You obviously have something in mind that you think I'm refusing to engage with. I'm not asking you to defend a position on the issue, only to point out what you think I'm missing. If you're going to accuse me of bad behaviour then I think the minimum you can be expected to do is actually specify the incident you take issue with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 03:11 AM
1

I will, once again, invite you to state in specific terms what content you want me to engage with that you believe I've missed and I'll do my best to address it. We've had this conversation before and you did not. ​ Also, let me just remark how hurtful it is, that you continue describing my actions in terms that I don't accept. This is a fair point, and I'm sorry for doing so. I'm not perfect at modeling my own convictions. Do you understand the point I was trying to make?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 02:48 AM
0

I said there was no point describing other's actions in ways they wouldn't accept. You said that by that logic, my comment was pointless because you don't think I'm telling the truth. That's a complete non-sequitur. Honestly, man, this is not the first time you've started these comment chains which end in you accusing other people of all sorts of bad faith and dishonesty. They go nowhere, and you gave up last time after attacking me a thousand different ways. It's not going to go better until yo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 02:26 AM
-1

I don't know who you're talking about, and even if I did I don't think it would be particularly relevant. Describing people's actions in ways they would not accept being described is fruitless.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/20 02:16 AM
4

This seems like an easy way to foster miscommunication...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/20 09:37 PM
1

I don't think anyone posits that "all opinions expressed by men online are interchangeable", do they?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/01/20 07:35 PM
8

I don't have a particular line in terms of income or wealth inequality that I'd want to enforce. What I do believe in is a very strong safety net supported by moderate wealth redistribution (largely through progressive taxation), and that much of today's wealth and income is not earned by those who have it. In other words, I want a more fair division of wealth income with a high floor. I am not convinced on the need for (nor utility of) ceilings.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 11:30 PM
1

What particular phenomena in education, careers, and science are you calling a "decline in male achievement and competency"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 02:21 AM
2

No offense but I'd rather hear what the OP meant from the OP themselves, unless you have a reason to believe that outside of your own interpretation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/01/20 05:19 PM
4

Can you define your question with a little more depth please? Do you mean in education, in careers, in athletics or artistry or science or...?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/01/20 04:54 PM
0

It is always going to be simple to find extreme and unreasonable examples. It is critical that we engage other's arguments on their own terms, especially where we think they are mistaken (or worse, acting maliciously). With that in mind, I was deliberately quite precise with my previous question, and I'd like to know your answer please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 06:12 PM
2

If your contention is "an article on Medium is dumb" then that's cool, I just thought you might be trying to make a more substantive point. I'm not certain an anonymous account called "White Male Tears" that looks more like satire than anything is a good read on the opinions of the nebulous "they" you mention in your first reply. More importantly though, of the people using the term "toxic masculinity" in the thread you criticise, who do you think is using it in the "masculinity is toxic" way?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 08:32 AM
2

Care to actually respond?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 04:59 AM
2

I'm from a country where (over)consumption of meat is absolutely a harmful gendered expectation. Many men die from elevated iron levels causing cardiac disease. Is pressure to perform masculine behaviours to the detriment of your health not within the usual definition of toxic masculinity?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 04:49 AM
1

"Toxic masculinity" does not mean "masculinity/men are toxic". "Toxic masculinity" VERY MUCH means "society is stacked against men", in the form of pressure to be a financial provider, in terms of expectations of agency, in terms of enforced emotional blunting. I cannot find a single comment in that thread that uses the term "toxic masculinity" to mean that masculinity or men are per se toxic. If you insist on interpreting phrases by your own definitions when other people say them instead of wha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/01/20 12:06 AM
1

I think you'll find academic feminist language to be pretty much in line with itself at most times. Is your complaint that the general public are using the terms inconsistently?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 11:54 PM
1

Part of what problem? Every group or subject matter has their own jargon. Yes, ideally it wouldn't be so and we'd all agree on a universal common interpretation, but we're humans so we don't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/20 05:30 AM
5

I think it's better we engage a specific person or idea, rather than the general "people say XYZ". The terms and arguments you want to critique (especially emotional labour) have many different meanings depending on who you're talking to. I think we should identify a specific person, organisation, or argument that we want to think about, and make sure we're using their terms by their definitions. Alternatively, define your terms yourself but realise that most people aren't going to subscribe to …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/20 08:28 PM
9

While the gap here is certainly reason to look more closely, it isn't yet an indication that young men are economically disadvantaged. We need to ask more questions first. Are young men being significantly out-earned by young women? To what extent is that so, and to what extent does that disadvantage (I'm pretty sure there is one, by memory) impact the ability to buy a house? Are young men feeling pressure to "keep their options open", to avoid commitment, or to spend frivolously instead of savi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/01/20 10:48 PM
-1

Please don't claim you are trying to be as civil as you can when you are not in fact doing that. I do not believe that I have avoided addressing anything, and I certainly do not insist on doing so. This is, for perhaps the twentieth time, a false accusation about my intentions. You do not know my intentions and your attempts at deducing them have been wrong. Please stop doing that. If you have any particular points that throughout the various threads you think I've missed, I'm happy to respond t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 06:07 PM
-1

Do you, or do you not, claim that the quotes I presented in the previous comment were as civil as you could have been?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 11:48 AM
1

There are no policies about leave at my company. Employees are free to come, leave, work from home, whatever, as long as their work gets done. Part of what I meant by "lucky" was that the work we do (mostly cognitive, very little time-sensitive) allows such an arrangement. When an employee is going to be unavailable (i.e. they will not be getting work done for some period), they inform the company instead of asking permission, and we adjust to suit. Parental leave falls under this "tell, don't a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 11:08 AM
0

Mate. But you aren't here to listen or understand, are you? don't throw a hissy fit As if my estimate of the good faith of your arguments was already too high By your own admission, you are a pro-feminist, who excuses, minimizes and normalizes the various hypocrisies and abuses your object of propaganda perpetuates against men You come here to propagate the "various feminisms" lie to sound off their propaganda at us maybe you could stop behaving in ways that are indistinguishable from those of a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 10:52 AM
2

Cool, that's useful data thank you. The researcher's work unfortunately does not support the point you wanted to make - that there is a bias in favor of women - because he lumps in "unbiased" and muddies the results. This is a "no bias towards men" blog post. Luckily, despite this, the researcher did include their numbers which allowed me to filter out the unbiased results and draw the conclusion you wanted - if we trust this data then we should conclude academia pays more attention to anti-wome…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 10:27 AM
1

I'm a data scientist with seven years in academia, several degrees, and a vocation that causes me to interact with public opinion (which is strongly divorced from the truth in most cases). I will freely admit that I am very critical of anecdotes and have a clear preference for academic work, probably to a fault. I do recognise the propensity of academia towards its own biases and foregone conclusions, but in the end there is effectively no way to perform analysis or measure the bias of anecdotes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 10:18 AM
1

For my statements to be lies, I would need to believe otherwise and be dishonestly representing my views. Do you think I am actually lying to you, or would be willing to at least grant that I disagree with you in earnest?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 09:09 AM
-1

"Toxic masculinity" was created by the Mythopoetics, but I'll grant you that it's largely used by feminists and psychologists at the moment, sure. If you asked a feminist what they meant by "toxic masculinity", what do you believe they would tell you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 07:48 AM
-1

Okay. If you do find research that you think supports something I don't believe, I'd still like to see it. Thanks.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 07:02 AM
0

What do you want me to say? I'm not about to change my views on a population level by the way of anecdotes, and I am especially not going to do so when we introduce the enormous selection bias of reddit's content sorting algorithms. I thought it was obvious that I would agree that your examples of feminists behaving badly are... well... bad. I've spent the time, done research, and the best information I've thus far come up with is that people dislike feminists and feminists don't say they think …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 04:52 AM
-1

If you have better studies into the perception vs. reality of feminism and feminists, I'm all ears. I haven't found any.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 04:44 AM
1

Because I have seen no statistical evidence which might indicate that it is true, and because the best alternative I have is therefore my own experience which does not match that statement. You say I'm "downplaying" it and won't "admit" the issue, but both of these would imply that I secretly know it to be greater than I say it is, and am dishonestly pretending it is lesser. I am not being dishonest. Further, I believe that there is good evidence that people in general think feminists are angrie…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 04:03 AM
0

You're right, the way I phrased that sounded like an accusation. I can definitely do a better job representing myself. I sometimes get a bit defensive with the volume of accusations about my behaviour in this sub, which isn't ideal. For clarity, I think there's minimal utility in anyone who aligns with the various feminisms directing their attention at old powerful men. It won't work. I see the "ire" directed at young men as largely attempts at creating change, because us younger men will more l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 02:54 AM
1

