~ archived since 2018 ~

Male privilege theory is, ironically, the result of privilege.

June 1, 2021
284 upvotes

Privilege theory was concocted by (mostly) white, urban, liberal and female academics who have never known economic hardship.

It's classist, in other words. Only someone economically privileged could claim that a coal miner working 12 hour shifts to support his family is more privileged than a rich, white, urban, liberal, female academic.

Such a claim would serve, however, to draw attention away from the wealthy academics whose entire lifestyle is supported by the work of other people and allow them to claim oppression along with those they objectify in their annual publications.

Thoughts?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Comments

[–]3889-1274 129 points130 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

Bill Burr made this point in one of his stand ups, when he pointed out white women basically put themselves in the oppressed camp even when they had all the benefits handed to them that elitist white men had. It's ridiculous hypocritical bullshit for these kinds of people to disparage anyone for their "privilege".

[–]TheNerdWonder 29 points30 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure it's solely white women. Feminists in general put the targets on themselves, even when they aren't targeted as ferociously or consistently like men are when it comes to discrimination.

[–]Deadlocked02 46 points47 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Black feminism is a good example of that. White feminism refrains from criticizing black men, but many black feminists absolutely treat black men like they’re privileged in comparison to black women. There’s an even worse feud between lesbians and gay men in the LGBT world as well.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've even seen male feminists hide behind women's oppression, like Jackson Katz. Who said accusing him of male-bashing was misogyny.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Kind of like Christians in predominantly Christian nations talking about persecution.

Like, you're the ones doing all the persecution, and at most you might catch some flack from people because of your own crappy actions sometimes. But you're not being persecuted, like not even close.

[–]jesset77 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, many Feminists will characterize Egalitarians and Mens Rights Activists the same way.

This comparison doesn't help a lot because it amounts to "NO U". We can claim that Feminists have all of the institutional power (that they've fought for and won over the past century.. and yes it has now been a full century!), but they'll just lump us in with conservatives and claim that they have all the power instead... inferring us along with them.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

many Feminists will characterize Egalitarians and Mens Rights Activists the same way

Because most MRAs are Egalitarians. What does that say about Feminists?

[–]jesset77 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Meh, I don't know if more than 50% of people who identify as MRA also identify as egalitarian. Especially the oft overlooked subsegment that are right wing / traditionalist. :<

[–]TheNerdWonder 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, religion in general is not for me but if it helps someone get through a hard time and with self-actualization then fine. That's their peach and they can have it. That said though, don't ram it down my throat because that's how you get people to resent religion.

Also to your point, I agree. If someone is a Christian living in the West and has never been to regions of the world, like the Middle East where Christians are actually still persecuted in some parts they can't really talk about Christian persecution in the West, where they did that to everyone from Native Americans to black people. It isn't really happening in America or the UK or wherever.

They aren't the only ones who have been persecuted there either. Jews have been. Muslims have been and definitely still are if you consider the fact that ISIS has killed more Muslims than Christians, the Uyghur genocide, and the experience of Shi'a Muslims worldwide. You literally had people marching in Pakistan calling for Shi'a to be murdered.

[–]Mustbeaight 57 points58 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol he said white women slide their Gucci boots across the fence and cry oppression 😂

[–]UnHope20 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

NO Ryan Long's conglomerate said it best here lol

I did love that Burr joke though. Man's a genius lol

[–]maxvalley -2 points-1 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

White women don’t have all the same benefits of men

[–]reverbiscrap 6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

No, they have some that white men do not, and vice versa.

[–]maxvalley -4 points-3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

That’s true but they don’t have an equal amount of power. White women have been excluded from power for centuries and still are underrepresented in the places with the most power like government and business

[–]No_Finance_9264 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's always about power. Like, our lives aren't fulfilling or meaningful unless we dominate and control other people's lives, I guess. I don't want power, I just want to be happy.

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not at the top, nor at the bottom.

[–]maxvalley 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have valid complaints

[–]OGBoglord 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Politicians and corporate execs aren't representative of most men.

People without college degrees are even more underrepresented within places of power, and taking Associate's, Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate's together, women have earned 13 million more degrees than men since 1982.https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-the-incredible-13m-gender-college-degree-gap-since-1982-favoring-women/

[–]maxvalley -2 points-1 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

None of that matters at all. While those are valid issues, you can’t use them to denounce feminism because even when those things weren’t true, women were still excluded

[–]OGBoglord 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

But women aren't excluded from positions of power now, yet its still true that women make up the larger percentage of college graduates, and are outperforming men at nearly every education level. So while white women aren't as commonly represented among politicians and corpos as white men are (they're still more represented than men of color, working class men, trans men, etc.) they outweigh all men within the primary avenues to institutional power, college and university.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]OGBoglord 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So while white women aren't as commonly represented among politicians and corpos as white men are--

This is what I typed. I acknowledged the disparity between white men and women within positions of power; just because this disparity still exists doesn't mean that women are actively being excluded. When it comes to government and corporate positions, the glass ceiling for white women has pretty much been shattered.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

“A record number of women are serving in congress… 27%”

You are showing that they aren't being excluded.

The last part of your comment is a personal attack, so comment removed.

[–]maxvalley 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You only removed my comment because it was correct and you don’t like that I’m telling the truth

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Please do not spread misinformation. This is typical feminist historical revisionism.

[–]maxvalley -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense.

[–]DavidByron2 36 points37 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well sure this is true but not for the reasons you're giving.

It goes back to the mid 19th century roots of the feminist movement in the USA. Feminism came out of the women who supported the Abolitionist movement (though they later betrayed it) and decided that as rich upper middle class women with time on their hands and their husbands' money to spend while lower class women cared for their children, they were the most oppressed people on earth. Anecdotally this idea was formed during a European cruse to attend a meeting of the abolitionist movement in the UK. Gosh aren't we upper middle class white women with the freedom to flit about the planet on our hobbies, really the moral equivalent of black slaves they said to themselves.

In reality these women were the largest demographic in all history to live in the lap of luxury. Excluding the genuinely rich elite which are too small to be a real demographic, these middle class white women as a group were the most privileged group in all history to that date. Their husbands weren't going with them on European vacations; they had to work, albeit at their office jobs, not down a coal mine.

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 13 points14 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how to Google any of this information and know I am on the right track. Would you mind sharing any resources or keywords I can follow?

[–]DavidByron2 11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sure, the women specifically were Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the European convention they attended was called either The World Antislavery Convention of 1840, or perhaps The World Abolitionist Convention of 1840. Held in London. Stanton is better known as the founder or a founder of American Feminist movement because of the convention in Seneca Falls they put on in 1848, but at the time Mott was better known. Stanton later went on to briefly oppose the vote for former slaves after the Civil War ended because she said it was more important for white women to get the vote.

I call the story an anecdote because it sounds like it was embellished to make the women sound more suffering and heroic or whatever, at least in their minds though to modern ears rather the opposite I think. Anyway so the English abolitionists hosting this party were allegedly concern trolling over what to do about the women because this was Victorian England. They wanted everything on the polite up and up so they put the women in a separate area of the hall like on the upper tier to keep the sexes from mixing as was the custom. This anecdote says the Americans were against this as sexist which I don't believe because Americans at the time were worse about this stuff. America was the place they put stockings on piano legs so as not to hurt female sensibilities (to be fair even the Americans thought this was silly and it might have only happened for real one time and later referred to as a self-joke). Upper class fucking bullshit of course because working class women had no such considerations for them. So Mott and Stanton heroically interpret this perfectly normal sex division as an awful sleight against women which it would never have been considered at the time of course, and say to themselves gee here we are for the sake of the slaves but we (upper middle class white women activist types) are also suffering -- we need to form a movement to "free" ourselves from these horrible men (who paid for us to be here).

