TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

8echos Archive

View 2 posts and 80 comments by 8echos on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

8echos/r/MensRights28/04/12 01:16 AM
0

8echos/r/MensRights23/04/12 11:20 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You might want to read up on the "glass escalator" phenomenon, which specifically considers how men climb the corporate ladder even in female-dominated fields. This study and the sources it provides might give you some insight regarding your questions (disregard the title, it actually brings up some good points about male discrimination). Most of what I've taken away from all of these studies and arguments is that sexism (not discrimination, just sexist profiling for both men and women) often pl…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:52 AM
1

If feminists and men/MRA's worked together, each group could accomplish great things without risking harm on the other. But as you can see, cooperation has been strongly discouraged by both sides. Don't let it get to you, just be glad if you actually learn something here- then tell feminists about it.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:27 AM
2

I'm not trying to diminish women's experiences regarding these issues, but I need to point out that to some extent, MRA's feel that men's bodies have been legislated against. Examples: requiring men to register for the draft, legal infant circumcision. And MRA's feel that in regards to parental rights, men are sorely disregarded.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:51 AM
1

Most members of sociological minority groups want social "rights". They want people to not have any preconception or prejudices and they want media to stop perpetrating such. They want to change the way every individual feels so they never experience anything negative- real or perceived- about their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, handicap, etc. This is impossible because no matter how much social engineering or propping minorities up is done there will always be jerks, bigots, and t…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:21 PM
0

Man, you are insufferable. You think that questioning the U.S. Revolution is popular? You think that everyone else believes feminism has some good aspects? You think that because I want to understand your opinion it means I don't have my own thoughts? Hey, unless you give me a reason to admit that I'm wrong about something (and I'm not afraid to do that), you will not find any satisfaction. Stop wasting your time with intimidation, at least reply to epluribisuno or something. This arguing is wor…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:08 PM
0

Crystal clear. When I've completely regressed and am ready to submit to your particular way of thinking, I should come find you. Sorry, but you can't get rid of people who don't always agree with you just so that you don't have to explain or defend your opinions. Discussion leads to innovation, my friend. See you around.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:03 PM
1

You bring up some good points, but I think you know as well as I do that a certain elite really do have seemingly unlimited mechanisms for the transfer of wealth to programs/boondoggles/companies that they like. We are accustomed to ignoring way too many of the puzzle pieces of our government, which is why Legal Paternal Surrender would sound like a good idea to many people. Being angry that some feminists are trying to take advantage of a corrupt system is a way of ignoring the real problem, wh…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 07:29 PM
2

Thanks. You could've avoided piling up all the tired explanations if you had just been honest from the start. It's OK if you don't agree with me; we're all entitled to our own opinions.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 06:57 AM
1

Whether or not the U.S. Revolution was ethical is a controversial debate. I'm curious to know where you stand on the issue, but I don't think it's worth it for me to ask. Your answers are really not helping me understand your point of view. Please take this to heart: You need to provide some more context/explanation, otherwise your statements are of no value to anyone who questions your arguments.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 06:34 AM
1

I agree that access to birth control and viagra aren't rights. I'm just trying to point out to you that your way of approaching the issue ignores the fundamental point at hand, that men and women in an equal society should be guaranteed the same entitlement to advocate for justifiable laws. Please just tell me whether you agree or disagree.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:42 AM
1

Right, I see what you're saying. Actually, this video explained it best. In this manner of thinking, would it be considered wrong/unethical for a person or group to fight for rights? If so, what would the actions of MRA's regarding the elimination of anti-male legislation be considered? *edit: link
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:07 AM
1

Ah, it makes more sense now. It would be great if governments didn't use violence to enforce laws, even better if laws didn't exist, right? Maybe, but until that day comes what do you suggest we do? Ignore the fact that laws do exist- wether they benefit us or not- and ignore our supposed right to fight the ones we find unjust?
/r/MensRights03/06/12 04:26 AM
2

No, my response has everything to do with what you said. It was basically a way of rephrasing your argument, only with the presumption that women are entitled to similar things as men. It doesn't matter how you phrase your definition of "rights", entitlements guaranteed by law are a dynamic reflection of society's rights, which people do have the right to try and change if they find unjust. It seems like you're implying women don't have that right if the issues are specific to their sex.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 02:37 AM
2

This doesn't make sense, or maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain your reasoning a little further?
/r/MensRights03/06/12 02:13 AM
1

If you don't understand my response, how can you know that I missed the point? If you assume a misunderstanding on my part, please explain your point more clearly. If you disagree with my response, elaborate.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 10:30 PM
1

Well, there would be dire consequences if the government didn't have to pay for anything, but it's your prerogative to ignore said consequences so long as they don't affect you. How is it that you disagree with feminists using the government to get what they want, when this is one of MRA's main tactics (ie. trying to get VAWA dropped, circumcision illegal, domestic violence laws reevaluated, etc.)? Also, the notion that "rights are violence" makes absolutely no sense, but I'm hoping someone will…
/r/MensRights02/06/12 10:11 PM
0

Are you using your pun to say that feminists shouldn't be allowed to fight for women to have entitlements that are comparable to the ones men receive? Great. Which private companies would you rather have the government give our tax dollars to? Halliburton?
/r/MensRights02/06/12 09:08 AM
-1

The reason your comment can't be proven wrong- whether by facts, evidence, data, or rationality- is because your comment is not based on facts, evidence, data, or rationality. I'm not going to say the comment was bigoted, but certainly the action of putting forth a comment and telling others to STFU when they can't prove an unprovable comment wrong, is something a bigoted person would do.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 08:22 AM
0

If men are granted the privilege of government-funded viagra, then women, being equal to men, should be allowed comparable entitlements. Feminists fighting for the privilege of government-funded birth control is analogous to fighting for equal entitlements to men aka., the fact of having rights equal to men.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 08:03 AM
-1

Believing that women's capacity for self-responsibility is a reflection of what you allow them is not really "male privilege". It's just internalized oppression.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 06:34 AM
2

Look at the website a little closer, especially this part about why the race is women only if you want more specific info.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:47 AM
1

Did you even read to the end of the article before deciding you know "how this all works"? Men... are learning that there are worse things than having to be the woman in the relationship. This is coming from a woman. Based on that statement, can't we conclude that this woman doesn't believe that women have it better? You don't even feel that you require context to make claims against the female sex, huh? Way to go, bro.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:43 AM
0

Explain your feelings to her. Tell her that you won't support her because you think the race is sexist. She might not understand and it may hurt her feelings, but at least you're being honest. If you can actually convince her to agree with you, maybe she'll quit the marathon. That'll be one less runner involved in a "sexist charity event". But if you have any shred of decency in your heart, you'll support her and the cause that she believes in. Personally, I think your refusal to be a sponsor wo…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 03:21 AM
1

Wait! The SPLC didn't really declare all men's rights as misogynistic, did it? I thought they only presented the suggestion and not a formal statement, that the /mensrights subreddit was a hate group. And they took it back after they realized that not everyone here subscribes to hateful rhetoric against women/feminists. Am I mistaken?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 05:54 AM
0

Look at DoctorStorm's response above. It's an attempt, but it only represents an unwillingness to admit to the existence or credibility of any female-related perception of things. Although this is denied by them again and again- with sources, to support the "legitimacy" of their denial- it's true, and they are just petulant children. The ignorance is overwhelming.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:06 AM
-10

So you all think that psychology should only be done through a male perspective, where gender doesn't matter because "males are the norm"?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:49 AM
1

Sorry, it seemed like a ploy. They censored the article because its is less about trans-phobia than it is an example of radical feminist-phobia. Many people in /transphobia are feminists and don't need to be reminded about the dark side of the movement, so your educational material couldn't have been too helpful there.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 10:25 PM
2

They hate men and anyone else that doesn't agree with them. They focus their anger towards men because it's the easiest target to justify their feeling of being oppressed. Same with the MRA's that hate feminism so much. In reality, it's not as simple as "us vs. them", and to argue either way using this method is pretty much a waste of time.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:57 PM
1

I love how you tried to post this in /transphobia as a ploy against feminism... and got shut down by the trans feminists who run it! You have a lot to learn, my friend.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:39 PM
1

Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:51 PM
0

Exactly, which is evidence that radfems believe these transpeople are incapable of making their own decisions. It's some form of bigotry, and if you look into it far enough I guess it could technically be classified as misandry. But I don't think they hate men in particular, they just hate anyone that reinforces preconceptions of what gender is or should be. I guess they assume that all men and transpeople do that.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:38 PM
1

Could be. Some feminists try to legitimize their opposition to transsexualism by branding it as "a way of preventing the disruption and elimination of gender roles which lies at the basis of the feminist project". Feminists in this vein say that transsexualism is actually a medical violation of human rights, calling it mutilation of healthy bodies which prohibit such people from living with dignity in the body in which they were born (strangely, I've seen similar language used in arguments again…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:01 AM
0

I'm surprised that you say you've done a Ph.D in gender studies. It's just really hard to believe that a person with such a title would have the audacity to dismiss any whole realm of theory without drawing reasonable conclusions by presenting actual research and discourse. I'd be interested to see more of your reasoning if you have any, but I don't think this blog constitutes any sort of meaningful academic knowledge. Where did you get your Ph.D, if you don't mind me asking?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 08:00 PM
2

Separate grooming standards for men and women under same job title are absolutely sexist. But it is just a reflection of the sexism we see in society, which affects men and women alike. In a job where you are "the face" of the company you work for (ie. front desk hotel attendant), you will be required to conform your looks to certain gender stereotypes. This means that if I am a female applying for a front desk job and I do not have long hair, shave my legs, wear makeup, paint my nails, etc., I …
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:38 AM
10

Can we consider the article's original title (A New Obstacle For Professional Women: The Glass Escalator) for a moment? The "glass escalator" mentioned by Forbes staff writer Jenna Goudreau is referring to a term used in this study, which examines under-representation and discrimination against men in female-dominated fields (troublesome caption statement, but should be of interest here). Read Ms. Goudreau's article and you find that although this glass escalator could be an obstacle for women, …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:16 AM
13

Whoever wrote this article must not be very familiar with feminist theory (other than on the blogosphere). These same arguments that she claims are "against" feminism can be found in the majority of feminist literature. Although, I guess it would be asking too much for an opinion blogger to do credible research on their topic.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:40 AM
1

Good interview. I like her suggestion of finding good mens groups to find support within. It's just terrible that women shun men who need help. I see how radical feminists perpetrated this, but I don't think it's solely their fault. Ms. Pizzey founded the first refuges as woman/children shelters. She wrote a book about women/children and domestic violence. She omitted men without even realizing it, and this must be because either radical feminist ideology had somehow seeped into her subconscious…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:05 AM
1

VAWA explicitly excludes men in at least 60 passages. Yeah, I've seen a lot of people say that, but none of them have pointed out which passages they are or how they exclude men. I've looked at the bill (which is long and cryptic) but couldn't locate what they were referring to. The implications of VAWA are fucked, I'll admit. But we have to know what the problems are in order to properly fight against them. Thanks for hearing me out on the FAQ. It convinced me to hate feminism for about five mi…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:43 AM
0

I'm a woman, and I'm against VAWA, because I think protection against violence should not be limited by gender. Well, VAWA applies equally to male and female victims. In the text of the bill, the term is "victim", not "woman". Gender is not a determinant factor of "victim" under the law, therefore it can be applied to men. Here are some examples of misinforming propaganda found on the FAQ: Q: 0B what is feminism? A: The is mere slander against feminism, not a valid definition. It bears no signif…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 07:59 AM
1

You know, I have definitely wondered and searched for reasons why there might be so much negativity towards feminists here. It usually leads me to the /mensrights FAQ, which, almost seems to have more questions about why we should hate feminism than why we should support men's rights. Not to mention that the "answers" are hardly ever based on any real evidence or facts (I've researched and debunked many myself), it's just a lot of bigoted persuasive writing. Misinforming propaganda. So I figure …
/r/MensRights06/05/12 02:38 AM
3

Are you talking about the U.S. Small Business Association's "Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program"? Almost sounds like what you said, but correct me if I'm wrong: This program sets aside certain federal contracts to allow equal access to woman-owned (51% or more ownership) small business and economically disadvantaged woman-owned small businesses. The purpose of this program is to meet the government's goal of awarding 5% of contracts to women-owned businesses annually.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 01:37 AM
1

Well yea, duh your point, you've already overstated it. I'm trying to understand how you justify your initial claim that a person is lying whenever they call you or /mr misogynistic. Do you acknowledge their reasons for making the claim? Do you propose reasons or responses in support of your own claim? Do you address the argument at hand in any way? Or do you really just blindly claim them of intellectual dishonesty and wait for the shit to hit the fan?
/r/MensRights05/05/12 11:55 PM
2

