TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Comments like this (this is from a post about a cafe with an 18% Man Tax) are exactly the problem.

persik42

May 22, 2020
209 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/j790owa72a051.jpg
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Comments like this (this is from a post about a cafe with an 18% Man Tax) are exactly the problem.
Author

persik42

Upvotes 209
Comments 44
Date May 22, 2020 8:32 AM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gofijh/comments_like_this_this_is_from_a_post_about_a/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/comments-like-this-this-is-from-a-post-about-a.851925
https://theredarchive.com/post/851925

Comments

[–]Badgerz92 38 points39 points40 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you take feminist statements and change "men" to "black people" or "black men" they sound exactly like white supremacists.

Black people commit more crime so black people should have to pay an 18% tax

it's amazing how these people are able to (correctly) recognize the social factors and discrimination that lead to black people committing more crime but when it comes to gender they can't go beyond "because the Patriarchy tells men it's okay to be criminals"

[–]MBV-09-C 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Logically, you'd think pointing that out would at least steer them in the right direction about why what they said was wrong, but they often try and deflect with "it's possible to be both privileged and oppressed at the same time" or "but black people actually are oppressed and men aren't, so that's not a fair comparison"

[–]zeerust2000 36 points37 points38 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminist logic.....1). Most crimes are committed by men. Therefore, 2) Most men commit crimes. Don't laugh. I know people who think like this, and nothing will enable them to see the fallacy in their thinking.

[–]lasciate 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget erasing inconvenient facts.

"Crimes are committed by men, overwhelmingly."

"Men are raised by women, overwhelmingly society."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had to make a drawing to figure out where the fallacy was

[–]thesilentbob123 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman get convinced less for the same crimes

[–]accidental_me 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Breaking Bad, by the way, revolves around the question of why men end up doing criminal things. Better Call Saul has the same theme. Brilliant TV.

[–]TheTIM333 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"When you have children, you always have family, they will always be your priority, your responsibility. And a man… a man provides. And he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved, he simply bears up, and he does it, because he’s a man."

[–]accidental_me 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, exactly! That's the apex. You just have to hate them - and love.

[–]CaptSnap 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It sounds like she is advocating three things:

1) only people who receive a govt service should pay for it. This is quite regressive but I wouldnt mind not paying school tax (no kids) for example.

2) many of society's problems may be fixed if society spent money on helping men

3) fathers and a father's role is worth something in that its absence creates a void that requires tax money to fill to form a "healthy environment" again.

Id call this a bit of a win.

[–]psilorder 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

3) fathers and a father's role is worth something in that its absence creates a void that requires tax money to fill to form a "healthy environment" again.

I think you assume too much here. She never said anything about what a "Healthy environment" means. It could mean what you said , but it could also mean "away from violent male influence".

[+]AloneTombstone1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This is quite regressive but I wouldnt mind not paying school tax (no kids) for example.

Since women are the primary recipients of food stamps, subsidized housing, and state subsidized child support (pre-k programs), shouldn't they be taxed for them?

Additionally, women live longer than men on average, so they are the primary beneficiaries of social security benefits. Women should pay higher social security taxes.

I'm really liking this logic.

[–]CaptSnap 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There have been several studies that show women, as a group, receive more than they pay in taxes. one study

Basically women receive more than they pay at almost every age. Men almost always pay more than they get.

Weird to bill the oppressor group as the one paying. Not saying Im an economist but IF I was looking to oppress a group you can bet your ass they'd pay more than me. I feel like thats oppression 101, make the oppressed group pay.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wait so when Men are in jail more they are more violent but when black people are in jail more it’s discrimination?

[+]zUltimateRedditor -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Umm... black men don’t exist? Somewhat weird logic from your end here.

Either that, or you need to reword your argument.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What I mean is most people consider the fact the more men are in jail as men do more crimes but the fact that more black people are in jail is considered discrimination when they both should be considered discrimination

[–]koukijimbob -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not discrimination, black men commit the most violent crime, by any and every measure.

[–]LegendaryEmu1 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, if you charged and punished women as they do men it would be close to a 60/40 split. As it stands, here in Australia, for the past ten years, even with the easy road women get in the system, crime done by women has been increasing, while men have been doing less crime.

Society doesn't reward aggressive behavior, specific areas of society does, usually in competitive areas like sports. Everywhere else, no.

The prison system doesn't work, its true. taxing men, 90% of which will never commit any crime for it, is stupid, as it stands, men already pay the overwhelming amount of tax in every single country worldwide. Men are already paying for the system.

This 'solution' just reeks of ignorance because it has no understanding of any part of what they're talking about.

[–]BruhndonDales 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She's right, every time I got in a fight at school the principal gave me a badge and a blow job. Everyone loves aggressive men as well. I can't even tell you the amount of smiles I get from saying "get me my fucking burger" at burger king

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A 'man tax' for being a man? On account of being a man? To pay for the shit other men do? On account of them being men?

Two can play that game. Then men can only pay the x% man tax, but should be free from paying for their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts or any other woman. Let women work and pay for their own stuff. Sounds fair?

We are only responsible for our own actions and have exponentially decreasing influence on our surroundings (family, community, city, state, country and the world). So having a man tax is robbing from good, law-abiding men to pay for criminal men.

[–]Dunkolunko 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism claims to be a left wing ideology right? And the left wing seek to prevent poverty and inequality patially because they recognize that many social and criminal issues are the result of poverty and inequality, economic stressors that push people into criminality out of desperation. So why do they think discriminating against men and making their struggle greater will reduce crime?

They would never blame black violence on being raised to be aggressive and violent, they would acknowledge growing up in a ghetto in poverty and being subject to pressure to provide for both themselves and their families is at least a very large factor in black crime. So why do they assume differently for men? Most male criminals also come from poor and troubled backgrounds and have weaker support networks than women. Where women can pretty easily find a partner who will support them in times of need, most men can not. In poor families, men are expected to provide for that family. It seems probable these extra pressures and lack of safety nets would result in higher rates of criminality, despite the fact that the vast majority of men do NOT engage in this behaviour.

[–]marchingrunjump 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is already in effect.

There has been numerous studies of the pay gap and most - if not all - conclude that men earn more because of their choices. A man will have a stronger tendency to make choices that result in higher salary compared to a woman. Men also deliver more hours for their job than comparable women.

Why are men striving for economic success?

Women prefer economically well off men. Why? A man with sufficient ressources available will be better for their common offspring.

In a relation men typically transfer money to women.

Hisorically mens fertility was not limited by their own biology. A man can easily father hundreds of children if he has the ressources and there is no cultural limitations.

Women has no such direct incentives for being a super-alpha.

It has been shown that historically 40% of men and 80% of women had children. Obviously survival of the fittest choose men with ability to gain ressources and women who had wits enough to choose the resdouceful men

So I would think it is reasonable to assume that the gender pay gap may be due to women’s inclination to choose wealthy men and men’s drive for gaining ressources to support more than one wife.

So the first element of money transfer from the male side to the female side is in the partnership between men and women.

The second part is via the tax system. In many countries, the tax system is progressing. Higher income means higher tax bracket. With the pressure on men to outearn their female patner, the progressive tax system reaps a higher percentage of the man’s surplus he needs to be an attractive partner.

I would love to see some statistics drilling down on consumption. I would guess that women have a larger say in the consumer economy than men. Who cares whoose name is on the credit card, as a marketing guy once said.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would love to see some statistics drilling down on consumption. I would guess that women have a larger say in the consumer economy than men. Who cares whoose name is on the credit card, as a marketing guy once said.

It's been done. Across the western world women control eighty percent of discretionary spending on average.

[–]marchingrunjump 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven’t seen actual rigorous statistical analyses with a decent methodology in place.

There are of course popular articles such as:

https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/

I don’t this can stand for scientific scrutiny. Even though women spend the money to how large a degree are they the decision maker?

It’s really drills down to the power balance in male-female couples’ relations. Feminists have always argued that men unfairly have more influence and power in society. However if women controls 85% of private spending there’s a piece to be added to the puzzle.

Usually women are not only the family ‘president’ but also the sex-minister.

https://politiken.dk/debat/debatindlaeg/art7106258/Kvinden-er-ikke-bare-familiedirektør-men-også-sexminister-i-de-fleste-danske-hjem (Sorry... in danish)

[–]dragonjock27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the bigger problem isn’t the women who propose these ridiculous and sexist ideas, it’s the beta males who willingly go along with it

[–]darthvader2474 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? It obviously fixes the wage gap /s

[–]Hermes_TheMessenger 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most criminals come from single mother housholds. They don't just fall from the sky or crawl out of holes in the ground. If you want to fix something, fix it at the root!

[–]Tinnitus_Maximouse 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This would be the Australian Vegan cafe that funnily enough went bust!

I wonder why that happened, Of course, the owner said it was nothing to do with the tax, but, then, she would, wouldn't she!

[+]Mollof2 -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

That tax sounds like a good idea. But everyone should pay it of course.

[+]Fragosus1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

Isn't the prison already payed by tax money in America? If not who does pay for it?

[–]Mollof2 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but in USA the prision system is really courrupt. Often the company that own the prison take the money instead of into making the prison better

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I keep hearing this from Americans, but I don't get it. Why should anyone make prisons better? A prison is a place for punishment and reflection on one's wrongful action. Why is it considered lile a rejuvenation camp? Also, what do you mean "company owns the prison"? What do companies get out of owning prisons? Labour?

[–]Mollof2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

If prisoners get rehabilitated the chance of them committing crimes again is vastly reduced. Look at Norway with vastly diffrent system. Prisoners get rehabilitated and the rate of prisoners commiting crimes again is extremely low.

I don't exactly how it works but the goverment pay a company to run a prison. They make money out of it.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I understand that once the convict has served the term, they should be absorbed into society as any other citizen. If they need some help setting up a new leaf in their life, that should be arranged. But I find it hard to grapple with the idea that it's a soft, caring, Norwegian prison system that prevents repeated offence. Shouldn't the fear of punishment (fine or prison or community service) do that?

[–]Mashiki -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It should, but crime is a weird thing. That's because people are weird creatures. To give you an idea on something simple, look at shoplifting and employee theft. In policing here in Canada there's a thing called the 30-30-40 rule. That is, 30% of people will never commit a crime, 30% will only commit if they know no one is looking over their shoulder, 40% will commit a crime even knowing someone is standing there recording them and yelling at them to stop. The percentages vary by country, but generally holds true. You're looking at 70% of all people who may or will commit a crime because of chance/opportunity or simply not giving a shit.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So the goal should be to increase the first 30% and decrease the other 2 parts as much as possible.

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The first 30% won't commit a crime at all. Decreasing the other two parts only happens through active measures.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The first 30% won't commit a crime at all.

Yeah, that's why I said it should be increased.

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Canada has pretty much the same system as Norway, but the recidivism rate is around 80% for the first 2 years and declines from there.

Rehabilitation doesn't always work, even with Norway their recidivism rate is between 20-45% depending on the year. Usually the lower-end of recidivism is based on "extremely good years" where only minor crimes are happening like vandalism, theft under $1k, and so-on. In the bad years, their recidivism rates are on par with most western countries.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Then what's the point of a Norwegian prison system? I'll try to rephrase my thoughts. Based on the severity of the crime, you have varying degrees of punishment. A person who steals a loaf of bread will not be punished the same as someone who embezzles a million dollars. So, you do your time based on the crime (also called paying your debts to society) and after that, you go back to the society as a regular citizen. If you want rehabilitation, you can add that to the sentence, but prison shouldn't be a kind of a "dormitory" where you can go stay if you refuse to be a contributing member of the community. And I think, if the Norwegian system is implemented in a country as diverse and with the problems America has, I think criminals won't hesitate to exploit it.

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The point is the same as all criminal justice systems, trying to find a system that works in order to make a criminal, not a criminal and reintegrate them into society. There doesn't really seem to be an easy middle ground in all of it, and at either extreme(criminals get hard labor) and in the middle(jail+rehabilitation), other extreme(kid gloves aka give them hugs and cuddles) and the system doesn't work for most criminals either.

Your point about criminals not hesitating to exploit it? You're spot on. Here in Canada, we have an effective 2-tier system. There's natives and everyone else. To give you an example, a native offender is a habitual armed robber always using a gun. They'll be put through and given over to "reconciliation" services repeatedly until it gets so bad that not even the judges can look the other way. Anyone else would get the statutory minimum.

The onlysystem that works is to try and make sure the person doesn't become a criminal in the first place. And that's far easier said then done when you look at all the different theories. So we're back to square one, mitigate, and then in many cases kid-gloves which doesn't deter.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that it's a queasy topic, and there's a lot of grey area. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cheers. If you're interested on reading up more, check out the various criminology theories that are floating around. I'm a proponent of the rational choice+social disorganization+social theory group.

Meaning, people make a choice good or bad(this is akin to the star wars idea "is the darkside more powerful? - no, easier, more seductive.") That 'bad' opportunities or lack of opportunities can cause crime to grow(see ghettoization, urban decay and similar issues). And the groups that a person associates with will inherently lead people to criminality aka "opportunism within the environment to go down the same path."

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most countries there is already a tax like this, it's usually named the "victims surcharge" and applies on everything from speeding tickets on up.

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