~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."All .2% of them? Cite your source please. Military studies? WTF Is that? I assume you mean Military Science. Women decrease effective fighting force Can you cite some data for this or is it merely conjecture ? | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 04:37 PM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."Except women who meet the standards can also be drafted as infantry. Just as men who fail to meet the necessary infantry standards can be placed in support roles. In the last two wars we fought, support roles were also in combat zones. If a soldier meets the standard, they are capable, regardless of gender. Period. If you are going to argue any different, then might I suggest you have a bias? | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 04:11 PM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."Thank you for arguing my point for me. While my original point was PFT standards, since the common argument is women are too physically weak for combat roles, obviously this extends to other standards as well. If, in fact, Hultgreen was pushed through regardless of performance, that's a problem. If a women can performan to the same standard a man can, then she is just as capable. Consider Kim Campbell, an A10 pilot that was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for her actions in Iraq, includin… | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 04:04 PM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."This is called "moving the goal posts". First you made an untrue statement (feminists don't want to be in combat?), now I've disproven that, so you're changing the argument. If a woman infantryman can pass the same PFTs as her male counterpart, then for all intents and purposes, she is just as physically capable as a male infantryman. Your point is still irrelevant. | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 10:16 AM |
| 1 | I’m pretty sure that a thread discriminating against overweight women would be brigaded almost instantlyAgreed, stupid people doing stupid things stupidly. | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 10:10 AM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."But what is masculinity? | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 10:04 AM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."Except feminists have been pushing to be allowed into combat roles. So, what exactly is your point? Feminists don't try? | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 09:54 AM |
| 1 | "To Get Men on Our Side, Feminists Must Fight for Men Too: It may be the only way to get them to listen."I'm not entirely sure that's true. A modern military, even militaries of the past, have had a variety of needs requiring a variety of specializations. For every front line infantry soldier, you need medics, vehicle operators, repair personnel, kitchen staff, logistics, just to start. Not every man, or every woman, is going to meet fitness requirements for infantry. Plus a draft means getting a lot of kids who are out of shape, or otherwise would fail PFTs, male and female. You could absolutely i… | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 09:41 AM |
| 1 | Im not usually a fan of r/menslib but i can get behind thisTo be fair, the DE was also available in .440 Corbon at one point, which was a more powerful cartridge than the .50 AE, at least it produced greater muzzle energy at a similar projectile weight. Plus it was bottlenecked, meaning lower likelihood of a jam. Even the .44 mag, when using something like the 340 grain LFN +P+ cartridge is more powerful than the .50 AE. | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 09:05 AM |
| 1 | Im not usually a fan of r/menslib but i can get behind thisI'm curious about the muzzle velocity coming out of the barrel, rifle cartridges tend to have slower burning powder than pistol cartridges. It's theoretically possible that this round isn't any more effective than a S&W 500, similar caliber, but the 500 will likely burn more of it's powder than this will. Hard to say without crunching some numbers though. | /r/MensRights | 21/02/18 08:53 AM |
| 1 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.True, it jives with a central part of my life philosophy: "treat others the way you would like to be treated." Childishly simple, but it does work. I do have trouble understanding why some people might feel the way they do, but one doesn't always need to understand why one feels the way they do to understand why validating another's feelings is important. | /r/PurplePillDebate | 04/01/18 05:11 AM |
| 1 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.Lol, so we technically agree, just had a communications break down! Lol, sorry if my earlier writing was confusing, I can be a little odd with the way I approach things. | /r/PurplePillDebate | 04/01/18 01:42 AM |
| 1 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.Even the act of putting your partner first is, itself, out of self interest. At the base level is biochemistry, supporting the addiction one has to the chemicals produced in ones body by being in the presence of ones beloved,. ESPECIALLY during the early phases of a relationship when these are very strong. But even beyond that, in a healthy and happy relationship, both parties gain a net benefit. You enjoy the pleasure of the others company, or their perspective, or their thoughtfulness, or what… | /r/PurplePillDebate | 03/01/18 11:55 PM |
| 2 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.In the context of my comment, how so? I am responsible, and should be responsible for myself before I am able to be responsible for another. I have a problem with the idea of living for another, or placing another before yourself. This doesn't mean one should care exclusively and only for oneself, just that one should make themselves their first responsibility. I'm not responsible for my partners happiness, and neither are they for mine. That's an external locus of control. If the relationship i… | /r/PurplePillDebate | 03/01/18 09:11 PM |
| 1 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.Well, if a giver reaches the level of codependence, they are unlikely to feel comfortable in a relationship with another giver. They derive their value from other people needing them. This is what we arm chair (and actual) psychologists call an "external locus of control". The codependent has a shallow self esteem and poor boundaries, that is buoyed by giving to others, at least initially, until they are worn out and resentful. They feel a sense of obligation and don't think they are allowed to … | /r/PurplePillDebate | 03/01/18 10:11 AM |
| 3 | Egalitarian marriage, your definition.Agreed with this point. Like they say in the airplane "put your mask on before assisting your child". If you go blue (no pun intended), there ain't shit you can do for little Jimmy. | /r/PurplePillDebate | 03/01/18 09:59 AM |
| 1 | Q4RP If Red Pill ideas are universal truth why do they only appeal to people of a specific ideology?Disagree, Hillary Clinton was the middle, in many respects. She was also an awful neoliberal robot, who was as ethically unethical as one can be. By that I mean, she bent rules as much as she could. The United States is facing a crisis, disappearing middle class and decades of wage stagnation. Naturally, when this happens, people get angry. Usually in these cases the elected leader will either by a nationalist fascist, such as Trump, or a socialist, such as Bernie Sanders. One promises a return … | /r/PurplePillDebate | 03/01/18 09:29 AM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter