this sub has a net negative result, you guys have not helped at all.

[–]Copperstoner 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sweetjustice33 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Copperstoner 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanic -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]EntertainmentNeat592 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BajaBlast90 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BondJamesBondx12 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanic -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Uh, yes, did you actually read the report or just the MRA out of context nonsense? Here, this clarifies it better:

The search for the causes of variation among prevalence estimates logically begins with a description of the processes that must occur for an instance of rape to be captured in the findings of a victimization survey (Sparks, 1982).

First, an incident must occur to the respondent and she or he must perceive and label it in some way. Unlike crime statistics where a report may result if a bystander or police officer observes a crime, the respondent is the only person who determines whether an incident will be recorded on a victimization survey.

But, she or he cannot reveal the crime unless they are included in the sample that is studied. Even if selected as a participant, a person cannot volunteer the experience if the screening questions use different labels from those of the respondent and thus fail to jog memories for relevant experiences.

And, even if the respondent does recall the incident and retrospectively defines it as one of the kind that the interviewer seeks, she or he must be willing to reveal the incident to the interviewer. (p. 204) [emphasis added]

I mean look, you clearly don't want to understand what she was actually saying. But for anyone who is willing to read what she wrote and attempt to comprehend it, it's pretty clear. She's talking about how you need to use the language that victims use IN THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF SURVEY or else the victims won't identify what happened to them. In other words, if men don't call what happened to them when a woman assaults them rape but *something else*, you need to use the language of that *something else* when surveying them, or they won't report what happened.

In regards to men. Who she considered victims in the very research you're trying to use against her, which was some of the first research that acknowledged and showed how deeply men are assaulted as well, something that if you ACTUALLY cared about men and not just trying to attack feminism, you would see as a positive.

She knew that most men don't admit to themselves that they were raped by a woman, and thus would not say in a survey that they were raped. So she realized she needed to use different language to get men to report what happened to them. And she was successful in doing so. IN LARGE PART BECAUSE SHE FOUND THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW MEN TO REPORT WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. Like, she was largely successful at obtaining data on the assaults of women on men, something without much data before her research, literally because of what you're trying to call her out on.

You're just straight up wrong here. But I don't think you even really care about being accurate. You thought you found a weapon against feminism, so you're never going to give it up.

[–]RatDontPanic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're just straight up wrong here. But I don't think you even really care about being accurate. You thought you found a weapon against feminism, so you're never going to give it up.

No, you are straight up dishonest. You're trying to use page 204 as a coverup for what she said two pages later. You cannot in any way manufacture a context that makes "It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman" not saying that women can't rape men.

You guys are just as bad as the MRAs, even when you're caught out in the open spouting evil bullshit you try to spin doctor your way out of it. That's why feminism was on its way out until these MAGA nutters came along. Though in your defense the stupid MRAs decided to throw in their lot with MAGA, which is why I turned to egalitarianism and am no longer part of that movement. MRAs are just as dishonest as you are.

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanic -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a bit of context/elaboration from such a sentiment. While I agree that actively hating any group is ultimately anything but harmless, I'm failing to see a direct connection to feminism.

There are feminists like Clementine Ford who say more men should die of Coronavirus... and she has a son. You can bet she's mentally abusing him. The only people who ever protested her were men and men's groups.

The Duluth Model shows its hatred for men by portraying violence against men as trivial (and why battered men get arrested when they call the cops) and Mary P Koss, the woman who said "1 in 4 women get raped" and then also said women can't rape men. This is why women can't be prosecuted for actual rape either in the US or UK. Caroline Norton, a feminist, created the Tender Years Doctrine which says women are the best caregivers for kids. We're still fighting this as the de facto doctrine in family courts. The National Organization for Women opposes shared custody because they feel men are too dangerous for that.

Feminists never, ever blame wrongdoing by women on the women who do it. They blame it on the Patriarchy. When a woman assaults a man and gets away with it, it's not because feminism has portrayed violence as a gendered thing, but somehow because of... "patriarchy". Boys who are raped by women get punished with child support if she gets pregnant, and feminists, who are big on fighting rape, either say it's his fault or they're totally silent about it.

There's a ton of institutionalized examples like that.

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There are feminists like Clementine Ford who say more men should die of Coronavirus... and she has a son. You can bet she's mentally abusing him. The only people who ever protested her were men and men's groups.

Ok, but how does that actually tie into feminist theory/thought? If feminism is predicated on equality of the sexes and eliminating barriers for women to foster such equality, what does this position on men dying have to do with feminism itself? By the sound of it, this is an attitude held by a feminist that doesn't itself relate to feminism. Gandhi espoused racist views during his time in South africa, but it didn't undermine the merit of his position on British colonialism, for example.

The Duluth Model shows its hatred for men by portraying violence against men as trivial (and why battered men get arrested when they call the cops)

That's a flawed model predicated on the law of averages. Rates of DV against women outstrip rates against men, therefore they set out a one-size-fits-all procedure. We all know that one size does not in fact fit all and that DV agsinst men is an important and all too often invisible issue. But I wouldn't characterise that as feminist excess. I'd call it inadequate.

Mary P Koss, the woman who said "1 in 4 women get raped" and then also said women can't rape men. This is why women can't be prosecuted for actual rape either in the US or UK.

Technically it depends on the jurisdictional definition. Rape is less commonly included in criminal statutes nowadays in a variety of jurisdictions due to its specific definition as a penetrative act. Where I reside, rape isn't in the criminal statutes. We have different variations of sexual assault. That's ultimately the more logical approach. The former has nothing to do with feminism. I would like to see where Mary P. Koss had involvement as you said, though.

Caroline Norton, a feminist, created the Tender Years Doctrine which says women are the best caregivers for kids. We're still fighting this as the de facto doctrine in family courts. The National Organization for Women opposes shared custody because they feel men are too dangerous for that.

Citing Caroline Norton, a figure from the 19th century, is a major reach. Particularly given the social context of that time. As for the National Organization for Women, that's at best a mischaracterization. They opposed shared custody as a default and favoured the individual circumstances of the family and child be weighed. Their statement did not assert blanket opposition nor that men are too dangerous for it. By their own rationale, fathers should have sole custody if it is in the child's best interest.

Feminists never, ever blame wrongdoing by women on the women who do it. They blame it on the Patriarchy. When a woman assaults a man and gets away with it, it's not because feminism has portrayed violence as a gendered thing, but somehow because of... "patriarchy".

That's also a reach. Where patriarchy gets blamed is in the lack of equal enforcement. It is hardly a mainstream view in feminism that women should be held blameless in cases of assault. As for women getting away with violent crimes being the fault of feminism... There's long standing historical precedent of this sort of thing happening absent any feminism.

Boys who are raped by women get punished with child support if she gets pregnant, and feminists, who are big on fighting rape, either say it's his fault or they're totally silent about it.

I've seen feminist discussions on the matter that don't assert the victim is at fault. This also doesn't seem to be the fault of feminism either. It really seems like you've identified a host of items you regard as unjust with respect to the status and treatment of men in American society and have foisted blame on feminism where feminism itself has no place or at the very least subordinate status to myriad other factors.

There's a ton of institutionalized examples like that.

Pretty much only the Duluth Model represented a valid critique of feminist theory in action, though.

[–]RatDontPanic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ok, but how does that actually tie into feminist theory/thought? If feminism is predicated on equality of the sexes and eliminating barriers for women to foster such equality, what does this position on men dying have to do with feminism itself? By the sound of it, this is an attitude held by a feminist that doesn't itself relate to feminism. Gandhi espoused racist views during his time in South africa, but it didn't undermine the merit of his position on British colonialism, for example.

Men are judged by the worst examples. Feminism can be equally judged. Except one chooses an ideology, not a gender that they're born with.

That's a flawed model predicated on the law of averages. Rates of DV against women outstrip rates against men, therefore they set out a one-size-fits-all procedure. We all know that one size does not in fact fit all and that DV agsinst men is an important and all too often invisible issue. But I wouldn't characterise that as feminist excess. I'd call it inadequate.

DV rates by women against women outstrip rates by men against women - particularly sexual assault.

https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

Technically it depends on the jurisdictional definition. Rape is less commonly included in criminal statutes nowadays in a variety of jurisdictions due to its specific definition as a penetrative act. Where I reside, rape isn't in the criminal statutes. We have different variations of sexual assault. That's ultimately the more logical approach. The former has nothing to do with feminism. I would like to see where Mary P. Koss had involvement as you said, though.

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." - Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods, by Mary P Koss, page 206.

This is why a woman cannot be prosecuted for rape on a Federal level. That's anywhere in the US.

Citing Caroline Norton, a figure from the 19th century, is a major reach. Particularly given the social context of that time. As for the National Organization for Women, that's at best a mischaracterization.

It's not a major reach. Her feminist stance on child custody plagues this country even today. If anything her reach extends all the way out to right now.

They opposed shared custody as a default and favoured the individual circumstances of the family and child be weighed. Their statement did not assert blanket opposition nor that men are too dangerous for it. By their own rationale, fathers should have sole custody if it is in the child's best interest.

That's not anywhere close to their stand on shared custody. Even if it was it is highly illogical. It should be shared by default unless something shows that it shouldn't be. They're banking on courtroom prejudices based on the Tender Years Doctrine lingering as a de facto principle.

That's also a reach. Where patriarchy gets blamed is in the lack of equal enforcement. It is hardly a mainstream view in feminism that women should be held blameless in cases of assault. As for women getting away with violent crimes being the fault of feminism... There's long standing historical precedent of this sort of thing happening absent any feminism.

Except women's groups want to end imprisonment for women for anything and only for women. Feminists not only got this ball rolling but there is record of them wanting to make the inequity even worse! As for women being held blameless, that's why the Duluth Model calls women assaulting men a trivial issue. I guess you don't realize the Duluth Model was a feminist project.

I've seen feminist discussions on the matter that don't assert the victim is at fault. This also doesn't seem to be the fault of feminism either. It really seems like you've identified a host of items you regard as unjust with respect to the status and treatment of men in American society and have foisted blame on feminism where feminism itself has no place or at the very least subordinate status to myriad other factors.

Feminists use the term "the (male) rape victim should pay because it's in the best interest of the child." (But not if the victim was female, of course.) This is definitely one that the so-called Patriarchy can't be found within a mile's reach of.

But all of this pales in comparison to feminism's biggest crime: their persistent, militant silence about these injustices, except when they can yell "teh patriarchy!!" and deflect any and all culpability away from themselves.

[–]thrownawaytodaysr 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Men are judged by the worst examples. Feminism can be equally judged. Except one chooses an ideology, not a gender that they're born with.

Are we really? I suspect another decontextualised example or set of examples, but I'm open to your meaning.

DV rates by women against women outstrip rates by men against women - particularly sexual assault.

An interesting statistic, but not exactly relevant. In flat numbers, police will be called more frequently to incidents of male against female DV. Thus a simple and flawed model that needs improvement/replacement.

This is why a woman cannot be prosecuted for rape on a Federal level. That's anywhere in the US.

So on account of her writing those words, men cannot be victims of rape under federal statute?

It's not a major reach. Her feminist stance on child custody plagues this country even today. If anything her reach extends all the way out to right now.

It's a major reach because it isn't even a feminist position (first wave was primarily about voting rights and while other rights were pursued, they were absolutely localised to their time; I.e. a time when women were in fact the primary caregivers abd disproportionately so). There's also plenty of statistical evidence that indicates when the father is indeed active in the children's lives and is seeking custody, that he will be granted shared or even some custody as the facts play out.

That's not anywhere close to their stand on shared custody.

I read their statement.

Even if it was it is highly illogical. It should be shared by default unless something shows that it shouldn't be. They're banking on courtroom prejudices based on the Tender Years Doctrine lingering as a de facto principle.

Which... https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/arizona-family-law/what-is-the-tender-years-doctrine/

The tender years doctrine has been replaced in American and English common law by the assumption that the child’s needs should come first. Now, family courts are instructed to consider which parent can best serve the child’s needs when determining custody. Statistically, mothers still receive primary custody far more often than fathers, but this is not due to any legal precedent concerning the tender years doctrine.

It goes on to assert that the underlying presumption still influences decisions, but even that is due to biases predicated on gender stereotypes rather than latent allegiance to the Tender Years doctrine which hasn't been relevant in decades. It's because women are now normatively seen as the best caregiver without respect for the specific underpinnings. I'll update this with some statistics later on.

Except women's groups want to end imprisonment for women for anything and only for women. Feminists not only got this ball rolling but there is record of them wanting to make the inequity even worse! As for women being held blameless, that's why the Duluth Model calls women assaulting men a trivial issue. I guess you don't realize the Duluth Model was a feminist project.

Can't read it right now but will try. On its face, seems asinine and I'm curious as to the specific nature of thr alternative underlying the assertion.

Feminists use the term "the (male) rape victim should pay because it's in the best interest of the child." (But not if the victim was female, of course.) This is definitely one that the so-called Patriarchy can't be found within a mile's reach of.

Some may. I would contend that's an overreach and that the child shouldn't be in the custody of an arguable criminal.

But all of this pales in comparison to feminism's biggest crime: their persistent, militant silence about these injustices, except when they can yell "teh patriarchy!!" and deflect any and all culpability away from themselves.

Will update on this one later as well (my phone has a focus mode which will shut off reddit for the work day and I have 4 minutes before it kicks in).

[–]RatDontPanic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Are we really? I suspect another decontextualised example or set of examples, but I'm open to your meaning.

Women are taught to be afraid of us whenever they encounter us on the street. Carry your keys in your hand and all that. "Men as a class", "men are trash", etc.

Never tell a feminist "not all men are like that" but do expect to accept their argument "not all feminists are like that!"

An interesting statistic, but not exactly relevant. In flat numbers, police will be called more frequently to incidents of male against female DV. Thus a simple and flawed model that needs improvement/replacement.

Flat numbers are not as important as proportional numbers.

So on account of her writing those words, men cannot be victims of rape under federal statute?

Pretty much. "Forced him to penetrate" gets no woman a rape charge. Maybe sexual assault, but that's a lesser charge.

It goes on to assert that the underlying presumption still influences decisions, but even that is due to biases predicated on gender stereotypes rather than latent allegiance to the Tender Years doctrine which hasn't been relevant in decades. It's because women are now normatively seen as the best caregiver without respect for the specific underpinnings. I'll update this with some statistics later on.

Judges are still prejudiced to go with the Tender Years doctrine. It's a de facto law, not de jure law anymore. Father's Rights groups are still fighting this prejudice.

Can't read it right now but will try. On its face, seems asinine and I'm curious as to the specific nature of thr alternative underlying the assertion.

Why is everything that debunks your narrative "asinine"? That's what's wrong with this sub and what makes it part of the feminist hegemony.

Some may. I would contend that's an overreach and that the child shouldn't be in the custody of an arguable criminal.

You can't possibly imagine that corruption has sunk deeply into the feminist movement. Man that's some serious jingoism right there. I used to be a MRA but I walked out of that movement because of equally corrupt bullshit. You gotta think for yourself and embrace independence.

Egalitarianism is the way to go. Stop bowing to the gang mentality, trust me it's toxic.

[–]thrownawaytodaysr1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women are taught to be afraid of us whenever they encounter us on the street. Carry your keys in your hand and all that. "Men as a class", "men are trash", etc.

That's hardly a valid rebuttle. Fear of men is a valid construct even when there's an understanding that not all men present an inherent risk. It's a matter of the unknown risks/hazards. I'm not going to go to a high crime area despite knowing that the majority of individuals in the area are law abiding or at least nonviolent.

Never tell a feminist "not all men are like that" but do expect to accept their argument "not all feminists are like that!"

The "not all men" argument is one predicated on the belief that feminists believe it to be true of all men. Some may indeed think all men are predatory, but scarcely any large number. Moreover, when a father has a daughter, he will very often hold analogous views to those you object. Hardly something endemic to feminism.

Flat numbers are not as important as proportional numbers.

They are more important when it comes to procedure. They are less important when it comes to actually addressing the underlying issues. If police come to the door to break up a domestic dispute, the fact that there are greater levels of DV in lesbian couples than heterosexual couples isn't strictly relevant to who is the likeliest perpetrator of DV in that specific household.

As I said, the Duluth Model is a flawed model.

Pretty much. "Forced him to penetrate" gets no woman a rape charge. Maybe sexual assault, but that's a lesser charge.

Sexual assault is not always a lesser charge. That's based on jurisdiction. You also failed to make the connection as to how her writing those words led to the actual legal effect.

Judges are still prejudiced to go with the Tender Years doctrine. It's a de facto law, not de jure law anymore. Father's Rights groups are still fighting this prejudice.

A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody (in other words, approximately 6.3 percent of all fathers in the study).

It isn't as you say it is.

Why is everything that debunks your narrative "asinine"? That's what's wrong with this sub and what makes it part of the feminist hegemony.

I called the concept of abolition of female imprisonment asinine. Persecution complex, much?

You can't possibly imagine that corruption has sunk deeply into the feminist movement. Man that's some serious jingoism right there.

The fuck you on about? You've pointed to some generally fringe examples that haven't garnered widespread traction, misattributed the tender years doctrine to the feminist movement, brought up that lesbians endure more DV than other demographics despite the irrelevance to the Duluth Model (which is actually a VALID critique to raise against feminism given its inadequacy and sore need for a replacement), I agreed that the mere concept (without elaboration) of ceasing the practice of imprisoning women seemed asinine on its face and you went on the attack.

I used to be a MRA but I walked out of that movement because of equally corrupt bullshit. You gotta think for yourself and embrace independence.

I've read the MRA nonsense. They aren't even remotely comparable frames. MRAs tilt at windmills for the most part while ignoring vulnerable groups within their the male population (trans men, gay men, men of colour, etc.) in lieu of heavy emphasis on things like child custody (overblown). I'm at least happy to see you raising points about male victims of abuse and sexual assault, but it's through a lens that's still highly skewed.

Egalitarianism is the way to go. Stop bowing to the gang mentality, trust me it's toxic.

Weird accusation predicated on the fact that I'm not buying what you're selling, particularly where you use cherry-picked examples to highlight feminism writ large.

Maybe actually look at what feminists are saying in the aggregate rather than sampling what you deem to be the worst of it.

[–]RatDontPanic1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's hardly a valid rebuttle. Fear of men is a valid construct even when there's an understanding that not all men present an inherent risk. It's a matter of the unknown risks/hazards. I'm not going to go to a high crime area despite knowing that the majority of individuals in the area are law abiding or at least nonviolent.

It's only not valid if you are biased toward the feminist side of the argument. That's like being afraid of Muslims because of terrorists. "Black criminality" is logically inseparable from this mentality. Innocent men are being judged by the actions of criminals.

Sexual assault is not always a lesser charge. That's based on jurisdiction. You also failed to make the connection as to how her writing those words led to the actual legal effect.

Rape gets you more time in prison than sexual assault. That's part of why Brock Turner only got a few months for his heinous behavior.

It isn't as you say it is.

"Pushed aggressively" is the key distinction here. That means the men who get good attorneys who know how to remind the judge that the Tender Years doctrine is no longer a legal standard. They lawyered up a lot harder than she did. But yes fathers rights attorneys are very good at this, and the takeaway is never go into a child custody hearing without one.

I called the concept of abolition of female imprisonment asinine. Persecution complex, much?

It's not a persecution complex if you can show people are pushing for it, which I did. All you're doing now is dismissing the facts that don't suit your narrative. The fact is women get 63% less time in prison than men for the same crime.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current

The fuck you on about?

I'm on about the fact that you are too fucking biased to continue this discussion honestly.

You've pointed to some generally fringe examples that haven't garnered widespread traction, misattributed the tender years doctrine to the feminist movement, brought up that lesbians endure more DV than other demographics despite the irrelevance to the Duluth Model (which is actually a VALID critique to raise against feminism given its inadequacy and sore need for a replacement), I agreed that the mere concept (without elaboration) of ceasing the practice of imprisoning women seemed asinine on its face and you went on the attack.

All I'm doing is putting forth facts which, for the most part, you refuse to recognize. You are hell bent on defending feminism no matter what.

I've read the MRA nonsense. They aren't even remotely comparable frames.

Yup, you're hyper partisan. You need to stop, take a deep breath, and get out of this gang mentality. This isn't healthy for you any more than it is for them.

Weird accusation predicated on the fact that I'm not buying what you're selling

And I will never buy the "feminism is better" bullshit that you're selling. There is no benefit to be had in discussing anything with you, I've outgrown this partisan nonsense. Have a nice day.

[–]whatwatwhutwut1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mikey_weasel 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zokahlo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Perspective7552 -6 points-5 points-4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Perspective7552 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sweetjustice33 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sweetjustice33 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sweetjustice33 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Other explanation for what? You didn't give an explanation to begin with. Hypergamy is defined as dating to move up in class, more specifically when red pillers use it they suggest that women will always ditch you for "better". Nothing in those numbers says anything about class nor do they say anything about how often those women leave someone for someone "better". There is no reasonable way to look at those numbers and make any conclusion whatsoever about hypergamy, so it's simply not worth addressing the red pill claims seriously. And this is why I call these questions distractions. It's just baseless nonsense and you're not really coming from an ex red pill perspective are you? You want to argue the red pill side. So go find a forum where red pillers can argue their side with blue pill or whatever you call just being a rational person who doesn't fall for red pill nonsense. That purple pill debate forum or whatever. You can argue this nonsense all you want there.

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]xvszero 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xvszero1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xvszero1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]zokahlo 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikey_weasel 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kentucky_Supreme 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweelFor- 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Perspective7552 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TVans14 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rook_Cross 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]woodenbiplane 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	this sub has a net negative result, you guys have not helped at all.
Author	terimamimeri
Upvotes	0
Comments	76
Date	September 13, 2022 8:13 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/ExRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/xdhcjw/this_sub_has_a_net_negative_result_you_guys_have/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/ExRedPill/this-sub-has-a-net-negative-result-you-guys-have.1131136 https://theredarchive.com/post/1131136

Comments