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

Apparently it's not possible for women to be sexist against men...

Liberal_irony

January 22, 2017
167 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html
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 Apparently it's not possible for women to be sexist against men...
Author

Liberal_irony

Upvotes 167
Comments 30
Date January 22, 2017 2:39 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ph89l/apparently_its_not_possible_for_women_to_be/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/apparently-its-not-possible-for-women-to-be-sexist.933551
https://theredarchive.com/post/933551
Top posts by Liberal_irony

'Victimhood narrative' taught in schools fuels anxiety in young women, academic claims.

418 upvotes
October 22, 2017
/r/MensRights

1 year in jail for grooming and assaulting a minor

5 upvotes
October 31, 2019
/r/MensRights

[article] Ex-calendar model wins record €88m 'needs award' in divorce

2 upvotes
July 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ...

The number one sin of the social justice warriors is that they redefined sexism and racism to try and exempt themselves from any concept of bigotry.

When this is all dissected a decade or two from now, that step made in the late 1980s to start intersectional feminism and come up with a ranking system for privilege, which underpins this notion that discrimination against the grain isn't sexism or racism, is going to be seen as the seed that planted this stunted little fucking bush of intellectual hypocrisy.

[–]BurnededPotato 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am finding this true in the world of politics as well. Liberals often condemn Trump supporters who blindly follow and praise Trump. But at the same time blindly disagree with everything he does (granted he literally hasn't done anything). Is one better than another?

[–]Cagg 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I like how when it comes to the word sexism. Feminists and misandrists always point out that the definition isn't an accurate representation of reality, and that women cant be sexist.

But when confronted about the superiority, gas lighting, and anti-male behavior of modern feminists in reality... they immediately resort to the textbook definition of feminism.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Motte and Bailey tactics, working as designed.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.

In case someone else has to Google it like I did.

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

Thanks

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

All these "moderate" feminists love to tell us that most feminists aren't like that and feminism really is about equality. If that's the case, why are they telling us? We're not the ones they need to convince. They need to be telling the others feminists that they're doing feminism wrong.

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

i whole heartedly agree with this viewpoint.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's really themselves that they're trying to convince.

Basically, feminism is an ideology based on the idea that women are oppressed. It assumes this a priori and when reality doesn't quite measure up to their assumption they have to bend the facts to fit.

(You can see this in many present-day and historical arguments on the disenfranchisement of women... if they can even be called arguments instead of blind assertions.)

Anyways, the point is that they are denying reality and that combined with the natural human mental story in which we are all our own good guys in our own stories leads to people needing to consolidate the difference in reality with what they're saying. This manifests in certain predictable behavior which is why feminist action is so comparable to another reality-denying ideology like, say, Intelligent Design.

Projection is a really common thing we talk about (a complete denial of the observed reality and pushing the contradictions onto others) but for people not as willing to completely shove their heads in the sand they have to cope in other ways... changing definitions being a common example.

This one, the redefinition of sexism and racism, is commonly talked about but you can go a bit higher than that and see this hamster wheeling even in academic feminism. I'm referring, of course, to the idea of Kyriarchy. Supposedly as a concept it replaces Patriarchy but if it really replaced it instead of just being "Patriarchy but I feel uncomfortable calling minority men oppressors" then... well, logically speaking it would completely invalidate all prior feminist research based on Patriarchy. It doesn't, therefore the people using it aren't really using a better definition so much as they're trying to escape acknowledging their own bigotry.

And so they say... it's all those other feminists who are bigots. But it's usually just a matter of asking the right questions before the "good" feminist reveals that they actually believe the same things. (Which is why I say the only difference between a "good" feminist and a "bad" one is you simply haven't asked the "good" one the right questions yet.)

Beyond that, it's simply degrees of how bad, but the same fundamental denial of reality.

[–]probably_a_squid 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The kyriarchy shit is infuriating. It's basically a way for them to pretend they're not saying what they're saying, and I've had it happen more than once in a discussion. They will say they are not presenting men as universally privileged because minority men suffer from their minority status. Ok, so you are still saying men are privileged.

Or when they say that patriarchy hurts men too, they will say "men who display typically feminine traits get ridiculed because of misogyny". Again, that statement only proves that you think men are privileged.

[–]WilliamTheTaft 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can tell a site is bad if they have no comments section.

[–]azvigilante 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I got about 4 paragraphs in before this daft cunt started making correlations that don't exist. Seriously, thanks for the article but this botch is pants on head retarded

[–]thrway_1000 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/HV2Sx

[–]YouGurt_MaN14 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What a FUCKING joke

[–]azazelcrowley 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“However,” she writes, “only oppressed people experience all of that and institutionalised violence and systematic erasure... That’s why it’s not possible to be sexist against men.”

I feel like this is gaslighting tbh. It sounds like the way they've set it up applies to men more. As in, the argument they lay out better justifies the statement "Men cannot be sexist against women."

Institutional violence and erasure of issues is a male problem more than a female one, by far. Women have issues. But if these are the ones on which the claim "Women cannot be sexist to men" rests on, it's entirely backward.

[–]uDurDMS8M0rZ6Im59I2R 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So a wealthy powerful woman like Oprah or Hilary Clinton, judging solely by their current social status, aren't being oppressed and therefore can't experience sexism?

So it's really classism and not sexism they should be worried about

[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So I take it that if she was given The Red Pill she would just choke and demand the Patriarchy had killed her.

She assumes that because sex is binary discrimination is binary - very stupid and a fallacy so big it should choke her. It is possible for discrimination to be gendered, meaning men and women suffer different forms of discrimination .... but that would be one piece of sanity too far for her.

[–]ralphswanson 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

only oppressed people experience all of that and institutionalised violence and systematic erasure

What institutionalised violence do women experience? Are they the only sex drafted? Are they the sex ignored when they report domestic violence or sexual assault? Are they the ones dying in dangerous jobs?

And what systematic erasure do women endure? Are mothers ignored in family court except to pay child support? Is Men's Rights now the orthodoxy in colleges now, and Feminism dismissed? Do only men have Abortion Rights now?

Feminists are the leaders in opposing gender equity today.

[–]Lrellok 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, lemme say this really clearly; You had equality dear, you threw it away. All obligations come with entitlements, a duty is matched by a duty. If i am required to do something regardless od whether i want to or not, then i am entitled to all the tools, materials and resources necessary to do it. Men having those positions you are speaking of was their entitlement for the sacrifices society expected of them, Just as your getting to feel safe was your entitlement for staying in the kitchen. You left the kitchen and no longer feel safe, men no longer are assured these positions, and a generation of men is sitting playing video games instead of perusing them. Both sacrificed something for the other for a mutual gain.

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

Pretty much, and I feel no obligation to work in the slightest to fix anything unless my responsibility will be matched by authority. Which, hahaha wishful thinking I know. Might as well check out and wait for everything to collapse.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No comments allowed on article. I wonder why!

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

That paper only has comments on the FB page to drive up views. In fairness she is taking a battering on FB every week

[–]DougDante 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the accusations of man-hating and reverse sexism were becoming so persistent that it didn’t seem worth the hassle to keep it as it originally stated.

In other news, racist who keeps getting called a racist is annoyed by the clearly false accusations.

[–]double-happiness 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Similarly, people of colour using disparaging terms to describe white people does not have any of the same political and historical weight that the N-word or other racial slurs possess. It is preposterous to equate the two.

If we examine the manner in which female sexuality is treated versus the way male sexuality is, the disparity becomes even more apparent. When the Disney star, Vanessa Hudgens had her nude photos stolen in 2007, there was an outcry.

Her career was threatened, there was a serious possibility that she might lose her job. When Justin Bieber, another former child star, was photographed naked on a beach? He was applauded for being well endowed.

That's her evidence to back up her point? A couple of seemingly randomly chosen celebrity "happenings"? In any case, you could just as easily argue the outcry in the former case seems like greater concern for the woman's privacy.

...while of course, a wealthy white woman is likely to have more privilege than a working class man of colour, when all things are equal - race, economic status, sexuality, etc - our culture rewards men for their achievements more while simultaneously excusing their misdemeanours in a way that is unfathomable for their female peers.

I bet as a presumably quite wealthy white woman she cares more about how her male counterparts are benefitting than about the travails of working class men.

I agree that men are discriminated against, socially and culturally, by the expectation that they conform to a stifling idea of masculinity, a toxic model of manhood that insists talking about their feelings is ‘girly’.

I think they are discriminated against by women, as much as anything. I think the 'toxic model of manhood' bit is just the usual feminist set of assumptions, I doubt they are actually observing men calling each other ‘girly’.

Of course, this failure to express themselves is what is driving suicide rates in young men, but it is the patriarchy that is to blame for this.

http://i.imgur.com/EvM7uZJ.jpg

So much bullshit in this it's hard to capture it all. But the main counterpoint is that in present-day society, institutional sexism is only tolerated when it is against men. Formal discrimination against women is almost never allowed in Western society.

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

But note how keen she is to dissociate herself from feminists, even though she is a fully paid up member of the cult believing in such nonsense as "the patriarchy".

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

She starts with a snide and smug remark about how complex ideologies can be summed up in one sentence. She says it sarcastically because the dictionary defined sexism as such.

She should remember that.

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

-H(S3Tmvn3#c<I-XfZa4AJQAWTFk<<k,Koa&7J6

LK:2kN@f(BgNrmo#%ElK00fomBJX9Ws4NpB]a7P%On;q5;efFG1mp(kw0E@Ap[;iX-eJRPN,vz9.N>gl]6hqzi,[)@Ud-o)Ge,mk3%dE+aK~~2Gz<T[ksDP%~]WZv.LBK[2pXJc84E+B>,MrQ>W0#%B~q#aIh0n78(BKXdRN6u

5nC<DWez:8h

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

People often quote the dictionary at me - “Sexism is discrimination on the basis of one’s sex” - because, as we know, all complex ideologies are easily explained in one sentence.

I know exactly what you mean, dear. It's like those wimmin who go round shouting the dictionary definition of Feminism at anyone who disagrees with it.

Women can, as Melissa A. Fabello writes in her excellent essay, Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist, make stereotypical assumptions about men, they can be prejudiced towards men, they can discriminate against men based on those prejudices.

“However,” she writes, “only oppressed people experience all of that and institutionalised violence and systematic erasure... That’s why it’s not possible to be sexist against men.”

Yes, because it's not as though 95% of workplace deaths are male, or 80+% of suicides are male, or >95% of combat deaths are male, or that even though women initiate 2/3 or more of divorces it's men who end up paying child support. Because if these things existed, they would constitute reasonable proof of institutionalised sexism against (and possibly oppression of) men.

While commenting on the bodies of others should be unacceptable in any circumstances, there is a far greater price to pay for being fat in our society. Thinness, even extreme thinness, is celebrated in a way that fatness is not.

Slightly re-worded, this becomes:

"While commenting on the bodies of others should be unacceptable in any circumstances, there is a far greater price to pay for being short in our society. Tallness, even extreme tallness, is celebrated in a way that shortness is not."

Barring genetic disorders, there is an awful lot of scope for an individual to be less fat: there is 3/5 of fuck-all you can do about how tall you are as an adult. However, since this height thing predominantly affects the dating prospects of males, it doesn't count as bias (much less sexism), does it.

But a concession, at l(e)ast:

I am not indifferent to the issues that disproportionally affect men. Mental health difficulties, depression, suicidal ideation - these are problems that too many men struggle with on a daily basis, problems that require urgent assistance and support.

Good heavens. What on earth could be the cause (I wonder, breath abated)?

... it is the patriarchy that is to blame for this.

But of course!

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

So let me get this straight... Sexism from men to women and women to men are so wildly different from one another that they can't even be compared. Meanwhile, and in the same paragraph, she will compare sexism to discrimination based on weight and race?

[–]JohnKimble111 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Downvoted. Use an archive please.

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