~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]aussietoads 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fair enough. But I'll attack any idea if I think it needs attacking, or rather, challenging.
[–]DougDante 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Our focus should be on Men's rights. Our children are taken from us, we face harmful prosecution, and we're told that we're privileged.
Be the change you want in the world /r/mractivism
Action Opportunity: Recognize That New Law Mandates You To Take Positive Action To End Implicit Bias Against Boy and Man Sexual Assault Survivors
https://redd.it/56kh17
Action Opportunity: Fathers Can't Show Id To Get Their Child Support Enforced: Stop Targeting Their Fundamental Rights with Surgical Precision
https://redd.it/4x65qg
Please don't be anti-intellectual, anti-science (that includes soft sciences)
FAQ 34. 34. Do some scientists appear to act and speak in ways which are biased against men and boys?
Spoiler: Yes
Also, this is generally a liberal argument, and most liberals will quietly deny the settled science that children benefit from time with their fathers.
FAQ 27. Do children need fathers?
I've seen more "science" that denies this by design than I care to mention.
Lets keep the conversation civil and not attack each other. Please.
Why start now?
[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I believe that the point is to support science by challenging the bias that tries to introduce false claims pretending to be scientific. If science is done right it's objective and I believe we all should respect it. In other words, respect and accept facts while fighting false claims pretending to be scientific.
[–]SigmundFloyd76 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
"science", you say?
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.
-Richard Horeton The Lancet, 11 April 2015, Volume 385, Issue 9976, Pages 1365-1476 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1
Thanks to u/imnotmrabut for that quote.
[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
We have our uses!
This is equally if not more powerful;
The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.
The Full Text- http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext
Easy Read One
Easy Read Two
Easy Read Three
Easy Read Four
[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Any of those actions is tantamount to pretend to pass for science what isn't science. Science is a method, if you don't follow it then it isn't science and keep using the same name to refer to it it's becoming part of the problem.
In fact I don't see any disagreement between your comment and mine.
[–]SigmundFloyd76 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm with you, science is science.
My point is that, at the same time, "science" is science, too.
When a claim of "science" is made, or that something is "scientific", basically it's meaningless.
Words don't mean what words mean.
Take "democracy" for example. We all were taught the meaning through school. When the Americans claim to be spreading "democracy", but are in fact doing everything to prevent democracy, well the meaning doesn't really hold much weight anymore, does it. It becomes "double speak". Not to mention the state of the current plutocracy (meanwhile they speak of "strengthening democracy" while they work to do the opposite). It's as Orwellian as it gets.
When I hear "studies show", I know it could quite possibly mean that the opposite is true.
I with you, tho. I have a science background. I'm a skeptical person who makes observations, I am perfectly willing to discard an idea or theory.
Also that it isn't as if bad science is the exception, it's now the norm.
[–]jimmywiddle 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
"I thought this sub was about Men's Rights."
It is, it always has been.
You clearly don't know what the word "ideology" means. So for you to use it in the incorrect context and to misspell it while trying to attack people really doesn't start you down a good path.
Ideologues are people that follow an ideology. Supporting men and believing that men should have equal rights is not an ideology.
Feminism is an ideology and thats why people repeatedly refer to it as such. It is founded on marxist ideals and its very roots are clearly distanced away from a believe in just rights.
[–]miribus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
I don't think that it is entirely incorrect to describe a lot of people as ideological. I understand an Ideology to be a set of culturally developed heuristic presuppositions about the world that are not based upon intersubjectively experienceable facts i.e. what we call empiric evidence.
It is in my opinion impossible to experience the world as it is as we always perceive things through certain lenses. The best we can do is be somewhat aware of these lenses whether it be in myself or in others. Feminists also believe that: " Supporting men and believing that men should have equal rights is not an ideology." If you replace the word man with woman.
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
set of culturally developed heuristic presuppositions about the world that are not based upon intersubjectively experienceable facts i.e. what we call empiric evidence.
Before you use words like that, you should learn basic spelling and punctuation.
[–]miribus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
English is not my first language and I am quite bad at commas, I know. The rules are completely different than in German.I was not entirely certain if saying "culturally developed heuristic presuppositions" can be considered a series and would therefore require a comma because "culturally developed heuristics presuppositions" represents the the smallest intended unit of meaning it is not like saying: "I ate grapes, cheese and crackers". IMO the definition is still understandable even if punctuation might not be used properly. However I am aware of my incompetence regarding the use of commas, especially in foreign languages.
I don't think my spelling is off even though words like intersubjectively are probably not recognized by a spelling check or defined in a dictionary, they still represent legitimate morphological constructions. It is somewhat clearly defined what inter- and subjectively mean.
Ooooh...The Germans are mad at me!
Sorry bro, this came to mind and It had to be posted. I wanted the clip where the German engineer says "..forgive me...my english is ....inelegant..." (his english is better that Homer!)
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The focus of my point was your ridiculously verbose definition of idealogue, rather than the short-comings of your English. Chambers dictionary defines it as "a doctrinaire adherent of an ideology." "Ideology" is defined as "a way of thinking" among other equally simple explanations. These definitions are both very much simpler and much more accurate than your definitions.
[–]miribus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Well, then ideology is a fairly useless word. I don't think most people use terms like ideological or ideology to refer to any way of thinking e.g. accepting the scientific method as method to gain knowledge is usually not referred to as ideological at least u/jimmywiddle doesn't seem to only mean "a way of thinking". It seems to me that people usually mean more when they use the term "ideology".
[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Using the definition that you gave it miribus yes it would be a meaningless word because you seem to think that everyone is following an ideology when they are not.
Feminists and feminism are examples of an ideology because they all follow strands from feminist theory and all believe in certain questionable and in a lot of cases utterly fairytale things. You could draw parallels with religion and thats why feminists are often attacked by groups such as atheists because feminism as an ideology makes ridiculous claims they can not back up with science.
Its why they are also often referred to as a cult because if they are found to be not conforming to the feminist "all men are evil" guidelines they are shunned by their fellow feminists and ridiculed and told they are not a "real feminist" if they don't conform.
This is a similar pattern seen in other ideologies like ISIS. Their ideology is based on Islam but they have taken the writings and distorted them to such a level they believe they need to kill all non-muslims. Their ideology shares a lot of similarities with the mindset of feminism in that they will also shun (although likely kill) any that sway from the path of ISIS.
So to come on this reddit and claim that we are alike is ridiculous. I have never seen MRAs tell other people they are setting men back 40 years for saying something which does not conform. I have not seen people being bullied into being an MRA, I have never seen people being told they are not a real MRA if they don't believe x.
What I do see here is active discussion about issues and if people say stupid shit then they will be challenged on it. We don't ban people for engaging in debate as ideology based areas would and have done.
[–]miribus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree, the few MRA I personally know do not tend to be dogmatic and do not have a system like the patriarchy in place that reduced virtually every inequality to an evil boogeyman.
But the MR movement is in it's structure not much different from feminism and all people who identify themselves as MRA have to work hard so that the MRM doesn't turn into feminism. We also don't have clearly defined goals, a hierarchy with leadership that can be held responsible the MRM is very vulnerable to become like feminism and move the goal post of what constitutes "equality" with every victory.
People get invested into their identity it is hard for them to change and recognize that even though they thought of themselves as good people they have done so much damage in the last 10 years of their life. This often leads to a kind of bungee effect because people don't want to think of themselves as evil, bad, incompetent or wrong so they double down on their beliefs and become even more fanatic.
[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But the MR movement is in it's structure not much different from feminism
The mens rights movement is nothing like the feminist ideology as I have already clarified in my previous post. If you can't see that you clearly know very little about either movement and I suggest you do a lot more reading before approaching the comparison again.
[–]TBFProgrammer 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
anti-science (that includes soft sciences)
Until the soft sciences get their act together with respect to scientific rigor, every study result is highly suspect. This is not an anti-science stance, but rather anti-psuedo-science.
[–]ignigenaquintus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I am an economist, and I can assure that Economics is not a science. We can't make controlled experiments that are repeatable and falsifiable. Social praxis in general need to go a long way before they become science. In fact the problem of nomenclature it's really important here, people don't usually understand the meaning of theory and hypothesis and the same problem arises between science and praxis. Even real scientists use the wrong name because otherwise the general population would understand something different, media certainly don't care about this but in my book is a big problem.
[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Economics: The dismal not-a-science?
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure but there are a lot of natural experiments.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22627
You may need to consider just how some have tried to be anti-science and tried to silence communication and clarity of all kinds.
Feminism and it's infiltration of many areas has been linked to "The Woozle Effect"- "False Evidence By Citation" - where bad evidence and false claims gets reported over and over until it is believed as reality when it is simple false.
As Donald Dutton observed in just the subject of Domestic Violence:
Woozles are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls "idols of the theatre". ... All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions.
Rethinking Domestic Violence, Donald G. Dutton, UBC Press, 2011, Page 29
The Feminist Radical Cults are so lunatic they even tried to have the term "Woozle Effect" removed from Wikipedia. That is Not A Joke!
1) Here are the calls here on Reddit to gang up and ban a scientific term
2) Here is their idiocy on Wakipedia - they didn't have a Snowball's Chance In hell - but that does not matter when Feminist Lunatics decide they Don't Want Reality.
Please do not lecture those here on anti-intellectual, anti-science attitudes and behaviours and bad faith when we are the one's standing against it.
You may benefit from getting to grips with how Abuse and misinformation is best Debunked (See The Debunking Handbook) - and you how only idiots and those with a fixed mind can't deal with facts and reality de to "The Backfire Effect" - they are not as clever as they think.
[–]Ultramegasaurus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your concern has been noted.
[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Please don't be anti-intellectual, anti-science (that includes soft sciences) and please don't be someone who is camped in ideology and won't change their ideas based on evidence.
Please give an example of a popular subscriber or post that is anti-intellectual.
You think this sub is the low bar for non civility and restraint when it comes to personal attacks? Give examples and explain please.
[–]NWMRA 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
so, in other words "man up!"
[–]kneo24 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's hard to take this seriously. Not even a shred of anecdotal evidence being shown. What is this? Concern trolling?
[–]MagicTampon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Anti-intellectual huh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
Nullius in verba.
"Anti-intellectual". Hmm. Sounds like a weaponized term like "deadbeat dad", Rape apologist", "Holocaust denier", "conspiracy theorist", "anti Vaxxer", "trump supporter", "anti-American" etc etc.
How does one know if a narrative is being carefully controlled? The use of weaponized terms are a good clue.
[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, I love science but many "soft science" aren't science at all. Especially, social science. They hate peer review, they use surveys for almost everything, they often extrapolate from tiny sample sizes, they often throw out part of their data because it doesn't match specific "criteria" (in other words, goes against their conclusion), they make specious conclusions based not on fact but feelings -- it's basically the antithesis of science. It deserves zero respect until they adhere to the scientific method of research, but that'll never happen because they consider science, reason, logic, and objectivity as oppressive and patriarchal.
[–]zangerinus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You really don't realize part of the issue is academia? Philosophy/sociology/anthropology/etc have large overlap the feminist crowd
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]aussietoads 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DougDante 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]SigmundFloyd76 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SigmundFloyd76 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jimmywiddle 11 points12 points13 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]miribus 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]miribus 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]SigmundFloyd76 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]miribus 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]miribus 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TBFProgrammer 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignigenaquintus 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ultramegasaurus 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NWMRA 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kneo24 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SigmundFloyd76 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zangerinus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link