Plenty of specific feminists are for prison abolition: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0032885519852091 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/26/we-need-to-abolish-prisons-to-disrupt-a-society-built-on-inequality This is an obvious example of feminists pushing for equal prison sentencing (i.e. none). Much like conscription, you will often miss your mark demanding particular arguments …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 02:11 AM
0

I'll take that as a "no" to civility and good faith discussion, then. Bit of a shame. Goodbye.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 01:09 AM
0

Are you applying a generalisation to me right now, or are you saying you know that I, personally, don't criticise positive generalisations in the same way?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/20 01:06 AM
0

No. I do not even believe "feminism" is a monolithic thing you can make statements about, so I'm not about to go chasing citations when you won't back up your own claims with more than "it's more the mentality of it all".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 11:56 PM
1

I'm a data scientist, if you think I believe I'm without bias you could not be more wrong. I did not imply the stereotype had no basis in fact and that was made clear by my last statement. Do you think you could try applying the principle of charity here? Many of these disagreements seem to stem from you reading me as saying things I'm not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 10:23 PM
1

I never said what you seem to think I said about jobs paying the same. That would be idiotic. I'm not going to construct an entire essay here, but in essence I believe it is simple to argue from an ethic of fairness (first principle) to the idea that individuals should not be subject to undue pressures on their behaviour based on immutable characteristics. The 78c pay gap, absent a full causal explanation from biology or something like that, is evidence that we might be. Ergo, I will say what I …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 06:56 PM
1

Find me someone seriously saying that, and preferably not some random idiot on twitter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 06:23 PM
2

Or perhaps I don't live in America, don't interact with the same feminists you do, and our experience differs. My statement before was not an attempt to invalidate you, it was simply an explanation of the lens through which I have experienced interactions with feminists. This: Then you either haven't met many feminists or (and I suspect this is closer to the mark) have a pro-feminist bias that blinds you to their bad behavior. is bullshit. I'm not going to call you a liar or accuse you of being …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 08:21 AM
-1

I have no attachment to any kind of traditional feminist argument nor do I care if you think I'm salvaging something - it is a simple fact that there exists a difference in average earning between the genders, and that adjusting for job type, experience etc. informs us on the issue but does not defuse the problem. Feminism could completely cease to exist and I would still argue this point from first principles. It's ethics, not ideology. Your attempt to dismiss me is uncalled for and is not cond…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 08:12 AM
2

Call it what you want, doesn't particularly matter to me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 04:34 AM
-1

I've met precisely zero people who live up to the "angry feminist" trope, and of the few who did direct their attention at young men those people also directed far more attention towards the government, Trump, etc. than they did at their peers. Many of them ran for local government, and a few made it in, which is about as much attention towards the top of the power structure as you can get IMO. If you're concerned that boomers are getting away with doing bad shit, and you think that's worth addr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 03:49 AM
-4

This isn't a simple answer, but from my impressions: 1) Older men typically aren't going to listen as much, and are going to die off sooner - the effort/reward ratio is much lower when trying to convince them to change. 2) Younger men have absolutely not "done nothing". You phrase this like young men are generally innocent, but that just isn't the case. Young men (and women, NB, everyone) still have plenty of room for improvement in how they treat others and themselves. 3) No feminists are perfe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 02:42 AM
-4

To put your contention in other words, there's a double standard in that younger men are held to higher standards than older men. I think that's true, and I also think that's overall a good thing; yes, it is unfair, but if we decide that we cannot make social progress because it's unfair then we will not make any social progress at all. It's like people arguing against student loan forgiveness because they already paid theirs off. I get the frustration but ultimately the utilitarian option is no…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/01/20 01:43 AM
0

What does toxic masculinity mean to you? Bearing in mind this author is a PhD psychologist, what do you think toxic masculinity means to him?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 06:37 PM
-1

I'm concerned that I didn't quite make myself clear - I think that unfair pressure from society explains a large portion of the "women earn 78c per dollar a man earns" pay gap, not this adjusted one. I am more concerned with men and women being pressured to work particular types of jobs due to their gender than I am with the remaining 2% after we correct for job type etc. The 2% still matters, but not as much as a parent giving Tonka trucks to their son instead of the kitchen set toys he wanted,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 06:34 PM
0

I try not to be evil, but I do have my doubts sometimes. I am absolutely in favour of this parental leave policy. My own experience is a very small sample, of course, but I've been part of companies as they've succeeded and I've been part of ones as they've fallen apart. Looking after your workers, ensuring they're happy and feel secure, making sure they feel like they're contributing to something more than the shareholder's wallets - these things are critically important. My company and I are i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 06:23 PM
7

Everyone already knows this. That does not mean we throw our hands up in the air and declare the issue solved. Some people think the gender pay gap only matters if it's big evil CEOs making conscious decisions to discriminate. That is false; the gap matters anyway. If men are pressured by society to take riskier, more unpleasant, more difficult jobs with longer hours and less paternity leave/holidays (and I believe they are), that is still an issue I want addressed. If men are shoe-horned from b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 04:31 AM
2

The author mentions #MeToo precisely once in the body of the article, the words "toxic masculinity" never (despite your quote marks?) and there is also no mention of harassment or girls at all. You accuse the author of "convictions" which prevent an open mind. Do you think you might be unfairly dismissing the author here, perhaps because you're reacting strongly to the mention of topics like toxic masculinity and #MeToo?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/20 01:27 AM
1

Fair enough, thanks for the answer
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 06:50 PM
1

I make no argument that there is any inherent difference in competency. You seem to be repeating what I've said but speaking like you're contradicting me somehow? Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 07:12 AM
1

Fascinating, thank you
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 06:47 AM
1

I actually wasn't aware of that at all, and I may have mispoken above if that's the case. Do you have any good links to info?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 06:12 AM
0

The ratio of incompetent women to women in tech seems to be lower than the ratio of incompetent men to men in tech, in my personal experience. I would guess that the women who go into technology are more likely to do so for the "right" reasons (passion for the subject matter), whereas I saw a lot of men who just floated into tech for no particular reason. Many of those men seemed to have entered technology because they liked video games. No disrespect there; I was certainly one of them for a whi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 06:10 AM
2

Tech CEO here: Absolutely. Whether or not the level of incompetence is higher or lower than other fields, I couldn't say.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 04:21 AM
1

Do you have any insights on why women just so happen to, as a group, not be interested in engineering jobs?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 04:16 AM
13

Bit of an editorialisation of the title there. I'd definitely peg the author of the original piece as a feminist herself. This is just TERFs vs. RadFems.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 03:54 AM
2

Where did you get the idea that it's forbidden? You can talk about it, but MensLib is a solution-focused sub about men. A bunch of men talking about women's behaviour is not solution focused and is at best tangentially about men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 12:50 AM
3

...no? Men's behaviour affects everyone, obviously. They talk about how men can be better for themselves and for others. That includes women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 12:09 AM
2

You keep focusing down to individual relationships where systemic bias is invisible. My wording was not as precise as it could have been in that prior comment - take "If one party" in your second quote to mean "If on average across society, one party [...]". Men-as-a-group and women-as-a-group are each incapable of consenting to a particular division of labour. We would not be having this discussion if there were not systemic biases to address.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/01/20 12:02 AM
3

I think society does indeed put an unfair expectation on men to be providers, and an unfair expectation for women to be provided for, among many other factors. We can certainly have a discussion about that too. That doesn't mean we should deride and ignore useful discussions about how we can address differences in effort in the home.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 11:50 PM
2

I agree with you that for any individual relationship, the statistics are meaningless and people should just do what makes them happiest, but if we take only that view then we blind ourselves to the unfair pressures which we place on ourselves as a society to act and live in certain ways. I disagree that we must address multiple inequalities at once. Yes, they should all be addressed, but it must be possible to have a discussion about one in isolation in order to most effectively create solution…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 11:43 PM
-1

It is not necessary for us to make a list of all the ways in which various inequalities may or may not "balance out" every time we want to address one of them. It is a statistical fact that women take on more of the load of managing the home, the family, relationships, etc. than men, and that is an inequality worth addressing. Being a group about men, it is not surprising that proposed solutions should also be about men's behaviour. Yes, men work longer hours and tend to provide more financially…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 11:00 PM
1

MensLib are nowhere near as dumb as this sub usually says they are.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 09:43 PM
1

Having used a strategy for centuries is not evidence that it is a fair or effective strategy. In fact, given historical context in this matter, I would probably argue the opposite. I do not think your theory about this being a conspiracy to pay women more is reasonable. All of the factors you mention as being unaccounted for trivially fall under the umbrella of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 07:20 PM
1

By my reading value is defined by skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. I think the fact that Canada has introduced this legislation is proof that they do not consider the market to be performing adequately.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 06:36 PM
1

Apologies, I read that as sarcasm and it sounds like it wasn't. My bad.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 04:58 AM
1

Free will is a statistically impossible explanation for the disparity. It simply cannot be the case. I didn't say anything about gender roles, only that it is pointless assigning individual blame to population samples of this size.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/01/20 03:24 AM
2

I'll push for male porn workers getting fair wages. Sounds good to me. I think that's an area where this legislation could (not will) fall flat. Supply and demand are not perfectly applied, and the idea that worker's wages closely follow ECON101 graphs in all cases with no bias is a bit silly. Wages are, in the end, a product of perceived value vs perceived cost and we as humans have plenty of leeway to interfere in unjust ways.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/20 04:25 AM
1

I don't think the argument makes that assumption - you'll note that I said that men feeling confident and safe is part of the solution. If it was argued that it was all in men's heads then yes, we would be ignoring actual sexism against men in the system.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 10:00 PM
2

Bit of a broad question haha. I'm a strong advocate for equality for all, but I tend not to take labels if I can help it. I strongly support pragmatic data-backed solutions for men's issues, primary among which I think are mental health issues including suicide. I think what feminists call "toxic masculinity" is a large part of this, especially where men are pressured to be self-reliant and to deny vulnerability. I think there is significant negative net utility to MRAs complaining about feminis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 09:53 PM
0

Saying "their standards are just too high" is dumb when talking about millions and millions of people, because it sounds like you're blaming them as individuals. When a group that large makes individual choices the outcomes are largely stochastic, and if we see a bimodal distribution from a single large population then that is the result of external pressure - culture, biology, regulation, whatever. The pressure is systemic, not individual. It is statistically impossible that 50% of the populati…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 08:40 PM
2

This doesn't say what you think it does. A female job "class" has nothing to do with female individuals, but is about the type of job being performed. There are many jobs of similar value that are not paid similarly, and typically those jobs that are thought of as "women's work" are underpaid compared to the effort or skill required. Think nurses, teachers, secretary and PA roles, roles involving emotional labour (by the proper definition). This act says basically that if a job brings similar va…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/20 08:18 PM
3

Posting complaints about other groups/subs/whatever with no relevant context or discussion is just useless rage-baiting. Do you think there's anyone here who supports people selling their husbands? If not, then all you achieve is pushing this sub further into the "But look at the bad things THE OTHER PEOPLE do!" arena where most men's rights groups already fester. Do better, please. We don't need this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/20 08:04 PM
1

I have a Master's and published research but I'm 90% business 10% academics these days.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/20 09:23 AM
1

I don't believe the purpose of the "men get custody when they ask" argument is to victim blame - yes, I'm sure some use it that way and they're wrong, fuck 'em. But the way that argument should be used is to correctly find the cause of the disparity. In much the same way as a good-faith interpretation of the wage gap arguments includes acknowledgement that women are not directly paid (much) less than men for the same job worked for the same hours, a proper reading of custody disparity arguments …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/01/20 06:51 PM
3

This argument makes some sense, but we shouldn't accept things on the basis of "it makes sense". We need empirical evidence to believe such assertions. Do you have studies to back up, for example, that women who struggle as hard as you say men do experience similar levels of success? I'm a male CEO and my colleagues and associates include many people in similar calibre roles. While I believe your explanation may be a part of the cause behind gender disparities in powerful positions, I do not bel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/01/20 06:39 PM
1

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Could you link me to a discussion you feel especially portrays the kind of issues you identify?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/12/19 10:49 AM
1

I honestly can't say that I believe that about /r/MensLib. Their own rules explicitly call out their willingness to disagree with feminism - as long as it's "RadFem A said B. I disagree because C" and not "Feminism suxxxx". My experience there does not match what you're describing. Would you be willing to point out the content or actions in that community that make you think what you do?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/12/19 10:44 AM
2

What sort of content/comments gave you that impression? I hear this kind of sentiment often enough but when I go looking for the cause I can't find it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/12/19 12:41 AM
2

While I respect your criticism of equality of opportunity, I don't think you manage to derail it such that it's no longer useful as a concept. I think it's critical that people really think about what "equality of opportunity" might mean on a long-term, structural sense - should we treat everyone the same? No. People are not identical and do not have identical pasts, so to have equal opportunity we must treat people differently. Our inability to come up with a perfect definition or set of answer…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/12/19 04:24 AM
1

You're right, I treat people like they're dumb more often than I should. It's not helpful and I'm working on it. With that said, I've restated myself in extremely specific, plain English twice now and I definitely think I've made more than a reasonable effort so that we don't suffer from further miscommunication. Do you want to actually answer the question?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 01:48 AM
1

No, you're still not grasping it, which is why I asked for reading comprehension. These two statements are not the same: A) Most relationships have the women abusing the man B) Most abuse occurs at the hands of women My contention is with statement A, because that is the claim made by the man quoted in the article. You appear to be trying to provide evidence for statement B. That has been my position from the start. Perhaps you are trying to parse my statement without the required context of the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 12:57 AM
1

I can link you studies showing men are more abused than women, not that will change anything here as you clearly set in the feminist talking point here. Reading comprehension, please. I do not dispute that women tend to abuse men more than vice-versa, but that has has nothing to do with the actual statistic we're discussing. Do you, or do you not, know of any study that states that the majority of men, including reasonable estimates for under-reporting, are in actively abusive relationships?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/12/19 12:30 AM
1

The thought experiment quite deliberately included the premise that we couldn't fix the unconscious discrimination. If that were the case, would you prefer a legislated solution, or no solution?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 11:53 PM
3

I think these are all fantastic ideas, and worthwhile causes to investigate. Since most of these issues have been addressed in various capacities and countries/areas before, what can we learn from those attempts in order to emulate their success, or avoid their failures? For example, on the issue of conscription, in the USA a court has recently ruled that male-only conscription is unconstitutional (hooray!), but the next steps in the process were not laid out to the best of my knowledge. How can…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 09:40 PM
1

The claim was that the majority of men are abused in relationships. The highest estimates for lifetime prevalence of abuse are still sub-majority, making it a statistical impossibility that the majority of men are in actively abusive relationships right now. This holds even if we hedge for under-reporting - still a near impossibility. Do you know of any study that states that the majority of men, including reasonable estimates for under-reporting, are in actively abusive relationships? If not th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 07:08 PM
1

What should be done, in your opinion, to level the playing field in that situation?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 07:00 PM
1

And try posting any sort of anti-feminist view no matter how sound or reasonable it is will be deleted and likely get you banned from the sub. I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you be totally shocked if all the men in abusive relationships with women came out tomorrow and said so. Unlikely. I'm aware of the best data we have on female-on-male abuse and it is nowhere near the "most" quoted by the article. More than many might assume, yes, but not even close to a majority.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 10:25 AM
1

I agree, but that shouldn't stop the thought experiment. If you prefer, substitute "to the maximum extent possible".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 08:37 AM
1

I can definitely get behind a push for a pro-environment common good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:25 AM
1

Yeah, I get it, I really do. I'm happy to say that if an MRA means I support equality, then I'm an MRA, but I'm really not one for labels in the first place so I'm unlikely to do so. The real point of contention, as before, seems to be how much we should care about what other people label us - you're welcome to call me an MRA and argue why it's accurate, but I would draw the line at you asking that I identify as an MRA in all circumstances, particularly as both MRA and Feminist are fairly charge…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:18 AM
1

I've got other commitments now, but thanks for the discussion. I like being able to talk these things out with people I disagree with without it erupting. I noted a few comments about my tone being dismissive etc., and I'll keep trying to work on that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:13 AM
1

I think there's some good ideas in there. I especially like the idea of identifying common goals - something in my experience leading people that works very well. I wonder what common goals we could focus on without fostering unhealthy nationalism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:07 AM
1

Because it can potentially sway public opinion enough to decrease the popularity of misandrist feminist ideas. Fair, although I'd still argue not an effective use of time or effort to attempt. You guys love to claim here that your censorship of that sub is relatively tame, but the MRAs here know from experience you run you ship about as tight as r/feminism. I'm not claiming the censorship doesn't exist, only that it's pragmatic. Your first topic is (I think?) on the blacklist for a history of ba…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:05 AM
1

Ideally not, it'll look like I put it there myself (or requested it) and that's a whole different kettle of fish. Make it say something like "/u/mtcapri called me an MRA" and that'd be accurate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 04:01 AM
1

How do you suppose we go about ensuring desegregation happens in a better way than the current strategy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 03:46 AM
1

Ah, no, you're right and I made a typo in that second to last comment, it should have read Sure, we obviously have significantly different levels of concern about that, then. My mistake, sorry for the confusion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 03:44 AM
1

I didn't understand (at that time) that you cared as much as you do.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:58 AM
1

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly specious and a defense used by virtually all feminists to defend feminism. You defend feminism—as a whole—by claiming there is no "whole" feminism. No, you misread me. This isn't a defense of anything except your time and efforts. You're pointing a rifle at a swarm of insects and I'm telling you there's no point firing. Tell me—how many lower-class, "hood" Black men or Hispanics do you know? I've never been to America. Zero. Our experiences unfortunately aren't g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:56 AM
1

Sure, we obviously have significant levels significantly different levels of concern about that, then. E: Typo
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:54 AM
0

I argue that affirmative action, among other things, has a drive to desegregate society. It isn't all about getting underprivileged folks into colleges (because you're right, it might be better to be means-tested rather than racial in that case) - there's a portion of it which addresses the inherent "clustering" that people tend to do when left alone. Distance breeds hatred, and societies cannot afford hatred, so some cost is imposed on citizens in order to reduce the distance between races - mu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:25 AM
1

Pretending that the unconscious discrimination is fixed and unbreakable for a moment, would you prefer a system with only that unconscious discrimination or one which also perfectly "levelled the playing field" with overt discrimination?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:23 AM
1

I understand, for sure, I think it's obvious we just have significantly different levels of concern over what labels strangers might mistakenly apply to us.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:14 AM
1

You're right, there's specifically a "no FGM/circumcision" rule spelled out. I'm not sure why, but there may well be a good reason for it, or there may not. Don't know. You're also probably right that claiming men have, on aggregate, less privilege than women wouldn't get far. That isn't what the poster above claimed, though; their query was whether MensLib was incapable of recognising any negative parts of feminism or not. The rules over there literally state that they don't agree with all of t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 02:02 AM
1

What you call "whinging for the sake of whinging," I have a feeling I would call, "holding feminism as a whole accountable for systemic misandrist patterns within it that feminists don't want to recognize." The central rift between Menslibbers and MRAs is that MRAs see a lot of misandry in feminism (too much sometimes) and Menslibbers see relatively little (too little most of the time, IMO, but I'm an MRA, so...). I disagree that there is even a "feminism as a whole" to hold accountable, nevermi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 01:55 AM
1

I don't understand how that answers the previous question, sorry. Obviously the person calling you a feminist in this situation disagrees with your assessment. Why do you care what label some random person puts on you when, in their eyes, it's not even negative? I'd have trouble caring even if it was negative...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 01:22 AM
1

If we were to turn affirmative action "off" and fix all the other problems you mention, we would almost certainly still see the subtle bias in hiring practices and college admissions the currently exists, which affirmative action attempts to correct for, at least for a period of time. Would that be acceptable to you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 01:17 AM
1

I'm interested to see if some of them will be able to accept that feminism has had some negative effects on the world today, particularly on men. Can they accept that feminism itself bears some of the blame, and not just rationalize it away as a secondary effect of patriarchy? MensLib poster here: I agree with both of these points to the extent that I consider it trivial. I don't know where the heck people get the idea that MensLib is some kind of feminist ass-kissing space. It's not. You can di…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/19 01:10 AM
1

Well, if you're living in a place/culture where that's going to happen, then I'm very sorry for you. I'd suggest you concentrate on worker's rights so you can't be fired for someone else's assumptions about your political stances.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 11:52 PM
1

Easy solution IMO Them: "Are you a feminist?" You: "How do you define feminist?"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 11:26 PM
0

I mean, I think in both of those cases the only information you're gaining is about the person saying what you are, not about yourself. I still don't see the point in arguing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 11:12 PM
0

If you're for equality, and someone defines people who are for equality as feminists, what does it matter?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 10:50 PM
3

But even those who claim to want to dispense with 'masculine' and 'feminine' labels used them in order to dispense with them. How do you imagine going about dispensing with a concept without using that concept?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 10:46 PM
13

I don't think you'll find convincing answers to this without a clearer definition of what behaviours you consider "masculine" and "feminine". It's also worth considering how those definitions change over time - consider the "masculine" concept of the traditional hero, who was clean-cut, Christian, and chivalrous, versus the post-Victorian "masculine" street brawler; dirty, aggressive, physical. By whose standards are we judging modern people?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 10:21 PM
7

I think the solution is simple. Attack ideas and not groups or individuals, maintain a focus on solutions rather than problems, and most importantly treat every interaction you have with respect and the principle of charity. For example, I agree with many of the folks here that the Duluth model is garbage. I see many arguments made around the internet that this means we must criticise feminism or feminists, because they were involved in creating it. But what does that actually achieve? At best y…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/19 10:08 PM
1

I have never met anyone who you would accurately describe in your last two paragraphs. The idea that the typical, average feminist hates men and everything about them is absolutely not the most parsimonious explanation and does not fit with any of the data I've read nor any anecdote I could give you. I will not argue that such a person might exist if you go looking very hard, but if the majority of your experiences with feminists have been that way (frankly, I doubt it, but pretending that I don…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/19 07:02 PM
2

I don't think I've ever had someone sincerely disagree with me on my men's advocacy views in person, and I talk about them quite a bit. People have different ideas about the solutions, of course, but in general everyone has been supportive and at worst I'll get a "you're right, but I think it's more important to concentrate my efforts on <feminism/the environment/homelessness/whatever>".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 03:27 AM
2

How do we know this person is a PhD researcher? I'm not going to claim "fake" but this is hardly convincing without some actual, statistical analysis to back it up. Everyone is vulnerable to cognitive distortions, that's why CBT is so effective - I would only be interested in this critique if it were shown that feminists are especially prone to the distortions listed. To claim otherwise is to suggest feminists hold themselves to a higher standard than the general population, which (while attract…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/19 02:58 AM
2

I'm not going to go looking for a branch of feminism that doesn't consider men as being of higher relative privilege, in aggregate, than women - partially because I simply don't think it's true and partially because I'm fairly sure I won't find one. I can understand your position even if I disagree with it, and I appreciate the respectful engagement as well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/12/19 06:36 AM
1

They explain in much more depth if you want to read the rules/wiki, but in short they use their "pro-feminist" stance to do a few things, including: 1) Probably most importantly, to cut off bickering and non-solution-focused discussion at the head. 2) To acknowledge the body of tools and strategies, both practical and academic, that feminism has developed over it's decades, and that they plan to take advantage of those tools and strategies. 3) To avoid wasting the social inertia that feminism ha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/12/19 09:02 PM
2

I mean, their rules literally say "...these terms do not mean... you must agree with every feminist, feminist position, and feminist organization... Individual feminists or schools of feminism are also capable of coming up with some bad or harmful ideas; we welcome discussion of these topics as an ongoing dialogue in addressing men's issues." They don't ban disagreement. I have disagreed with parts of "feminism" on MensLib several times, been strongly upvoted, and am definitely not banned or cen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/12/19 12:24 AM
1

Being "pro-feminist" is a far cry from "can't comprend [sic] criticism of feminism". I find myself largely pro-feminist in most arguments and have plenty of broad-reaching criticisms. I do not contest that MensLib is more heavily moderated than a lot of places on the web, but I still believe your comment above makes the situation out to be far more dire and negative than it is. You can easily go in there and have healthy and productive discussions that include disagreeing with or criticising var…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/19 12:31 AM
2

Sure, I'm just clearing up definitions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 09:25 PM
2

a patriarchy by definition would never hurt men Many feminists would dispute this - a patriarchy is very capable of hurting men. Patriarchy has been blamed for warfare, for strict gender roles, and for many other phenomena which undoubtedly harm men. One source, although there are many
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 07:42 PM
2

That's not the common definition of reactionary - it's not just "reacting to something" but rather "reacting to social progress by trying to stop it".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 07:35 PM
-1

This is completely false. I have more comments in that sub saying poor things about feminism than I do praising it, and they're all pretty well upvoted, plus the mods haven't censured or deleted any of it. The key is they're all respectful and reasonably well thought out. Just like you wouldn't appreciate me getting all my opinions about this place from people who complain about it, I suggest you don't get your opinions about /r/MensLib from it's detractors. It's unhealthy and completely misrepr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 07:28 PM
1

Formal debate is an inappropriate format for determining the truth value of claims. This is statistics more than anything; the null hypothesis being that our population and subpopulation do not differ, and we should expect evidence to reject that null before we change our beliefs. The claim was "male feminists tend to be predators", which seems to mean something like "male feminists have a higher proportion of predators than males (or perhaps just people) in general". The null hypothesis is that…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/19 07:17 PM
0

In the entire fields of human sexuality, culture, fat studies, feminist studies, human geography, gender studies, and probably another dozen fields not listed in their respective journals? Exactly zero. Congratulations. You got them, they're all frauds. Go do your own research and publish the results, I no longer have time for this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/19 07:51 PM
1

If either side provides a definition of "rape culture", of course the argument can be made.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/19 06:34 PM
0

You can answer 99% of these questions yourself with a 5-second Google search. I think you've already made up your mind and are not asking me questions in earnest. I never called Butler a scientist, you asked what hypotheses she put forward and I answered bluntly, which seems to have been a mistake. She is a philosopher, and I should have made that clear instead of fielding your question without exploring that mistaken assumption. There are testable hypotheses in her work but her work itself is n…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/19 06:31 PM
1

I define science the way everyone else does. Yes, science implies the use of falsifiable hypotheses. I cannot enumerate all the falsifiable hypotheses in "grievance studies". I presume there are thousands upon thousands of them. Butler's most highly-cited text, her 1990 work "Gender Trouble" is centered in my opinion on the hypothesis that gender is performative, and only holds the appearance of being a strict ontology. This hypothesis is falsifiable by arguments from evidence of a strict biolog…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/19 09:15 PM
1

Yes, it is convenient. Being convenient doesn't prove anything unfortunately. We're doing science here, not constructing conspiracy theories.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/19 06:34 PM
1

Toxic masculinity has nothing to do with oceanography but is a very valid subject of discourse in sociology. Don't be stupid.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/19 06:32 PM
3

Same opinion as I had on image posts: you can post it, but should be expected to provide a short paragraph explaining your own thoughts on the issue and perhaps why it's relevant to male advocacy if it's not immediately obvious. I'd also encourage OPs to reply to comments and questions directed at them to clear up or expand on the above point, but I don't know if a rule about that would be a great idea.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/19 11:36 PM
1

I've heard of replication failures and poor science happening in every field, to be sure, as well as singular cases of bogus, sub-par, or otherwise unacceptable papers being published. Without a statistically significant sample of journals and papers submitted to them across many disciplines and the analysis to support it, we don't have the ability to draw the conclusions about "social justice academia" or "grievance studies" that seem to be prevalent.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 07:31 PM
1

That's correct, yes. Thanks for the clarification.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 07:27 PM
1

A good control for those other "grievance studies" journals. The prevailing attitude here seems to be that this is some kind of evidence of bias in "grievance studies" as a whole rather than in a few journals; a control for that would be a variety of bad papers submitted to a fair sample of all academic journals.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 07:26 PM
1

but the fact remains the most extensive hoaxes have taken place in gender studies and related fields. then this is a test without a control, and our conclusions are next to meaningless. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying grievance studies are the same as all the other fields. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there was a difference, we just don't have a reason to believe so.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 04:09 AM
1

Do you have links to those "similar attempts"? I've never heard of them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 01:57 AM
1

Why is that amazing? Do we have other evidence that this problem is specific to "grievance studies"? Because as it stands I don't think this is sufficient.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/11/19 01:02 AM
2

I'm a published author in my own field, and I find it entirely unsurprising that shit papers make it into various publications. Just today I had an unknown-to-me journal urging me to submit a paper (they didn't even say what they wanted, just "a paper") so they could maintain their reputation for volume and frequency of publications - what level of scrutiny were they going to apply to a paper they begged for? While this is certainly proof that peer review standards are low, without a control we …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/19 11:46 PM
1

I do, all the time. None of them have ever said, written, or acted in ways that would indicate that what you say is true. Maybe a couple nutjobs who get signal boosted by outrage groups at worst.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 11:06 PM
1

Who says that's their intent? The people who popularised the term or their critics?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 11:00 PM
1

I'm not going to pretend all the various feminisms and the feminists that subscribe are perfect and doing the right thing always, nor that male disposability isn't a significant issue, but they are arguing for equal representation in these dangerous fields. Perhaps not using the exact phrasing that you want, but the inevitable result of their actions is a balancing of the ratios.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 10:59 PM
1

I don't think you'll find your particular request fulfilled, because much like feminist arguments against adding women to the draft, most prefer to argue for abolition entirely but that's not anything to do with feminism; you're not going to find a feminist saying "let's kill more women in the workplace" and the "let's stop all people dying in the workplace" is more of an anti-capitalist-exploitation issue than a feminist one. A good justification for positive men's rights/liberation/whatever mo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 10:18 PM
1

To be clear, you don't see a link between equality in public service and equality in deaths during public service?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 10:03 PM
1

Whose intent is it to do that? The psychology community?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 09:55 PM
1

Here's an article in the Harvard Business Review saying exactly what you seem to claim nobody has ever said; let's bring equality to dangerous public service roles. I didn't even have to go searching for that one; I knew it existed because a bunch of anti-SJW types were whining about it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 08:13 PM
1

Can you expand more on that, please?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 08:09 PM
1

I'll certainly cede that the initial word choice was poor, or at least wasn't suited for letting the concept out of academia and into the wild, so to speak. There are people who misuse the term to direct unfair vitriol around, but I'd argue that the only reason you'd hear of them is because they're put on pedestals by people fostering outrage. I also don't have a particular problem with an honest dialogue between the offended and the unintentional offender, but you'll have to excuse me if I don'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 07:56 PM
1

Works for me. How many other people use this username and would be subject to this description, I wonder?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 06:35 AM
2

Thanks for the article. I read both it and the other psych article linked. Both commit to the same viewpoint as yours without supplying any link to people actually saying that term (in earnest, as opposed to criticising it and its users) and meaning what they say it might. It seems to me that everyone is convinced that those offended by the term are the ones who define it, rather than the feminists and sociologists who first proposed it and tend to use it to mean something, rather than talking a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/19 12:04 AM
1

Can you show me some examples of people explicitly saying to you that toxic masculinity is about all masculinities? I realise that's a bit of a tough ask but I don't believe it's something I've ever experienced and I'm curious.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 11:24 PM
1

Let me know if I'm picking too much at one word here, but I disagree with your assertion that feminists strive to establish correct gendered behaviour. A common argument against the use of the term "toxic masculinity" is the idea that there is no "positive masculinity" provided to strive towards. The usual feminist response is that the goal is for nobody to feel gendered pressures on their behaviour - they don't want to promote "correct male" behaviour, but rather "correct human" behaviour. Give…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 10:50 PM
1

No, I don't think that follows at all. Toxic masculinity isn't traditional masculinity and a change in one is not necessarily linked to a change in the other. There are some parts of typical video game culture, for example, where I experience vicious racism and sexism nearly every day. Online gaming culture is certainly masculine-coded but it can hardly be described as traditional.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 10:40 PM
2

Masculinity itself is toxic, or a subset of masculinity is toxic? Is there just one masculinity for all people?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 09:19 PM
1

No, don't dodge. You haven't defined masculinity, nor justified why your definition is any good, and haven't supplied any studies on how men are failing to meet your justified definition.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 09:18 PM
2

What do you think most people who use the term "toxic masculinity" mean by it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 07:33 PM
3

But if anything masculinity is on a downward trend since the 1990s and accelerating since 2010 or so. Unless you have an actual quantifiable definition of "masculinity" and studies on how it is "on a downward trend" I believe you are falling prey to fallacious thinking. The tendency for people to believe we can go back to when it was better is strong; we have psychological biases towards seeing the past as rosy and great and the present as dim and poor, leading us to an illusion of a general "do…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/19 07:30 PM
1

"Masculinity" as a set of typically gendered expectations for behaviour is distinct from "male" as a gender.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/19 08:06 PM
2

Good info, thanks. I'll add this to my understanding of the issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 09:59 PM
10

Putting aside any discussion of sex vs. gender, the latest studies put the male:female ratio at around 3:1, with previous estimates being higher. It is important to remember that we know of no strict causality for autism; any ratio or prevalence we can find is necessarily dictated by our own diagnostic criteria for autism, which are not yet based on a full understanding of the condition. With that said, many prevailing theories of autism such as EMB suggest that symptoms of autism might be linke…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 07:10 PM
1

If that's the case then you should have no problem convincing a counsellor of your convictions, right?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 07:45 AM
1

T h e r a p y
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 06:39 AM
1

I don't generally get kicked out feminist spaces. I disagree with them plenty, and one or two have taken exception, but generally if I avoid things like using shitty arguments to justify violent responses to having my feelings hurt...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 04:33 AM
1

I'll take that as a "yes" then. Seriously, therapy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 02:58 AM
1

Do you get all of your opinions of feminists from people who disagree with feminists?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 02:24 AM
1

When you say "refuse to stop hurting us" - who's us? Who are "feminists" and what actual harm are they perpetrating such that you justify violence against them?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 01:45 AM
1

Violence is unacceptable except in the absolute most extreme of circumstances. You've mentioned down this post that "being ignored and put down has left me fucking furious to the point I am more than willing to throw a cocktail through the front window". You're riling people (mostly yourself) up in ways that might really get someone hurt. I get the anger, dude, I've been there and there's plenty of shitty stuff going on that's worth getting angry about. But you, personally, are making it worse. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/19 01:11 AM
1

That's fair. I think we really need the OP to explain themselves more if they want a good answer, then.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/19 12:03 AM
1

I disagree with your reading of the implication that men needn't be discriminated further - there is very little context and "Men do/do not commit the majority of violence" is a raw fact. Now, if the OP were to try and make further arguments based on that fact, we might need to dig deeper, but as it stands I think the better reading is as a simple truth claim. My family and I are Ashkenazi Jews and I have no problem with anyone making similar statements about Jews, as long as it is a simple trut…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 11:56 PM
2

I think humans in general are very apt to see their group identity as part of their personal identity - if I identify as "a republican" and someone says "republicans are less educated than democrats", it's easy to mistake that as an aspersion on myself rather than a population statistic. Secondarily, people often use such statistics to make fallacious arguments - for example the fact that democrats are more highly educated than republicans, on average, holds little to no logical bearing on who i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 11:49 PM
1

Of the two questions above, the only "loaded" portion is that men sometimes get defensive when confronted with statistics about gender and violence. If we were to be charitable and read it as "some men sometimes get defensive", I think that's trivially true. Do you disagree that some men sometimes get defensive about these issues? Do you think that there are other assumed facts in the questions?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/19 11:35 PM
1

I just read the whole thing again and it just doesn't say what you think it does man. I want to believe you, truly, because I don't think you're stupid. But it is simply impossible to carry out comparative analysis of pressures to perform for men by gender by reading a source that only really talks about one of them. That's like saying cows are the majority of farm animals when you only ever went out and counted the cows, and you've got no numbers for the sheep. I'm being really polite with you,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/10/19 06:22 PM
1

No. I agreed with you that it's pressure to perform. I literally said that in the last comment. I'm uncertain if women are the majority of pressure to perform, which is a different statement, and you seem unwilling to support your own claim. I'm asking (very politely) for the source which you drew that conclusion from, as this one doesn't support that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/10/19 02:51 AM
1

Yes, I've read that several times already thank you. I don't see where it supports the statements you made about women being the majority of pressure to perform. I see that it does support that some pressure comes from women but your statement was much stronger than just that. Could you quote the parts you drew that particular info from, please?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 10:23 PM
1

Where did you gather that from? That's crossing the line from experience and conjecture into facts we can (and probably have) empirically studied.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 09:58 PM
1

I think fixing the obsession with "acquiring" relationships for status or validation is a very good idea. Men being valued as agents and not as objects may have a lot to do with this - I know I certainly still feel a huge amount of pressure to perform, to acquire, to be visibly successful.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 08:54 PM
1

How do you explain the fact that truly repulsive men like Donald Trump outcompete actual good men for women? He's extremely rich and well-connected. Even if there were no other redeeming qualities about the man, I'd expect there to be a few women who'd seek him out just for that. That said, "I can't get laid" is not an excuse for Nice Guy behaviour, and it certainly doesn't compel you to act repulsively to the extent where you could truly say you had no other option. I absolutely believe that th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/19 08:40 PM
1

Thanks for ignoring 90% of what I wrote to fixate on your arbitrary goalposts. Personally, I don't give a fuck if you don't like the 25% number, because even if the rate of non-reporting was only 25% itself (near statistical impossibility), it would still be worth a social media campaign to address it. True victims have every right to go to the police AND Twitter. If there really are issues where the justice system wasn't correctly addressing the issue, then going to Twitter might be their only …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/19 06:36 PM
1

It's not exactly hidden, but I'd rather not broadcast that information on this sub.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/19 10:25 PM
1

If someone who had been sexually assaulted but considered it too difficult or futile to report it was emboldened to make a true accusation by the #MeToo movement, would that count as anything positive? The purpose of #MeToo was to cause the ~25% reporting rate for sexual assault to be raised. The primary goal was not for accusations to result in public shaming, but to empower those who had been assaulted through solidarity - to help them be brave enough to make the report, to seek help. Yes, the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/19 12:32 AM
1

Cool. Literal outrage bait, but if it reinforces your view, I guess...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 11:57 PM
1

What am I supposed to take away from this link?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 11:40 PM
1

Alright bud, I bet that sounded a lot smarter in your head. See ya.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 10:03 PM
1

If you're gonna put 0% effort into your retorts, why should you expect me to care?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 09:13 PM
1

I sympathise with your circumstances. Perhaps there's a cultural difference between our countries, because the only time I see people acting in ways that would justify your fears are idiots on the internet. That enough ‘male tears’ for your mug? I don't know what you're asking.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 07:51 PM
0

To clarify, you're all for working towards equality, but not if people are ungrateful?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 08:37 AM
1

Yes, there are few hard limits on gender left. Are none of the softer, less obvious forces worth addressing at all?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 08:24 AM
1

So that's a no, then. Nothing positive at all came from #MeToo. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 06:38 AM
1

Were there any positives to #metoo that Melinda could be referring to, instead of your interpretation?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 06:20 AM
1

"A window of opportunity has opened. Or, more accurately, it was painstakingly pried open ..." she is talking about women weaponizing #metoo as a way to move up in the hierarchy as if that was a good thing. Come on, man, that's a blatant misrepresentation of her point. Can you honestly say she'd agree with your characterisation? How are we supposed to engage in good-faith discussions when you frame what people say in ways they would vastly disagree with?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 05:23 AM
0

Sure, I'm all for fixing those issues. Now why does that make Melinda's task bad? Hypergamy is absolutely not a solution to structural power imbalances. Money isn't everything; if the US congress is 75% men that's a negative that can't be fixed by marriage.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 04:39 AM
1

It's not. Thank you. Then I take it as read that your previous statements to that effect no longer stand, and I have no further points.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 04:36 AM
1

Look, I don't know what about "it is not okay to abuse people even if you've had a shitty life" is actually objectionable to you, but I think it's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I don't think people know lashing out is bad, I think that many people believe they're perfectly justified in their antisocial behaviours. Your own comments throughout this chain admit to exactly that attitude. I do not promote ridicule or bullying and I see many people treating Nice Guys far worse than…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 03:54 AM
6

I think is ridiculous that people on the left refuse to come to any kind of compromise here, believing that they should have control over the utterances of others to support what they believe. That is a dangerous precedent. Medicine is not politics. Teachers have an imperative to follow medical guidelines for the betterment of their students' lives. The APA calls for transgender folks to be addressed by their preferred pronouns. Unless there is an opposing, academically credible medical or psych…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 03:39 AM
1

Why not both? Why can we not fix the circumstance AND decry lashing out?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 02:58 AM
1

So why blame them for reacting negatively to them? Because they ultimately hold responsibility for their own actions. We can sympathise with the circumstances that lead them there, and work to change society such that statistically such circumstances are less likely, but the poorly treated who then treat others poorly are not absolved of their actions. So what are they supposed to do? Get therapy if they can. Find better learning opportunities. Continue being miserable but don't abuse people bec…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 02:41 AM
1

Of course I have. But you're not arguing that people make mistakes. You're arguing that it's not a mistake at all; that they had no choice. Nobody is morally culpable for that which they had no agency over, and you are arguing for the viewpoint that most Nice Guys have no agency in their decisions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 01:14 AM
1

I'm sorry you have had those experiences. It doesn't sound like you've had an easy lot in life. I fully and completely disagree with this "No choice" argument, though. Some of the poorest and least lucky people are also the nicest, and more importantly at every single moment the Nice Guy has the opportunity, despite all his bad luck and bad experience, to simply not be an asshole. I do not believe most Nice Guys are evil, and many of their actions are explained but not justified by their circums…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/19 12:52 AM
3

I agree that society has issues with male disposability and so on, but it seems to me that Melinda Gates' donations are squarely aimed at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. The article talks about the US congress, fortune 500 companies, etc. where their statistics certainly do seem to back up a gender imbalance in favour of men. Can you explain your first comment more? Your last seems to insinuate that upper-class men have it far better than upper-class women, but lower-class men have it worse…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 11:11 PM
3

Judging by the votes, I don't think you're the only one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 10:31 PM
4

Taking income as an example, the 89th percentile man in America earns a tad under $115k a year. The 1st percentile woman earns near enough to $0 per year. Here's a better question: what the hell do you think a homeless woman has better than a guy earning six figures?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 10:19 PM
-3

Is that "10%" an exact figure or an approximation? Why do men get split out by this percentage and not women - surely the 89th percentile man has it better than the 1st percentile woman?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 09:15 PM
3

Do you think we should address gender imbalances at all?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 08:31 PM
1

Do you think "they had no other option" is an accurate descriptor for most stereotypical Nice Guy behaviour?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 08:29 PM
1

Yes, there are probably reasonable explanations for much of the trope. I'm not in the habit of placing blame for these things, so please don't read me as doing that; I don't think it's pragmatic in terms of finding actual solutions. There's a line between explaining and excusing though, and I worry you're trying to excuse the behaviours mentioned. Is that the case?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/10/19 07:40 PM
3

I think there's a subtle difference; Peterson's opposition was to the idea that anyone could be prosecuted for the misuse of pronouns (the Canadian Bar doesn't think he had much merit here). This situation includes a special relationship; that between a teacher and a student, in which the teacher is employed to provide education and a conducive environment to that student, and more importantly concerns employment and not fundamental liberty. This teacher was not prosecuted by the government for …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 11:04 PM
10

While I agree the teacher came to some kind of compromise, I don't think it's enough. Refusing to use third-person pronouns for a particular student isn't something a bunch of kids are going to miss, and every time it happens it'll be a reminder to everyone present that the teacher is making an ideological stand against a particular student's lifestyle. Much as a therapist who refused to use a patient's preferred pronouns would be unsuitable for that position, a teacher who refuses to follow the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 10:54 PM
1

I think discussing the causes of the "nice guy" phenomenon is very important, but I'm not sure you've hit the nail on the head entirely. I'm sure many Nice Guys are certainly part of the middle class, and that middle class men could well be experiencing a decline in apparent attractiveness. That isn't what makes a Nice Guy in my experience though. Consider the following: a man approaches a woman in his sports car, politely asks her if she'd like to go for a ride. She declines. He viciously attac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 06:42 PM
–

The 5% that are worthwhile conversation starters do not justify the 95% that are low effort or attempts to reinforce existing opinions without critical thought. If someone really wants to discuss an image then they can link it in the body of a text post explaining why, IMO.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/19 06:11 PM
2

Nobody lives "the ideal life", if there even was such a thing. To say some have it better than others in certain ways is obvious. I know plenty of people who match every descriptor above and I know nobody that has a "basically perfect" life. Besides that, what is the purpose of this post? What are we supposed to discuss? What solutions or suggestions or critique are you actually offering here?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/19 11:01 PM
1

What specifically did you dislike about that exchange?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 10:52 PM
1

I think we are limited in which conclusions we can draw from this research for many reasons, but primary among them (at least in my mind) is the fact that this isn't a longitudinal study. Without considering time, there are still more questions to answer: Would these unmarried women previously have married to be provided for by their husband, despite a lack of desire? Are the average woman's desires static, and desirable attributes in men going down over time? Is this discrepancy correcting over…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/19 10:26 PM
1

Jeeesus you go back through my comment history, find a comment with two academic sources and one "I believe [...]" that I didn't have time to find a source for, and decide reinforcing your own personal hugbox of opinions is the adult response. Men's issues are held back because people look in from the outside and see behaviour like this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/19 01:57 AM
0

What is the point of this post? Because what you have is evidence that your repeated questioning of one particular feminist on the internet didn't result in them acceding and posting your opinions on their twitter account.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/19 12:20 AM
0

"Them" is the other user in the screenshot, and that sentence was directed specifically at the OP of this thread.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/09/19 10:51 PM
0

I never said that "challenging feminists online over their definition of feminism" was wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/09/19 10:28 PM
4

Random strangers have no imperative to perform for your weird purity testing on their stances. This is incredibly cringeworthy behaviour. Leave them alone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/09/19 08:04 PM
1

I think there is a miniscule subset of feminists to whom it would be accurate to attribute that mentality, and I think there is a vastly outsized reactionary push-back against all parts of the movement because of outrage porn and a desire to win victim points by a few MRAs. The damage to men's rights done by the reputation those MRAs engender far outweighs the few times feminists have done things that are actually objectionable. I agree that reality will have the final say, and on that note I've…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/19 10:38 PM
1

And now that you've declared that feminism is "at war" with you, I don't think I can support anything you put forward. You should not construct your opinions on important subjects by listening to people complain about them on the internet.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/19 10:08 PM
1

An interesting idea but ultimately still adversarial in approach, and as such I would not support it. Good luck though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/19 09:57 PM
1

Good question. I don't think public narrative is something that can necessary be dictated or controlled in the way you assert it is - at least in our relatively free communication environment. Further, there is no indication that this is a zero-sum game. We can make new dialogue and expand the scope of public opinion without having to shut down feminists and "take" control from them. I'm always for collaborative approaches over adversarial ones (in case that wasn't blindingly obvious from my fir…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/19 09:16 PM
1

I think you've missed the thrust of my first message. Perhaps I could have written more clearly. The solution-focused mindset that MensLib embodies that I find so valuable has a few clear features, including: Pragmatism and a basis in reality Targeted correctly; solutions must be performed by and towards people and institutions you have access to and influence over, and must be communicated as such, which usually means 2.1. Self-focused solutions - what can we do? Contain a clear plan of action,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/08/19 11:00 PM
2

While the author makes some reasonable points, I would have appreciated deeper insight into the colloquial or academic use of the word "misogyny" before the analysis began. The title "Is Misogyny Holding Western Women Back?" carries an implication that people think misogyny is holding women back, or else there would be no point to the article. Constructing or going to a dictionary for a definition of "misogyny" without an understanding of what people actually mean by it is poor form and weakens …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 11:05 PM
-1

I would absolutely suggest that folks here engage in feminist theory. Do so with an open mind. I think having a body of contributors here who have managed to get up and over the peak of Dunning-Kruger will make it far more likely that your suggestions and criticisms are taken seriously.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 10:37 PM
1

I really, really hope it does.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 08:52 PM
1

I think it's clear now that my original comment, about your definition of toxic masculinity being substantially different to the one that feminists use, was accurate. You're welcome to use the words to mean other things like masculinity as a whole or male dominance or whatever, of course. I'm just making sure that I understand where you're coming from.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 07:10 AM
1

The APA Guidelines for the practice with boys and men makes no mention of the term "toxic masculinity". I can find no description of the Duluth model which includes that phrase. I'm sure there are articles which reference the term, but my question was quite specific and after two unsuccesful answers I'm not particularly inclined to go chasing your third. My question was quite specific - I'm not really interested in your opinions on feminist "brainwashing". Do you have examples of feminists using…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/19 06:56 AM
1

It's not suddenly set higher at all. If you all wanted to waste a sub and everyone's time complaining about right-wing politics, or capitalism, or whatever then I would have the same reaction. It is a mistake to interpret me as saying feminism is above criticism. Go have a look at the MensRights sub and ask yourself whether they are achieving progress or fostering outrage and division. Being more right-wing than some prefer is at best secondary on the list of that sub's problems.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/08/19 05:52 PM
1

I dont think you share the same definition of toxic masculinity that most feminists use, perhaps that's where the disagreement stems from. When I've heard people define toxic masculinity, it's almost always something like "societal pressure for men to conform to damaging stereotypes". There is an image of what society says a man should do, which we call masculinity, and some parts of it (such as stunted emotional expression) are toxic, hence those parts are toxic masculinity. Wikipedia's page on…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/08/19 05:42 PM
5

Not strongly tied to this one way or the other, but IMO the flair does have a "speaking officially" flavour text on it - you would expect, and it is certainly the case in most subreddits, than when a moderator speaks their personal opinion they should not use the flair, as it's not a communication "as a moderator". Typical uses of the moderator flair are making requests for users to behave in certain ways, for making official statements or decisions on the rules of the sub. I would generally thi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 11:44 PM
1

Can you describe how this is an exercise in victm-blaming?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 11:25 PM
1

What sort of things have you said that have caused such a "back down for fear of being not pc" reaction?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/08/19 10:09 AM
1

Fair enough. Do you expect anyone who sides with feminism to be able to support your movement?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/19 12:44 AM
-1

I'll keep my hopes up that you guys can prevent a descent into the impotent outrage that so many other groups find themselves stuck in. As I've said in my other comment, I don't think even "decent" criticisms are really worth focussing your discussion on; the people who need to hear them won't listen if they don't respect you, and they won't respect you if your primary focus seems to be criticism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/19 12:34 AM
7

That's fair, I'm not going to defend /r/MensLib at every turn; I'm sure they make their own share of mistakes. If the discussion here can keep itself to the standards you hold for it then I think there's a good chance of some productive outcomes, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/19 12:24 AM
4

Valid criticism in a sub that only offers criticism towards others will be unfairly ignored and reviled. We see this with MensRights, we see it with AHS/SRS/whatever, we see it with the blowback against the vast swathes of anti-Trump criticism. The evidence is clear and direct. I do not suggest the criticism is invalid because it fundamentally does not matter. I suggest it is pointless to have the de facto focus of a sub be on criticism, valid or invalid or a mixture, full stop, because the targ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/19 12:13 AM
2

do you want to try and get to the truth, or do you just want to be right? I'm absolutely here to learn and grow, and have no interest in "being right" over the truth. And once again, I was asking in good faith, because I truly do not know what you're trying to achieve by telling me, who is not "the feminist movement" and has minimal ability to influence the feminist movement, things that you want the feminist movement to do. What am I supposed to do with that? Take it to some international conso…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/19 11:58 PM
0

I mean this with all seriousness and good faith - what were you trying to achieve by saying that to me, here, on this sub? Because it looks like you turned a comment about not pointlessly whining about feminism into a way to pointlessly whine about feminism, but I want to believe you meant better than that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/19 11:12 PM
7

I know you guys disagree with MensLib on the feminism aspect, but the most valuable thing about that sub is a focus on positive discussion and implementation of solutions. Your front page is already devolving into 90% "feminism sucks" posts - if you end up being another MRA sub that just endlessly whines about feminism, you're just feeding division and creating another outrage machine. Intelligent criticisms of feminism are great; there's tonnes society can learn in that regard, but if your miss…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/19 10:47 PM
1

I don't really get it. That's exactly what I'd expect from that sub.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/19 05:05 AM
2

I'm not sure where I gave the impression that feminism was viewed as the sole reason, but neither I nor (I believe) the paper would characterise MensRights as having that view either, and neither did you in your first response. I agree that your rephrased question would get negative responses, but it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur in this case.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 10:04 PM
1

First off, I'll immediately concede that MensLib is definitely more heavily moderated the MensRights. No argument there. They have a stricter set of rules and a harsher model of enforcement. I'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make here - that many people have differing opinions and understandings (or lack thereof) of definitions of toxic masculinity? That MensLib is excessively self-flagellatory? There is often confusion surrounding toxic masculinity, I find, due to the conflati…
/r/MensRights20/06/19 09:14 AM
1

A clearer wording would perhaps have been "become more damaging". The paper we're discussing has a section directly on this. There is a surprising over-representing of the term "anymore" in /r/MensRights, characterised with the following quote: Because over the last 10k years men have been working and dying to create a world where women are safe. We did it. Women are safe now and they know it. Men don’t matter anymore A skim through the top search results for that term in this sub paints pretty …
/r/MensRights20/06/19 03:04 AM
2

Once again, imprecise language on my part. I'm at work, apologies. The paper in particular offers evidence of different propositions accepted "as common sense" within different communities. In this way, gender essentialism being accepted "as common sense" is what I meant by "for granted". I'm sure most users here have questioned the topic, therefore using "for granted" is likely incorrect, but there is evidence that the community at large takes the proposition of gender essentialism as having a …
/r/MensRights19/06/19 11:51 PM
1

I was a little cautious about "recently" and I think I've misrepresented myself - what I meant by that was really just that society has become more discriminatory towards men. That we have regressed, rather than progressed - which is another point supported by the research. I think the fact that MR takes gender essentialism for granted is also portrayed clearly in the paper, yes.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 10:37 PM
1

I haven't got time to reply to the whole of this, but I can at least address this one point: So basically, Men's Lib assumes men are dominant and women powerless, and therefore men (or toxic masculinity) are to blame for men's and everyone else's problems The userbase of MensLib (and in the authors of this paper would agree, I believe) do not subscribe to this idea at all. Luckily, this very thread is about evidence directly to the contrary - that MensLib views masculinity as something people (m…
/r/MensRights19/06/19 09:40 PM
2

I did my Master's in machine learning, and the universities I studied at get me to come back to lecture to their upcoming graduates on "industry readiness" and "skills most valuable in becoming a IT/CS professional". I tell each and every class to go take some arts and ethics papers. Our local industry conferences have almost without fail pointed out the general lack of social, business and interpersonal skills among graduates in STEM, but there's such a cultural pushback among many undergrads t…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/19 10:59 PM
-1

Did you click the wrong button?
/r/MensRights29/01/19 09:55 PM
-1

I don't have nearly enough information on you or your girlfriend to make judgements, that's why I'm asking you to self-assess. It's odd that you've drawn the line at demonising all women. Nobody accused anyone of being anti-women, to the best of my knowledge. It seems you demonise feminism though, and there are many people (~15-40% ballpark, varying by demographics and country) who identify as feminists. Is that not enough of a grouping for your demonisation to be overly broad? I acknowledge tha…
/r/MensRights29/01/19 07:08 PM
-4

Do you view your own behaviour, right now, as being tribalistic? Do you think that's a good thing?
/r/MensRights29/01/19 06:54 PM
-12

The Men's Rights movement, in general, has a massive problem with tribalism and anti-feminism sentiment. There's nothing about poor behaviour by women that really has any relevance to men's rights, in general - that's not to say all poor behaviour by women is intrinsically NOT men's rights issues, it's neutral. I think coming together and pushin for a men's rights space that wasn't flooded with "rah rah feminism bad" is a very positive idea.
/r/MensRights29/01/19 09:55 AM
1

Crimes are rarely engaged with a strong cost/benefit analysis in behind them. I imagine recanting a crime usually engages a whole lot more forethought and consideration than the crime itself. Making this change could well end up with more innocent men spending longer in jail then before.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 02:58 AM
3

Pedantically, there's nothing about "negatives" which means you can't prove them. "There's no horse in my garage" is a negative, and requires you to exhaust all possibilities to meet the burden of proof (i.e. search the whole garage for horses), but is trivial to show to be true. The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is in and of itself a negative, and as such is incoherent in the first place. Even if it were true, however, you would not be absolved of the burden of proof. Perhaps the corr…
/r/MensRights11/01/19 03:31 AM
2

No, people's lives shouldn't be valued lower than a car which was likely repossessed at a later date anyway. Context is important.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:54 AM
1

What's that they say about assumptions? Something about making an... arse... out of people? You're nearly 20,000 km off base there, buddy.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 11:08 PM
1

It's not lack of compassion The short version is that you believe he made a naive/stupid move, probably at the behest of his employer, and therefore deserved to die, correct? If I'm correct in paraphrasing you here, can you explain how in any possible way you're not lacking in compassion here? Is killing an innocent guy, and having your car repossessed at a slightly later date, really the better option?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 10:30 PM
1

No need to be an arse about it
/r/MensRights15/03/17 10:20 PM
8

I guess it must be because I'm not American, but what the fuck kind of logic is it when you decide your car is worth killing an innocent (if stupid) guy? The way you put it in your story, he fucking knew that it was the repo guy. He killed a guy who had every right to be repossessing his car, because he happened to turn up at a naive/inopportune time, and only because he thought he could get away with it. You're legitimately going to defend this?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 08:19 PM
40

The lack of compassion here for a guy who got shot for doing what his boss (probably) told him to do is disgusting.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 07:06 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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