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
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • 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 Rational Male
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist (No Matter What Merriam-Webster Says)

bloodfuel

August 24, 2022
16 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/
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 Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist (No Matter What Merriam-Webster Says)
Author

bloodfuel

Upvotes 16
Comments 19
Date August 24, 2022 7:25 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/wwsc1q/why_reverse_oppression_simply_cannot_exist_no/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/why-reverse-oppression-simply-cannot-exist-no.1129495
https://theredarchive.com/post/1129495
Top posts by bloodfuel

I was talking to this person about why feminists don't call out the rampant misandry within their group

494 upvotes
September 22, 2021
/r/MensRights

How do I respond when a woman says that every standard in society that men are expected to live up to is set by other men and the patriarchy?

396 upvotes
February 2, 2022
/r/MensRights

Someone told me that all men's problems are due to misogyny/patriarchy

387 upvotes
September 20, 2021
/r/MensRights

In Britain during the First World War white feathers, which symbolized cowardice, were often given to males out of uniform by women to shame them publicly into signing up to join the war.

271 upvotes
July 29, 2023
/r/MensRights

Can someone refute what this person said?

267 upvotes
September 16, 2021
/r/MensRights

How do I respond when women say men created the patriarchy?

220 upvotes
January 31, 2022
/r/MensRights

Apparently men discussing the issues they face is misogyny

206 upvotes
March 19, 2023
/r/MensRights

UN study finds almost 90% of men and women are biased against women

204 upvotes
December 31, 2023
/r/MensRights

Comments

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

I couldn't take this woman seriously when she:

a) Already admitted defeat. b) Said the dictionary didn't mean anything because white man c) Cited sources she ostensibly agreed with; that and her essay should draw the natural conclusion that women obviously need their own language and syntax because it's not poisoned by white man.

How can anyone with a sound mind not think that she's an utter lunatic?

Yes, keep using English to describe your position that English is inadequate while being insufferably pediatric about it

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

The problem is that postmoderist thinking has become dominant in the social sciences, where empirical reality and objective methodologies have now taken a backseat to ideology and subjective interpretation.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

while being insufferably pediatric about it

Being pediatric is a state I'm not aware of, but pedantic might work.

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

I'm gonna leave it as pediatric to demonstrate the beauty of autocorrect fail.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, this is like a person claiming that vaccines have microchips and are created by Satan. What do you say to people this delusional? It's like Thomas Paine said To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

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

These people could shoot a man in the street and with a straight face tell you that wasn’t violence.

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

The article basically makes the claim that the dictionary definition doesn't have depth and that if you want to understand the word in its entirety you have to listen to sociologists, what would your counter argument be?

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

What is there to doscuss? The article is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to start. She says that women are to be laughed at but men are not, meanwhile modern media still treat men being raped as a joke. The other way around you don't see sexual assault as a joke anymore (although it used to be, i recently started watching MASH tv series and the main characters constantly grope and kiss women against their will).

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

In Wednesday (a new Adams' Family bastardisation), the titular character releases a piranha into a school swimming pool to castrate a teenage boy as gag.

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

she's right that the dictionary is shallow, and that words can't be perfectly understood with this tool.. where she's stumbling, though, is that she seems to think that there are people who know 'the real meaning' of words, and that everyone else is just being a silly goat if they don't accept the definitions put forward by those enlightened people.

words mean what people use them to mean, and we use them to mean what we expect people to understand them to mean. if this seems flimsy and circular, that's because it is. people have different ideas about what words mean. some might say 'racism' and mean a negative opinion held regarding a given racial, ethnic, liguistic, religious, etc. group. someone else might say 'racism' and mean the aggregate of these opinions across a society, mostly disregarding those held by individuals in favor of a broader picture. someone else might say 'racism' and mean deleterious effects on a person's life caused by a characteristic of theirs (see above list), regardless of the intentions of the people around them. for example, someone who doesn't explicitly hold any bigoted opinions may still be more scared of a black person than a white person, even if they find that sort of thing morally bad.

there are more. we could argue about which traits should belong on that list, we could argue about whether past racism 'counts' as racism today, such as the numerous hardships faced by black people on average that are due entirely to class; they also affect poor white people the same way, black people simply face them more due racism that prevented wealth accumulation.

which of these is the 'correct one'? as i see it, all of them. to meaningfully address questions like 'do white people experience racism?' each of those above defintions must be grappled with individually; one definition simply can't contain the multitudes of meanings that are contained by the word racism. say we were to pick one definition and all agree on it: the other questions must still be answered, the only thing that changed is that they don't have a unique word describing them.

this is the important part. if you skipped the wall of text, this next paragraph is the main takeaway.

people really get caught up in these words: racism, sexism, privilege, masculinity and femininity. they apply a great deal of importance to them. people waste a lot of time arguing over the 'true' definition so they can either apply the label to 'the bad people' or avoid having the label placed on themselves so they can remain one of 'the good people'. but they are kind of useless, to some extent, because they are used in so many different ways, so it is necessary to toss aside these shallow labels and dig down to the manifold states that they might describe and address each individually.

but i'm just a white man, so clearly my desire for clear and effective communication is ineffectual and oppressive. but then again, i am neurodivergent, and bi questioning, so maybe my opinion has liberatory potential after all. who knows.

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

so it is necessary to toss aside these shallow labels and dig down to the manifold states that they might describe and address each individually.

I don't quite understand what you mean by manifold states, could you elaborate? Also, thank you for your response.

[–]MachoManShark 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

'manifold states' is, in this case, best understood to mean 'i got a bit carried away and accidentally said some pompous shit' lol

'manifold' just means numerous. i should have done a better job using a more easily understood word.

'state' refers to the way that something is. in our case here, the state of society if some of the different questions asked were true or false, taking into consideration different meanings of the words used.

lets use an example, and i'll stick with the racism one for now: take the question 'do white people suffer from racism directed toward them?'

if we take 'racism' to mean 'negative opinions held by an individual about a particular racial or ethnic group', then this question asks us to consider two possible states of the world: one in which nobody holds negative opinions about white people as a group, and one in which some people do. if we use a different meaning for 'racism', say, we stop looking at individual opinions and change to the average opinions held by society, then we would be asking a different question which asks us to consider two different potential states.

of course, we could also ask whether positive opinions are should be considered racist, or if opinions have to be held consciously to be considered racist, or if subconcious ones count. as you can see, as we play with definitions, different questions ask us to think about different ways that the world might exist and address them by comparing them to our knowledge of the world as we believe it to exist, and checking if the hypothetical state of the world put forward by that specific question seems to align with our understading of the actual state of the world.

to 'dig down to manifold states' is to stop attaching ourselves to the word itself and instead recognize the various meanings that the word can have and try to seperate them out from each other, and from the moral judgement that comes from the word.

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

I understand now, thank you!

[–]MachoManShark2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

really happy to help. this probably the philosphical idea that most influenced the way i think, and it's always nice to share with people :)

[–]griii2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It is simple: Common words are defined by their usage, not by their dictionary definitions. Forcing people to use a different meaning of otherwise common word is called brainwashing.

Winston Smith (from Nineteen Eighty-Four) sends his greetings.

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

Humpty Dumpty to Alice: ‘when I want a word to mean something, I make it to mean that thing.’ That’s why Humpty-Dumpty-talk might be a more specific name for this than brainwashing.

[–]LakiL_left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. There is no reverse oppression. There is just one opression: capitalism. And its tentacles: economy, feminism, war...

[–]bloodfuel1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Thoughts on this?

[–]a-man-from-earth1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

In order to have your post approved, please respond to it with a top-level comment that elaborates upon the subject or provides additional insight or basis for further discussion.

Just asking for our thoughts falls under rule 11.

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