TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Study uncovers a “particularly alarming” link between men’s feelings of personal deprivation and hostile sexism

boomboxspence

February 4, 2023
36 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.psypost.org/2023/02/study-uncovers-a-particularly-alarming-link-between-mens-feelings-of-personal-deprivation-and-hostile-sexism-67296
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Study uncovers a “particularly alarming” link between men’s feelings of personal deprivation and hostile sexism
Author

boomboxspence

Upvotes 36
Comments 52
Date February 4, 2023 2:41 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/10thxq4/study_uncovers_a_particularly_alarming_link/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/study-uncovers-a-particularly-alarming-link.1150929
https://theredarchive.com/post/1150929
Top posts by boomboxspence

I don't hate women, I hate how they're treated so much better.

341 upvotes
April 23, 2023
/r/MensRights

I don't understand how you can be an MRA and be homophobic.

298 upvotes
October 17, 2022
/r/MensRights

problems for short men

226 upvotes
February 9, 2023
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

I am becoming extremely aware of all the misandry in the world.

180 upvotes
January 14, 2023
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

I hate how accepted homophobia towards gay men is

152 upvotes
August 10, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

"men aren't men anymore"

139 upvotes
February 21, 2023
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

I feel young boys are groomed to be fine with (older) women taking advantage of them

127 upvotes
April 2, 2022
/r/MensRights

"real men"

124 upvotes
June 11, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]ratcake6 86 points87 points88 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Radical new study finds link between unhappiness and hostility. I bet you could also find such "alarming" links between misfortune and everything from racism to dislike of puppies, in both sexes :p

[–]RockmanXX 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This just in, Men are actually Human and not the soulless workhorses we believe them to be.

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

That's one hot pfp fam

[–]sabazurc 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

These soft sciences man...if it was up to me only hard sciences and part of soft sciences that are dependent solely on hard science would be called "sciences". Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, parts of medical sciences that are dependent on chemistry and biology, and so on ar ethe science IMO...the rest not so much.

[–]TheWorldUnderHell 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

This is just elitism, as if science is some kind of prestige to begin with. Just because the soft sciences are more subject to the biases of the researchers doesn't mean it stops being an empirical investigation of reality even if a poor one.

[–]sabazurc -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is just elitism

Plenty of that among academia anyway, would not be anything new. At least in hard science, we can be sure it's deserved.

Just because the soft sciences are more subject to the biases of the researchers doesn't mean it stop being an empirical investigation of reality even if a poor one.

Just call them studies, do not use the word "science". When people say science brought our civilization to amazing hights and bla bla bla...it's mostly hard science anyway. I do not want soft sciences to use that reputation hard science earned.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Anything that uses the scientific method correctly is a science, and deserves to be called that.

[–]sabazurc -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Hell no, if you can't establish facts and can only make assumptions. Unless you can verify results like in hard science I do not view your discipline as even close to being in the same realm. Freaking nobodies (comparatively) trying to act like they are Newton.

[–]TheWorldUnderHell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure Newton couldn't see gravity.

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

You think hard science is dependent on sight?

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unless you can verify results like in hard science

Isn't that exactly what "using the scientific method correctly" is about?

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

Isn't that exactly what "using the scientific method correctly" is about?

In soft science too often it's very difficult if not impossible to establish facts with the same certainty as in hard science.

[–]Alataire 47 points48 points49 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The participants in the deprivation condition were told that their disposable income was 73.82% lower than the average for people with a similar background, while those in the control condition were told that their disposable income was 6.21% higher than the average for people with a similar background.

“In other words, men can utilize hostile sexism as a way to compensate for individual inadequacy when women are not the source of their feeling of deprivation.

Are they deciding here that having a lower disposable income as a student means that you are "individually inadequate"? And they are surprised people are angry at a society which thinks like that?

One could think that a study like this would be used to state the obvious, that helping disprivileged men is good for society. But I've noticed that a lot of people seem to think that any help that isn't directly helping women is the same as burning the world down and hating women.

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

‘Hostile sexism’ is very vaguely defined and examples aren’t given. When you feel disadvantaged as a man and you come up with this, very factual and backed up list, is that hostile sexism? PsyPost has interesting articles sometimes, but also too often statements like ‘gays tend to be less homophobic than straight people’.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/2020-update-for-every-100-girls-part-i/

[–]MachoManShark 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

having only read the article and abstract, the only problem i can notice in the study per se is equating sexism against women to sexism. anyone in a men's rights sub doesn't need me to tell them that this is silly and one sided.

now, i haven't read the study, but i can only imagine that the authors drew poor conclusions from their data. firstly, they didn't measure the way that women's deprivation impacts sexism against men. while it would be nice if they did that, it is not the responsibility of any given paper to guarantee perfect gender equality in their measurements. we just need to be careful about which conclusions we draw. namely, we can't tell if deprivation causing sexist attitudes is a thing men do to women, or if it's a thing people do to the opposite gender.

this wouldn't be a problem if the authors acknowledged that the effect they observed may be that deprived people feel hostile to gender groups they don't belong to. maybe they do in the full paper, so i can't pass judgement there, but the sexism = sexism against women thing doesn't leave me hopeful.

there's another thing, which is that hostile sexism against men is really common. the first thing to come to mind is perceptions of violence. y'all don't need me to tell you that most people wrongly believe that men are far more violent and dangerous than women. we may know about economic pressures and systemic undercounting of female perpetration of domestic and sexual violence, but the average person doesn't. (police bias, surveys defining rape as perpetrator penetrating victim, dv shelters reducing killings with defensive motivations, not counting suicides as victims of dv, etc.)

since this kind of belief is so common, it would be harder to pick up the kind of 'hostile sexism' the above authors are looking for, and people are less likely to try to measure these beliefs, since most researchers find them normal. i can't tell whether or not these authors are good on this; again, only read the abstract, but i don't like it.

[–]shortsandarts 37 points38 points39 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Interesting how they only mention sexism against women, I would also say men face a lot of sexism too which will probably make them feel negative towards women.

[–]ThunderClap449 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

They do but the study isn't related to that. If it wasz it'd be too broad in scope.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 29 points30 points31 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Then study is badly designed. You don't compare the sexism against women of men with the sexism against women of women.

[–]ThunderClap449 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Hypothesis studies don't exist to "find" things, but to prove things that we don't know are true or not.

It's a fine study. The hypothesis was the link they found, and the study tried to prove it or disprove it.

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

I'd agree if the study acknowledged this as an area for further study or alternative explanation in the conclusion rather than acting like it has found a definitive causal link.

[–]ThunderClap449 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

...i mean, every study does have that? If you made a study for your college, and at the end you didn't add limitations of the research and other things that are loosely connected that need to be researched - usually just referred to as "recommendations and limitation".

This either proves or disproves what the authors originally intended to prove or disprove. That is how these studies work.

They look at an issue from one perspective, and get to a result. It's a qualitative study. A quantitative study would complie qualitative studies and get to a somewhat definitive conclusion.

The study is perfectly fine.

[–]azazelcrowley 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Every study should have that. This one doesn't appear to acknowledge other perspectives on the problem, merely limitations on their method of data gathering.

[–]ThunderClap449 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except... It does?

It's literally a part of the limitations of the study.

And the point of studies is not to acknowledge other studies, I'm not sure why you got your knickers in a twist so bad over this.

[–]CompetitiveOwl2 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't my field but I would think it's a good idea to present your work and findings within the wider context. That's how we do things in my field anyway. I dislike the words prove and disprove. Evidence either supports the hypothesis or doesn't. That doesn't necessarily mean it's proven.

Those are just nitpicks though. I actually find the idea that personal feelings of deprivation is linked to hostility, including sexist hostility, utterly unsurprising and uncontroversial.

[–]MachoManShark 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

this is true.

to those downvoting, this is a study, not an essay. while someone trying to gain a full understanding of how life experiences affect sexism will need more than just this study, all studies are made with the understanding that they are only small parts of the discussion. it's totally fine for these authors only address one side of this question.

although, i must note that reading the article and abstract suggest to me that the authors probably are falling into the trap that other commenters think that they are. it's just important that we don't judge the wrong thing.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

all studies are made with the understanding that they are only small parts of the discussion

Sadly the rest of the discussion never happens.

[–]Motanul_Negru 34 points35 points36 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

When you combine it with the widespread perception that women are the social gatekeepers (which has a fair bit of ground to stand on in the West, I think), this conclusion becomes obvious.

[–]jessi387 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean social gatekeepers ?

[–]ExtremeSea006 30 points31 points32 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The way I sort of understand "social gatekeepers" is the idea that at the end of the day what they say holds more relevancy within the social realm.

For instance if a man was complaining about his problems a group of women can call him a cry baby and thus they're gatekeeping how hes allowed to feel because obviously if a group of women say it then it must be true.

I've never really seen the reverse happen unless the woman did something incredibly heinous that it's obvious she's in the wrong or she's not allowed to feel what she's allowed to feel.

Regardless, it's just mainly about gate keeping self expression, women are allowed to self express whilst also telling men what they're realities and emotions are. Men can't do this and are often shamed if they ever do. This is also holds more weight when things boil down to a "who has it worse" argument and women always come out on top.

[–]asapkokeman -14 points-13 points-12 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You’ve never seen the reverse happen? You’ve never seen men call women overly emotional? Lmao come on dude

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Honestly? No. Not in the same way. Women will commune with each other to collectively mock a man/men/issue, but men don’t do that. We don’t speak as a group, so if someone hates our opinion, they’ll put the blame on that single man. So we say nothing, and instead act on our beliefs.

[–]LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam[M] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

The rest of the comment chain was removed, because of gender-based generalizations by multiple participants. Let's avoid that.

It is good practice to qualify who you are talking about, especially when it comes to groups based on innate characteristics. “Many men” used instead of men in general, or “many white people” used instead of white people in general will likely avoid accusations of violating this rule.

If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by messaging the moderators.

[–]asapkokeman1 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Man, maybe you have a really solid social circle or something but I’ve constantly absolutely heard men make fun of women for being too emotional. Isn’t that the entire foundation of the red pill and Andrew Tate? And the blue haired feminist archetype? In fact just yesterday I was watching The Godfather Part Two with a friend and he made fun of Vito’s wife for freaking out at him because he was working and she felt like he didn’t care about her. I think women are constantly made fun of for that

[–]Clemicus1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Why are you treating individuals as having traits that are universal. You may know someone who’s used those words but they’ll be others who haven’t

And in your case, I’m not sure it fits your criteria. Maybe you cut out some details and you’re not just going because a man said that it must because it was against a woman

[–]asapkokeman1 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I’m using universals because that’s exactly what the original commenter did? “Women are allowed to self express whilst telling men what their realities and emotion are” Can you read?

If you’re going to pretend that men don’t make fun of women constantly for being overly emotional then you need to touch grass

[–]Clemicus1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

If you’re going to pretend that men don’t make fun of women constantly for being overly emotional then you need to touch grass

Do you mean some men or all men? The usage of men is specific to the authors intent, so I'm unsure which of those you mean.

Though to answer your question, I haven't heard a single man outside of fiction say that. Maybe I've met a man who has said that in his lifetime, but I wasn't there to witness the dreaded act

To be honest, I've heard women be more sexist towards men than vice versa. And a few men who went on about how bad men are but they're the good ones.

[–]asapkokeman1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Not even going to address your first question because it’s so ridiculous.

You’ve never heard a single man make fun of a woman for being overly emotional? Never heard of Andrew Tate? Never heard the sexist trope that men are more logical and women are more feelings-based? You’re a liar and you know it dude.

[–]iainmf 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looks like the study uses the “Ambivalent Sexism Inventory” which counts opposition to feminism as sexism against women.

I suspect that removing questions about feminism from the ASI would greatly reduce the amount of hostile sexism they found

[–]External_Brother_849 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I only lurk here but I wanted to share my experience as a working class British Pakistani male from an immigrant family. Most of sexism and racism I have faced in the UK has come from white women.

The trope of rich evil white men is exaggerated by the feminist state religion. I've recently started work for a small firm owned by an old English man. I'm happier at my current job then I was trying to apply for roles where all of my interviewers were women. I usually get rejected for jobs with a large female work force. This isn't rare, few months ago I applied for a company and managed to get an interview. I checked out the firm's website to prepare for my interview. On the website they proudly said most of our workforce is women and we aim to increase that percentage higher. I already knew I wasn't gonna get the job. I don't know why they wasted my time with an interview though. Maybe they don't want to raise too much suspicions so they interview a few men to meet some sort of quota.

Fix the economy and most men especially working class men would be happy but even now we're facing large issues of homelessness and rising fuel and rent prices but the focus is only on women. I don't hate women but I've stopped caring about feminist issues being shoved down our throats.

[–]zaph239 33 points34 points35 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This might come cross as hostile but the Psychology of Women Quarterly, really? That sounds like a micky mouse academic journal if I ever heard one.

Before people say that is just prejudice, there is plenty of evidence that Psychology is a woo subject, with very poor peer review:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

Thousands of Psychology papers are full of basic stat and maths errors:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/9/30/13077658/statcheck-psychology-replication

That is before we get to the utter land of woo that is gender studies. I can generally destroy any piece of research from a feminist with 10 minutes, a vague member of stats from my stem degree and access to Google.

Sorry I don't trust any research from woo subjects like gender studies and psychology unless they have been properly checked.

[–]Ethnicallybisexual1 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're actually right. Even in r/science they don't allow psypost articles for many of the same reasons you give.

[–]nomino3390 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well this link was posted there

[–]Ethnicallybisexual1 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I won't be surprised if people have a problem with it.

[–]nomino3390 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish. I didn't notice any of that, they're just having a field day insulting men and calling them rapists and weak. Blatant misandry.

[–]BCRE8TVE 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes but see, psypost is not allowed unless it's glorifying women or putting down men, preferably both at the same time.

r/science is surprisingly uncritical in its support of feminism and hostility towards men.

[–]boomboxspence[S] 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This study shows that men who have a sense of personal deprivation such as feeling alienated or rejected are more likely to be sexist towards women. Same with men who feel like they have no control. What are your thoughts on this?

I think you could say a similar thing with women. Women who have bad experiences with men are more likely to hate men. I think the reason men might feel this way is because of the pressure for men to provide, attract women and so on. There aren't expectations on women in the same way. Women also are being valued more in society and in jobs. They also have it easier in dating. I think most mens anger at women might come from jealousy of the female role in society and how they have privilege over men nowadays. Men are feeling weak and frustrated because of how they're treated while women are valued for simply existing.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 35 points36 points37 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What are your thoughts on this?

They're using controls of women and checking the sexism-against-women of those women. Basically, nothing about sexism against men is ever examined in the study, or even entertained to exist.

[–]bottleblank 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This study shows that men who have a sense of personal deprivation such as feeling alienated or rejected are more likely to be sexist towards women. Same with men who feel like they have no control. What are your thoughts on this?

What normal, reasonably functional human being wouldn't be upset and perhaps angry about being part of a society which appears to be apathetic to their struggles at best and actively hostile towards them at worst?

Compare with a cornered animal. Normally a placid being, going about its life, surviving, finding food, procreating, doing whatever mammals do. But back it into a corner and suddenly it's all teeth and claws. Because you're threatening it. You're causing it to become violent out of self-preservation, whether it wants to be or not. It doesn't want to fight, it knows it might die if it tries, but it has no choice but to display its violent credentials.

Same applies here. If you force men to feel as though they have to constantly defend themselves from accusations of universally poor behaviour, from pro-woman bias in media/business/education/government, from crippling lack of success in school and work, when you demand that they be the supporters of society and family but make it increasingly difficult to achieve that status, when you deprive them of agency and force them to live in solitude and psychological depravity... well, what the hell do you think is going to happen?

They're going to bare their teeth and claws towards those who seem to be advocating for and benefiting from that environment. Which is often feminists (and, by association, other women).

Now, I'm not suggesting this is exceptionally common, there are plenty of men out there living normal lives, making enough money to live on, with friends, relationships, sex, and so on. They have little reason to care, they are moderately comfortable (within a margin of acceptance, even if things aren't always great), they don't need to defend themselves.

Unsuccessful men, however, don't have the luxury of a stable life in which to take comfort. They're scrabbling for scraps, bouncing off the bottom of the social and economic barrels, they need to feel strongly - ideally in a way which helps them climb out, but that's not always possible.

[–]BKEnjoyer 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, self-esteem affects your perception and continued feelings of rejection and other negative things can change into blaming others. This happened with my Title IX. And it’s funny because this came up when I was talking about this stuff with my therapist

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

American men need to vote in an Anti-feminist like South Korea.

[–]Moist-Quiet-647 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More at 11

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

Interesting. In a thread at the very beginning of the new year over at /r/MensRights which discussed what can be done to improve the situation of men, I stated that 'learned helplessness' is a key issue that needs to be addressed, additionally to the political, social and legal things.

Aside from that, I couldn't help, but be reminded of the following scene from Matrix Reloaded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZl2naX1Xk&t=146s

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