What are /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Scientific American went woke a while ago. It's just American now. :P Take a look at this for a more scientific perspective: https://www.amazon.ca/Sex-Differences-Summarizing-Scientific-Research/dp/0805859594

No. Feminism does not support male issues. Please see a complete analysis of the feminist claim that it does, here, under "Is Feminism for Men Too?" https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2

>males are made to have a slightly higher sex drive

It is significantly higher, to be exact, ~4x higher on average. [Source]

If anyone here speaks Portuguese, you should check out this book by Ana Caroline Campagnolo called Feminismo: Perversão e Subversão(Feminism: Perversion and Subversion). She's a Brazilian historian and she references Martin Van Crevald a lot in her book. I don't think there's an english version, I could only find a very badly photocopied ebook which I had to use https://lingva.ml/ to translate each page with lol.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43831623-feminismo

Do you think there has been no research about that, that I had to do that all myself? Read this excellent book and we’ll speak again. https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Afraid-Charles-Darwin-Evolutionary/dp/074254351X And your second point is incomprehensible.

I recommended this book by a Belgian woman before and I recommend it again. Strongly. It doesn’t leave a single doubt that average differences between men and women are real.

https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Afraid-Charles-Darwin-Evolutionary/dp/074254351X

It's true, but personally I think a bigger danger is a growing anti-science perspective around hormones, which denies their impact on behavior entirely.

These people follow a political agenda, and not a scientific one, and parrot ideological narratives that are socially palatable, rather than ones that are evidenced based.

This is the real danger that is not being acknowledged.ary biology at Harvard talks a lot about this growing issue, and even speaks about how she's left research (and now only lectures) and may soon leave Harvard altogether, as a direct response to the backlash she receives.

This is the real danger that is not being acknowlege.

I highly recommend her book which I reference in this post.

It is more of a value statement than a "tangible or realistic goal". And w.r.t. the patriarchy/gynocentrism comparison, let me quote Rick Bradford (pseudonym: William Collins) from his book The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect:

>Critics sometimes misrepresent this perspective as "men's rights activists believe that women oppress men". This is actually a projection of the feminist theory of patriarchy: that men oppress women. But the idea of matricentrism/gynocentrism does not posit any conspiracy, only a set of psychosocial proclivities, in both sexes, which promote preferencing of women and hence, inevitably, the disadvantaging of men. It is a sociodynamic phenomenon, not a conspiracy, and the word "oppression” is not appropriate, though it could become so if this dynamic continues to amplify.

The book "Abused Men" by Philip W. Cook has an interview with the director. I don't know if I am breaking any rule posting this here, but I will do it anyway:

Nancy Bein is the producer of the movie. She worked for CBS for nine years as the vice president for television movies and has some 400 TV movies to her credit. She has produced four movies as an independent producer since leaving the network. It seems extraordinary, but Bein insisted in the interview for this book that out of all those hundreds of movies, there is no doubt that the reaction tion to Men Don't Tell was the greatest:

I find it incredible, with all the subjects that have been covered, that this was the first movie and that you're writing the first book. I decided to do this movie because a friend, who is a psychologist, told me about a client who was a police officer and who had been a victim of domestic violence. He told my friend that he always expected that each incident would be the last time, that he didn't hit her back because he was afraid he would really hurt her. She told my friend that she hit him to get his attention. So that's what started the whole idea, that there was this kind of syndrome drome happening out there. From the research that we did find, and there wasn't very much, we learned that it is very similar to what happens to battered tered women. First, that there generally has to be a history of physical or verbal bal abuse in the families of both perpetrator and victim; otherwise, it's not accepted. Secondly, it is almost like there is a nonverbal contract between the two, that this type of thing is going to be how they deal with their lives.

Ann Silvers, Erin Pizzey, Suzanne K. Steinmentz, Siobhan Weare, Cassie Jaye, Karen DeCrow.

Jack Kammer's Good Will Toward Men had a bunch of interviews with women about men's issues.

>Most crime right now is against men. If the per capita rate of crimes against men went even 2x, the total crime rate would jump so much as to be be international news.

Not exactly. This kind of hate speech against men is nothing new, it's as old as third-wave feminism. You should check what feminists did to Erin Pizzey for challenging the idea the "male aggressor, female victim" paradigm back in the 70s.

The fact that most crime is against men as you say (and 77% of murders in particular) is proof that men are being targeted. It's something that we know in psychology that reduced empathy towards a certain group will increase hostility and violence towards said group. We also know that this kind of dehumanized speech (which is exactly the same as what was done with Muslims as I pointed out before) reduces empathy towards the target group. Therefore it's a literal impossibility that the increased violence men face is not connected to the reduced empathy caused by said speech.

Not just murders btw. A study showed that the amount of men raped by women increases in places where there's more negative sentiment towards men. And knowing that there's over a million men raped by women each year as shown by the CDC we're talking a lot of victims just in that category.

​

>Even though some men are fearful of social consequences, we don't have the same palpable, pervasive and, frankly, reasonable fear for our physical safety that arab looking people did.

Speak for yourself, I am afraid to go out especially at night. Have been since the early 2000s, when I was mugged on average 2 times per year, sometimes at knife point, sometimes having withstood physical violence.

u/PeterWrightMGTOW briefly talks about this in his book Chivalry: A Gynocentric Tradition:

>One particularly striking practice showing an adaption from the feudal model involved the man kneeling on one knee before the woman. By kneeling down in this way he assumes the posture of a vassal. He speaks, pledging his faith, promising, like a liege man, not to offer his services to anyone else. He goes even further: in the manner of a serf, he makes her a gift of his entire person.

And

>C.S. Lewis referred to the growth of romantic chivalry as “the feudalisation of love,” (Lewis, 2013, p. 2) making the observation that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. He observed that European society has moved essentially from a social feudalism, involving a contractual arrangement between a feudal lord and his vassal, to a sexual feudalism involving a comparable contract between men and women as symbolized in the act of a man going down on one knee to propose marriage (Wright, 2014).

>It doesn't look like women are any less violent than men, just that they tend to pick on people who are their size or smaller.

What are you talking about? That paper says that women are only 14% of violent offenders. And even then, most of their victims are not strangers, like they are with men.

>As for violent, forcible sexual assault, I'll concede that is a male dominated crime. According to the FBI it's 2 percent of crime reported to the police. Considering cultural and social bias against men reporting female rapists, I'm surprised there's even that many. However, in prison, female inmates are twice as likely to sexually assault other inmates than male inmates.

Actually, if you account for the institutionalized population, women assault men at the same rate that men assault women. Female correctional officers are rape-prone. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-victimization-perpetrated-by-women%3A-Federal-Stemple-Flores/04da797e90eed97fabcfc24d769e0397eddd0c9d

But still, its not 99%, like that other person said.

It was actually in this podcast. But even more mainstream liberal sources like the Brookings Institution admit this. Take a look at Fact 5 on this page.

Its true that clitoridectomy is an attempt to control female sexual behavior. But male circumcision is a way of controling male sexual behavior for the same reason: to ensure paternity certainty. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Male-genital-mutilation%3A-an-adaptation-to-sexual-Wilson/22715e06ac62d7c1c09a458cf6a615739bcee6b9

​

So the two practices are morally equivalent in a meaningful sense.

The second sentence of that article displays a complete lack of understanding about what the "pink tax" is.

I'm not willing to give Hive my email address in order to read the full report, but from my experiences with tech companies publishing papers like this I'm guessing that it's even less scientifically rigorous and externally valid than PornHub Insights.

If you're coming from this point if view but are open to spending some time thinking about gender from a different point of view, I highly recommend checking out Seeing Gender from your local library.

Here's my analogy for gender expression: imagine we lived in a world where you could only call animals "water animals" or "land animals". Fish, sharks, dolphins, coral would all be water animals. Giraffes, dogs, cats, ants would all be land animals. Oh those amphibious things that spend time in both? Nah those are water animals. Those flying things which mostly like to be in the air and sometimes fly over both water and land, nah those are land animals. Nothing in the universe is actually binary, even at a quantum level where literally everything is in a mixed state of probabilistic waves. Nature created a binary in some animals to solve the problem of reproduction. Humans created the concept of a gender binary to solve perceived social problems. Nothing about this binary is fundamental.

This reminds me to:

Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them!

Girls are Weirdos but They Smell Pretty

At this point it really is just speculation.

My understanding of human beings is that they find it easier to keep one spinning plate going at a time rather than multiple ones. And as feminist ideology places the blame solely on men, and all women need to do is smash the patriarchy (rather than the ruling class) and that's it the world is liberated, it would seem that except for Marxist Feminism, feminism is at odds with marxism and the two advocate different things. And so to focus on feminism means that you can't focus on socio-economic class struggle (but I may have got something wrong).

I know that a cosmo jounalist was paid to print lies about how great it was to be an independent woman (getting abortions and such) so feminism and capitalism were united in some way. The independent woman was being sold, an idea of feminity that could be performed.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Subverted-Helped-Sexual-Revolution-Movement-ebook/dp/B0167ND1K4

​

They do the same thing now to both men and women, customers can buy an identity.

They Were Her Property - by Stephanie Rogers

There’s a bunch of reviews and book club discussions of it on YouTube. Here’s a rather long and in-depth one

Short reason: it's more racist than the KKK, more sexist than Jack the Ripper, and holds its ideas dogmatically in the face of contrary evidence.

Longer, MUCH longer, but properly detailed reason: Read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay, if you want to know. Or go to https://www.reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses/ to get an intro to Lindsay's personal take.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439914869/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_LjBvAbX7MGWFD

​

I follow him on twitter. I have not read his book. But I found this from him.

>That is, clans that descend from older brothers have more power than clans descended from younger brothers. There is one ruling clan who dominates all other clans. Usually inequalities between men and women are much higher (think like Ghenghis Khan like). The ruler or chief has great control over all other men and women in the chiefdom.

The sources that I know of differ in their depiction of Genghis Khan's society. There is a book by Jack Weather ford that says that the women of the Khan household where the ones who were in charge of Genghis's empire: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Mongol-Queens-Daughters/dp/0307407160/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Mongol+queens&qid=1568957642&sr=8-1