Regardless of the exact details sure enough the two of them later organize the Seneca Falls (Stanton's home town) convention, first convention for women's rights in 1848. Of course seeing how refusal to allow women in was the thing that set them off (rather - they weren't refused to enter the London convention but were merely separated) you'd think they'd want men and women both at their convention. Instead they said no men allowed. Great start, girls! They relented and allowed men to attend the 2nd day of the convention after the women had voted on the manifesto if you like. That voting was also a bit odd because what they settled on was a sort of knock off of the US Declaration of Independence which Stanton called the "Declaration of Sentiments" where they as women declared war on all men using the model of the more famous US revolution's declaration of war against "King George".

I think they invited Frederick Douglass to speak. To make that "women are just like slaves" comparison more explicitly.

Stanton wrote up the meeting in glowing terms in her own newspaper / pamphlet where she also explicitly compared the plight of women such as herself with slaves:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/women-fight-for-the-vote/about-this-exhibition/seneca-falls-and-building-a-movement-1776-1890/seneca-falls-and-the-start-of-annual-conventions/frederick-douglass-speaks-in-support/

But other newspapers laughed the whole thing off as absurd.

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So what this story told me is this:

Feminism has always had this snide, manipulative side which is as much about petty vengeance as it is women's empowerment.

This pretty much aligns with what I knew about Feminist history (as an ex-Feminist I now know there are two histories, the Feminist one and the real one).

[–]DavidByron2 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, yeah. They weren't all like that. Stanton is also described as terribly sincere in many respects but... she really comes off as narcissist in these details. The movement wasn't all rich women but you look at what shit went down with Victoria Woodhull who represented the poor as dirt genuinely egalitarian side of the movement -- they had her locked up in prison and stricken from the history of the movement. Woodhull was pro men's rights which at the time was represented by the labor movement -- she was into Marxism and led a local. There was a huge split it was awfully catty. The supremacist side defeated the egalitarians and black balled them from history.

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

None of this surprises me at all.

Men's rights is massively improved by the Labour movement and middle to upper class women have a loooooong history of screwing over workers rights. Meanwhile the radical activists (usually those with a vendetta against men) of Feminism constantly temper tantrum whenever a policy is truely Egalitarian.

Thanks for the history lesson.

[–]KristenRedmond 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

middle to upper class women have a loooooong history of screwing over workers rights

Can you expand on this a little?

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 28 points29 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I see your post is getting brigaded by tons of shithead feminists who are trying to perform apologetics for their shit ideology.

Sorry about that - I've had this happen to me before. It's the least fun thing to have happen.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I strongly suspect it's /r/MensLib mods. I've pissed them off recently.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep up the good fight!

[–]mhandanna 21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Camille Paglia talks about this a lot.... Karen Straughn mentions it too.... here we go great interview btw:

https://www . reddit. com/r/Feministpassdenied/comments/n25y71/feminism_is_always_has_been_from_sufragettes_days/

[–]DefiantDepth8932left-wing male advocate 16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's hella interesting!

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

hella thanks!

[–]theCourtofJames 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are we saying 'hella' now?

[–]pieceofcrazy 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

hella no!

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The connections between Gloria Steinem and the CIA aren't even a secret - and still a lot of people considering themselves leftists think she's a great leader of a liberation movement.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-gloria-steinem-cia-20151025-story.html

[–]theCourtofJames 21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What annoys me is how people seem to get fixated on the wrong privileges and biases.

Class privilege is by far the greatest offender and should be focused on so much more then male privilege or straight privilege or whatever.

And even age to some extent needs to be talked about. It NEVER is and infuriates me. Feminists talking about the wage gap for women that doesn't exist. I work in the UK and my girlfriend is in the age bracket below me. We at one point worked the EXACT same job and I was getting paid £4 an hour more than her because of our ages.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Class is a huge one to recognize, particularly for men (which is why this sub is so important - the right-wing has no interest in class issues).

Beauty is also a big factor. So is charisma, especially when you consider that one of the biggest help in getting employed is knowing someone within the company.

[–]atheist343434 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I don’t know what ‘privilege theory’ is but intersectionality was developed by the Combahee River collective. There’s a long history of coopting social movements by more privileged groups but there’s a baby and bathwater phenomenon very present as well.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 21 points22 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Combahee River collective

They're the creators of identity politics, essentially, a cancer that's spreading across every socialist space in the world and making them as ineffective as Occupy became when The Woke were first released upon them.

Yeah, no thanks.

[–]DavidByron2 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

As I recall the feminists sunk Occupy first by insisting that women (ie themselves) should get special privileges to speak over male people, constantly creating special groups to express their power, women's this, women's that, and in the end they were just outright making rape accusations left and right and demanding the entire encampment revolve around protecting them from the evil males because apparently they claimed men were just raping women right out in the open in the middle of a crowd of progressive activists with nobody noticing.

The sexist rules they insisted other groups across the nation adopt caused a lot of trouble with the Occupy I was part of.

[–]dath_bane 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Imagine you're a capitalist who wants to destroy the occupy-movement and you can controll single few ppl in the movement. Those (i think thry're called agent provocateurs) could claim:

a) the movement is racist to scare a few black ppl away from it.

b) the movement is homophobic to scare a few openly gay ppl away from it.

c) start rape accusations to scare not only much women from living in an unprotected camp, but also to scare men away who fear false rape accusations. Lefties are more conscious about both risks and it's hard to disprove rape allegations and you can scare much more ppl away than with racism or homophobia.

[–]DavidByron2 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's simpler than that, or at least it contains fewer moving parts. Rich right wing imperialists / deep state / FBI / whoever simply observed in the 60s that feminist rhetoric was divisive and could be weaponized against the Left. So they do what they always do. They threw money at it. They gave feminists billions of dollars and sure enough the feminists came to dominate the Left and effectively killed the movement through sexist divisions.

That's all. And at least one old released FBI document shows this being discussed. Does X help you? Give it money. Does X hurt you? starve it of money. No conspiracy required beyond this simple formula. No genius foresight by the powers that be either. They are not smart people, but they know enough to help their friends and hurt their enemies.

Feminists didn't need to be paid to fuck up Occupy. Feminists natural state was to fuck things up.

Not to say that the cops didn't have agents provocateur there, of course they did (because if nothing else it's billable hours and overtime), but they weren't the problem.

[–]atheist343434 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for this?

[–]BloomingBrains 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only people who have plenty of extra time on their hands because they don't have to work that hard would be able to come up with labyrinths of warped logic like this.

If you look at the data showing that men largely generate most of the income in society and pay the most taxes while women spend the most money, it reminds one of the class divide between nobles and peasants in medieval times. The nobles had to justify/distract from the fact that they were so privileged, so they said the peasants were the way they were because of defects like sin, stupidity, mishandling money, etc. (even though its all bullshit) and talked about things like their "divine right to rule". How they were so benevolent for giving the peasants jobs, etc. The constant pathologizing of men and virtue signaling about femininity that feminists due is basically the same thing. I've often found that if you look at any issue in life, the people who are doing one thing are often saying they're the exact opposite and projecting their flaws onto some scapegoat. Well, men are feminists scapegoat. They don't want to reveal the fact that they actually still enjoy the benefits of conservative gynocentrism and are happy to keep it that way.

[–]hackeronethrowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male privilege is very easy to disprove. At no point in history has the privileged group also been the only group it is okay to openly deride, belittle, and despise, while the non privileged groups are off limits from any criticism. That's literally the opposite of how privilege works.

[–]YesAmAThrowaway 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, nobody is truly "privileged." We all have problems of our own. The only difference is which problems we do have and which we don't and the nature of these problems is different. Some do have it a lot harder, of course.

The problem with being spiteful about who's more privileged or more oppressed is that it turns into a race for who is the most privileged or oppressed so people can be assigned or detracted brownie points, which essentially serves as a mechanism to hate people. To have an excuse to hate them and discredit/promote them. People will get all bitchy about it.

Does that constant battle solve any problems or combat actual discrimination in any way? No, not really. It seems to make it more difficult, because those issues aren't being tackled at their actual core. Even where collective subconscious biases are a thing, attacking people who hold them is not going to make it any better. On the contrary, it's going to get people stuck in their beliefs and turn them into bigots.

Reframing disadvantage as “privilege,” promotes the perverse notion that freedom from discrimination/oppression is a privilege rather than a basic right.

[–]PepperJack_ 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think we shouldn’t play the who’s more privileged/who’s the bigger victim game, not saying that you are, but my point is that person A can have more privilege than person B in certain scenarios and Vice versa. For example I have a friend who is a lower class straight white male, and another who is an upper middle class pansexual woman. My female friend is more privileged in the sense that she has more economic and therefore educational and job opportunities available because of her class. But my male friend is more privileged when we talk about not having his sexuality belittled, he’s more likely to be taken seriously because of his gender in certain scenarios, and he isn’t judged as harshly for his appearance because he is a guy.

Complaints from either friend about being disadvantaged from lack of economic opportunities, or the rigidity of gender norms are both real problems, and just because being poor is, imo, worse doesn’t mean the problems of the upper class shouldn’t be ignored if they come from expectations placed on them by society. Or other unjust sources.

TL;DR I think both are real problems though a lower class male probably has it worse than an upperclass woman. But both have problems stemming from oppressions we can fix at the same time

[–][deleted]  (40 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 30 points31 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No one disagrees with this.

Yes, they do. Men are regularly placed in an 'oppressor class' within feminist thought.

The rest of the paragraph is you just No True Scotsmening feminists.

Trying to paint huge institutions in a singular light literally accomplishes nothing and contributes nothing.

Are you trying to say that feminist theory has been created by anyone other than (mostly) white, urban, liberal and well-to-do women?

Because we both understand how unfactual such a claim would be, I have to assume that you're not trying to say that but that leaves me without the foggiest as to what it is you are trying to say.

secondly, it doesn't really matter why people believe what they do.

oh really? Bias doesn't matter? I very much disagree.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Removed because personal attack (rule 7)

[–]DavidByron2 23 points24 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

No one disagrees with this

Feminists disagree with that. As per my comment upper middle class white women thought themselves more oppressed than actual black slaves in the mid 19th century. Don't underestimate how insane these people are.

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla -12 points-11 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

While I’m sure some feminists disagree, that’s not even remotely close to representative of the feminist movement as a whole. Intersectional feminism is very important to the feminist movement and even among non-intersectional feminists that belief is not gonna be very common. Where are you getting this assessment of feminists from?

[–]DavidByron2 13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah "feminists don't do that" claims just bore me at this point. You want to deny reality? Of course you do.

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla -4 points-3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Did I say “feminists don’t do that?” No, I did not. Some feminists do, some don’t. When you said “feminists disagree with this,” where you intending to speak of feminists as a whole or even a majority of them or just saying that some do?

[–]DavidByron2 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When you said nobody says that it implies specifically that feminists don't. basic logic.

(1) people don't say that (2) feminists are people (3) feminists don't say that

I don't think this is productive at this point but feel free to address this longer comment before the moderators delete it: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/npj1tz/male_privilege_theory_is_ironically_the_result_of/h05l8ua/

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When did I say “nobody says that?” If you have any interest in productive discussion please don’t strawman me and respond to the contents of my arguments rather than those of someone else.

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I apologize.

I thought you were the same person replying to me as I replied to (ie "Randomwoegeek").

Sorry.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 10 points11 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Where are you getting this assessment of feminists from?

From reality. It's an assessment derived from everyday interactions to social media attitudes. It's our lived experience.

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla -4 points-3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Putting aside the “from reality,” as that is vague and doesn’t really mean much.

Do you think social media interactions with a group or movement can give you a good and nuanced sense of what the majority of the members of that group or movement believe?

[–]DavidByron2 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

“When people show you who they are, believe them.”

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s interesting that you’re responding to my replies to other people and not my replies to you. Are you going to answer my question or not? https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/npj1tz/male_privilege_theory_is_ironically_the_result_of/h05t9xb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't like Maya Angelou?

I don't think you or this sub are worth my time making a long researched post. That's what you asked me to do. I think you were just fucking about. I also think the mods will come and delete anything lengthy I post to fuck with me.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, we don't do that unless you break the rules.

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? Where did I ask you to do that?

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone's lived experience doesn't mean much? Why do I have the feeling that you wouldn't say this to a woman or a black person?

Do you think social media interactions with a group or movement can give you a good and nuanced sense of what the majority of the members of that group or movement believe?

I used a common "from, to" structure. Did you not understand it or did you choose to ignore the range of experiences that I took pains to express?

Do you think Twitter ignoring hate speech when it's against men is insignificant?

Do you think the normalized misandry on social media is insignificant?

Do you think it's insignificant that boys in every part of the world are being exposed to misandry while ... people like yourself attempt to justify it, thereby further ingraining in those boys and young men that they are intrinsically less valuable because of their sex?

If you don't see misandry on the internet it's because you've receded so far into your filter bubble that you've lost touch with reality.

...Which may be why you think 'it's vague and doesn't really mean much'.

[–]TheTurquoiseTortilla 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The answer to all your questions is no. I do see misandry on the internet, I see a lot of it and it’s disgusting, did I say otherwise?

[–]DmajCyberNinja 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Large assumptions of any group is dumb, but it doesn't change the fact that the viewpoints mentioned by OP are widely accepted as fact. Which kind of undermines your second point.

[–]theCourtofJames 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So from your first paragraph I can gather that you agree that we shouldn't paint a hugely diverse group of people into a single understanding.

Okay perfect. All therefore aren't more privileged than all women.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Trying to paint huge institutions in a singular light literally accomplishes nothing and contributes nothing.

Feminists do this literally all the time. Across all of human history, even.

[–]Tedfordshire 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have to agree. Most feminists don't think all men are more privileged than all women. They just think if you're a man, being a man isn't one of the things making your life harder.

I would argue that this isn't true, since there are many situations in which, if a man and a woman are equal in all other aspects, the woman will come out better off. There's no need to misrepresent their argument, since the argument they do make is flawed as it is.

Of course, these days there are some feminists who actually think every man oppresses every woman, but I'd like to think they're a small minority.

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlam 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yours is a reasonable post. Still, most feminists I've seen seem to refuse to acknowledge that "there are many situations in which, if a man and a woman are equal in all other aspects, the woman will come out better off." That's despite the fact that, for example, the most privileged races of men still have worse criminal justice outcomes than the least privileged races of women, clearly showing that the argument that "men never suffer oppression because they are men" is dead wrong. Men across the board should be given priority according to the progressive stack in criminal justice and police brutality issues.

[–]Phantombiceps 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank god for some sanity here

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Hello, We require all links to Reddit to be non-participation links to prevent brigading. Because of this, your comment has been removed. Please feel free to edit this with the required non-participation link(s); once you do so, we can approve the post immediately.

You can easily create non-participation links by replacing the 'www' part of the URL with 'np'. Your link should look like this: http://np.reddit.com/r/the_rest_of_the_link]

Note: there's no need to message the moderators, as we will see this in our moderation queue.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]DavidByron2 -3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Having this bot on the sub sends a chilling message which will curtail free speech. But then again maybe that's the real intention?

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Reducing brigading increases free speech.

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How?

[–]Deadly_Duplicator 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If one larger sub storms a subreddit and enforces their worldview, speech is smushed and inorganically disincentivised. I don't know what the nature of the top deleted link is, but if you read it the bot tells you how you can link to other threads in reddit that prevents vote engagement

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But this is a tiny tiny sub and in any case you're talking about how this sub would hypothetically hurt another not how it would hurt this sub.

[–]Deadly_Duplicator 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair, counterpoint it would probably only take 10-20 people to derail a thread on a small sub

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We are simply enforcing Reddit policies. While often they do not seem to care about brigading, sometimes they do. And this is an offense against Reddit rules, which we do not want to give the admins any reason to shut us down for.

I hope that clarifies it.

[–]LastRounder 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same as "The Capital" was written by Marx, a 40 y.o living on Egels's parents money.

All this "fighters against opression" are the same.

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

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter