TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Why have women never oppressed an entire gender?

fizolof
April 15, 2014
5 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Why have women never oppressed an entire gender?
Author

fizolof
Upvotes 5
Comments 51
Date April 15, 2014 5:09 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/233v9r/why_have_women_never_oppressed_an_entire_gender/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-have-women-never-oppressed-an-entire-gender.285895
https://theredarchive.com/post/285895
Top posts by fizolof

In a rare moment of drunken honesty, a poster in r/TwoXChromosomes admits she prefers assholes to nice guys

457 upvotes
February 8, 2015
/r/TheRedPill

You all know that women don't know what they want, right? Turns out they don't even know what they're aroused by.

246 upvotes
December 29, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

What does a "healthy" relationship look like?

30 upvotes
February 22, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Polish Human Rights Minister complains that female candidates for police officers are discriminated by having to pass identical physical tests as men

27 upvotes
September 6, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Is there any positive advice for men besides TRP?

25 upvotes
March 4, 2016
/r/PurplePillDebate

Are redpillers and niceguys two sides of the same coin?

24 upvotes
October 17, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

Reddit study says TRP is the most bigoted subreddit out of the top 250

23 upvotes
March 22, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

What do you think about this quote by Dilbert creator Scott Adams?

21 upvotes
August 17, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why hasn't there been a society in history where women oppressed men?

First, I'm wouldn't quite accept the notion that there's never been a society like that, but I'll accept that, if they existed, they are rare.

I think the main reasons are:

  • Because men tend to be headstrong, willful, and willing to break rules. Combine that with men's stronger and bigger physiques and it's hard for women to keep men oppressed before an uprising happens.

  • Because women have had to raise children (leaving them in a poor position to be spending time doing non-child-raising activities like ruling countries). Even if women didn't have the social expectation of child-rearing, if they have children, they have to be pregnant (i.e. vulnerable) and nurse the children for the first few years of life.

The end result of this is that any long-term successful society needs to produce enough children to compete with rival societies and (for efficiency's sake) societies will end up with a division of labor. Since women are already in the position of raising infants, they ended up being the family caretakers, while men tended towards being laborers and warriors and leaders. It's difficult for a bunch of family-caretakers to enforce unfair rules on a bunch of laborers, warriors, and leaders.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

For the same reasons men haven't oppressed an entire gender.

[–]jacks10007 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/thread

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

Except they have. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

[–][deleted] 17 points17 points17 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Damned_Hedonist9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

we could travel to almost any time or place in history and men would have more freedom and power than women. even in the present day they still do in a lot of the world.

[–][deleted] 15 points15 points15 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Damned_Hedonist5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

you are the one who moved the goalposts, my friend. when the user above me pointed out that men suppress women in S. Arabia, you then said it was some, not all men.

i just pointed out that it was an incorrect assumption. 99% of recorded history men had more access to sex, education, opportunity and power.

men throughout history weren't expected to be faithful husbands, and many cultures allowed extra wives and sexual freedom for men. women were often executed for the same.

men from prosperous families were educated while the women largely were not. it was unusual to be an educated woman for most of history.

even poor men could make their fortune by fighting in wars and exploring. women were not allowed to do the same.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

men throughout history weren't expected to be faithful husbands

Were most men even husbands?

and many cultures allowed extra wives and sexual freedom for men.

The successful ones, sure. Those "extra wives" that a few men had... had to have been denied from many more other men. While it might suck to be one of many "extra wives", let's not claim that it was soo much worse to be living in luxury vs living as one of those impoverished or enslaved men who didn't have the option to marry.

men from prosperous families were educated while the women largely were not.

I like how you qualified that. Men from "prosperous families". Most people were not prosperous, so if you're putting it that way then men were "largely not" educated either.

even poor men could make their fortune by fighting in wars and exploring.

How many poor men actually made their fortune by fighting in wars and exploring? They are exceptions to the rule, just as famous women who made their fortune through prostitution, fighting, or exploring were. There were less women, but that could easily be attributable to less pressure. Necessity and desperation are what lead to exploration and motivation, after all. It's impossible to strictly determine or pin the blame on any single factor.

[–]Damned_Hedonist0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

men throughout history weren't expected to be faithful husbands

Were most men even husbands?

and many cultures allowed extra wives and sexual freedom for men.

While it might suck to be one of many "extra wives", let's not claim that it was soo much worse to be living in luxury vs living as one of those impoverished or enslaved men who didn't have the option to marry.

many women were also impoverished beyond marriageability and slaves as well. married women were also used as slaves of sorts: they weren't paid for their labor at home, and often had no choice in when or how they would have sex or reproduce. yes, they were cared for if the husband and his family were decent, but obtaining a wife was a business deal most often and i have no doubt being a kept woman was not as awesome as being her male counterpart.

Most people were not prosperous, so if you're putting it that way then men were "largely not" educated either.

How many poor men actually made their fortune by fighting in wars and exploring? They are exceptions to the rule

Obviously the famous are few and education was scarce for a long time.

Does that change the fact that it was a rare place and time that allowed women to own and manage properties? don't you think that might make it more difficult to be independent and prosper? the fact that men were also poor doesn't change the fact that even the most worse off man was still in a better position than his female counterpart.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

many women were also impoverished beyond marriageability and slaves as well.

If I were to take Shadow_Nirvana's factors into account, probably even less than half the number of men.

but obtaining a wife was a business deal most often and i have no doubt being a kept woman was not as awesome as being her male counterpart.

Partially a consequence of the upward marital social mobility that women have. She might not be as privileged as her male counterpart, but it was far more common for her to have married upwards (into greater wealth and power). That should contribute to the power discrepancy you're talking about.

the fact that men were also poor doesn't change the fact that even the most worse off man was still in a better position than his female counterpart.

How are you qualified to make such subjective judgments? I don't claim that dying by the sword or living as a eunuch is better or worse than being a prostitute.

You're the one saying that poor men can at least become soldiers of fortune while women can't ("even poor men could make their fortune by fighting in wars and exploring. women were not allowed to do the same"), as though that was a social privilege... You think it had nothing to do with the difference in physical strength?

And you're saying that somehow killing for money is significantly better than the option to have sex for money?

[–]Damned_Hedonist0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Partially a consequence of the upward marital social mobility that women have. She might not be as privileged as her male counterpart, but it was far more common for her to have married upwards (into greater wealth and power). That should contribute to the power discrepancy you're talking about.

what are you talking about. marriage was a business deal, men didn't 'marry down' socially unless the woman had something to offer like wealth or land. men who had wealth but no social standing also 'married up'.

the fact that men were also poor doesn't change the fact that even the most worse off man was still in a better position than his female counterpart.

How are you qualified to make such subjective judgments? I don't claim that dying by the sword or living as a eunuch is better or worse than being a prostitute.

i don't know if you're not understanding me or what. i'm talking about quantitative measures of social freedom and opportunities to gain financial independence and power, not a qualitative measure of if someone 'had a worse life experience'. i think i pretty definitively proved my claim （in arguably the laziest way ever but still） already, so unless you'd like to change goalposts again i think we're done here.

[–]HalfysRedditIndependent thinker3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But it's not like the men born into that situation asked for it or actively perpetuated it.

Throughout the vast majority of history the norms of society have been heavily influenced by a relatively small group of people with significantly more power than the rest.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

For a lot of them, that would be the freedom and power to be killed violently, be castrated, or be abused for physical labour.

You're falling into the same trap rpers love to talk about.

You're focusing on the top percentile of men. The ones near the bottom who got treated like shit are just forgotten. Most men throughout history lived shit lives. The 60% of all males throughout history who had no descendants probably weren't the happiest of men. In contrast, 20% of women.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The 60% of all males throughout history who had no descendants probably weren't the happiest of men. In contrast, 20% of women.

To be fair, we don't know much about those men or women. All we know is that there's more variation in female genetic material than male genetic material. We don't really know why or how this happened. All we know is that twice as many females as males managed to reproduce. Those 40% and 80% numbers aren't even known for sure. It could be 30% and 60%. It could be 45% and 90%.

[–]Damned_Hedonist3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

do you think women aren't being killed and exploited for labor? you need to read up on your history.

you realize women are also castrated? look up FGM if you have a strong stomach. these women are castrated for no reason other than cultural pressure, and most FGM victims can never enjoy sex… and its excruciating for them. many are mutilated without proper anesthetic or painkillers. many do not survive.

i can agree that MGM is also an issue since there have been far too many botched circumcisions. i would advocate a man choose on his own to be circumcised, but i know there are some who would disagree for religious reasons and that's their right. but i think a person has more right to their body than others do.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Of course. I acknowledge that women have their fair share of suffering. I'd be as bad as a radical feminist if I denied that.

But I'm not the one making bold claims. My point was that clearly the supermajority of men weren't exemplars of freedom and power throughout history.

You're the one making bold claims like, "we could travel to almost any time or place in history and men would have more freedom and power than women."

No, I'm pretty sure that in many times or places in history we visited, we'd find that the average guy lived a fairly modest, powerless existence and then dying without siring an heir.

[–]Damned_Hedonist2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're the one making bold claims like, *"we could travel to almost any time or place in history and men would have more freedom and power than women."

no i'm pretty sure that's true but i welcome any counter evidence you can find.

in many times or places in history we visited, we'd find that the average guy lived a fairly modest, powerless existence and then dying without siring an heir.

sure and most women as well. but depending on your social standing a man did have more freedom and opportunity than his female counterpart. you'd have to go pretty far down the food chain to find them in the same relative position.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

no i'm pretty sure that's true but i welcome any counter evidence you can find.

I suppose we should all take your word for it, and that the burden of proof is on me to provide "counter evidence" for your non-existent evidence.

sure and most women as well.

I provided genetic evidence that twice as many women avoided that specific fate as men.

[–]Damned_Hedonist1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose we should all take your word for it, and that the burden of proof is on me to provide "counter evidence" for your non-existent evidence.

you're right i was being lazy. when i'm off my mobile i'll throw up some links.

as for the other part you quoted i was specifically referring to the modest way of living, not heirs, sorry that was unclear.

as for the heirs... i'm not seeing how not having children = unhappy. again, i'm on mobile so i'll check that study when i'm home. i've go a few questions that need answering before i'll speak with any confidence about it. i have heard only about half of people reproduce anyway so i don't really get how this is a big deal at all, but i promise i'll keep an open mind.

[–]Damned_Hedonist-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

Although males seem to have dominated in many ancient cultures, there are some exceptions. For instance in the Nigerian Aka culture women may hunt, even on their own, and often control distribution of resources.

So there it is, on the women's rights page of wikipedia. But it's not all bad, those Nigerian ladies get to hunt at least.

The status of women in China was low, largely due to the custom of foot binding.

The status of women in ancient Greece varied form city state to city state. In ancient Athens, women had no legal personhood and were assumed to be part of the oikos headed by the male kyrios. Until marriage, women were under the guardianship of their father or other male relative. Once married, the husband became a woman's kyrios. As women were barred from conducting legal proceedings, the kyrios would do so on their behalf. [10] Athenian women had limited right to property and therefore were not considered full citizens, as citizenship and the entitlement to civil and political rights was defined in relation to property and the means to life. However, women could acquire rights over property through gifts, dowry and inheritance, though her kyrios had the right to dispose of a woman's property. [12] Athenian women could enter into a contract worth less than the value of a “medimnos of barley” (a measure of grain), allowing women to engage in petty trading. Slaves, like women, were not eligible for full citizenship in ancient Athens, though in rare circumstances they could become citizens if freed. The only permanent barrier to citizenship, and hence full political and civil rights, in ancient Athens was gender. No women ever acquired citizenship in ancient Athens, and therefore women were excluded in principle and practice from ancient Athenian democracy.

By contrast, Spartan women enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world. Although Spartan women were formally excluded from military and political life they enjoyed considerable status as mothers of Spartan warriors. As men engaged in military activity, women took responsibility for running estates. Following protracted warfare in the 4th century BC Spartan women owned approximately between 35% and 40% of all Spartan land and property.

So the Spartan women did much better, but they were the exception and not the rule. And they still couldn't enter into the real realms of power.

I could go on, I'm literally just copying and pasting from the wikipedia page, but I'm going to let you read the rest.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which do you think is more prevalent, female circumcision or male circumcision?

[–]thejimmy86-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In response to your first paragraph: do you think MEN aren't being killed and exploited for labour?

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd be interested in seeing a source for that claim.

[–]dreckmalRed Pill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here.

The claim is that 80% of women have reproduced, whereas 40% of men have, according to the article's quoted PhD.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is a fascinating claim, but I'm sad the Times didn't cite the source on that DNA research Dr. Baumeister used.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For reference: one of the ones cited by Baumeister was Dr Wilder's research. I didn't make that clear, but that was the last link in my last post to you (the one from oxfordjournals.org).

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

This article was brought up in ppd in the past:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

Consider for a second, the ridiculousness of the fact that Baumeister had to title his book something as offensive to men as, "Is There Anything Good About Men" just to make his point without offending social sensibilities.

Some other articles:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040920063537.htm

The pattern the researchers see in our genes doesn't require mass migrations of people across continents. The sailors with a girl in every port could have done it. Or it may be that village women snuck out for trysts with tall, dark strangers. Either way, Y chromosomes got around.

Here is a study:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf

This actually doesn't look like the specific study I read, but there is simply too much material on this subject.

EDIT: Oh, here it is:

Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full.pdf+html

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, that is fascinating stuff.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I was under the impression that the DNA testing didn't control for wars or enforced polygamy, but I'll have to check again.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You're right. Those things are impossible to control for with complete precision. I wouldn't say "war" (it would take a lot more wars to get the numbers we're talking about), but perhaps violent conflicts in general sure.

That however would only further show how miserable of an existence most men have had throughout history. More wars and enforced polygamy (where vast majority of men are denied or limited access to women, as the ones at their class are married off to higher classes) aren't exactly better for men in general. This isn't about "women bashing" ("hur durr, evidence of hypergamy!"). Wars, slavery, eunuchism, etc certainly lift some "blame" from women for this phenomenon where we have half the male ancestors as we do female ones, but that wasn't the point. No need to be on the defense over it. Those factors, if significant, paint an even more grim reality for the men of the past.

Instead of playing oppression olympics, we could instead just admit that while certain groups of men may have enjoyed privileges that most women didn't have (and vice versa), to generalize and say that an entire gender (men) somehow conspired and benefited through the oppression of another (women) is unfair.

Honestly the path that either you or Damned_Hedonist would to downplay the studies is something even most feminists wouldn't take. You know what they say, "Patriarchy hurt men too!" It's a tacit admission of my point.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan

Contains direct links to 2003 and 2007 studies and a summary.

I wouldn't say "war" (it would take a lot more wars to get the numbers we're talking about)

The world hasn't really seen a shortage of wars. I wasn't meaning "world war"s. Thus I'm unsure of your assertion.

That however would only further show how miserable of an existence most men have had throughout history.

Reproducing is the end-all-be-all aspect of human existence?

where vast majority of men are denied or limited access to women

Prostitution.

Also please hear yourself when you say things like this. "denied access to women"? Are we talking about chattel?

Instead of playing oppression olympics

I didn't open the topic, neither have I posted "Women were more oppressed" although that would be true, I guess.

Honestly the path that either you or Damned_Hedonist would to downplay the studies is something even most feminists wouldn't take.

Okay, what? Pointing out that "women picking the alphaest of alpha men" isn't really the only explanation at our disposal is downplaying the studies now?

You know what they say, "Patriarchy hurt men too!"

I am still wondering how you think I don't believe that line?

[–]thejimmy860 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Incorrect. There are many people who have pointed out that in fact, a woman held a great deal of power in a patriarchal society. There's even a passage in Proverbs (in the Bible) that specifically details how the wife was running the entire estate and the household.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Damned_Hedonist0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

personal risk? almost everything pre-modern era was risky, but regardless you are ignoring the personal risk involving childbirth. many, many women have died due to complications in birth. women weren't allowed to take as risky options as men could either, such as war or trade.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

All men or just those in power?

Its like saying "most of the media are jewish and therefore all Jews run the media".

20% of men run the world, the other 80% are just as fucked as women if not more so.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not really though, comparing men and women of equal "class", men have more power socially, especially in societies that /u/Damned_Hedonist mentioned. Maybe not so much in places like Sweden etc.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men aren't automatically given power, they're just more likely to strive for it and therefore end up obtaining it.

Men are aggressive, forward amd sometimes ruthless compared to women. Its all about testosterone, men have more so our behavior is different.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men aren't automatically given power

Please keep telling yourself. We are talking about a world were girls are directed to a certain lifestyle from birth while boys are pushed towards being successful. I'm sure that such an environment may play a teensy weensy role in "more likely to strive for it and therefore end up obtaining it" part.

This wouldn't be as funny as it is right now if you weren't in a sub that tries to shame "Career Carrie"s and use an inherent social advantage and sometimes religion to push towards a certain society.

I hate using the term "Check your privilege". But yeah.

Its all about testosterone, men have more so our behavior is different.

Can you tell me what brain part too, Mr. Scientism?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No.. if you actually cared to look at reality you'd see that men aren't pushed towards success. We do worse at school than girls and due to an explosion of single mothers and beta fathers many boys simply aren't growing up. Boys can't deal with reality and run off to their escapes. Drugs, video games, reddit.

Is the fact men are 4x more likely to commit suicide being pushed to success? Or the fact 7/8 homeless people are men.

You're made up victim complex may have had truth to it 40-50 years ago. You're parroting what women said back then, but things have drastically changed in those 3 generations.

This is why I don't care, because you don't care. How about, life is hard and everyone suffers?

Hormones affect behaviour, or is PMS made up by the patriachy to oppress you?

[–]Shadow_Nirvana-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about the rest of world not the Western world (in fact i specified it), but please don't let your bad reading comprehension skills or your Eurocentricism thwart you.

Is the fact men are 4x more likely to commit suicide being pushed to success?

Women attempt suicide more than men. The reason male suicide attempts are more "successful"(for the lack of a better word) than female suicide attempts is because of the methods used. And before you go on a diatribe about how women are manipulative, men and women use the same methods(guns vs poison) to murder someone else as they use to commit suicide.

Or the fact 7/8 homeless people are men.

-In Australia, it is an ever-increasing issue with numbers of homeless people growing at an alarming rate. At the last count, the homeless population was 105,000 people; close to half of these people were younger than 25 ( ref ? ) . Men made up 58% of the numbers and women 42%. (ABS, 2008)

"Homelessness postmodernist and feminist perspective" by Karen Anderson

There is a much higher amount of drug users and mental patients within the homeless too. You can't disregard that when you compare them to the average population.

When you think about it, it makes the case for a more socialistic approach. But that is the way of the "ebuul cultural marxists" so yeah.

Hormones affect behaviour, or is PMS made up by the patriachy to oppress you?

Awww, hormones affect behaviour, yes, but back up your assertion, instead of parroting what you hear from manosphere blogs. So tell me, what brain part? What mechanism? Or does pop-evopsych not have the answers yet.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's some men and some women, not entire on either counts.

[–]dreckmalRed Pill8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a poorly phrased question.

[–]purplepill2Blue Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they're physically weaker, and it's only recently that violence against women when they act "inappropriately" stopped being acceptable.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men didn't oppress women, society did (and does).

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because men are physically stronger? And before automatic weapons, the person who was stronger could escalate a disagreement to physical aggression and most likely win?

I have no idea. I made that up.

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

There were matriarchal societies in Africa where the women were bigger on average and would often hit their husbands.

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

Yeah being a man not in the top ten percentile.

I'd rather be a woman than a legionnare.

[–]berryokt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With societal views and laws behind their backs, feminists are working their way into doing just that. In the past it would be laughable, one hit from a man and you're knocked out. It is hard to oppress somebody that can hold you down and fuck you while you cry. Feminists have no chance without a corrupt police force to support their bullshit.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why have women never oppressed an entire gender?

Isn't it the latest, hippest fad in patriarchy theory to claim that both men and women contribute to perpetuating Oppression? And that it negatively effects both genders?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe while I wasn't looking feminists took a great leap backward and decided to start being more transparently and comically misandrist. But it seems to me that boasting about how women are morally superior to men in every way, bitching how everything bad in the world comes from men, etc. is an outdated tactic. And for good reason.

Maybe you blue pillers should get your own house in order before hurling your shittiest one line man-hating accusations at us as if it's grounds for an actual debate? Just a thought.

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

Because women don't have what it takes.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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