TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AlexKingstonsGigolo Archive

View 26 posts and 576 comments by AlexKingstonsGigolo 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)
965

DiscriminationAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:21 PM
92

GeneralAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights22/07/23 03:03 PM
92

Edu./Occu.AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights05/10/23 10:15 PM
63

Social IssuesAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights19/12/17 03:32 PM
39

Social IssuesAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:03 PM
24

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:01 PM
23

DiscussionAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists21/11/22 05:37 PM
18

DiscriminationAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/MensRights26/01/21 12:51 AM
14

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 03:52 PM
12

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/RPChristians28/10/21 01:04 AM
9

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 07:43 PM
8

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 12:55 AM
6

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists06/05/21 03:48 AM
5

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/askTRP11/03/18 02:19 AM
3

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists06/06/21 12:37 AM
2

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:12 AM
2

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists01/08/21 01:15 PM
2

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists23/05/21 12:16 PM
1

QuestionAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists04/03/22 02:08 PM
1

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists09/05/21 01:22 AM
1

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists01/08/21 12:54 PM
1

DiscussionAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists21/11/22 05:35 PM
1

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/askTRP17/03/18 10:03 PM
0

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists04/04/21 11:44 PM
0

AlexKingstonsGigolo/r/AntiFeminists28/09/21 03:36 PM
0

DebateAlexKingstonsGigolo/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/19 11:39 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

<laughs in reality>
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/23 05:49 AM
2

Wouldn’t this be better suited for /r/changemyview? Or do you not actually want your view changed but instead want a confirmation chorus?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/23 07:28 PM
1

I think I remember reading somewhere about an evolutionary benefit from favoring females over males. I'm blanking a bit on the details, though.
/r/MensRights28/10/23 12:38 PM
37

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of these conversations involves feminists. So, when a feminist says something to the effect of "You don't get to have a say in this because you're a man" or "Of course you'd say that; you're a man" or something along those lines, I like to reply "Did you just assume my gender?" Unreasonableness of responses from the feminist(s) tends to suddenly exponentiate.
/r/MensRights28/10/23 12:37 PM
6

"Becoming"?
/r/MensRights19/10/23 06:07 PM
15

Except we know the 16-year old is a girl.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 03:24 AM
12

In most states, yes.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 03:23 AM
5

Dude, there best be some massive payoff you get from sticking with her.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 10:41 PM
-1

Trying to shoehorn two issues, in this case "circumcision" and "religion", into each other is a recipe for failure, no matter how important nor effective you think it will be. Single issue groups are more effective than otherwise identical multi-issue groups.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:35 PM
-1

Where do you draw the line on what medical procedures to prohibit? Where do you say "beyond this point, parents have no right to act in what they think is the best medical interest of the child even though we will continue to hold them responsible for failing to act in such an interest in all other cases"?
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:34 PM
-1

I'm with you on this one.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:31 PM
-22

Or at all since it doesn't get in the way of a normal fulfilling life.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:30 PM
4

are quite self concsious about it. No, we're not; the only times I even think about it are when conversations like this arise. Even then, I am okay with what happened.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:29 PM
1

The trick is to find an objective definition of "child abuse" to which everyone can agree but you won't find one which covers circumcision.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:28 PM
-36

And sometimes a dog will swim in the ocean with a shotgun in his/her mouth and it accidentally go off; yet, people still go to the beach because simply being a non-zero chance is not itself meaningful.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:27 PM
-1

Not from me.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:26 PM
1

You won't there is too much scientific evidence of medical benefit along with the expectation -- and right -- of parents to be responsible for making medical decisions for their children as long as those decisions actually have some medical benefit. You have a host of legal requirements for parents you would have to wade thru and that simply is not going to happen any more than the anti-vax movement gaining significantly more support. At best, you'll get a bunch of quizzical looks of "Why do you…
/r/MensRights18/10/23 09:25 PM
1

So, your objection is actually the mismatch in desire and not any differentiation in standards?
/r/MensRights12/10/23 04:42 PM
0

I'm implying nothing; as I said, "for clarification".
/r/MensRights12/10/23 05:47 AM
4

For clarification, instead of "controlling one's sex drive", what are you requesting be acceptable for men to do about it?
/r/MensRights12/10/23 05:25 AM
0

I am okay with taking on such obligations as long as I get the relevant privilege in return. If I am going to take on the responsibility to protect and guide and lead and direct, that's cool; in return, there needs to be an appreciable degree of deference to ensure my advice, guidance, and leadership are brought to fruition and not listened to only when convenient. Feel free to hold me to account for my errors in the exercise of such headship, sure, and provide me counsel to consider in the perf…
/r/MensRights11/10/23 03:27 AM
14

Didn't someone a few years back say feminism would be the ruination of society? Without enough men and women getting together romantically often enough, the odds of another generation even existing decline, which will bring all sorts of sociological, economic, and environmental problems. Since this non-approachment is what feminism hath wrought, I think that person was correct and maybe people who shouted down said individual owe him/her an apology.
/r/MensRights08/10/23 10:45 PM
1

No, The CRA doesn’t cover job fairs unless the organizers are prospective employers, unless there is a clause in its text I have missed. So, it still seems completely legal. As for Milo, I agree there should be differential treatment; the contours of those differences can be discussed once we agree on the need for a difference of some sort.
/r/MensRights08/10/23 12:27 AM
4

Agreed; I have long pushed for co-ed sports teams. I think it would be good for us as a species.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 04:13 AM
-13

As far as I can tell, the fair was 100% legal. This does prove, however, what I have been saying about how men and women should be treated differently when it comes to employment.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 04:12 AM
-8

Organizing such an event is 100% legal as long as the organizers are not the would-be employers. This does prove, however, what I have been saying about how men and women should be treated differently when it comes to employment. Oddly, I got called “misogynistic” for doing so. I wonder if I will now get called a “feminist” for saying this about this fair. Funny things is I am neither.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 04:11 AM
-45

Whether or not it should be, the anctions of saying “Stop. Right now. Stop” are not illegal. Even organizing a women’s only job fair isn’t illegal since the organizers are not the potential employers. I do think, however, it proves men and women should be treated differently when it comes to employment, at least if we want to defend this fair in any way.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 04:05 AM
2

If we take the feminist argument at face value, and I do not claim we should or should not, men have social-structural advantages over women. Therefore, the societal benefit to men is presumed. However, this tells me, if the feminist philosophy is to be presumed correct, we must treat men and women differently when it comes to the workplace and then the idea of "treat everyone exactly the same" must go out the proverbial window. At that point, we are no longer discussing equality but equity and …
/r/MensRights06/10/23 02:44 AM
-7

Constitutional Amendment ... fourteenth The part of the 14th Amendment to which I think you refer applies only to the states; the Congress is not bound by it. For reference, here is the relevant text: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…
/r/MensRights06/10/23 02:41 AM
27

Which is weird because you don't see them trying to get a 50/50 distribution of bricklayers.
/r/MensRights06/10/23 02:15 AM
-21

You do understand laws can be changed, right? Also, for egalitarianism, you do understand, in order to ensure equal rights and opportunities, members of historically disadvantaged demographics sometimes need to be treated differently than others, leading to the inevitable conclusion of "egalitarianism requires short-term treatment differences", right?
/r/MensRights06/10/23 02:04 AM
8

Is she offering?
/r/MensRights04/10/23 07:04 AM
0

And no technology exists to turn an XY chromosome pair into XX or vice versa, which would be necessary to "be indistinguishable" from the other sex, as you say.
/r/MensRights03/10/23 05:03 AM
1

In fairness, I haven't seen that sort of behavior much lately.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:44 AM
2

My best mate's wife is kind of like that; if you give her a compliment, she will turn it into an insult. For example, Him: You look nice today. Her: So, I don't look nice normally? One time he deliberately insulated the compliment and she still got pissed but at something he didn't say. For example, Him: You look extra nice today. Her: So, I don't look nice normally? Him: I said "extra nice"! I am not about to claim this behavior is common but damn is she obvious with it.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:43 AM
1

The problem with a call like that is it tells us nothing useful, like when a prophecy tells of a horrible creature which will destroy the world but doesn't bother to tells us so much as what color it is or what species it is or if it likes toast cooked at level 3 instead of level 4. Now, you might be right but the way you've written your prediction is useless.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:38 AM
0

I can "identify" as a giraffe; I'm still bipedal.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:35 AM
2

They're in for one helluva rude awakening at work.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:32 AM
1

Reddit is made up of its users who skew younger and, therefore, more liberal; that's what you are witnessing.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:32 AM
1

Let them have their drama. My favorite response to it is "are you okay?" with a skeptical eyebrow raised.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:31 AM
1

"Lady"?
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:30 AM
1

Hang on, are women going around and literally lynching men? Because there are racists who do that to Blacks. So, you might be a little hyperbolic there.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:24 AM
1

In my experience, as soon as mandatory military service gets mentioned, feminists tend to morph into trad. wives.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:20 AM
4

In fairness, wearing a seatbelt when you drive is a good idea even though encasing yourself in styrofoam while you drive is not.
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/23 08:38 AM
3

I should have known it was Bristol.
/r/MensRights30/09/23 07:03 AM
2

"Identify" has always struck me a peculiar. A coworker of mine once said to me "I 'identify' as an albino black man; it don't change the fact I'm white."
/r/MensRights30/09/23 07:00 AM
3

Let's follow it to its logical conclusion: Unwanted logic is not okay. (Sounds anti-intellectual.) Unwanted presence is not okay. (Sounds segregationist.) Unwanted co-existence is not okay. (Sounds genocidal.)
/r/MensRights30/09/23 06:55 AM
2

Unwanted ignorance is still unwanted and therefore not okay. -- The authors of this sign, probably; at least, as long as they are logically consistent.
/r/MensRights30/09/23 06:52 AM
31

When you thought shit couldn't get weirder ...
/r/MensRights26/09/23 05:49 PM
9

This is a testable hypothesis.
/r/MensRights24/09/23 02:49 AM
2

The question is likely one of advertisements and revenue. Who spends the most on average? If there are two sizable demographics and one spends money on your site significantly more than the other, you'll favor the first. Now, I don't know for certain this is how reddit's revenue sources breakdown but, if it were the case, I would not be surprised if this were the result. It's the consumer-driven market doing its job.
/r/MensRights24/09/23 02:48 AM
-3

They do? Where can I find some of these women?
/r/MensRights24/09/23 02:45 AM
9

I generally agree with the sentiment in your comment here; one slight change I would make is to replace "valid" with "smart".
/r/MensRights24/09/23 02:44 AM
2

While there is something to be said about the notion of male privilege, I am more concerned with making sure any — and only any — undue privilege is removed. So, the problem comes when someone thinks institutionalizing injustice against men is a good thing, such as the “KAM” fanatics.
/r/MensRights21/09/23 02:41 AM
1

The phrases can easily be different; for example: eat food in the kitchen versus eat all food in the kitchen One can be healthy; the other is liable to not be. Accuracy in expression is no more a “feminist linguistic technique” than it is a “nazi linguistic technique”.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 04:43 PM
1

Hmm, if the second is true by any stretch, there is likely a constable somewhere getting their ass chewed out by the commissioner right now.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 04:39 PM
0

I remember the slogan being "believe women", not "believe all women". The President himself, as a candidate, even called for her claims to be vetted and examined for credibility. Nobody found anything to meaningfully corroborate her story stories.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 03:05 AM
5

Please explain the logistics of assuming the worst about people.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:45 AM
3

same sort of backlash She did?
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:43 AM
3

Wait, they knew he was a paedo/rapist and didn't go to the police? So, they are either paedos/rapists themselves or are okay with paedos/rapists?
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:42 AM
7

So, why did the police seemingly do nothing?
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:40 AM
6

Because her story fell apart. It kept changing every time she told it and people who would stand the most to gain from supporting her in her accusations chose to not help, people like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Mitch McConnell. Simply put, the accusations didn't destroy his career because they were -- apparently -- fake.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:39 AM
13

If I cannot be shown the evidence, I cannot confirm it exists as described. Therefore, I am compelled by circumstance to presume it doesn't actually exist.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:36 AM
10

I think it's reasonable to conclude we have a police report about only one accusation and nothing for the others. Even then, a report to the police is at most an accusation and not evidence to support the accusation.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:35 AM
11

I'm more of a #standWithEvidence person. As far as I know, in this case, there is nothing beyond accusations which are not themselves evidence.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:31 AM
6

I would accept demonstrable evidence which indicates the accused and the accuser actually engaged in sexual activity as a necessary requirement. Do we have such evidence? As far as I know, we only have accusations.
/r/MensRights17/09/23 02:29 AM
6

I’m glad she is comfortable in her skin but all that confidence ain’t gonna stop her from having a coronary.
/r/MensRights22/08/23 03:35 AM
1

So, Jana Hocking claims gold digging is not gold digging? She’d be taken much more seriously, by an order of magnitude, if she would own up to it and say “Yes, women should be gold diggers”. What she is doing looks an awful lot like Orwellian doublethink.
/r/MensRights20/08/23 06:47 PM
6

Here is another data point to screw up the analysis of the reviews: I actually forgot the Barbie movie even existed.
/r/MensRights15/08/23 04:10 PM
12

This reminder: Amber Heard literally shat in the bed.
/r/PussyPass09/08/23 09:53 PM
1

Like most women he she
/r/MensRights09/08/23 04:19 AM
2

Why aren’t we clamoring to get women into these jobs? We want equality of the sexes, right? Or is it we actually want equity and not necessarily equality?
/r/MensRights01/08/23 03:02 PM
1

Taking each in turn. Prove it; surely someone has said they want to help children survive by discriminating against men if what you say is true. So, survival of a man’s child is not the dad’s “problem”? The purpose of government is to make the lives of the people better, including their survival; if the survival of children is somehow outweighed by the cost to employers, you should be able to prove this easily. An employee who is not worried as much about the survival of their child is more prod…
/r/MensRights27/07/23 01:00 PM
0

Even if it results in harm to the child? No thanks.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 12:43 PM
2

Thanks for clarifying. If that’s the standard, though, we still don’t have universal suffrage because we don’t allow 17 year olds to vote except in a handful of jurisdictions; likewise with non-citizens of any age, race, ethnicity, or location. So, you seem to be taking issue with something which may or may not be reasonable. Perhaps if you said exactly what you think qualifies as universal suffrage and how you get there from first principles, we could understand your concerns better.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 12:42 PM
1

Meh, I see voting as an act of self-defense. I am not the slightest worked up over this.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 03:54 AM
2

While /u/lasciate can correct me if I am in error, I think he/she is referring to Jim Crow.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 03:53 AM
-2

Maybe, maybe not. The purpose of giving mothers up to a year is because it tends to maximize the survival rates of the children. I would suggest someone compile research determining the length of paternal leave which maximizes the survival rate of the child.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 03:51 AM
9

How about this for a test: my life is not so empty to have the luxury to spend $15 to watch a movie of which I know nothing about.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 03:47 AM
3

Setting aside the matter of "hating" someone for their music, the woman you talked to sure seems to have issues.
/r/MensRights27/07/23 03:45 AM
1

The whole rant is actually just a not-at-all-veiled attempt to hate on a religious group with whom the author disagrees. As soon as One starts hating on people and not injustices, One has taken a wrong turn.
/r/AntiFeminists26/07/23 04:43 AM
1

No, I cannot because I haven't bothered to watch the movie.
/r/MensRights26/07/23 04:37 AM
1

This is a weird set of questions; are you okay?
/r/MensRights26/07/23 04:33 AM
0

"Not allowed"? Where do you live it's illegal? Or are you being hyperbolic?
/r/MensRights26/07/23 04:26 AM
2

While I don’t necessarily disagree, that’s a different question.
/r/MensRights25/07/23 11:44 PM
-13

Was the general admonishment to believe all accusers? Or was to believe accusers enough to vet their claims? While there may have been a few individuals here and there who tried making this "believe all", I remember the general argument being we should do the latter.
/r/MensRights25/07/23 01:25 AM
3

Thanks for the anecdote.
/r/MensRights24/07/23 01:09 AM
1

Are you protesting for an oil rig job? Or brick laying? Do you protest to make more men wet nurses?
/r/MensRights24/07/23 01:08 AM
2

If we want to have perfect equality across all fields, and I’m not arguing we should nor should not have it, we need to mandate an equal number of female bricklayers and an equal number of males wet nurses as their current complements. Oddly, I don’t hear much call for such.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 02:07 AM
1

So, non-interference with one sub requires not directing people away from that sub?
/r/MensRights23/07/23 02:01 AM
1

Set standards in yourself. Meet them. Raise them. Repeat ad infinitum. Eventually you raise your standards in yourself so much those around you have to do the same if they want to remain part of your life. Always leave the door open for them to return once they have. But bringing this about starts with — and depends upon — us.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:56 AM
6

Orwell would be disappointed in him.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:50 AM
31

From Orwell’s 1984: The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:49 AM
3

FTA: TikTok bimbos are “all-inclusive, gender-neutral leftist icons” whose core tenets include being “pro-sex work, pro-LGBTQ, pro-BLM, and anti-straight white male,” according to Rolling Stone. “All-inclusive” but “anti-straight white male”? How does that work?
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:45 AM
2

FTA: Maddy Hamilton, 32, and Rhisa Muse, 31, said they had come to support “Barbie” and director Greta Gerwig, while also having an excuse to get their group of friends together for a girl’s night. They said they were excited for the film even if, earlier in the day, they had read a review of “Barbie” that claimed the film lacked depth. “I think all of our reaction was like, ‘It’s OK to be fun,’” Hamilton said. “The person who wrote that, I’m sure, was a man who … sees things that women enjoy an…
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:41 AM
1

What exactly is “bimbo feminism”? If we take traditional feminism at face value, the phrase makes as much sense as “half of a piece of chalk”.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:39 AM
5

In the U.S., yes; conservatives don’t want to risk putting women in harms way and liberals don’t want to emphasize the military any more than absolutely necessary. I find both views on this point reasonable, independent of whether or not I agree. Nonetheless, these two views combine to maintain the preclusion of women from the Selective Service.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:22 AM
1

Appendix removal and tonsil removal are two which come readily to mind, as does MMR vaccination.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 06:02 PM
1

Do you object to parents making any other medical decisions for their infant children? Some are just as permanent and/or long lasting.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 05:16 PM
1

Parents make medical decisions for their infant children all the time, we as a society trust them to do so, and it is right we do so. If your parents had your appendix, which you will never need, removed would you voice the same objections? I wouldn’t. To be cruel, there would have to be some sort of suffering and there is no evidence of men otherwise suffering from infant circumcision per se.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 05:15 PM
1

Because it’s not unless botched.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 05:13 PM
1

Parents make medical decisions for their infant children all the time, we as a society trust them to do so, and it is right we do so. If your parents had your appendix, which you will never need, removed would you voice the same objections? I wouldn’t. As for the amount of pleasure felt, you definitely don’t feel less from it. Having been on both sides of the snip, there is no decline in pleasure felt unless the surgeon botched the job.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 05:12 PM
1

Just tell her “piss off”.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 05:05 PM
55

Feminists want equality until the waiter brings the check. A feminist colleague of mine once said in reply to this observation “Because of what men want after the check”. My response: “And when we don’t get what we want, how many women offer to split it down the middle?”
/r/MensRights22/07/23 03:41 PM
105

Isn’t it weird how feminism often seems to vanish as soon as a war begins?
/r/MensRights22/07/23 03:39 PM
10

Take any rant like hers, swap out "women" for "Aryans" and "men" for "Jews", and it becomes painfully obvious just how wrong she is here.
/r/MensRights22/07/23 12:52 PM
3

Feminists, you need to keep your "house" clean. (As I wait for all the feminists and white knights to accuse me of claiming "house cleaning is women's work" as if I said "ladies" instead of "feminists"...)
/r/MensRights22/07/23 12:50 PM
1

Ignoring politics, even if One grants all of the objections raised to the new law as true, doesn't the ultimate decision reside in the hands of a judge who has to make the determination as to whether the continuation/suspension of alimony is warranted or not? I tend to have faith in the judicial system, even if not any one single jurist/jury/juror, as a whole. Are these objectors saying they don't?
/r/AntiFeminists11/07/23 12:49 AM
1

To play devil's advocate, keeping the focus on the link provided: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2l7pqe/the\_12\_levels\_of\_dread\_the\_rules\_for\_any\_long/ Please state how self-improvement constitutes abuse.
/r/ExRedPill19/05/23 02:36 AM
1

What does being white have to do with being anti feminist? I know a sizable number of anti feminists who, in the context of race relations, would otherwise be classified as "woke". So, I think the two concepts are orthogonal.
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/23 03:21 AM
–

Wow, that sounds like defining the phrase so thinly it could mean nothing at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/23 02:51 AM
–

Suppose the people I have sex with have objections to discussions about consent and instead have a history of exhibiting the mindset “If I don’t like/want something, I’ll tell you”; what then?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/23 12:53 AM
1

This is the best answer I have seen.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/23 06:10 PM
1

Focusing on your flair only, how about some sex tips? (Hey, OP said to!)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/23 06:09 PM
4

You start off talking about “general interest” and then focus almost entirely on sexual and romantic interest, which is far more specific. I’m unsure if you actually hold the thesis you present or if you are simply missing relevant information.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/23 12:51 AM
1

Well, you are if that guy is gay.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 05:25 AM
1

The stereotype — with which I disagree — is “woman = gold digger”.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 05:24 AM
1

So, if men rely on stereotypes of women, that’s okay?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 05:21 AM
1

So, if men rely on stereotypes of women, that’s okay?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 05:20 AM
–

Don’t look now but you’re contradicting your own claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/23 02:12 PM
1

during a marriage. Which says nothing about post-divorce, which splits marital assets and, in community-property states, definitely splits those assets 50/50. https://wealth.bmoharris.com/insights/im-getting-married-do-i-need-prenup/#:~:text=In%20the%20absence%20of%20a,(non%2Dmarital%20property). would turn me off from being aSAHM even more. So, you think every woman is exactly like you? didn’t fail to consider child support Yes, you did because you made exactly zero mention of it. 7-10$/hr And …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 01:12 PM
1

Did modidlee say otherwise? I must have missed it.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/23 06:32 AM
0

What would change your mind? Did you take into account the fact your hypothetical does not include a prenuptial agreement, which means a distinct possibility of an even split of the assets? You also failed to consider the fact John would likely be required to pay child support in the given circumstances. In my experience, preferring traditional roles also tends to bring additional traditional views. I don’t know how much you have factored this point into your claim. Also, as others have noted Jo…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/23 06:26 AM
1

Agreed, I like to start with a reasoning template and the idea of a stolen car is a good one: if I say “Smith stole my car” and the police find Smith with my car, the jury should presume Smith had the car without authorization and generally does, making convictions more likely; of course, at that point, if Smith can put forward evidence to show a reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit Smith even if Smith’s innocence is not entirely proven. The parallel to physical partner violence would be if …
/r/AntiFeminists22/11/22 02:12 PM
3

“Mainstream media”? Nah, this looks to be only one organization pushing this narrative here at least.
/r/AntiFeminists22/11/22 02:03 PM
2

And if I don’t in at least one instance?
/r/AntiFeminists21/10/22 02:53 AM
2

The same advice I give anyone else: focus on setting, enforcing, and raising standards in yourself. Over time, you will start to do the same with respect to those around you and eventually find someone who unites your dream with your day. You may or may not get a blindingly bright neon sign, saying “THIS ONE RIGHT HERE” but you do, at the very least, maximize the chances of being whoever you are meant to be in any given moment and that can be a very comforting thought in my experience. With such…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/22 01:56 AM
1

The studies cited reference IQ, which is not solely the domain of stem nor academic intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/22 12:22 PM
1

That would still be intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/22 11:29 AM
1

Do you have a studies showing a lower IQ results in more children/grandchildren than higher IQ and such lower IQ levels persist across such generations? The number of partners seems to be counterbalanced by other evolutionary advantages; otherwise, stupidity would be an evolutionary advantage, intelligence would stagnate, and the world’s economies would have long collapsed due to incompetence of the average worker and their inability to produce more. Also, I think you might have missed something…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/22 01:51 AM
1

I would think a truly intelligent person would be smart enough to know when to show off their intelligence and when to not show it off, making them more attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/22 01:45 AM
2

Close but not quite: they must meet a special standard before pump. If they don’t, it’s not worth the effort. This mindset then prompts her to raise her standards in herself, making the pump more worthwhile. And if it never happens, then it’s on her.
/r/AntiFeminists14/06/22 12:06 PM
3

The way to win is to not fight, by which I mean reward girls, such as with time and attention, for desired behavior and withdraw rewards for undesired behavior. What are they going to do, complain about how you won’t lower your standards?
/r/AntiFeminists14/06/22 02:01 AM
1

Better than you.
/r/AntiFeminists28/05/22 01:30 AM
1

Cool story, bro.
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/22 10:00 PM
1

You have a bit to unpack here. So, please bear with me. I am trying to understand your position and what you think is of value; the necessary assumptions required for your view to be correct appear to strain credulity. While you are free to form your own opinion, when you make assertions of fact and/or value assessments which appear contrary to reality, you accept the possibility someone might call you out on them or, as in my case, seek clarification and verification. Whether a particular demog…
/r/AntiFeminists06/05/22 12:13 AM
1

Really? "No purpose other than to look nice"? The reduction in STI transmission has no purpose? The reduction in penile cancer has no purpose? The increased ease of hygiene has no purpose? The decreased risk of UTIs has no purpose? The decreased risk of inflammation has no purpose? The reduction in cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia, HSV-2, chlamydia, and syphilis in the female sexual partners of heterosexual men has no purpose? In my experience, the procedure often is not done "just because pa…
/r/AntiFeminists04/05/22 02:26 PM
0

The question is not whether the procedure is required but whether parents think a medical benefit is provided to their infant child. Your plan isn't going to fly.
/r/AntiFeminists04/05/22 02:16 PM
-1

You’re saying parents should be prohibited by law from making medical decisions for their infant children. That’s not going to fly.
/r/AntiFeminists04/05/22 01:50 AM
0

A more accurate description is parents make medical decisions for their infant children, which is what we want.
/r/AntiFeminists03/05/22 11:05 PM
-2

In most cases I have seen with disagreements between parents, it’s overwhelmingly the father who seeks circumcision and not the mom.
/r/AntiFeminists03/05/22 11:04 PM
1

You would do better to cite sources other than advocates; it otherwise sounds self-serving.
/r/AntiFeminists03/05/22 11:04 PM
0

I guess if you consider circumcision to be oppression, sure; it’s generally considered to not be, though.
/r/AntiFeminists03/05/22 11:02 PM
1

I am saying, if young women were actually interested in older men, seeking emotional attachment, and older men didn’t want the emotional attachment, paying the former so as to compensate for such absence is exactly what we would see. I happen to know a lot of young ladies who are interested in older men because they are seen as more stable while many older men I know just “want to have a good time”. I’ll wager you don’t know many of the two groups I describe, which would explain your view. It’s …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/22 10:38 PM
1

At this point, then, we are certainly speculating. Do you know of anyone who commissioned a survey to suss out the rationale?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/22 06:44 PM
1

I think you misunderstand: I am saying this alternative is possibly the more common scenario, making your’s more of an exception than the rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/22 10:44 AM
3

Okay, you be asexual. I’ll bang the girl you might have gotten.
/r/TheRedPill25/04/22 02:39 AM
1

An alternative explanation is such men only want the convenience of access and are willing to pay in order to arrange an agreement of “no emotional attachment”.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/22 01:52 AM
1

I think you and I are using too different definitions.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 11:46 PM
1

I'm uncertain anger/hurt qualify as feeling awkward.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 10:04 PM
1

I think this underscores my point: the autistic individual does not feel awkward; only the non-autistic individual feels awkwardness.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 08:06 PM
3

Does it always cause it, though? In my experience, autistic individuals tend to be less socially awkward?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 03:10 PM
27

You might not say it but I will: KounterMaze needs to set higher standards for himself for almost exactly the same reason you cite: if One can reasonably be in better shape and chooses to not be, it lowers the health standards for all of us and that has detrimental ripple effects for everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 12:08 AM
10

Unfortunately, a lot of people I know. Don’t get me wrong: a fat person has the same moral value as a fit person, absolutely. One’s moral value, however, doesn’t mean I’m attracted to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 12:05 AM
1

Sounds like they need to set and raise standards in themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/22 12:03 AM
1

The source with formatting, if I may. Thanks.
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 12:22 PM
3

You don’t have to be the one to convince them; you are priming them for someone else to convince them.
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 03:38 AM
1

Got a link to the raw source of this post we can use?
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 01:11 AM
6

You then ask them for specific examples for the first and “How?” for the second.
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 12:47 AM
7

The idea is to create cognitive dissonance.
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 12:47 AM
3

The goal is not to win an argument but to create cognitive dissonance: the more facts run counter to their expectations, the easier it is to later convince them to focus on equity and harmony instead of “equality”.
/r/AntiFeminists03/03/22 12:46 AM
0

Deflated by modern dating? What kind of Debby Downer bullshit is this? Dating is nothing more than a mechanism for finding the right partner, one who unites your dream and your day. You went on dates with 10 different girls and they’re all feminists? Fine, you don’t have time for them until they embrace who they really are. If you are setting standards in yourself, meeting those standards, and raising them a tiny bit each time they are met, you will be fine anyway. In dating, the quickest road i…
/r/AntiFeminists24/02/22 03:51 AM
1

So I am clear, how do you define feminism?
/r/AntiFeminists24/02/22 03:09 AM
1

Yeah, no. That’s not true.
/r/AntiFeminists24/02/22 03:03 AM
3

do it with great tact and nuance. I like it, thanks!
/r/AntiFeminists24/02/22 02:55 AM
1

It's called operant conditioning, not passive aggressiveness, and is the best known way of changing another person's behavior when the focus is on the two approaches I describe while allowing the individual to maintain their self-respect while their behavior changes. Your assertion here is incorrect.
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 02:36 PM
1

While that is one way, I find focusing on rewarding good behavior and withdrawing privileges in response to bad behavior more effective. I have used this approach to great results.
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 02:09 AM
1

Meh, the more girls who do, the less unreasonable others can be.
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 12:42 AM
3

In some parts of the world, that's a complement.
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 12:37 AM
1

"Make them wear t-shirts and pants"? Didn't someone say feminism is about giving girls a choice? I'm pretty sure I remember a meme saying that. So, is it really about choice, including the choice to "sell[] their bodies on the platform", or is it about choice as long as girls choose what someone else wants?
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 12:32 AM
1

For the record, here is how you handle the complaints => Her: Do you want A or B? You: ... Erm ... Let's go with B. <later> Her: Ugh, we should have gotten A. I can't believe you picked B. You: Okay. <Immediately begin paying more attention to something else, like your phone, for the rest of the night>
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/22 12:24 AM
1

That’s not nice. I know a lot of individuals with that shape of skull who fully understand the gap is 2% at most.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 12:56 PM
1

I’m both: normal and sexist; but why be redundant?
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 02:22 AM
1

<looks around> Has anyone here said anything about trans individuals lately? I haven’t. Stan, how about you? Bertram? Larry? No? Huhn. I guess we must have all missed it.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 02:13 AM
1

Feminism is the political, economic, and social equality of people independent of biological sex and the advocacy of the same. Equity ≠ equality. Therefore, feminism is not equity.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 02:10 AM
3

So much to unpack. This sub is a waste of space. And yet you are here posting. You all are so angry with women … Please cite one time I have expressed anger with any girl in this sub. My guess is … Do you feel better having guessed? Has your guess made itself true? The subs that hate on men are terrible. The subs that hate are terrible, period. But I have never seen a group of people tell women … <Looks around> Are we? Are we telling people this? Go do something productive. We are: building a co…
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 02:08 AM
4

This is the way.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 01:57 AM
2

Do they, though?
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 01:54 AM
1

To quote Thor, “I like this one”.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 01:53 AM
1

Okay, just remember the fact you are on my payroll 24/7.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 01:50 AM
9

Establish standards in yourself and for yourself, including boundaries. Enforce them. Raise those standards over time.
/r/AntiFeminists12/02/22 01:39 AM
0

You claim it’s idiocracy but don’t show it; nor is it obvious. I could just as easily stand here and claim everything you said was idiocracy. As far as the second example goes, you are deliberately changing my example to fit your narrative, which no intelligent person would say is logically sound. However, let us take your example and examine it. You say my example “would have to be extended to women working in men's shelter's as well”; why? Where is it written this must be so? As far as what I …
/r/AntiFeminists08/02/22 05:03 AM
1

There is hostile anti feminism — think “misogyny” — and there is benevolent anti feminism — think “complementarianism”. Egalitarianism necessitates equity, which takes into account differences in needs and innate structural/functional differentiation; conversely, feminism — the equal treatment of individuals irrespective of biological sex and advocacy of the same — by definition, does not and instead precludes equity. So, One must oppose feminism to the extent such differentiation is warranted/c…
/r/AntiFeminists08/02/22 04:52 AM
0

Neither of my examples apply to both. Can you point to which one applies to both? In re stats, you’re the one making the claim about lesbians; why won’t you show your work? I have no obligation to do your research for you.
/r/AntiFeminists28/01/22 01:09 AM
0

So, a sex-specific law is not a sex-specific law? Who says we would have to do vice versa as well? In re violence, did I say “only”? Or is there reason to think there might be certain trends when it comes to battered women? For example, do you have government stats to back up your claim about lesbians? In re vasectomies, I posed a hypothetical scenario. However, if you want to get into real-world applicability of that scenario, statistics shows a distinct relationship between population growth r…
/r/AntiFeminists28/01/22 12:54 AM
0

Where in my hypothetical did I not meet your criteria? As a second example: how about a law which prohibits men from working at a battered-women's shelter or as a rape crisis counselor for women? I trust I need not explain the reasoning.
/r/AntiFeminists27/01/22 10:20 PM
0

How about a law banning vasectomies? If we presume a reduction in contraception usage produces social benefit <A> and we find vasectomies to be the main contraception method, such a sex-specific ban would be warranted.
/r/AntiFeminists27/01/22 07:14 PM
2

Egalitarian = (benevolently) anti feminist
/r/AntiFeminists27/01/22 02:50 AM
1

I’ll admit; if we showed the Nice Guytm as a villain and the kind man as a hero in contrast, that would help, yes.
/r/AntiFeminists27/01/22 02:47 AM
2

“Women-only parking spaces”?
/r/AntiFeminists27/01/22 02:39 AM
3

Wowwwwwww. Some of the shit in that sub! Thanks for the pointer!
/r/AntiFeminists25/01/22 03:43 AM
2

I look forward to reading her peer-reviewed double-blind study confirming her theory. I’ll wait.
/r/AntiFeminists25/01/22 03:41 AM
0

I’m not reading a wall of text advocating what I am going to guess is anti-semitism. TL;DR, please?
/r/AntiFeminists22/01/22 12:13 AM
1

I wouldn’t date her exclusively unless she was showing signs of reform, rewarding her good behavior with my attention and withdrawing that attention when she exhibits bad behavior; meanwhile, I would continue to push a more complementary worldview during our (limited) interactions and, once she has changed and then drops the label, I might consider exclusivity. My time is otherwise too valuable to waste.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:29 PM
2

So, the British don’t like what feminism claims to want? G-d protect the queen.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:25 PM
2

Think “Britain’s AAA”.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:23 PM
0

McDonald’s commercials from the 80s?
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:21 PM
1

You have to ask leading questions in a disarming way, leading eventually to cognitive dissonance which can only be resolved in a less feminist fashion. It takes longer to accomplish than a simple downvote or comment here but has so much more staying power.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:19 PM
1

Good to know and has nothing to do with shoe choices.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:15 PM
1

Wait, are you saying Skittles have chocolate?
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:14 PM
2

This is the way.
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:13 PM
1

So, inclusive but not of those who like go-go boots?
/r/AntiFeminists21/01/22 03:12 PM
1

How are you defining “feminism” in this post?
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 09:46 PM
3

I think it's fair to say, in an otherwise open forum, the issue is less one of "letting nazis in" and more "let's make sure we call out both naziism and echoes thereof, especially when said echoes lack any obvious relevance". Personally, one point I find obvious is the fact the religion of the four girls in question is orthogonal to whether or not they are feminists and/or the ripple effects their advocacy causes.
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 02:38 PM
1

Agreed. I’m unsure how One would do that anyway. Sure, mine has a knob, suggesting manliness, and it also helps me produce beautiful creations, suggesting a sort of girliness.
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 04:25 AM
1

How do you define “feminism”? Are we talking about the advocacy of political, economic, and sociological equality of individuals independent of whether One is male or female?
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 04:14 AM
2

I am unclear what their religion has to do with this.
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 04:09 AM
1

To whom does this post refer?
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 04:08 AM
3

How is their religion relevant?
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 04:07 AM
1

B: if a man is worried about what his girl is wearing to a club, there is something in him in need of improvement because a man who has his shit together knows he is the great catch and either the girl is not for him — and, therefore, it is his fault for wasting time with her — or she is for him and she only wears such clothes to show off to other men what they will never have. Cf., The Book Of Pook.
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/22 03:58 AM
1

we don't live in a world where women can reasonably expect safety from harassment and catcalling and oogling In what world does this person live? While these happen, problems are considered problems in part because it is reasonable to expect safety from them.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/11/21 10:00 PM
-2

Oh, no! Annnnnnnyway …
/r/MarriedRedPill14/11/21 12:33 PM
5

It says I take men at face value.
/r/MarriedRedPill14/11/21 02:52 AM
5

Interesting. Can you tell me more about your to-do list system?
/r/MarriedRedPill14/11/21 02:19 AM
7

Weird. I don’t get what you describe from this post at all.
/r/MarriedRedPill14/11/21 02:18 AM
1

If these are "facts", provide objective definitions of "killing the resources in America"; primary citations in context of said "killing" from known, credible, and reliable sources; and a statement as to what objectively verifiable evidence would, if you were wrong, convince you of such wrongness. Otherwise, you are definitely being insincere. Until, pound sand.
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:43 PM
1

I'm not taking you seriously. One moment, you complain about a proposed bill not including certain government assistance and the next you are belittling the notion of government assistance. you are either being insincere or irrational. Let me know when you have changed that.
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:38 PM
0

Women get sterilized for a myriad of other ... "Because animals other than zebras exist, I must not claim zebras are animals." -- This is an analogue to your statement. I view children as a burden ... Then, your worldview is too broken for us to continue discussing at this point. Let me know when you have fixed it and we can address whatever balance of your comment remains your view at that point in time.
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:35 PM
1

Do you realize how many don't? Do you know the entire purpose of the social safety net is to put people in a better position than they otherwise would be and it is morally incumbent upon us to do whatever we reasonably can to eliminate abuses and bring restitution for victims? Do you understand a fighting chance is better than none, which the abortion would cause? Now, if you really want to compare being alive in what could potentially be a bad situation first with being dead, you might want to …
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:13 PM
1

You consider your own species to be invasive? Yet, you insist on staying alive?
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:05 PM
1

Not a Canadian; otherwise I would have capitalized the "L".
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 10:04 PM
1

extremely expensive As soon as you start comparing lives with money, you have gone very wrong. ... passed by the government today Which government? Certainly not the U.S.; that bill is still being debated. Plus, are you seriously arguing, because life isn't "perfect" by some standard of yours, children must never come into existence? their individual choice A choice takes a moment; it's effects can easily transcend generations. is truly absurd. Please, go around to every hospital in the country …
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 09:39 PM
1

As soon as you've started comparing lives to money, you've gone wrong. Underscoring the wrongness of your perspective is "you won't have the best years of your life for yourself", suggesting you want children to come into existence during some comparably worse time in a parent's life. ... just for the sake of it. If that was the argument raised by the article, that might be meaningful; it isn't.
/r/AntiFeminists01/11/21 09:34 PM
1

Resevering comment on the rest of your text here for another time and focusing solely on the “school” of so-called “thought”, I don’t take seriously people who don’t put their money where their mouth is. In this case, people who say “humans are the problem” and haven’t off’d themselves. Now, I happen to think everyone should live as long as Nature and Nature’s G-d will allow but we’re talking about their view. Mine is consistent while theirs is contradictory and, therefore, presumed insincere.
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 11:26 PM
1

Who said anything about limiting control? Reproductive freedom, as with any other sort of freedom, does not include consequence freedom. Say you don’t like/want X and you open yourself up to criticism.
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 11:19 PM
6

Hi, anti-feminist liberal here. You got a problem?
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 08:57 PM
0

I'll simply quote my previous response to this exact same comment of yours.
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 08:56 PM
-4

it is her choice Who said otherwise? Everyone can choose to be rude or vile or mean and I don't have to agree with it nor stand by and say "Okay, that's fine" nor withhold my criticism of said choice. it's none of our business what she decides To a certain extent, it is: a growing population is a wealthier population, which in turn is a healthier one and in turn is one where people have greater longevity. Put another way, anti-natalism shortens the lifespan of others compared to where they would…
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 08:55 PM
1

While I don't know about that, I also don't know you are necessarily wrong.
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 08:10 PM
2

threatened to physically harm him and his family. Whatever you might think about the rest of this article, threats are a bridge too far. Surely, we all agree on that, right?
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 07:46 PM
2

"Turkish get-ups"? I'm unfamiliar with them. I shall have to check them out.
/r/RPChristians28/10/21 03:30 PM
1

strongestyearever Do you mean "Your strongest year"?
/r/RPChristians28/10/21 01:47 PM
1

Precisely; our argument is “feminism is wrong because of X”; we should prefer to persuade from the sheer force of “X”.
/r/AntiFeminists28/10/21 07:30 AM
1

Nah, let their name stand as is.
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 08:26 PM
1

“Feminist”?
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 07:48 PM
8

What movie is this?
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 03:52 PM
17

Because it is better to engage them.
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 03:50 PM
25

This isn't even SJW level. It's just being a douche.
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 03:30 PM
0

I call "fake".
/r/AntiFeminists27/10/21 03:25 PM
1

Not wanting an officer abusing people nor disproportionately harass/harm them due to their skin color is "cucked" and "bigoted against whites"? You have a broken value system.
/r/AntiFeminists26/10/21 03:13 AM
1

Two things: I did say "I wouldn't want an officer abusing me nor disproportionately harass/harm me due to my skin color neither", which you said is "cringe". You are in the antifeminists subreddit. Did you seriously expect anything different?
/r/AntiFeminists26/10/21 01:38 AM
1

If you think not wanting an officer abusing people nor disproportionately harass/harm them due to their skin color is cringe, I am unsure where your values went wrong.
/r/AntiFeminists26/10/21 12:44 AM
1

Well, no, but if you have already made up your mind, is there really anything I could say to convince you otherwise?
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 02:42 PM
1

Who said anything about equal outcomes?
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 11:50 AM
1

And yet you still do. Believability is not your strong suit.
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 12:56 AM
-1

Well, I’m a vegan with ADHD. So, I think my reputation for empathy is secure.
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 12:52 AM
-2

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you’ve never had children. The cognizance gap in your statements is too large to be otherwise.
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 12:47 AM
-1

In re the studies, while there is a correlation and possible causal relationship, the studies do not pinpoint exactly what the causal connection is and may be due to reduced sexual enjoyment. Meanwhile, parents make medical decisions for their infant children all the time. To question such a right for parents to make medical decisions on the basis of healthcare is to question the overall nature of parental relationships in society. Now, if studies show definitively FGM prevents HIV transmission …
/r/AntiFeminists25/10/21 12:07 AM
15

“I don’t know how I got pregnant…” I’m going take a wild guess and say “sex”.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 10:38 PM
-4

I try to nudge feminists towards “equity” because ensuring “equality”, taken to its logical conclusion, requires forced desexualization and androgyny.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 10:35 PM
-1

There is some evidence circumcision has health benefits, including: Less risk of urinary tract infections A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin) Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its orig…
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 10:33 PM
0

Equality or equity?
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 10:28 PM
1

Define “dominate”.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 10:21 PM
1

I think the question is whether or not the notions reinforce any such tendencies. However, I am speculating and, as I said, the question is best directed at the group making the distinction, not me.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 03:25 PM
2

The question is best directed at the group making that distinction for specifics. If I had to guess at a general principle, however, I would say notions which necessarily, or have a tendency to or too easily, encourage men to engage in destructive behaviors.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 02:50 PM
3

I think the organization might be trying to draw a line between constructive and destructive notions of masculinity, though, albeit possibly in a less than ideal way.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 12:32 PM
1

Let’s be clear, though. The article says in relevant part: Citing more than 40 years of research, the APA warns against the “masculinity ideology,” which it defines as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure risk and violence.” Here is a link to the actual publication for research.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 12:30 PM
2

Not LGBT but, to the extent feminism and LGBT are both liberal in nature, neither one necessitates the other and the good/bad of one does not alter the bad/good of the other. As a parallel, steel is made of iron and carbon and some other stuff; so too are iron tablets and mechanical pencil inserts; yet, nobody would suggest going to GNC and Staples for raw material to build a skyscraper.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 02:49 AM
8

The article in question. I think more research is in order before I make up my mind.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/21 02:37 AM
2

I don’t mind starting with the illness presumption, as long as it’s equally applied. I also think the victims need to be made whole, equal application again, regardless of illness or not.
/r/AntiFeminists09/10/21 11:57 PM
3

I’ve been saying this for years, dear: you don’t want equality. Equity, yes; equality, no.
/r/AntiFeminists09/10/21 12:13 PM
3

I’ll ask the same question I would ask if the sexes were reversed: did the other person know and understand what they were doing or did the arrested individual have coercive authority over them? Regardless of their sexes, if the answer to the first is “no” or the second is “yes”, it’s rape.
/r/AntiFeminists09/10/21 12:03 PM
10

Nah, nah, nah. Here’s a better argument: Body neutrality is better than body positivity image Always use your strongest argument; otherwise, you’re wasting time.
/r/AntiFeminists09/10/21 02:13 AM
1

Looks like you struck a nerve.
/r/AntiFeminists08/10/21 06:01 PM
1

Wow, Applebee’s must have really hurt you to say something like that.
/r/AntiFeminists08/10/21 02:15 AM
-1

A simp? No. I can accept the fact men will inevitably have certain advantages in society, which in turn comes with certain responsibilities such as being mindful to not unjustly devalue girls of any sort; sometimes fulfillment of that responsibility requires a shout out of this sort. Now, demanding equity while insisting on inequity, that would be a problem.
/r/AntiFeminists07/10/21 02:34 PM
1

Ok; so, you’re just making up shit. Good to know.
/r/AntiFeminists03/10/21 01:33 PM
1

Only if there is sufficient incentive to be.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 07:14 PM
1

I did. Get several ads. Which ad specifically?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 07:13 PM
5

Well, if you go, I think it might be a loss for the world but what can I do?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 03:47 AM
5

And my aunt Evelyn was 104 when she said she had so much more she still wanted to do in life. We can both cherrypick the opinions of individuals and it will not resolve the question of how long a person ought to live. For myself, I am willing to let others continue to live as long as we can help them to do so.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 03:40 AM
3

My people have a saying: nobody wants to live to be 100 until you ask someone who's 99.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 03:30 AM
7

Meh, that's human nature though. None of us get thru life entirely on our own, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves into thinking we do.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 02:52 AM
6

Ha! The real test is her response to you asking "Are you hoping, by buying me dinner, I'm going to jump into bed with you?" with a smirk. At the very least, you'll likely get a laugh out of her.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 01:25 AM
3

Whenever someone says to me "X is sexist", I like to ask "Is it sexist or misogynistic? There is a difference." They tend to drop the topic at that point.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 01:22 AM
17

I think, as government provides more income, the incentive for a girl to be a gold digger who looks at men as only a wallet declines. Sure, he might nominally make a million a year but he contributes a ton in taxes to pay that benefit you are already receiving; so, maybe you could, I don't know, judge him based on his integrity and competence instead? Ya know, acknowledge his inherent dignity?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 01:19 AM
1

Agreed. Marriage is about meeting each other's need. Person A must fulfill the needs of person B and person B must fulfill the needs of person A. Anyone not willing to do that, what the hell did you take a vow for?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:59 AM
1

Every man should understand and recite this to the feminists in their lives: If there actually was a wage gap, employers could save tons of cash by advertising jobs only in girl-focused publications.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:54 AM
2

That's the cost of equality. While I'm okay with the traditional "Men go to war first" view, the reasons underlying it must be applied consistently. So, if you want a sex-blind military, this is what you get.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:52 AM
1

Which doritos ad?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:49 AM
2

Agreed; if the girl can look, the man can look. Feminists say they want equality, right?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:49 AM
2

Very true. I might think somebody's an asshole but I ain't gonna kill them for it.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:45 AM
1

Well, she did say "k.a.m."; what more do you need?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:44 AM
2

Nah, I get the idea behind BLM. I wouldn't want an officer abusing me nor disproportionately harass/harm me due to my skin color neither. My hunch, however, is what she thinks happens might not necessarily happen exactly as she thinks it does.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:43 AM
0

That's because welfare mooching, while conceivable, is actually quite difficult. It happens but is still difficult, especially for entitled individuals, to maintain.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:40 AM
1

Actually I think you prevent this by not educating your women. Nah, nah, nah. You do educate girls; what has to be done is make sure you educate girls correctly. Bullshit in => bullshit out; artistry in => artistry out.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:38 AM
1

This happens in the east as well and has nothing to do with corporates nor elites.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:35 AM
1

some kind of joke or satirical Until they say "... unless you wanna do it"
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:34 AM
1

Olive Garden and Applebee's are "fast food"?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:32 AM
10

why couldn't SHE take HIM to a fancy restaurant? Because girls often seem to want equality until the waiter brings the bill. Of course, some might say "Well, that's because of what men want after the waiter brings the bill" but, when men don't get what they want, how many girls offer to split the bill down the middle?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:31 AM
8

Hmm, that would be interesting: Girl: What do you do for a living? Man: What birth control do you use? They are both personal questions which traditional caricatures suggest is the primary motivation for each of the two. That would weed out a lot of women. Remember fellas, the more men hold girls to standards, the more girls will rise to meet those standards. So, if every man asks this question, every girl will start to answer.
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:29 AM
1

Isn't there a popular song about something being as good as "Applebee's on a date night"?
/r/AntiFeminists02/10/21 12:25 AM
2

unquestionable rhetoric You might not necessarily be wrong on that point.
/r/AntiFeminists01/10/21 02:40 AM
24

So, she's going to kill her baby due to her misandry and she thinks other people are the assholes?
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 03:15 PM
1

Whether it is or not, the reinforcement of a belief by contrary evidence is not the illusory truth effect.
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 03:13 PM
1

Sure, it's called "belief perseverance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance. There's also "cognitive inertia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_inertia) and "idée fixe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology)) as variants.
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 03:07 PM
1

So, you lack the integrity to back up your claim. kthanxbye
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:52 PM
1

How about you cite the exact portion of the article which you claim equates the illusory truth effect with what you described. I have cited the portion which demonstrably doesn't. The burden of proof has now shifted to you.
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:49 PM
1

From the article: The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. From your comment: You can't because of the illusory truth effect. Basically the more you provide facts and evidence that they are incorrect the more they will believe and hold on to their false ideas That is not confirmation. I am unsure why you are being stubborn abo…
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:44 PM
2

It's not even about religion. Some religions at least rely upon our instinctive ability to see some things as right and wrong; certain applications of feminism simply make up shit out of whole cloth. I will let The West Wing explain this point to feminists if they still don't get it.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLeqqrzG7Lw
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:36 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:30 PM
2

Huhn, weird. I have no blockage. Try this archived link: https://archive.is/h6GzU
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 02:29 PM
1

I did via experience, research, examination of peer-reviewed articles on the subject, etc., etc., etc.
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 01:59 PM
17

Like many ideologies, they have not thought thru the required logical conclusions all the way to completion. Meanwhile, teenage boys and college boys claim to be in order to try to sound attractive to girls. However, One cannot escape biology and girls are ultimately most attracted to benevolent sexists, full stop. It is vital we teach our sons and daughters the intrinsic nature of human sexuality. Edit: oh, hey! It’s my cake day!
/r/AntiFeminists30/09/21 12:04 AM
1

It’s a concept known as “time and place”. This particular thread, in my opinion, is not an appropriate one for such a conversation. If you’d like, we can continue the discussion via PMs, though.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 11:54 PM
2

I'll repeat what I said with emphasis: Unless One's religion is logically consistent but that's a different conversation for another time.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:15 PM
2

There is no silver bullet I have found; I think you might have to dismantle factual errors at the heart of their view one by one. Of course, when you do, their view will at some point change drastically and they won't know why.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:12 PM
0

That's not what the effect is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:10 PM
3

Unless One's religion is logically consistent but that's a different conversation for another time.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:08 PM
4

Well, such a man does lack something: good judgement. It would be very unfair to you for him to continue in a relationship with you while he has insufficient judgement, wouldn't it? So, pack your bags and get out, please.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:04 PM
10

I like how the author takes many feminist talking points and basically says "Well, yes, but actually no" to each one.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 09:02 PM
2

Then muting or banning the disagreeable ones only should be no problem.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 11:50 AM
1

Then, we ask them what their standards are and, if they won’t say, we can present that refusal as proof they have no standards. If they do say, we let them talk themselves into self-contradiction and present that as proof to others of their unreasonableness.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 11:32 AM
1

I think we don’t even need to go that far in the criticism and instead take feminism at its word and feminists at theirs. Feminism: the belief in the legal, economic, and social equality of men and girls. Well, men and girls are built differently and, therefore, function differently. Therefore, it makes sense for us to have different functions, which can be generalized as “roles”. With different roles, we have different responsibilities to those around us and in society. Therefore, we are social…
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 02:25 AM
0

Whose the girl who appears to be the “narrator”? The blonde with the glasses?
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 02:07 AM
0

The name of this particular donkey.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 02:07 AM
1

Isn’t discussions the purpose of the purplePillDebate sub? Besides, what people almost always call “cancel culture” is really only having minimum standards of acceptable behavior. One can disagree without being disagreeable.
/r/AntiFeminists29/09/21 12:28 AM
2

While I agree with Ms. Mulligan I don't want some disparaging my work either, she made possibly the shittiest argument I think she could, implying a criticism of the costume director somehow meant she, as an actress, was being unjustly devalued. I also would think, if Ms. Knightley really was trying to not be misandristic, she would have said something along the lines of "I won't do sex scenes at all" or "I won't do sex scenes which utilize the so-called 'male gaze'". Instead, she decided to sin…
/r/AntiFeminists28/09/21 08:49 PM
2

Dear downvoters: When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. -- George R.R. Martin Therefore, downvoting proves neither me nor the author wrong; it only proves you are afraid someone might listen to what I or the author might say. So, what good is your feminism if it cannot withstand scrutiny?
/r/AntiFeminists28/09/21 04:53 PM
5

I find it weird how many individuals say "Feminism is only here to give you a choice" and then complain when people exercise that choice to reject certain bits of feminism or even feminism itself. I can have a choice but only if I choose what you want me to choose?
/r/AntiFeminists28/09/21 04:09 PM
3

Or we are saying we have standards: One can disagree without being disagreeable.
/r/AntiFeminists28/09/21 04:07 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/RPChristians27/09/21 04:43 AM
1

TL;DR?
/r/RPChristians27/09/21 02:23 AM
1

Apparently a bunch of feminists do, as might those who are feminist sympathetic. My goal here is to provide a counter argument showing why their premises and approaches are flawed even in the forgiving of circumstances. I don't want sport overrun by "feminism for feminism's sake". Do you?
/r/AntiFeminists02/08/21 10:37 PM
1

Men are often addicted to female praise, whether the lady is married or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:06 PM
2

Whoa! Hold up! Are you saying we treat people who have minor flaws compared to our ideals differently than those who have major ones? That’s crazy talk! /s
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 01:59 PM
1

Sexuality is intrinsic to humanity. By extension, those critical of sexuality are critical of humanity. Give preference to those who do not advocate desexualization of humanity. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your time. Vote with your attention. Vote with your favoritism. Nothing requires you treat others exactly the same when they act differently. Nothing requires you ignore people’s actions. Nothing requires you to reject your sexuality. Nothing requires you to reject your humanity. Those wh…
/r/AntiFeminists27/07/21 04:49 AM
1

Thanks! Of these, I think I come up short only in the prayer aspect.
/r/RPChristians26/06/21 01:00 AM
2

I agree with what you say here. One area I find difficult at times, however, is recognizing when G-d is subtly trying to nudge me in another direction. Sometimes, in performing my plan, I get this little "twinge" in my mind which is difficult to distinguish between undue doubt and G-d saying "don't; instead pull back and reassess". Do you ever get those? If so, have you found a way to distinguish between the two?
/r/RPChristians25/06/21 01:18 PM
1

Water is your friend. I had the hardest time losing fat even with a good diet and routine lifting. The problem was, no matter what I was still simply eating too much. Forcing myself to take a swig of water after each and every bite finally kicked things into gear and there have been times when I worry I am losing too much fat too fast. For those who don’t like plain water, consider throwing in a splash of lemon/lime juice or even those flavored squirt bottles from the grocery store. Diet sodas w…
/r/MarriedRedPill22/06/21 11:32 PM
1

Standards: the key sign of a man.
/r/MarriedRedPill22/06/21 11:26 PM
1

I get what you are saying. I understand what the critics are saying but I do get what you are saying. Congratulations on the realization. It’s a weird feeling, isn’t it?
/r/MarriedRedPill22/06/21 08:25 AM
1

Reserving comment on the rest for another time, I accept the idea of a patriarchy, don't necessarily have a problem with it, and don't automatically have an objection to traditional gender roles. A patriarchy is simply a way of organizing the running of society, like democracy, monarchy, or oligarchy; each of these four can be run either constructively or destructively. Meanwhile, traditional gender roles developed over centuries of experience and, therefore, ought to be given due consideration …
/r/AntiFeminists15/06/21 03:32 AM
1

I really couldn't care less about the race or ethnicity of the person in the commercial.
/r/AntiFeminists13/06/21 11:59 PM
3

Six years in, I’m doing pretty good. I think, if that was going to happen, it would have happened by now.
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/21 12:54 AM
1

Thing is, Ms. Forbes is pretty. Quite fuckable, actually: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Michelle_Forbes_2009a_Comic-Con.jpg
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/21 12:35 AM
1

No. I’m not.
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/21 12:33 AM
2

Yet, here we are.
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/21 12:33 AM
1

Am I? There are absolutely zero girls who recognize value in traditional relationships?
/r/AntiFeminists27/05/21 12:02 AM
1

Seeing as how I am far older than most redditors, it's a safe bet. If you want to try to troll me about education, you have know idea what level I obtained. (I've mentioned it in my comment history from time to time. I'm sure someone who is as smart as you claim should have zero trouble finding it.)
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 09:34 PM
7

I'm willing to come to an accord: I will support them in their efforts to deny girls agency if they relinquish all agency to men. Somehow, I think they won't go along with the idea.
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 06:22 PM
6

I would like to see a Venn diagram of those who agree with the last sentence of the first paragraph and those who say "my body, my choice".
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 06:20 PM
0

And I have been studying it far longer than you.
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 04:29 PM
1

I can't spend my time explaining you the basics. AKA "I, Rol9x, can't make a good argument to back up my claims." Don't forget to publish your findings in an academic paper, so I can improve my knowledge. Says the obvious bad-faith troll.
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 04:28 PM
1

Am I?
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 04:27 PM
1

People don't form their own opinion in a rational process. So, all of psychology is crap? This necessary premise of your claim is false. it is just a matter of playing with words. If there is anyone of us playing with words, it's you and not me, due to your motte-and-bailey fallacy.
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 01:28 PM
1

Everybody pretends that they formed their own opinion How do you know they don't?
/r/AntiFeminists25/05/21 01:26 PM
1

No, not really; a great example of this idea failing are all those people who think they can time the stock market: every now and then, someone thinks they have somehow cracked a secret "walnut" which will lead to untold riches and it generally doesn't.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 07:54 PM
1

It's not a matter of "playing" with words; it's a matter of being correct.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 07:52 PM
1

A celebrity endorsement is a persuasion technique to convince people to adopt an opinion the seller wants to achieve; that's not at all the same as saying a celebrity endorsement "forms someone else's opinion". I am a great example of celebrity endorsements simply failing: when I choose a product to buy, unless it is something purchased primarily for subjective reasons, I instead rely heavily on objective criteria and no amount of celebrity endorsement changes those criteria nor fulfills them.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 07:40 PM
2

Literally nothing you said here, even if true, changes the accuracy of my comment.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 04:53 PM
2

Jesus said nothing about gays.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 04:11 PM
1

The runner up for playing Doctor McCoy, losing out to DeForest Kelly.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 04:11 PM
2

With opposition to feminism already being criticized as a supposed "gateway" to the alt-right and nazism, it's probably not the best idea to post a meme involving someone generally seen as an alt-right individual/apologist and/or racist/nazi, especially while wearing an image of the Iron Cross.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 04:10 PM
7

Lemme guess: she's never had kids before has she?
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 03:52 PM
1

I think you might have some good points here; I am having difficulty understanding the sentence structure, though.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 03:45 PM
1

The question is whether she feels nervous simply either solely because either they are black or she has drawn conclusions because they are black; those reasons would be bad. Others may or may not be, depending upon what they are.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 03:42 PM
1

I am unsure to whom you refer by "opinion makers". Everyone forms their own opinion. Some individuals do concoct and/or repeat lies sometimes, though.
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 12:58 PM
1

Using objective terms only, how are you defining "extremist"?
/r/AntiFeminists24/05/21 12:46 PM
6

You know the misandristic feminists are panicking when they downvote an equality-based meme. I find nothing wrong with the distracted-boyfriend meme; what's wrong with the distracted-girlfriend meme?
/r/AntiFeminists23/05/21 12:23 PM
1

Oddly enough, complimentarian (a.k.a. "anti feminist") Christians often have a socialistic bent. (Cf., The Acts Of The Apostles) So, I think your perception might be a bit inaccurate.
/r/AntiFeminists15/05/21 04:27 AM
1

So, you argue from authority and not from actual verification of theory? That's not scientifically valid and certainly doesn't mean Idiocracy has any grounding in reality. Conversely, documented evidence of the Wilson Effect is scientifically valid and calls into question the premise of the film. Meanwhile, re-examining the theories of Retherford and Sewell, we see having a genetic disposition toward higher cognitive ability does not directly reduce number of offspring and instead has a direct (…
/r/AntiFeminists14/05/21 02:26 PM
1

While the more tangential health benefits I do agree can be a good thing, so-called "overpopulation" is a myth. To illustrate, suppose we created one universal home-owners association, giving every human on the planet a 33' x 33' plot of land, with families having adjacent plots. The total land necessary would be scarcely bigger than Texas; that's smaller than 1/733rd of the entire planet. Additionally, more people means more eyes on the problems of the world which means more possible solutions …
/r/AntiFeminists14/05/21 02:16 PM
3

Exactly, it's like when Tom Cruise married Katie Holmes: Stephen Colbert said something to the effect of "although Tom Cruise scares me, the fact he's banging Katie Holmes at his age means I would totally high five him while winking". That is a perfectly reasonable reaction, especially when we consider the fact evolution tends to favor older fathers with longer-lived children and younger mothers with higher birth rates.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:59 PM
4

Hitting the reproductive wall hurts.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:08 PM
1

My money is on this post in FDS having been made by someone who has hit the reproductive wall hard. Besides, anyone taking this advice seriously is just demanding the species go extinct and be poorer and sicker along the way as a result.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:08 PM
1

Depopulation is good. And yet you have chosen to stay alive. I don't take seriously anyone who advocates depopulation and insists on continuing to live. If "depopulation is good" as you claim, you should be trying to find some way to commit suicide. Now, I think you should stay alive, be fruitful, and multiply. But what the hell do I know?
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 12:55 PM
1

I somehow think you didn't read the article.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 12:52 PM
-1

Actually, no. Research shows evolution only thins out "stupid" children of "stupid" children. to the contrary, IQ is a better predictor of the survival of grandchildren, leading to a slight increasing trend in intelligence, though it may waiver back and forth some times.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 12:52 PM
2

So, your plan is to make the problem worse?
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 05:07 AM
1

Somehow I doubt that. You still have a pulse.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 04:08 AM
3

Do you plan on leading by example?
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:44 AM
1

Let the record show /u/shrekisthekingofmars came in this subreddit, tried to pick a fight, couldn't be bothered to reply to more than a single comment, and even then only to emote about how dare people hold an opinion different than them.
/r/AntiFeminists13/05/21 03:19 AM
1

I cite my answer to another redditor by reference. Reality is more complex than your comment appears to suggest.
/r/AntiFeminists12/05/21 01:18 AM
1

I don’t know if I would go that far but the arguments do run right into self-contradictions.
/r/AntiFeminists11/05/21 01:07 AM
2

It's nuanced. Ironically, acknowledging and articulating an appreciation of nuance helps "smooth" interactions with liberal-minded individuals. You are definitely correct about the potential dangers of extremism, regardless of its form and the need to be mindful of support One gives to others. In my experience, support which can be easily withdrawn is more useful to the sponsor in such mindfulness, even if not necessarily as useful to the sponsee. This fact is the basis for a church asking membe…
/r/AntiFeminists08/05/21 06:29 PM
8

Technically, it's not literally brain dead but I do think you made a good point here.
/r/AntiFeminists08/05/21 05:33 PM
1

I think the conclusion is not "you're a nazi" but "you're an antisemite". Depending upon what said something is, the accusation may or may not be justified. Meanwhile, I haven't heard the government of Israel calling Muslims "rodents".
/r/AntiFeminists08/05/21 05:27 PM
3

I like a modified form of the argument of would-be Baron John Cleese: Can you please tell me feminist joke?
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 11:14 PM
3

😉Maybe?
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 11:10 PM
7

No, "feminist" works fine. I think every group needs to keep a clean house if it wants to attract new members and feminists get no passes on that point. So, calling this person a feminist and holding them up as an example of one should give other feminists reason to clean house, if they want to convince the world they are intellectually honest. If they don't want to do that, I'm fine with that to; we can keep holding this person up as a feminist for all to see.
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 09:33 PM
5

Now, now. While you and I might have standards which she does not meet, she can't help looking like that. She looks how she looks. 'Tis better to say something like "She's just jealous", which she might be; I don't know.
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 08:35 PM
3

So, you are saying "Don't stereotype me and I won't stereotype you"? I can go with that.
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 08:32 PM
6

Thanks, I didn't recognize her without the usual strung-out 4:15AM-after-an-all-nighter look.
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 08:30 PM
1

This looks like an interesting plan.
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 06:19 PM
0

Conservatives aren't being "all silenced"; some of them are being told their statements are morally unacceptable and losing access to privately run communications outlets as a result while the rest, those able to put forward arguments constructively and in good faith, are still able to spread conservative messages far and wide. What matters is (1) how anti-feminists speak in the current climate while (2) building the pro-man analog of the Black Panthers to which OP refers and (3) establishing a …
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 06:18 PM
2

Who is that?
/r/AntiFeminists07/05/21 06:09 PM
1

Yes, just as it was for Adam.
/r/AntiFeminists06/05/21 09:11 PM
1

The way I see it: when Eve first offers Adam the fruit, Adam still has a choice; yet, they both sin and, therefore, both are guilty even if One demonstrates different degree and/or types of guilt.
/r/AntiFeminists06/05/21 08:58 PM
2

No, men bear some of the responsibility for this. If men refused to lower their standards with respect to male-female relationships, any valid concerns about injustice against the female members of society could have been addressed without issue. As soon as the first man said "Yes, I am a feminist" thinking it would help him with "the ladies", less intelligent men saw him doing the same and followed his broken logic to do likewise, weakening the position of those wanting to maintain standards an…
/r/AntiFeminists06/05/21 08:41 PM
1

Very true. If One does not hold a movement's followers to the movement's standards, One abandons the movement, even if only temporarily. Why should I join a movement where the adherents are liable to abandon it at a moment's notice? There's a reason Christian priests frequently encourage people to confess their sins: they are trying to hold their flock to the standard set by Jesus; even if they fail to get people to confess those sins, the priests at least try, which is more than I can say about…
/r/AntiFeminists17/04/21 07:18 PM
1

You overlook the fact, for example, Pfizer deliberately left people with food allergies out of their safety studies, only for people with certain food allergies to go into anaphylactic shock after receiving the vaccine, some as much as a day after they left the vaccination site. (If I remember correctly, the Moderna vaccine has similar issues for certain members of the public but exactly what escapes me at the moment.) Such a risk poses a potentially lethal risk to people who are unaware they ma…
/r/PussyPass16/04/21 02:09 PM
1

Hi, I trust you will take my comments in the friendly spirit in which they are offered. I know this topic can easily cause visceral reactions at times. be treated the same way. So, you would be okay if a man told you a sex-based joke at work? Or if, on his lunch break, he and his friends swapped stories about co-workers they have slept with? I know some guys who do both of these things and, as far as I can see, the other guys have no problem with that. We want woman to have all the same rights a…
/r/AntiFeminists16/04/21 01:49 PM
1

Did you report her for harassment?
/r/PussyPass16/04/21 01:07 PM
1

I agree with both of her points because the risk levels in the two scenarios are distinctly different.
/r/PussyPass16/04/21 01:05 PM
1

I will give her this though: there is zero risk to the mask wearer from doing so; meanwhile, taking a vaccine which was approved via tweet irrespective of whether sufficient studies had been conducted to demonstrate their safety, especially when subsequent experience has shown those vaccines are not necessarily safe and in some cases are fatal, does.
/r/PussyPass16/04/21 01:02 PM
1

Not even hair, since both male and female characters often have hair of similar lengths. So, One would need something obvious to the preschooler in question to say "This strong, capable, and competent character is a girl just like you"; what could be a more obvious signal to such a child than tits?
/r/AntiFeminists07/04/21 01:14 PM
1

FTA: “When she gave it to Bugs Bunny and said ‘don’t call me babe’ then walked out, that was an empowering moment for three-year-old Paige watching this.” And you know how that three-year-old Paige new that character was a girl? The tits! Putting tits (and other feminine attributes) on a cartoon character is a quick and easy way for animators to let the members of the audience (of all ages) know the character is a girl. Is there anyone who seriously thinks Paige would have been as inspired if sh…
/r/AntiFeminists05/04/21 03:42 AM
2

While I do not dispute misogynistic oppression has happened in the past nor dispute it happens today, many of the arguments of feminists seem focused on a "sexuality = evil" mindset. When I was a kid, sex was bad (boo) but sexuality was good (yay); now sex is good (yay) but sexuality is bad (wait, what?). In some corners of the feminist movement, sex is bad and sexuality is bad (w in the actual f?). I would think the fourth form, sex is good and sexuality is good, is probably where we want to be…
/r/AntiFeminists05/04/21 12:38 AM
3

the draft should be eliminated You could also point out to them the fact the draft doesn't exist; only the selective service. True, only men must register for it still in case of the reinstatement the draft but when they say "We should eliminate the draft", you could point out the fact President Nixon, a man, ended the draft on July 1, 1973. To really top it off, you could add "You're welcome".
/r/AntiFeminists05/04/21 12:24 AM
7

I would love to hear the reasoning necessary to reconcile a justification for this with "my body, my choice". I'll get some popcorn. You want some? I think I have some caramel corn around here somewhere.
/r/AntiFeminists04/04/21 11:54 PM
4

Not only is it dumb, it's wrong. Humans are intrinsically sexual beings. Trying to tone down human sexuality makes as much sense has trying to hide the fact people eat.
/r/MensRights25/02/21 03:56 AM
2

Nah, nah, nah. It needs to be more subtle: ostracism. Let's see how well the unreasonable can fend for themselves when people say "If you are going to go around attacking everyone, eventually you are going to attack me; no thanks."
/r/MensRights27/01/21 12:33 AM
2

I had to stop halfway thru the first picture.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 12:30 AM
1

I see no aggressiveness in this image.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 10:01 PM
1

Reserving the right to comment on the rest later, I want to focus on one piece. You say: Also the trans-lobby really shouldn't be referred to, even if the gay rights-movement is. So I understand, why is that?
/r/MensRights26/01/21 10:01 PM
0

So, if a man directs a sex scene, it's automatically going to have the "male gaze"? Reality doesn't work that way.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 03:35 AM
-2

Am I correct in presuming you are saying the "pick one" choices in the general case would be "equality vs. equity"?
/r/MensRights26/01/21 03:31 AM
-1

She has a "no nudity" clause in all of her contracts. Why does she need to take it a step further and say "no sex scenes for male directors"? As far as I can tell, the clause takes care of all of the issues she has raised; yet, she thinks it's constructive to then add the additional comment? There's no need for it other than to be expressly misandristic. Had she stopped at the addition of the clause, I would have said "Whatever; I don't fap to you anyway." Instead, she decided to paint all men w…
/r/MensRights26/01/21 03:00 AM
1

If it was the other way around, any man would be destroyed completely I think that's less the issue than the excessiveness of her comment. She has a "no nudity" clause in all of her contracts. Why does she need to take it a step further and say "no sex scenes for male directors"? As far as I can tell, the clause takes care of all of the issues she has raised; yet, she thinks it's constructive to then add the additional comment? There's no need for it other than to be expressly misandristic. Had …
/r/MensRights26/01/21 02:57 AM
1

Obviously, that would be dumb. I have learned to not presume others are not dumb; for all I know, she is able to maintain the illusion of competence just long enough to make a public appearance and then get out of the public eye.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 02:42 AM
6

Reserving the right to comment on everything else said here for another time, as long as we are all in agreement she has no moral right to complain when said director and/or producer chooses a different actress for just such a reason, I guess we can agree on that point.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 02:24 AM
7

I think the solution is clear: turn our support to those who reject both misandry and misogyny. Evangeline Lilly comes to mind, for example. When people ask “Why do you not support Kiera Knightly?”, we can simply respond with “She has a history of bigoted statements against men and girls who don’t toe the radical feminist line.” Then, of course, teach your children to diplomatically speak out against such bigotry and to have standards.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 12:59 AM
1

Let's see: 12 days later with zero objective standard with which to assess your claims => none have come true. Now, if you want to keep deliberately talking in bad faith, because nobody goes this long refusing to give requested objective measurements without deliberately acting in bad faith, that's your business. As long as you choose to keep doing so, I'll keep treating you like a troll.
/r/MensRights24/01/21 08:28 PM
1

While I can certainly see the concern about such an inversion of the principles of justice, in the "Ralph stole my car" case, the same could be said about finding Ralph with my car and believing me. Yet, we consider evidence of the basic conditions, Ralph has my car, when coupled with my accusation sufficient evidence to believe me while leaving Ralph ample opportunity to provide evidence I gave him permission. The same would happen in rape cases: evidence of the basic conditions, sexual activit…
/r/AntiFeminists20/01/21 03:07 PM
1

Good. Best of luck.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:27 AM
1

Okay.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:22 AM
1

Then, perhaps the best thing to do is to keep an eye on him and to warn others?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:22 AM
1

Then, search for the suicide prevention hotline in your country.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:21 AM
1

Yet, you didn't die and nobody can change the past; we can only change what we do for the future.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:20 AM
1

Then, feel free to use your favorite search engine to find the suicide prevention hotline and you will see it is the same number I gave you.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:19 AM
1

I am almost certainly much older than you and I can say the fires you see raging are much smaller than they used to be. Why don't you help me put them out?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:18 AM
1

The number I gave you is the suicide prevention hotline. I have nothing to do with them.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:17 AM
1

There is no guarantee anyone will. Taking steps to help make sure nobody ever has to face the pain we have in our lives while giving them a chance to live is one of the most honorable things One can do.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:16 AM
1

Then, call the number I gave you.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:14 AM
1

I don't control Reddit's policy.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:14 AM
1

I don't follow.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:14 AM
1

You obviously care; otherwise, you would stop responding.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:13 AM
1

Then, you should be okay to check in with that phone number I gave you.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:12 AM
1

Given your comments, I cannot be sure.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:12 AM
1

You can call that phone number I gave you earlier.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:12 AM
1

I don't know what Reddit's policy is.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:11 AM
1

Unless you have poisoned yourself, I find that unlikely.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:11 AM
1

Your comments seem like you are at risk of suicide.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:11 AM
1

You've changed your qualifications again. Before you said it was a lack of pain; a child 8 months and 29 days in development can feel pain. Then you said it was a lack of awareness; the same child has awareness. Then you said it was a lack of potential suffering; a child which can feel pain can suffer. What moral difference is there between a child at 8 months and 29 days of development and 1 day after being born?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:10 AM
2

I've asked Reddit to reach out to you out of your apparent risk of suicide. They will be trying to help you.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:06 AM
1

So, you acknowledge we are talking about a kid? Are there any other kids, who typically range in age up to 18 years after having been born, you think should be killed?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:05 AM
1

So will you. Yet, I doubt you are asking for someone to kill you.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:04 AM
1

So, you agree those who have the potential for suffering should not be killed?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:03 AM
1

It has a full set of human DNA, no more and no less; therefore, by definition, it is human.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:03 AM
1

As far as I can tell, outside of science fiction, being human is a binary condition; One either is human or One is not. So, the idea of not being "human enough" is meaningless.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 04:01 AM
1

It would help if you keep the pain/suffer argument to one thread/branch. However, someone under an anesthetic wouldn't suffer if killed either and yet we would still consider it murder. Perhaps you mean those who have the potential for suffering should not be killed?
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:54 AM
1

Are you okay? You sound like you are liable to hurt yourself. You might want to call 800-273-8255 if you are in America. Help is available 24/7 and is available in both English and Spanish.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:49 AM
1

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether or not the child is involved in the abortion.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:48 AM
1

So, you do agree a principle different from "cannot feel pain" is needed, good. You seem to have switched to "those not aware of their surroundings". However, blackout-drunk people and sleeping people are not aware of their surrounding either. Surely you don't think killing them is okay? Perhaps you mean those who have the potential for awareness should not be killed? As far as "being stuck on this planet", if you know of a way One can easily travel off of it, I would love to hear it.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:45 AM
1

It says right in the article: Now a high school graduate Gabby Gingras still can’t feel pain
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:37 AM
1

This lady cannot feel pain either. By your reasoning, killing her is okay. You might want a different principle.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:32 AM
1

If you think awareness is inversely proportional to disposability, sure. I don't but YYMV.
/r/AntiFeminists19/01/21 03:26 AM
2

I'm willing to go half way and say "Believe accusers as long as the evidence backs up the claim." For example, if I call the police and say "Ralph stole my car" and they find Ralph with my car, I should be believed at first because, giving me the benefit of the doubt, why would I make up something like that? Now, if a subsequent investigation revealed I said to my neighbor "I lent Ralph my car" shortly before/after I called the police or said "I am lending Ralph my car" to that same neighbor, I …
/r/AntiFeminists18/01/21 04:08 PM
2

Psst. That's what step #5 is.
/r/AntiFeminists18/01/21 03:53 PM
1

Username seems like it might not check out. Come again?
/r/AntiFeminists18/01/21 01:34 PM
2

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe the movie followed Simba because the story is about him and the "King" part of the title is about how the prince becomes ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... oh, yeah -- king!
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 09:44 PM
3

Just like humans, I am told.
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 09:39 PM
1

In ancient Israel, if you falsely accused someone of something, you would be punished as if you were guilty of the accusation you made. Just putting that idea out there.
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 06:39 PM
1

Could someone please tell whoever made that sign they used the Mercedes Benz logo and not the peace sign?
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 05:39 PM
2

I assure you this isn't a problem of just "the west".
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 05:39 PM
1

Sword Art Online (Seasons 1 & 2 only) Fairy Tail
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 04:25 PM
2

Some feminists do seem to be intent on androgynizing all of society, yes.
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 04:22 PM
21

I guess she missed the “Yes, all men” meme from a few years ago?
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 04:15 PM
1

You’re so cute.
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 04:13 PM
4

And, of course, the baby, which I am sure we can presume to have been included.
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/21 04:12 PM
1

So, you basically have nothing but all claims and zero citations from known, credible, reliable, verifiable and trusted external sources, which means I am under zero obligation to address any of them, much less all of them. Don't waste my time anymore unless you are will to put them forward; otherwise, you are no better than the troll.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 02:39 PM
2

"Unquestioning adherence to orthodoxy" aka adherence and further blind adherence is a factor. No, it really isn't. For example Christianity, a religion practiced by roughly 1 in 3 people has a history full of challenges to orthodoxy, especially by Jesus. "Saint Greta" The only people I have seen use that name in relation to Ms. Thunberg are critics of her and/or efforts to address climate change, of which global warming is but one part. So, your question is not meaningful. "Comparative theology …
/r/MensRights08/01/21 01:33 PM
1

Actually, I got all "A"s in that class.
/r/MensRights08/01/21 12:58 PM
2

Our conversation fell off the "front page" of this conversation and I like to keep everything up front where everyone else can see and because it discourages trolls from continuing. Blind adherence to any ideology without questioning it, while promoting it's goals is religion. No, it isn't. Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcend…
/r/MensRights08/01/21 03:42 AM
0

Redirect
/r/MensRights08/01/21 03:38 AM
0

Please point me to "the church of globalism" or "the church of global warming" (or the equivalent thereof). In re your link to The American Prospect, you are still not answering the question: Which corporations do they favor and at whose expense? Give specifics.
/r/MensRights07/01/21 02:55 PM
1

Since when is globalism a religion? In what ways do Democrats favor Muslims, especially since they have never nominated a Muslim to the highest office in the land, which would be an obvious sign of favoring? In Re corporations, give specifics instead of essentially arguing “look it up”.
/r/MensRights07/01/21 02:55 AM
1

While if I walked up to and said the Earth was flat, that would be an issue, in this case, you “walked up” by accusing feminists of fascism, not me, which means the accusations came from you, not me, and the burden is on you to prove your accusation as a result. I’m looking at that page from the Britannica page you sourced and the quote you gave does not appear on that page, at least not as a stand-alone statement. The quote in full, after citing government-related information, actually reads “F…
/r/MensRights06/01/21 11:59 PM
1

Redirect
/r/MensRights06/01/21 03:07 PM
0

Our conversation fell off of "the front page" of this post and I find people are more honest and trolls are less likely to continue if I keep the conversation visible for everyone to see. To your the claims in your latest comment in our back-and-forth: Nope. At no point did I say "You spelled something wrong and are therefore wrong/trolling" nor did I say "You used grammar incorrectly and are therefore wrong/trolling". Nor at any point did I say "Because feminists love me they can love all non-f…
/r/MensRights06/01/21 03:07 PM
1

What religions do the Democrats favor over others? Which corporations do they favor and at whose expense?
/r/MensRights05/01/21 09:21 PM
1

"Grammar" =/= "spelling"; "grammar" =/= "definitions". If you are going to try to insult me while I try to have a constructive conversation with you, please get it right. Otherwise, all you are doing is embarrassing yourself. People discussing in good faith debate matters according to a set of presumed rules, which is what makes those discussions one held in good faith. Now, if you are unwilling to abide by those rules or unwilling to use words correctly, I can only presume you are deliberately …
/r/MensRights05/01/21 09:19 PM
1

I am loved by feminists for many reasons, just not my defenses of feminism, which are virtually non-existent. It's also not "bullshit" to use words accurately. You, conversely, seem intent on using words inaccurately, making me think you are deliberately trolling or at least discussing in bad faith. [BTW, you really should spellcheck your words; a difference exists between "there" and "their".] I can point out someone calling a fish a "zebra" is being inaccurate without defending nazis. Or zebra…
/r/MensRights05/01/21 03:43 PM
1

I have a hard time understanding why you insist on trying to fit a form of government to a social movement, whether constructive or destructive. Do you have any other topics where you try to fit completely separate concepts together? For example, a barbell and a toaster oven? I ask a ludicrous example because I am trying to understand exactly what your logical bases are and what the limiting principle is. Now, to your presumptions: a far more accurate description would be to say feminism seeks t…
/r/MensRights04/01/21 01:54 PM
-11

Except fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism which argues liberal democracy is obsolete and rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means which can achieve national rejuvenation. Therefore, feminism is not even "non-tradition fascism" and, despite the errors feminism perpetuates, One can be a feminist and a 19th century liberal at the same time (or communist or fascist), just like one can b…
/r/MensRights04/01/21 04:22 AM
1

Is this article talking about the research paper which was recently retracted because its data didn't support its conclusions or am I thinking of a different one?
/r/MensRights03/01/21 10:54 PM
-14

Nah, not fascism; just unreasonable.
/r/MensRights03/01/21 10:48 PM
2

According to the article, though, that's not why she is being released. She is being paroled and will still have to report to her parole officer until 2024, when her 20-year sentence is up. Now, I would have thought parole should be unavailable in a case like this but that is why she is being released.
/r/MensRights03/01/21 10:46 PM
1

Can you PM them to me?
/r/MensRights31/12/20 03:10 AM
3

No worries. As you said, you are 12. It's all good.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:04 AM
4

You are 12 but in a girl?
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:03 AM
13

I don't blame the government for that; it's only doing what it thinks is in the best interest of the people. The issue is when the people casting votes happen to articulate bullshit. That's the root cause.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:03 AM
5

I'm 12 but in a girl That can be taken in so many ways ...
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:01 AM
1

Really? Can you point me towards your ... um ... "favorite" posts/comments on this subject? I would love to argue with them.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:01 AM
5

Technically, it's the 35th birthday. The statute refers to the "thirty-fifth anniversary of [One's] birth". So, the day after you turn 35, you are off the proverbial hook.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 01:59 AM
1

I doubt, however, we would go so far as to say men must be willing to go to war to vote, especially since One can be drafted today without registering to vote.
/r/MensRights29/12/20 04:53 PM
1

That is a very interesting perspective. Personally, I come to the same conclusion, “Egalitarian values, and mens rights advocacy in particular, is innately antifeminist”, thru Liebig’s law of the minimum as it relates to reproduction and control of society: Everyone has an equal inherent and inalienable right to an equal potential control of society as long as such control is otherwise just and exercised justly. Whoever controls reproduction controls society. According to Liebig's law of the min…
/r/MensRights29/12/20 04:50 PM
1

Redirect
/r/MensRights29/12/20 04:19 PM
0

This comment thread “fell off the front page” and I prefer to keep this where everyone can easily see things. I said exactly what I was requesting and did so and time and time again. Your only responses have been to deflect, misdirect, use words incorrectly, doubling down on that incorrect usage, and tell me to “look it up”. So, the only conclusion I can draw from your comments to date is you are deliberately trolling. Meanwhile, you are still misusing words by claiming I am somehow “triggered” …
/r/MensRights29/12/20 04:17 PM
1

You appear to not be reading what I actually requested and you keep using words incorrectly. Unless you are conceding you have been, and intend to be, trolling, please re-read what I wrote and requested, reflect on the fact you did not provide what was requested, and then provide the requested material. Anything less will be taken as trolling and reported accordingly.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 02:26 PM
1

I find it very strange you refuse to put forward evidence to back your claims of "removal of due process" and instead rely on second-hand rumors and poor word choice on your part. People discussing in good faith debate matters according to a set of presumed rules, which is what makes those discussions one held in good faith. Now, if you are unwilling to abide by those rules or unwilling to use words correctly, I can only presume you are deliberately discussing in bad faith, which would make you …
/r/MensRights27/12/20 02:14 PM
1

I did read that article. It does not lay out the differences. Try again.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 11:39 PM
2

This is good to know! This idea strikes me as possibly a good move which, if adopted nationwide, could mitigate much, though not all, of the issue. To be fair, I think the same standard applied to the initial allegations with regards to evidence should be applied in these counteractions. So, if One can be kicked out of school based on only a "preponderance of the evidence", so too should the counteractions only need to show guilt based on a "preponderance of the evidence". I think such requireme…
/r/MensRights26/12/20 11:38 PM
1

I asked you specifically to show the comparison and you gave vague summaries without evidence and told me to look it up. I trust you understand why I take your position less seriously with each comment of yours. If what you say is true, it is trivial for you to provide that comparison; if you can't be bothered to engage in trivial support for your position, you are likely unserious/insincere in your claims.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 02:50 AM
1

So, you're unwilling to provide the comparison I requested and prefer instead to try to misdirect?
/r/MensRights25/12/20 06:27 PM
1

My comments elsewhere on this page show why your first sentence is likely untrue. Again, “due process” does not apply because due process is a concept relevant to government action/policy and not those of a private organization. Due process no more applies with respect to students attending Duke than it does with respect to customers shopping at Best Buy. Now, if you have evidence the school would be acting under a dictate from the government, making it a de facto agent in such cases, that might…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 02:39 PM
1

That is one distinct possibility, yes, and one which tends to keep the behaviour of people and organizations in check more often than not. While nobody reason would claim it is a panacea, we likely would only need worry about the most flagrant abuses, inspiring people to pause before engaging in less flagrant ones.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 02:12 PM
1

Not really, no. Without the status of exercising government authority, the university would have to face the court of public opinion. Depending upon what statements are made by whom and what actions are taken when, common law allows for One to file suit for damages incurred, such as to reputation, emotional suffering, loss of opportunity/employment, etc. Since nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a well-founded lawsuit, the university is liable to be exceptionally cautious in such cases.
/r/MensRights25/12/20 04:07 AM
1

You have the seed of an idea there, good. Perhaps I can ask enough questions from my comparatively ignorant-of-your-thoughts perspective to help us build a more concrete form of such a system and I would be happy to help, if you will accept it. To that end, if I may, can articulate the harm(s) you think a private school like Duke could do to such students in more-specific verbiage?
/r/MensRights25/12/20 01:13 AM
1

Paragraphs 1 & 2 change none of what I said. If you choose to tolerate abuse from a non-governmental source longer than the next person, I am not obligated to have any sympathy for you nor is it correct to describe such abuse as a "removal of due process". Meanwhile, we have no proof DailyWire is using "due process" as a synonym for "fair shake". Meanwhile, with regards to the analogy of "he has something you need", that analogy would be applicable to the extent both Duke and my neighbor are the…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 07:09 PM
1

Incorrect; a host of Supreme Court rulings exist which boil down to "neither the federal nor state governments may condition the receipt of benefits on the interference with constitutional protections". One of the most foremost cases is Sherbert v. Vernor. Therefore, the federal government could not condition the receipt of loans on the recipient acting as an agent of the government to do indirectly what the government cannot do directly. Now, if Duke were to expel students based solely on accus…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 06:56 PM
1

I never said anything about morality. I am talking about using words and phrases correctly because doing so matters.
/r/MensRights24/12/20 06:40 PM
1

"Wrongful termination" applies to employees, not students. Plus, there are no proposals I have seen from Joe Biden for changes in any law to mandate removal of students due to accusations. Have any proof of your claims?
/r/MensRights24/12/20 06:39 PM
1

Anarchism is solely a position on what is a proper government, none, and not one of what is a proper religion. Perhaps you are thinking of the phrase "Christian atheist"?
/r/MensRights24/12/20 02:26 AM
0

In my experience, it has never been an issue.
/r/MensRights24/12/20 02:13 AM
8

Being a private school, it's always been trivial to remove due-process protections from accused students because accused students have no due-process protections when it comes to private organizations. "Due process" is a legal concept; my neighbor has no legal obligation to extend such protections in our interactions as private individuals and no private school has any legal obligation to extend such protections in its interactions with students for the exact same reason. Now, if we were talking…
/r/MensRights24/12/20 02:11 AM
2

No problem. The use of "equality" instead of "equity" is one of my biggest objections, if not the biggest objection, I have to feminism: feminists say they want "equality"; okay, fine although I object to pushing androgyny more than what occurs naturally; but then call for what would be more accurately described as "equity"; pick one, please. We can debate the merits of either one but, for the duration of the conversation at least, pick one and stick with it.
/r/MensRights24/12/20 01:24 AM
2

Very fair point. Thanks.
/r/MensRights24/12/20 01:18 AM
1

Very interesting. Do we have any word on which parts of the study failed to stand up to scrutiny and why? I think that piece of information would be quite useful for all scientists as well as the general public.
/r/MensRights23/12/20 02:54 PM
5

I agree with all you have said here except one word: replace "equal" in your last sentence with "equitable" and you and I are in perfect agreement.
/r/MensRights23/12/20 02:49 PM
1

In regards to long term, in liberation theology we are taught sometimes simply being aware of these issues and talking about them with others when we see them is helpful. So, sometimes simply being vigilant in ensuring the drive for sexual equity never becomes misogyny nor misandry is the right course of action. For example, do you have nieces/nephews or younger cousins/siblings? If so, when you hear something which is, let's say, "just ain't right" from them, nonchalantly and casually and diplo…
/r/PussyPass17/12/20 02:53 PM
1

You’re being asked to start from one or more premises of your choices, draw conclusions from them and conclude 50+% of businesses leadership should be male/female because of that reasoning. Whether you like the question or not is irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/19 12:03 AM
1

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/19 11:54 PM
1

You claim a request not in evidence. At no point did I say to only answer “men/women”; instead I explicitly requested an argument from first principles: given premise ‘A’, then conclusion ‘B’, which leads to corollary ‘C’. Surely, that shouldn’t be too difficult to construct in order to conclude “there should be this tendency”.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/19 11:51 PM
3

Feminism is a cultural philosophy; communism is an economic system; the two are orthogonal.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 05:31 AM
6

Sarcasm or on the level?
/r/MensRights27/11/18 06:52 PM
1

Where I am from, male or female, married/engaged/dating/single, if we are attracted to you, we will hit on you. Just putting that out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/18 01:16 AM
17

Not looking at the party dates for a moment, we are talking Tinder. The threshold for sex really isn't that high.
/r/TheRedPill06/05/18 04:53 PM
1

I do. I apologise.
/r/askTRP18/03/18 05:36 PM
1

Which rule did I break?
/r/askTRP18/03/18 05:34 PM
0

So, an “asktrp” sub isn’t for asking?
/r/askTRP18/03/18 02:06 AM
1

I think if one wants RP theory to be taken seriously, any research which purports to show it’s wrong should be critiqued and flaws identified, just as those who are RP do with feminist theory.
/r/askTRP17/03/18 10:25 PM
2

According to research I don’t have immediately available, when talking about physiological response, no. I would go into more detail but I’m on mobile.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/18 09:41 PM
3

Thank you, rabbi. TIL.
/r/askTRP11/03/18 01:56 PM
1

That part of his statement where he says, “These stories are true,” is hard to interpret any other way. If you can show me how, I will be appreciative.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 09:49 PM
1

Did he not admit to blocking the door in his public statement?
/r/MensRights24/01/18 09:45 PM
1

Did he not cop to it in his public statement? I would think a “yes, I did that,” would be proof, no?
/r/MensRights24/01/18 09:44 PM
2

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/louis-c-k-masturbation-allegations-a-timeline.html It was in 2012.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:20 PM
-2

Louis blocked the door. I think it’s fair to say, regardless of anything before that point, once one deliberately prevents another from leaving, a line has been crossed.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:07 PM
6

One question to anyone thinking he was in the wrong: how was he supposed to know she had withdrawn consent before she said, “Stop”?
/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:04 PM
-1

if you're in financial position to do so demand their respect, including your mother. That strikes me as harsh; it plays right into the hands of those who say MRAs are misogynists. Of course, one does not want to be a metaphorical "doormat" in such situations. I would recommend operant conditioning, with particular emphasis on positive reinforcement and negative punishment: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Operant_conditioning_diagram.png
/r/MensRights31/12/17 04:29 AM
4

I agree #metoo has gone nuts: sex-based violence and threats have become conflated with comments someone doesn't like or looks someone doesn't want. A few weeks back, someone tried to convince me, when Gene Simmons of K.I.S.S. one time made a sex-joke involving Michael Jackson, Simmons was somehow "sexually harassing" the person told the joke; this is fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 03:18 AM
1

I find Wiktionary has the most up to date definitions. Looking at the Wiktionary definition of racism, we see: The belief in distinct human races with each having their intrinsic attributes. The belief that one race or ethnic group is superior or inferior to another race or group of races. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. (sociology) A hierarchical system that benefits one race at the expense of all others. Looking at the Wiktionary definition of race, we see: A group of…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 09:11 PM
1

Way to hype an aside.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 08:20 PM
2

That’s the one! We actually have innocent people being metaphorically crucified in the court of public opinion.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 06:24 PM
2

As a sign of how much MeToo has become divorced from reality, wasn’t that one woman cleared by her state’s EEOC?
/r/MensRights19/12/17 04:38 PM
1

I saw nobody saying, "You must raise your son this way ..." I saw an attempt to make a certain argument which need not be made on the grounds one could simply say, "Remember, men, you have a responsibility as a father to teach your son(s) to not be douchebags." I'm pretty sure we can all get behind that idea. I do think, however, it could have been framed differently.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 02:43 PM
1

Perhaps it is because countries which are actually more egalitarian tend to also demonstrate the so-called "gender equality paradox". The circumstances of the paradox suggest (and I am paraphrasing, of course) when males and females are given an environment where everyone can develop their talents in the way they prefer, males and females will gravitate towards traditional gender roles. If this suggestion is true, much of the harshest rhetoric of feminism would be discredited.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 02:40 PM
3

I disagree. A scientist colleague of mine sat down and tried to prove from first principles whether or not a man should dominate and/or be in charge of a relationship with a girl. After years of having called himself a feminist, he convinced himself the only way such a relationship could be just is if men automatically assumed a position of just and responsible leadership. Now, he eschews the “feminist” label on the grounds feminism, even in its stated aims, seeks “equality” when it should seek …
/r/MensRights10/12/17 06:03 PM
2

In marriage the need is potentially stronger. If one is used to the attention from one’s spouse on a daily basis, the emotional enjoyment of such attention can become literally addicting, especially during stressful times. As a result, when that stimulus is absent when expected, the response of the “addict” can be to seek out a “fix”, as with any other addiction. Now, whether the desire for such attention is an addition or not may be open for discussion. My point is solely to present a theoretic…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:58 PM
9

From all accounts, especially the part about Roger Stone knowing the claims were coming, I say Tom might be right.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:52 PM
1

I haven’t followed Cracked much. What are some of the most off-the-wall feminist pieces they published?
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:49 PM
1

SaranWrap. It clings and it folds. Anything you want it to stick to, it does. You could three olives in it or you could put just a little one.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/17 02:17 PM
1

I don’t have a metaphorical dog in this fight between you two but there is no rational way to interpret what NalkaNalka said here in any fashion consistent with your last sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/17 02:16 PM
1

Define “professionalism”.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/17 02:13 PM
0

I think it might depend. One purpose of clothing is to reveal/conceal that which it does. If one deliberately dress in a way which stimulates others just so you can berate them for being stimulated, that would be a problem. (Unfortunately, I have known people to actually choose their outfits based on such reasoning. So, I cannot honestly say this scenario is beyond the realm of possibility.) I do not, however, believe such stimulus justifies rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/17 02:11 PM
1

That sounds like you already have plans; not uninterested.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/17 06:07 AM
3

And you’re effectively blaming him because you couldn’t/wouldn’t be straight with him. No wonder TRP says the female half of the species is irresponsible; they see examples like this bright as daylight, obscuring anyone else who is direct.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/17 06:05 AM
1

Try saying this: no, thanks; I’m not interested. Quick. Easy. To the point. Uses less words.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/17 06:02 AM
1

The word you are looking for is “fickle”.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/17 06:00 AM
3

None of what you wrote here changes the fundamental fact Gab violated the agreement. Since when is being red pill about failing to keep one's promises and then whining about it?
/r/TheRedPill05/09/17 03:10 AM
-1

Not buying it. The fact remains they agreed to do X and not do Y. They broke that agreement. Being a man requires keeping one's word. Gab didn't do that. I have no fucks I would give even if I had any.
/r/TheRedPill05/09/17 02:05 AM
2

So, Gab agreed to certain terms and conditions, violated them, and is now upset someone noticed and is holding them to their word? I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy. I'm not feeling any sympathy, actually.
/r/TheRedPill04/09/17 10:47 PM
3

Pro-tip: when you admit to trolling, people tend to not want to talk with you. I'm not arguing you are right or wrong. I'm saying you have probably done more harm than good compared to what you could have done.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/17 03:57 AM
1

Pro-life liberal.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/17 04:17 AM
1

A church could say, "Here are our beliefs. This is how we get there from first principles. If you want to commune and worship with us, great. If not, we can help point you in the direction of one to your liking." That way, every member is one of as much of their own free will as the church can reasonably make it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 07:21 PM
1

What if the church is conservative and not oppressive?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 03:27 AM
1

Define "less necessary".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 03:26 AM
1

I don't recall any RP individuals claiming they seek someone fulfilling both sets of characteristics. Granted, not being RP, I might have missed something. Can you point me towards documentation which says RP believes males should seek such females?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/17 02:58 AM
9

Wow, there's a lot of female acquaintances I know who would absolutely hate you for that. I'm not claiming they should or should not but they would. Discussing a topic similar to this with one acquaintance a little while back, she told me, "I want a man who leads. Listen to my advice, yes, especially if I give it in the strongest terms but lead. If he thinks I am being unreasonable, he damn well better overrule my objection on anything. Dinner, plans, sex, whatever. If he's right, I'll learn. If…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/17 04:28 AM
1

When I last checked, in California state universities, you can withdraw consent "at any time", even after the fact. This point is probably my biggest objection to the "enthusiastic consent" requirement.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/17 04:00 AM
8

Sincere question: how do you propose the man in this story know the difference between someone sincerely not wanting to have sex and merely "playing around" a la "ravishment fantasy"? I am not claiming no such way exists; I am asking how one can discern the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/17 03:50 AM
4

I'm not getting involved beyond this observation: I think you are trolling and/or discussing in bad faith; it's the only explanation consistent with both the trend of your comments here and the presumption you are a rational individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/17 02:17 PM
2

Not a RP person but I do know one and have asked him this question before. I am copying and pasting his answer below. To me it's not a question of her being a child because red pill is about being the best man I can be. This requires I lead as much as is reasonable to do, taking into account her advice and her subjective experience in the course of my leadership in order to do my job best. In order to lead this much, I must take as much responsibility for our relationship as is reasonable to do.…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 06:22 AM
2

The '.' should really go right after "hatred".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 09:42 PM
1

Look at it this way: You find a lady. You are attracted to her. She says she is not interested because you are too short. Ask yourself this question: would you decide whether or not to date her based on an irrelevant physical characteristic she cannot change? If "yes", you two are even and you should move on to the next woman; if "no", all else being equal, you are too good for her and you should move on to the next woman. If she complains because you moved on, you can point out (a) her hypocris…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/16 03:58 AM
1

What if it's a box of 100% pure oat bran?
/r/askTRP12/06/16 12:27 AM
2

At the risk of seeming to defend misogynists, painting all members of any group with a broad brush is wrong, regardless of the group and the brush. I know members of TRP who are members out of a sort of hyper-respect for women and who use TRP to improve themselves in the eyes of the women in their lives while eschewing the unjust statements of the loudest buffoons. Meanwhile, I also know members who are utterly bigoted fools. People join different movements for different reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/16 04:25 AM
1

Every movement attracts idiots in some fashion.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/16 04:17 AM
2

You chose the "Purple Pill Man" flair. Perhaps you can help explain what it means to be "purple pill", especially to people like me who are unsure as to what it means.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/15 05:12 AM
3

As far as RP women goes, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Some people might call it "strategizing" while others call it being "thoughtful" or "giving", depending upon one's point of view. I will admit, however, I am not sure how I feel on the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/15 03:52 PM
1

After many hundreds of hours of long term internal reflection, I have come to the conclusion few, if any, positions are truly "anti-American"; only unpopular.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 01:49 AM
8

It's generally always been a bad thing. We are just more willing to address it now than in the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 01:45 AM
0

Worst case scenario: voat.co.
/r/RedPillWomen12/06/15 12:48 PM
1

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 04:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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