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

Controversy ensues when science butts heads with liberal ideology: Few seem able to hear that women can be as violent as men in domestic disputes

Oncefa2

July 5, 2021
247 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-controversy-ensues-when-science-butts-heads-with-liberal-ideology
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 Controversy ensues when science butts heads with liberal ideology: Few seem able to hear that women can be as violent as men in domestic disputes
Author

Oncefa2

Upvotes 247
Comments 31
Date July 5, 2021 2:03 PM UTC
(5 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/oe817h/controversy_ensues_when_science_butts_heads_with/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/controversy-ensues-when-science-butts-heads-with.1060969
https://theredarchive.com/post/1060969
Top posts by Oncefa2

In 2017, men worked 56% of all hours and earned 56% of all income. Women worked 44% of all hours and earned 44% of all income.

2369 upvotes
March 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

"If rape laws were gender neutral then men would falsely accuse women of rape" -- a discussion I had with a feminist.

2233 upvotes
September 2, 2020
/r/MensRights

If feminists actually believed in the theory behind toxic masculinity, they would support the men's rights movement. MRAs are giving men a voice and a safe space to express themselves.

2205 upvotes
December 14, 2020
/r/MensRights

I feel like there is an unwritten rule in society that men are expected to listen to their wives / girlfriends and be obedient to them. Nobody wants to talk about this though and some people even think it's misogynistic to bring it up.

2068 upvotes
September 21, 2020
/r/MensRights

#MeToo failed Johnny Depp and proves that the woke movement is nothing but digital chivalry

2034 upvotes
April 22, 2022
/r/MensRights

Most feminists are radical feminists by the literal dictionary definition of radical feminism: "the belief that society functions as a patriarchy in which men oppress women"

1985 upvotes
May 5, 2021
/r/MensRights

Men do not seem like they are proud to be men. And this is detrimental to their mental health. We need to celebrate men instead of demonizing them.

1964 upvotes
March 26, 2021
/r/MensRights

The idea that women are "bigger victims" than men is a harmful, antiquated gender norm that promotes toxic ideas in society

1816 upvotes
December 27, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 89 points90 points91 points 5 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

On most topics, scientific research seems to line up with liberal or left-wing politics pretty closely. Whether it's climate change, evolution, drug addiction as a disease, or any number of other topics, liberals usually seem to be on the right side of science. But this isn't always the case, especially when it comes to gender and sometimes even sexuality.

Well UBC psychology professor Don Dutton teaches in Vancouver, Canada, which is much more "liberal" and "well intentioned" than many other countries. And despite being liberal himself, he has run into roadblocks in Canada when the facts and evidence do not line up with existing liberal ideologies.

Many gender stereotypes around violence and victimization which aren't backed up by the data are slow to die in Canada. Despite having a near academic consensus behind him about the symmetrical nature of domestic violence, he has found this hard to sell to Canadians, and especially to Canadian lawmakers.

The data indicates that domestic violence is most commonly bidirectional, with women being more violent against men than the reverse. Public policy in Canada does not recognize this reality though. Men who seek help are often called abusers. And men who call the police are often arrested instead of their attackers.

In one case, a husband called police after his drunken wife attacked him. The police found the man with a knife sticking out of his body. They still arrested him.

Dutton notes that conservatives often aren't much better than liberals, but conservatives don't hold institutional or social power in Canada, so that isn't really an issue.

Liberal-left politicians and activists have turned domestic violence into solely a women’s rights issue, often defining the entire category as “violence against women.”

Conservative politicians don’t get the picture either, he says. Since they want to appear protective of women, they appeal to religious supporters by framing partner violence as a lack of “family values.”

So basically nobody takes the side of men. Or the side of science and evidence, in this case. Everyone traditionally takes the side of women, they just have different reasons for it.

[–]AskingToFeminists 34 points35 points36 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know I post that article almost every time someone mentions domestic violence, but just in case somebody hasn't read it yet : the feminist case for acknowledging women's acts of violence, a feminist paper admitting to manipulating data in order to protect their ideology and their funding, funding which they admit to be using outside of purpose, in what is generally known as embezzlement, but yeah, no issue there.

[–]lightning_palmleft-wing male advocate 48 points49 points50 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's so frustrating. I just had an argument on the r/AskFeminists sub, but they won't accept facts, saying that I have to choose a theory (which would be feminism / patriarchy theory) before I look at the facts.

The science is clearly on our side, but if people don't accept science because it is not in line with their preconceived notions and instincts about gender issues, then you will have a much, much harder time convincing anyone. I am convinced that it is still possible given enough time and effort, but will take so much longer as the current notions are so ingrained in the minds of everyone.

Is it possible that coming up with our own theory / framework would help this problem, or would this also find rejection in the minds of people?

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 30 points31 points32 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I remember when the left was almost by definition aligned with science and evidence.

I'm not sure when that stopped being a thing. I'm guessing it was only a subset of leftists who were truly in that camp. The rest of the left probably just rode on our coattails when we talked about climate change and science denialism and stuff like that.

But it's really frustrating to see more and more liberals divorcing themselves from science and reason.

The good new is that it's really only the idpol branch of liberalism that's doing this. I think there are still a lot of leftists who care about facts and evidence. But there's nothing really uniting us anymore like there used to be.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The good new is that it's really only the idpol branch of liberalism that's doing this.

And I would argue that idpol is decidedly against liberal values. It is a cancer that has infected liberal thinking.

[–]FearlessReaction5 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember when the left was almost by definition aligned with science and evidence.

I question whether that ever really existed. That statements reminds me of how the right uses the term "common sense" to describe whatever dogmatic action they want to justify

Also, on a side note, I didn't realize Canada had senators

[–]AskingToFeminists 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember when the left was almost by definition aligned with science and evidence.

I'm not sure when that stopped being a thing.

When it comes to DV, I never was alive in such a time. The lying about DV started in the 70s, as soon as it started being "seriously" studied.

No side is perfectly immune to denying science to protect their ideologies, be it the left or the right. The only reason we are under the illusion that denying science is more prominent to the right is because the media and social sciences leans much more left, and so they portray things in a biased manner.

There are plenty more leftists where I live who are full blown homeopaths, into all sorts of alternative medicines, and of course, feminism is a very strong factor of science denial.

It's just that the right is more associated with Christianity, which has been so beaten into compliance for decades that it doesn't protest much when people laugh at them, and it is one big factor of science denial, so it's a cheap shot to take. "Haha, look at those morons, they believe in a magical daddy in the sky who really cares about what they do with their genitals. those people on the right are really anti science", says the leftist activist against violence against women wearing a crystal for positive energy and buying his "natural" products that will help his quantum waves of the brain be in sync with the rest of humanity and the world.

Honestly, as someone with a training in quantum physics and an MRA, from a left wing lower class background in France, the amount of science denial I see comes more from the left than the right, with Christians being almost extinct in my circles. Like, I know a few people who married at church and baptized their children, but those events are pretty much the only time these people put a foot in church, except to bury grandma. Grandma being the only one left in the family to ever go to mass.

And so a lot of the pseudosciences are going strong amongst all sorts of new age hippie ultra left progressive ecologists, while Christian creationists are going extinct.

Then, of course, there is an increase in creationism and religiosity, but in Muslim communities, and it can be hard to be sure whether they are right or left, because our left is prostrating in front of them, a big part of our right too, although the few really wishing to oppose religious integrism creeping in our society are from the extreme right and occasionally the more mainstream right trying to steal vote to the extreme, but when it comes to values they align more with what is carried by the Christian right than anything held by the left.

Anyway, it's not so much as if the distinction of right or left still made sense in France. Sarkozy was about as right as we ever had. He was replaced by Hollande, who was supposed to be left, but went even further right in his policies. And then, we got Macron who I believe is more or less supposed to be from the left, although Cthulhu only knows whether he's really supposed to be right or left, but the only thing sure is that he's completely in the pocket of bankers and the biggest fortunes, against the 90% of the population's interests, not giving a shit, and more corrupt than we ever got.

I mean, the guy tried to sell the Paris Airports to private companies. Airports that are currently earning something like 8% benefits yearly to the state and constitute a national frontier, with a plan to put that money into banks where it would earn us only 2%. Luckily it got widely opposed by enough people that it got stopped (at least for now, they are not beneath still doing it while the attention is distracted), but the goal is clear : to sell anything public to private companies, no matter how much it will hurt us, so that big private interests can make a lot of money.

So, yeah, in France, left/right doesn't really make any sense, right now. We have the choice between corrupt politicians going against our interests, supported by their friends and family from the media, and corrupt politicians going against our interests, supported by their friends and family from the media. All of them. Except maybe, maybe, politicians from groups that are so small and fringe that anyway, they get no chance of ever being elected, and whose candidacy only serves to make loose the big candidates the closest to them politically.

[–]Consistent-Scientist 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure when that stopped being a thing.

It's not so much when, it's more a matter of where. And gender issues is one of those areas where there is a lot of contradiction especially among leftists who are heavily into indentity politics. For instance, they rightly accept the fact that transgender people are born in a way where their biological sex and innate conception of gender are misaligned. On the other hand they reject the idea of innate gender differences that manifest in behavior and instead claim that it is all socially constructed.

[–]helloiseeyou2020 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember when the left was almost by definition aligned with science and evidence

That's never been the case with men's issues though. The best the left has ever been on men's issues is ignorant. Warren Farrel's quasi-excommunication after finding new and undeniable discoveries through scientific method shows that this has always (and in my cynical pov, will always) be a blindspot

[–]matrixislife 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Work is being done on theories, you could take a look at Gamma bias to see if it covers what you're interested in. This cropped up last year, haven't heard much more from them but see what you think. There's a video to outline it here.

[–]lightning_palmleft-wing male advocate 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I'm aware of gamma bias.

But honestly, I'm opposed to most kinds of theories about social justice. I prefer just fixing discrimination where it pops up and I don't really see why this is not sufficient.

In my opinion, theories about social justice are just a hindrance and certain people will take a theory beyond what it was originally meant to mean. But maybe I'm wrong. Gamma bias does seem quite compelling and it could give people a new framework to help them adjust their thinking. It simplifies thinking for the broad mass who doesn't have so much time to sink into gender issues, I guess.

[–]reverbiscrap 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Depends on whether you mean 'theories' or 'frameworks'.

The much talked about Critical Race Theory isn't a theorem, it is an academic framework using empirical evidence to examine how race/ethnicity/ nationality, social class, wealth class, and occasionally gender impacts how a group will be perceived and treated in any given society. It is not restricted to America, and is somewhere between 50-70 years old.

[–]duhhhh 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think bashing of people with light skin or penises was part of CRT 20 years ago. It was about explaining why some races/ethnicities/social classes/wealth classes were being held back and proposing ways to improve their outcomes. Trashing whites and men has made its way into that framework over time.

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are blaming what someone is doing with the framework on the framework.

E=mc² didn't create the atomic bomb, but was used to create it. Proposing otherwise is lazy thinking at best.

[–]lightning_palmleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I changed my mind on Gamma Bias. I knew the theory, but never fully read the paper or thought to apply it. But now that I have, wow. It's an incredibly powerful theory.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention again.

[–]they_be_cray_z 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Whether it's climate change, evolution, drug addiction as a disease, or any number of other topics, liberals usually seem to be on the right side of science. But this isn't always the case, especially when it comes to gender and sometimes even sexuality.

I mean...liberals, yes. "Progressives," no. Even on these points.

All the failed doomsday predictions of climate change chip away at the collective credibility of the science of climate change: the many claims of the icebergs being completely melted by now, Guam being underwater, Britain being "Siberian" by now, to name a few.

Evolution is simply a useful tool so long as it is being used to disprove creationism and those who believe the world is 8,000 years old, but when it disproves gender ideology evolution is quickly abandoned. Many equal-outcomes based policies are simply subtle complaints against natural selection. Nature naturally sorts people into hierarchies, but this is abhorrent to equal outcomes approaches.

The liberal science of drug addiction as a disease is correct, but the science of drug policies as something that can be exclusively treated like a disease is not, because the problem is that new addicts are created at a much higher rate than those who are cured. Which is why coastal cities are overflowing with drug-addicted homelessness.

This isn't to say we shouldn't take care of the environment, still teach evolution, or treat drug addiction like a disease. But these policies are inherently political, and politics is not naturally a friend to science.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think liberals ever thought that global warming would have put us underwater now.

That seems more like a strawman to me. It's always been on the order of hundreds of years. Like 2100 is when we might have some serious coastal problems.

That is a really good point about evolution though.

Evolution, biology, and psychology get in the way of liberal ideology when it comes to both gender and sexuality.

Someone else already pointed out the contradiction between transgenderism as a biological realty, and gender as a social construct, for example. Which is something many trans people are aware of and butt heads with liberals and the "LGBs" quite a bit.

The science of transgenderism, both for conversion therapy, and the theory for how you might be born or develop trans, comes down to sex hormones which make you (and your brain in particular) develop certain ways. Which is the same science that tells us "men and women are different" because those are the exact same biological pathways that cause men and women to develop differently.

[–]The-Author 38 points39 points40 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

All people of all ideologies tend to have a problem when the science isn't on their side, but I've noticed that the left has a particular problem with science unlike other ideologies (keep in mind that I'm saying this as a leftist).

Many leftists/ liberals tend to assume that their ideologies are automatically in line with science and thus based in reality unlike more right leaning conservative ideologies. For the most part this is true, concerning things such as climate change, evolution etc. But not always.

This belief that their beliefs are when they encounter science that disagrees with what they believe in, usually on matters related to race an gender, they tend to either just assume the research/ researchers are biased and wrong or try to pressure the people involved to retracting their research like what they did with the people behind the Male Variability Hypothesis when it posited a potential scientific explanation for why men are found at both the top an bottom of society respectively.

[–]CodeOfFire 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All people of all ideologies tend to have a problem when the science isn't on their side

Ideologically possessed as I like to say. Not sure what we as a species can do about it though. It seems all people, whoever we are, want a coherent worldview to help make sense of reality and will often dismiss reality when it when it conflicts with the worldview.

[–]The-Author 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it also has to do with emotional attachment.

Political beliefs are often very important to the person that holds them. Like how belief of a living wage is likely very important to someone who has a job that is currently below a living wage.

The best way to have an objective viewpoint of something is to be as emotionally detached from it as possible so your emotions can't sway you. But because of the inherent nature of politics, specifically how it affects everyone of us, that's very hard to do. Unless you happen to be rich enough that you can just ignore politics.

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a case of getting too friendly with science. If it backs up your assertions for decades and hinders your opponents then you get comfortable with it. Then it comes as a shocking betrayal when science dictates that one of your beliefs is wrong. It can't be science; it must be someone perverting science. It doesn't help that there really are researchers out there perverting science for political goals, but naturally if someone publishes research that contradicts a viewpoint then someone will say it's fake science.

This highlights the need for scientific institutions and their constituents to adhere to strict academic standards. Lately those standards have been at risk, and have even been compromised in some cases, and it's terrifying.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Conservatives do this too. There are conservatives who think all of science is a big conspiracy taken over by liberals. But they always have their scientists who they think are unbiased who post on YouTube because "the establishment" doesn't let them post them their research anywhere else.

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They’ll find a supply side economist and tell everyone that their opinion is gospel and we need to craft our whole government around it but will deny Evolution, face masks and climate change because “ So called experts”

[–]The-Author 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a case of getting too friendly with science. If it backs up your
assertions for decades and hinders your opponents then you get
comfortable with it. Then it comes as a shocking betrayal when science
dictates that one of your beliefs is wrong. It can't be science; it must
be someone perverting science. It doesn't help that there really are
researchers out there perverting science for political goals, but
naturally if someone publishes research that contradicts a viewpoint
then someone will say it's fake science.

I completely agree with you on that.

It's also partially because of the scientists themselves. Scientist in general, tend to be left leaning. This means even when a piece of research is biased it can still get through peer review because the people checking it have the exact same biases.

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s why I try not to have an “ ideology”. I have priorities, I consider myself a leftist because I prioritize working people over corporate profits. But priorities are flexible, they change when a situation changes, by definition someone who is ideological is not.

[–]Spacct 25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought this was well known already. Lesbian couples have by far the highest rates of domestic violence of any pairing.

[–]ILoveBigBoobsYesIDo 21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hahahhahaa! Fucking muppets on both ends. I've had arguments where feMIniSts said I'm a conservative and also called a liberal with these covid deniers, when all I do was presenting scientific arguments. Seems like identity politics/ideologies will ruin us all.

With all these numerous scientific advancement, why the fuck are we regressing as a human race???

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

As we advance scientifically, so to the methods of rhetoric and psychological methods to subvert ideas.

[–]Algoresball 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This reminds me of the Bull Burr bit “ No Reason To Hit A Woman”. I won’t butcher his company in a Reddit comment, but it’s a great bit of Comedy

[–]griii2right-wing guest 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Am I the only one here who hates it when the word LIBERAL is used not in the classical sense but rather to mean left/social/progressive? Of course I live in EU :)

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm from the EU as well. I don't have a problem with it.

To me it seems that the individual rights of liberalism naturally align with the egalitarian concerns of the progressive left.

Of course what is understood today to be liberal and progressive has been twisted and poisoned by anti-egalitarian practices of feminism, idpol, and wokeism.

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