If you're going to flag me as a troll, so be it. But I did not come here just to promote feminism or disagree that circumcision is bad. I came here because I support men's rights and I want to contribute to and learn from the discussions. I'm sickened and disheartened by the amount of negativity that /mensrights has aimed at feminists, when I am not even a feminist myself. You're right, I am concerned. I'm concerned that /mensrights is having a negative effect on the men's rights movement, and I…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 11:08 PM
1

Ok then, you're a liar. If you can't refute it then it's probably true... Are you TRYING to make yourself look like an idiot?
/r/MensRights05/05/12 09:54 PM
2

I would not dismiss your points just because they were made by an MRA. This should be a level playing field, but you're digging yourself into a ditch that threatens to turn into a sinkhole. I know that many MRAs are capable of producing strong, valid arguments and I often agree with them. It shouldn't be their job to correct your mistakes for the good of the community. If you want to be respected, either defend your claims or refrain from making them. End of story.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:54 PM
2

This and the last are aimed at OThomson: Do you not see how reacting this way pretty much invalidates any point you're trying to make, and discredits /MR and you (especially you)? Ignoring all arguments other than your own point of view is a sure way to fail a debate. Is this the only tactic you know?
/r/MensRights05/05/12 06:22 PM
0

Calling your opponent a liar is a very intellectually dishonest thing to do. Accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest without considering their claim or acknowledging that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist, failing to acknowledge one's own assumptions, and attacking the opponent rather than addressing the argument, are all tactics that intellectually honest people avoid in a debate. If you find that you can't avoid using them, you may be lying to yourself.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 12:12 PM
1

How do you change a mindset? It's really hard to do. It takes years of research and dedication to areas like sociology, anthropology, history, psychology, etc., and the involvement of as many like-minded people as possible. You have to develop and maintain a philosophy which the mainstream can fully grasp. Once your voice is heard, be prepared for backlash from people who don't understand your cause, lest you want to become what feminism has become.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 05:45 AM
1

I think you have a very thoughtful idea here. It's pretty messed up that a person can lose custody of their children for the lack of money. Think about the system that creates these rules, and how you want to affect change within it. Take example from, and work cooperatively with other successful rights movements. This should help if you really want to make a difference.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:51 AM
2

You cannot be a feminist and be for equality. You are hurting the cause by spewing this shit. expletive-deleted is right, people should be helping one another. Feminism has strived to invalidate the very dichotomy that causes people to work against each other's goals. It's true, read a book about it.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 03:15 AM
2

I totally agree with the call to stop using the term "feminist" so flippantly. However, I doubt that any form of reasoning, any logical solution, will deter most people here from doing so. The consensus here is that feminism hurts men. Even when faced with evidence otherwise, even if you point out that the majority of feminists fight for some of the same causes as them, the blind ones will still believe that feminism must be eradicated. The blind ones hurt the men's rights movement from within. …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 03:39 AM
5

They aren't feminists. They're just idiots.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 10:09 AM
1

Call them out! They might not realize that what they're doing could be considered degrading. They might feel empowered by having these conversations, but that's no excuse- it's unacceptable if it's making an employee uncomfortable. Point it out to them and if they don't stop, take it to HR (and yes, record the initial conversation in the event that HR becomes necessary).
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:00 AM
0

Usually using crude language will help emphasize your point, but in this case- not so much. You could've done some good if you had presented your argument clearly and without such aggressive name-calling.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:55 AM
0

You won't get any evidence from these kinds of people. All I've seen them do is make false claims, call them facts, point to an irrelevant blog link or two and hope people are stupid enough to consider their babble "evidence". And sadly, many people do.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 10:18 PM
-4

For anyone to say that feminists/ism hates men is only perpetuating the idea that men are oppressive towards women. Why? Well, you probably wouldn't know this unless you've taken a class or done some research, but as an institution, feminism dismisses the notion that men are inherently oppressive towards women. And it dismisses the notion that biological sex determines your human potential. And all sorts of things. But none of you know because you got all of your "information" from /MensRights. …
/r/MensRights28/04/12 06:36 AM
2

Nobody's going to fund research for a group that always thinks they're right, even when they've been proven wrong. What would be the point? Why don't you join an ACTUAL Men's Rights organization and get them to do a study?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:28 AM
-8

So, you believed the hearsay and didn't bother to check the facts. Nice job.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:15 AM
-1

crap, I didn't see that.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 01:59 AM
-1

I'd say this is pretty pertinent to /MR, considering half of the FAQ is dedicated to opinions of anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 01:20 AM
4

What we need to do is not "forget" compassion for women. What we need to do is "remember" compassion for men. Even in this context, I am glad to see such a sane and realistic attitude towards Men's Rights action. Thank you! However, it's not a sure thing that if the genders were reversed he would do so much time. The justice system is full of faults and rarely makes decisions based on actual "fairness". There's such a disparity in its individual systems and media coverage, for example Denise Har…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 10:27 PM
1

Well then, you're lucky they're reauthorizing the bill. This means they're making changes to it, and you should find out what you can do to have a say in the process (probably involves getting in touch with your congressman) Since the chances of it being passed again are overwhelmingly high, I'd suggest finding out which parts of it you don't agree with and by providing evidence to support your claim and getting in contact with the right people, you might be able to do something about it!
/r/MensRights27/04/12 04:28 AM
1

So why is there protest against VAWA when it seems like much more progress would come of challenging the Duluth Model, or proposing a new model?
/r/MensRights27/04/12 02:10 AM
2

You should've told that lady that manners and male chivalry are two different things- the former equates to decent society, the latter only serves to suppress her own potential. Ding!
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:51 AM
-2

Really? It's H.R. 4271, right? I'm pretty sure there's no "it's always the man's fault" or "men are never victims" rule in there. I know it's long and all, but could you please look at the bill and find where it says that?
/r/MensRights27/04/12 12:22 AM
-2

According to the article, The measure funds grant programs that help local law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting domestic abuse and sexual violence, as well as programs that assist victims. Why would you want to veto this?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:02 PM
3

And this: "If he's not allowed to try out for the team, that opens up the door for all kinds of discrimination," she said. Edell said the school should allow Keeling to try out for the team or create a boys field hockey team. She said, worst case scenario, under the law, if he's not allowed to play the girls team should be disbanded. "It's the coaches responsibility to make sure the players are safe," she said. "And a boy should not be penalized because he's good." Thanks, SPARK!
/r/MensRights26/04/12 10:34 PM
1

I think it can be applied to r/mensrights, as well as to feminism and [to a lesser extent] legitimate men's rights organizations. In an open discussion, all parties tend to respond to offensiveness first with objection based on personal opinion/experience. If there is an argument, it should be settled by backing up claims with evidence (not fabrications of fact or more arbitrary claims), which could potentially legitimize the offense taken, and give validity to a particular viewpoint.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 10:05 PM
1

Me too.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 03:41 AM
1

then argue the FAQ. tear it apart, with facts that put it to shame. show that it's inaccurate, wrong, deceitful, full of lies. it hasn't been updated in a year or two. it could be written better, and with your input in mind. It's sad that even if I did have the time to do that, the mods here wouldn't let it be seen. You can't edit the FAQ for Men's Rights, so everyone here will still believe their crap.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:56 AM
1

Oh, I will. That is, if I have time after getting through all of this BULLSHIT that apparently nobody has fact-checked yet still people are posting and squeeing about.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:16 AM
0

Yes, I did. And it's full of false information. FULL of it, for real.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:34 AM
1

I believe men and women should be equal. That is feminism. So do we. That is men's rights. See where this line of argumentation goes wrong? Do YOU see where YOUR line of argumentation goes wrong? I do.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:31 AM
0

NONE of these sources are reliable. Sorry, but you're just believing what the oppressors want you to.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:30 AM
1

No... just... no. If you weren't so afraid of feminists you'd have no problem fighting with them for equality.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:27 AM
0

Read the FAQ? LOL! You, go read a fucking dictionary, or an encyclopedia, or a REAL history book on feminism. Those
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:25 AM
1

NO thanks, after reading your bigoted male replies I'm going to congratulate them. And to think, I wanted to defend your asses. Hah.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:24 AM
-1

I'm concerned with them too, but those people hold their convictions VERY strongly, usually based on their own life experiences that unfortunately have led them to distrust or hate men. What's really concerning is the course of events that have to happen for someone to become a "man-hating eugenics supporter".
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:23 AM
2

You don't know shit, man.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:22 AM
-5

suck my d*ck
/r/MensRights23/04/12 11:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter