TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Awesomebox5000 Archive

View 0 posts and 170 comments by Awesomebox5000 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What's clear is that the Mensrights sub has been taken over by a bunch of women hating bitches. I see less and less support for brothers and more and more complaining about how evil feminists are. To the point where it's usually the top comment when I get into the thread. I take a stand and y'all jump down my throat drawing all sorts of nonsensical conclusions with no evidence. I'm done with this sub. I support men's rights not manchild rights. Grow up.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 02:39 PM
1

I'm sick of people like you who deliberately ignore reality when it suits you and won't even face up to the fact that the guy who did this was Muslim and was taught by his religion to hate gays. I haven't mentioned anything about Muslims so the only one ignoring reality here is you. The blind hatred I was talking about was how the top comment (at the time of my oc) was conspiring about feminists conspiring to shift blame from Islam to toxic masculinity when no evidence exists to support the theo…
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:05 AM
-4

That's a terrible argument.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 04:36 AM
-2

Blindly hating on feminists is definitely in the misogynist handbook so I'm going to have to disagree with you here. You're free to disagree right back at me but short of an incredibly well reasoned and succinct argument, you're not going to change my mind on this one. If you have to write a wall of text to get your point across, you don't really understand your own point.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 04:29 AM
4

Are you aware that by making uncited accusations as you are, you're doing the exact thing you accuse feminists of doing? If would be one thing if you were commenting on something that actually happened, but all you're doing is constructing a strawman and falling into the stereotypical misogynist routine. Be better than that.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 01:35 AM
2

I don't think anyone should be named based on "charges." It makes the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing a lot more difficult. Gotta say, I don't like where this sub seems to be heading. It's less and less about mens rights, more and more misogyny and witchhunts.
/r/MensRights03/06/16 03:59 PM
3

You're making a strawman out of his strawman.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 12:14 AM
0

You really need to work on brevity. Just because you use a lot of words doesn't mean you say much, or anything (of substance)... Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit either but I'm not going to bother enumerating where you went wrong, I've already wasted too much time on you.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 11:33 AM
-1

Wow, way to lay it on thick. I can't believe you really equated your antisocial behavior to being a Jew in [presumably Nazi] Germany. Hyperbolize all you like but refusing to behave socially reinforces the narrative that if man is social he must be a predator. I'm not saying you, personally, have to take a stand; but if you're going to publicly complain about the problem while exacerbating it you need to be comfortable with the fact that you're part of the problem because someone like me is goin…
/r/MensRights17/05/16 06:42 AM
-2

Not requesting, informing. Too long, didn't read. And why would I bother reading a wall of text that begins with you telling me to go fuck myself? That's about the least effective way to get someone to actually read your words...
/r/MensRights17/05/16 03:35 AM
-5

TL:DR
/r/MensRights17/05/16 03:12 AM
0

Continue to be an antisocial hermit if you want; it's your decision. I'll continue having a relatively healthy social life where I interact with people and whatnot.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 01:41 AM
-6

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it anything different. Be the change you want to see in the world. I don't give 2 shits about politics but you can bet your ass I'm helping a kid get his trike up a curb...I'm not a heartless monster.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 07:08 PM
0

You've made your bed. No one can make you be stoic around a baby except you. If a coworker introduced me to their kid it would be rude NOT to talk to them or ask about the toy they're holding. By acting this way, you're helping to make it the norm.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 07:05 PM
-5

You're part of the problem. You have to show kids that strangers don't have to be kidnapping pedophile murderers. I help kids all the time and never get shit from parents. It probably helps that I'm white and don't look very subversive but I maintain that the biggest part is being friendly about it. Interact with someone else's kid while looking nervous is a great way to get yelled at. Doing a good deed and owning it gives the kid a positive adult/male role model, something many kids never get.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 07:01 PM
1

Notably the rates of death in childbirth started falling when men started getting involved in the process. False. Men have been involved in the process since always. Death during childbirth started to decline with the advent of modern medicine which has seen contributions from both men and women.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 12:57 AM
0

The wage gap isn't debatable, it's completely made up since women do get the same wage for the same work, they just statistically don't do the same work. And your statistics are way off, you claim that half the population lounges around adding nothing of value to society.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 12:51 AM
2

That's the thing about jobs that aren't legal, it's hard to collect accurate statistics. I would wager that prostitution is currently one of the more dangerous jobs available but largely because it's illegal and working girls have no recourse when they get roughed up by johns, pimps, or other prostitutes.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:57 AM
4

Your claims are just as bad as the wage gap statistic and exactly as false. Some women lounge around contributing nothing, but so do some men.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:43 AM
3

None of this is true. Men complain about their lot in life all the time and women used to routinely die during childbirth at a greater rate than men at work do now. Just because men have historically been the providers doesn't mean that women have been doing "easy lifting," there's work that needs to be done and everyone needs to put in their share. Your claims are just as bad as the wage gap statistics but on the other side of the coin.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:42 AM
1

Exactly the opposite; the discrimination against those classes was seen as detrimental to society as a whole, thus legislation was created to prevent it from happening and recourse is available to those discriminated against.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:01 PM
1

Businesses are free to discriminate so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. Sexuality is not presently a protected class in the US.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:30 PM
1

If we were having a face to face conversation, I'd have a sense for where the guy came from and I'd be able to read his body language but this is an internet forum so there's no need for me to sugarcoat. If you can't put forth the effort into making yourself happy, no one else is going to do it for you. Especially now that social networking is prevalent, there's no reason not to go out and try something that will give some social interaction; if you meet someone and hit it off, you can stay in t…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 06:53 PM
-1

All I see are excuses for why you're not a bad person for attempting to shame someone who's attempting to help. In my experience (and I've lived all over the US), people are pretty friendly. If you're isolated and have trouble making friends, you need to get out and do things that require social interaction; unless you've got an infectious disease, that's universally true.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:49 AM
-1

You rushed to judgement without so much as trying to understand why this person feels the way they do. I got all I needed from "It isn't socially acceptable for men to try to make new friends." This person has deluded himself into believing that he's not allowed to make friends because society deems it unacceptable which is patently false. I didn't tell him he's a bad person because he can't make friends, I told him that his insecurity has nothing to do with society, that's not the same as shami…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:03 AM
-1

You basically just rephrased what I said...
/r/MensRights17/11/15 12:03 AM
0

You are committing the very same crime so many men are victims of: Shaming. I did nothing of the sort. I gave an objective assessment of the situation and offered some suggestions on how to improve. That's not shaming and the fact that you think it is means you're part of the coddling problem.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 12:02 AM
11

Personal responsibility has been eroding for decades. There's no quick fix. If you're so shy that you can't/won't even try to meet new people what possibility is there? Court ordered friends?
/r/MensRights16/11/15 05:00 PM
29

There's nothing unacceptable about asking a coworker to go out for a drink after work or even a stranger that you strike up a conversation with and hit it off. Stop blaming society for your own insecurity and maybe you'll make some friends. Join a club. Volunteer. Take a class. Ride a bike. You are in control of your destiny so you can remain in isolation or put yourself out there. I would recommend the latter because it sounds like you don't enjoy the former.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:28 PM
1

Near as I can tell, they take a rather logical approach to just about every situation; in other words, they're not affiliated with any party.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 06:02 PM
4

They need to include some white knights and the bitchy [minority of] men's rights advocates too.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 05:58 PM
2

That's a coincidence, not irony.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:41 AM
1

In the US, candidates are already campaigning an have been for months, the election is still 13months away. Citizen's United allows for wealthy donors to pour unlimited amounts of money into a candidates coffers which only compounds that problem and adds a host of new ones. Plus our districts have been so heavily gerrymandered that only the voters in a few swing states actually matter to the candidates. Couple that with the first past the post system and you get a whole bunch of 'choices' but re…
/r/MensRights18/10/15 04:13 PM
1

There are plenty of women in elected office in the US and abroad but no woman has ever made a run for the US presidency who actually stood a chance of winning. The US presidency is not like any other election in the world near as I can tell and thus, will probably be one of the last to be filled by a woman. That's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. Personally I'd rather gave a good candidate who happens to be a woman than simply a woman candidate.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 01:58 AM
1

Oh I got it, but if you can't argue your point without insulting, you didn't have a very strong argument in the first place. Your contributions to this discussion thus far have been irrelevant because you have added nothing to it.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 01:54 AM
1

Its not a 'need'. Thus it is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 03:53 PM
1

If your argument held water, there would be no need to [inaccurately] attack me, personally.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 02:36 AM
2

Check their political affiliation, they had no chance of winning. Takes a D or an R next to your name to secure the presidency in the US.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:36 AM
1

Your logic is faulty: my premise is based on the fact that the US presidency is not like any other election. Progress has to start local before it can gain widespread approval. The presidency is the highest office in the land; the amount of groundwork that needs to be laid before a viable candidate can be assured a reasonable chance of winning is enormous and historically; your race, gender, and social status will greatly affect the difficultly of laying said groundwork. There's a reason we've o…
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:34 AM
1

Ah yes, the personal attack: Final say from someone who has no logical argument to present. Though something tells me you're about to make some sort of quip to get final say. Enjoy...
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:28 AM
1

This discussion is relevant to the US, not Canada.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:27 AM
1

Combination or boredom and desire to hone logic, the theory is that if I can spot faulty logic in others I can hopefully spot it in myself.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:26 AM
4

Notice their party affiliations. None of them had any chance of election; it's not fairm but in the US that (D) or (R) next to your name is an unofficial requirement to win.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 05:45 AM
-4

Partially. More the men who were/are in control of the money/power. Just like how not all Germans were Nazis...
/r/MensRights15/10/15 11:54 PM
3

I'm with you on the last part: It doesn't matter your race or gender so long as you're qualified for the job (that goes for any job as far as I'm concerned). That said, this argument started when xNOM claimed that women have been voting men into office which implies that they've been choosing men over women which isn't true because there haven't been any females to choose in the first place.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 11:51 PM
-5

I said nothing of the sort, I simply pointed out that to claim women have been voting men into office implies that women weren't voting other women into office. My point is that there haven't been any female candidates (with a D or R next to their name, which is an unofficial requirement for a successful campaign).
/r/MensRights15/10/15 11:49 PM
2

Voters haven't had any alternatives for president until Obama came along. Prior to 2008 your choices were white guy on the left or white guy on the right. I don't think someone should be voted into office simply for being a particular race or gender, but to claim that women have been choosing male presidential candidates over female presidential candidates is false; there have never been any female candidates for president that stood a chance of winning. You can't win the presidency in the US w/…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 11:47 PM
-2

You're completely ignoring all the social and monetary conventions preventing non-white-male candidates from getting elected.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 11:07 PM
-2

There are plenty of female elected officials so your comment is patently false. I'm not complaining that there are few female candidates but your exact words were: Women have been voting men into power ever since they got the vote. You don't go from getting a vote to running for the highest elected office in the land in the same year. Progress takes time. It's extremely cynical to claim that women have had the option to vote other women into high offices but have simply chosen to vote men in whe…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 10:43 PM
-6

You can't vote someone into office if they don't run, your original comment implies that women have had a choice to vote a woman in but decided to keep the status quo. Whether that was your intent or not is irrelevant, that's how it reads.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 10:31 PM
-1

I'm unaware of any laws prohibiting hispanics from running for office. What's your point?
/r/MensRights15/10/15 10:28 PM
3

Women have been voting men into power ever since they got the vote. You say that as though they had an alternative.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 08:53 PM
2

How's that right? It's not. That's been my point this whole time. You're not listening.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 12:58 AM
2

Exactly. My point is that no one's name should be released. Not the plaintiff. Not the defendant. No one.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 12:44 AM
3

Fuck you; I've never raped anyone nor have I lied about being raped or ever been involved with any rape. I simply don't think criminals should be named in the media, period. Convictions are something anyone who runs a background check will find so plastering the persons name all over the media accomplishes nothing but ruining a persons life and often the lives of the people close to them even if those ancillary people had nothing to do with the crime. There have been too many instances where the…
/r/MensRights12/10/15 06:24 PM
3

Vengeance =/= justice.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 06:22 PM
20

No one should be named in cases like these. Smearing the girl's name is vindictive at best.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 07:15 AM
29

He did the right thing. The judges that allowed the girl's victims to be named were in the wrong. Two wrongs...
/r/MensRights12/10/15 07:13 AM
3

Because he doesn't toe the line and the first past the post system doesn't allow for more than 2 parties to stand any reasonable chance of winning. What could possibly make me afraid of Bernie Sanders?
/r/MensRights10/10/15 01:33 PM
-3

Downvotes aside, Sanders stands exactly 0 chance of securing the presidency.
/r/MensRights10/10/15 07:41 AM
3

I think it would be more accurate to say that some norms don't need to be altered.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 03:41 AM
1

...All the more reason to throw some funding towards supplying African men with condoms.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 09:00 PM
3

Make sure you say it loudly, in public, preferably in a predominantly black neighborhood. If you're not comfortable calling a black person a nigger there, you shouldn't call them a nigger anywhere. Be prepared for some...negative...reactions.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 07:36 PM
2

IIRC condoms have a higher rate of efficacy than circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 07:26 PM
0

Sounds like a job for Phoenix University. Even an infant could get a degree out of that place.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 09:32 PM
1

You realize it was a random stranger who said the father was an amazing person, not the child; right? If the kid said her dad was amazing despite what he'd been through, I have no way to argue against that. My point is: that didn't happen. You got caught up in emotion rather than understanding what the hell I was talking about. Edit: Having gone back to the top of this thread; the child does in fact respond that she feels her dad was, "a saint if there ever was one" but that's not now this threa…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 12:39 AM
1

The fact that you had to phrase it "seemingly good job" just goes to show that you have no real evidence to support your opinion. I realize you want to make OP feel better about her dad but blowing smoke isn't the way to do it. It doesn't help OPs dad and it doesn't help the MRA movement. My girlfriend is an amazing person but both her parents were pieces of shit. Sometimes a child refuses to end up like their parents and turns out well in spite of them, not because they were amazing people.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:05 PM
1

My argument is that we can't make a judgement based on on what we know. All we know is that the guy has willingly stayed in an abusive relationship. That =/= amazing person in and of itself.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:31 AM
3

His kid told us his dad basically has Stockholm syndrome. That's not a good thing. Remaining in an abusive relationship is not healthy. If this were his mom staying while being beaten by his dad, people would flip their lids about how she needs to be strong and get away from her abuser. That's the appropriate reaction regardless of the genders of the abuser/victim.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:36 AM
1

While that's true, we know nothing else about this guy other than this situation so not enough to go on to say he's amazing.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:22 AM
13

That's not amazing, that's self-destructive; akin to feeding a fire with gasoline. She knows he won't leave so she has no reason to stop. He needs help the same way a woman would be coached to leave an abusive relationship such as this.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 11:25 PM
4

I think 3 concrete walls and a 4th made of bars would be an adequate home for these guys for the foreseeable future.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 12:11 AM
7

You're trying to compare accidental damage to premeditated wrongdoing and it's not a fair comparison.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 12:10 AM
35

Except this really isn't a big deal. Just circumsision. This is a huge deal. This sets precedent that courts can order non-medically-relevant surgery regardless of consent. This is no different than a court ordering you to get a nose job or amputate some of your fingers/toes. But hey, it's just the tip of a kid's penis; let's chop it off, no big deal. he'll be able to look normal Normal is completely subjective. I suspect that in the coming decades we're going to see a sharp decline in circumcis…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:46 PM
1

My attitude is not that demanding equality = whining. In fact, if you read my comment (which you clearly didn't do the first time) I think you'll find I claim the exact opposite. Demanding equality is what this sub is all about. Bitching about how "woman can do no wrong" or "the matriarchy" or "evil plots" is just that, bitching. I don't like it when women bash men to make themselves feel better and I don't like it when men bash women to make themselves feel better either. (Also known as: holdin…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 02:24 PM
-2

Your comment highlights exactly what I was talking about. You're part of what's holding men's rights back by whining about how women are coddled instead of demanding equality.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 10:26 PM
-10

While this situation is certainly fucked up, the comments in this thread are awful and a part of why it's hard to get men's rights taken seriously in main stream society. There's got to be a reason why policies like this are enacted (to prevent double-dipping & profiteering) and that reasoning, or at least the mechanics of the policy in action, is what needs to be questioned because the effects are causing people in need to continue suffering. Sarcastic comments about "male privilege" or "the ma…
/r/MensRights13/10/14 03:39 PM
-1

Saying a misguided policy is evil is distracting from relevant issues, not pointing out that misguided policy does not necessarily equate to evil.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 03:26 PM
1

You get bail back provided you show up to court.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 06:52 AM
4

Not that I'm advocating jail in this case but were it to be warranted, 15 years would not be anywhere near long enough. Since our jail system doesn't serve as rehabilitation but rather punishment, the punishment for fraudulently sending man to jail for 15 years would need to be on the order of 30-50 years. If I steal $1000 from you and get caught, I don't just give back the $1000 and call it a day, I'll have to pay back the original $1000 plus fines to the state (possibly jail time) and probably…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 01:02 AM
8

The victim can choose to press charges independently from the state. If someone steals from you, the state may or may not prosecute and subsequently fine or send them to jail. That's completely independent from you taking them to court to get your stuff back. Make sense? Victims can't send people to jail but they can absolutely get justice., usually in the form of remuneration.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 06:21 PM
0

As few as zero but I would wager a large sum of money that at least one pregnancy book has been written by (or at least ghostwritten by) a man.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:47 PM
1

How much is your time worth? I stopped watching broadcast/cable TV because of all the commercials. Netflix and youtube+adblock mean I can watch almost any content on the spot with no commercial interruption.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 09:30 PM
15

There's no indication as such. If true, this article is worse than I had originally thought. A woman who's pissed off about something in her life and lashing out is understandable; wrong but understandable. A man telling men to shut the fuck up and listen to women is no different than a poor conservative telling Obama to keep his hands off their medicare.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 06:03 PM
26

It's almost hilarious how the writer fails to connect the behavior she's condemning with her own behavior. Almost.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 04:58 PM
22

And if you did what this article's writer said to do, she'd probably find fault in that too. Some people are just looking for trouble and don't actually care about equality.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 04:57 PM
1

That's because lottery winners don't generally lobby their congressmen to reduce the tax burden of gambling winnings the same way that wealthy people and mega-corps lobby to get their taxes reduced.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:45 PM
2

One final note: Because his lottery winnings placed his total income to the highest bracket, all other incomes earned by Mr Quezada are subjected to the highest possible taxation. Not entirely true. Only the income he made after winning the jackpot is subject to the highest tax bracket. All income prior to bumping into the highest bracket would be taxed at his normal rate.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:38 PM
1

You're only looking at the big winner here. Everyone who wins money gambling is supposed to report that on their tax return and the people who made little to no money will have to pay a very small portion of it as tax (or theoretically none at all if their total income is low enough).
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:35 PM
1

Well you're just living the dream then.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 02:10 PM
12

You are being monitored
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:17 PM
1

You're still technically required to file, even if you make under the minimum.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 02:05 PM
2

Couldn't call it a successful suicide, could ya?
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:44 AM
9

Fake it till you make it?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:08 PM
0

should be That's not how you spell, "is".
/r/MensRights27/06/13 10:17 PM
1

i'd rather some responsibility and all the choice than some responsibility and no choice. You can exercise safe sex practices but first and foremost, you have the choice of whether or not stick your dick in someone who's not necessarily on the same page as you regarding children. Don't want kids against your will? Don't hook up with random sluts. most men couldn't vote either buddy. If you're talking about slaves, then we're talking about two entirely different issues because black women weren't…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:08 PM
2

ding ding ding: MEN don't need options. Um, what I wrote is the exact opposite of what you're claiming I wrote. You have to read and include all the words, it's called reading comprehension; you should try it some time.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:48 PM
2

women get the long end of the stick every single time there is one. So not having to carry the child inside you for 9 months causing wild hormonal imbalances is the short end of the stick? Being able to vote over 100 years before women was the short end of the stick? Not bleeding for 25% of the first ~50 years of your life is the short end of the stick? Being in control of your own reproductive organs in all 50 states with no controversy is the short end of the stick? Get your head out of your a…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:56 PM
2

you said it yourself. you don't need options after the fact. No I didn't. I said men didn't have any options after the fact, not that we don't need any. And I'm not promoting abstinence, only the fact that pregnancy can and often does occur when you least expect it, even while practicing safe sex. The only 100% fool-proof methods are abstinence and sterilization but you can get close to 100% using condoms and/or the pill; the most practical defense would be to only have sex with people you trust…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:48 PM
2

It's not always an option and even when it is, it's not always something the woman is comfortable pursuing. You've got to stop looking at this from such a childish point of view. Actions have consequences.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:52 AM
2

Sex has been used for centuries now for pure entertainment purposes, so isn't it time to disconnect the two things legally as well? No, because sex can still result in unwanted pregnancy. Until that changes, neither will child support.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 01:16 AM
2

In my opinion men should have the same possibility of choice AFTER conception as the women. I'm sure many women would like to be able to drop a fertilizer into someone then peace out for nine months but that's not going to happen either (outside of surrogacy). You could always just disappear like a proper deadbeat dad because there's never going to be a post-conception option that's completely up to men. My point is, if you don't want to be put in the situation where someone holds your financial…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 07:53 PM
1

The form has no legal value, I think. It has to be notorized. Not the most romantic action, but then again, neither is a release form. And sterilization has the issue that sometimes it can't be reversed. That's the point. A vasectomy can reverse itself but your balls can't grow back. I'm sure in the future there will be more and more effective birth control methods (esp for men) but for now, even a vasectomy isn't 100% effective in preventing pregnancies; neither is the pill. So you think it's f…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 03:07 PM
1

so you agree that if i knock a girl up and want to be a dad she should not be alowed to abort it? That's actually the opposite of what I said, you need to practice your reading comprehension. I said that since the child will be growing in HER body, it's HER decision whether to keep it or not. You helped make it so if she decides to keep it, it's partially your responsibility to care for it, but just as she could not force you to have a vasectomy or get castrated, you can not force her into or aw…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:53 PM
1

Women got the long end of the stick on that one. It's one of the few areas where that has happened. Also, there are many places in the world where abortions aren't possible, so abstinence or sterilization really are the only 100% fool-proof methods of preventing unwanted pregnancy.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:49 PM
1

Ofc, but then the woman shouldn't be allowed to ask child support, since the partner didn't want a child but she decided to continue the pregnancy anyway. I'm sorry, but unless you're sterile, creating a child is one of the possible outcomes of every sexual encounter, even with properly used birth control. Even if the other party decides to carry to term against your wishes, you still consented to the creation of the child even if you're not happy about it. Don't want to potentially be on the ho…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 05:30 AM
1

You get really tangential in this comment, to the point of not really being on topic. Bullshit. Sex leads to babies; not every time, but often enough that it has to be included as one of the possible outcomes of any sexual encounter. No birth control method (short of a hysterectomy or orchiectomy) can protect against pregnancy 100% so if you consented to sex, you consented to possibly creating a baby; you may not want a child, but you consented to potentially create one.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 05:25 AM
-6

There's lots of faulty logic in that article/situation but your quote is not part of it. To create a baby, a man is really only necessary for a few seconds, a woman has something growing in her for the better part of a year. Because of how human reproduction works, there's not much men can do to prevent pregnancy outside of condom use, safe sex practices, vasectomy, etc. If you do everything right and she still gets pregnant, it's not your body that would be undergoing a traumatic medical proced…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:09 PM
1

If you equate any rights movement with anything other than equality you're not as smart as you think you are.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 04:44 PM
1

Then you haven't been paying attention; there's a lot of femenists that would love to see women treated better than men but that's the vocal minority.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 04:43 PM
12

The feminist movement is the one denying our rights and silencing our victims. Anyone who identifies as a feminist is our enemy. Doesn't much sound like you're into equality...
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:17 PM
24

That's the same kind of narrow-minded talk you accuse femenists of having.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:00 PM
2

Think about how dumb the average person is. Now think about how half the population is dumber than that.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 08:35 PM
1

Go fuck yourself, I already did. Not my problem you can't read. The protagonist didn't care that a woman had non-consensual sex with him so why do you?
/r/MensRights27/12/12 06:56 PM
1

By creating this thread. People get raped in books, tv, movies, and video games all the time and no one bats an eye. That's why relatively no one gives a shit about the FC3 protagonist waking up with a girl on his lap.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 06:25 PM
0

You are.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 07:02 AM
0

If all you've seen is the previews you know absolutely nothing about the movie. It's a great children's movie that is pretty enjoyable for adults too.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 10:05 PM
7

Children aren't bargaining chips.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:06 PM
6

You're right, it's hardly an attempt; no matter what really happened, this guy is going to have rape attached to his name for the rest of his life. A crime that he didn't commit or even think of committing as far as any of us can tell. If the woman was so concerned for her safety, why not just levy a restraining order against him for herself? This guy may be a scumbag but writing multiple times that he "raped her with his eyes" was irresponsible of the journalist at best.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:21 PM
5

Did you actually read the article? The phrase about raping her with his eyes is there to elicit an emotional response from the readers, there's no evidence that he was intent on raping her whatsoever; this is just another case of a guy's reputation being shredded for the sake of readership.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:01 PM
7

I never called the lady irrational or even implied it, only told another redditor that the slippery slope argument is bad for everyone. It's being applied on both sides of the argument.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:41 PM
14

Get off that slippery slope, it's not good for anyone.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:06 PM
9

The argument is not that circumcision doesn't help against HIV transmission but that in developed nations, there are enough safeguards against HIV to effectively prevent it without chopping off the most sensitive part of the penis.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:10 PM
2

Why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulu 2012!
/r/MensRights10/08/12 08:32 PM
4

No he does not because it's a myth.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 08:28 AM
1

No need to take offense... You spent time watching the video then you deemed it worthy of sharing; shouldn't you at least put 30 seconds thought into a title?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 01:54 AM
2

I didn't see the title anywhere so commented that the suggestion was useless. The OP probably doesn't realize where he or she went wrong and is likely to make the mistake again. I may be blunt but I try not to be harsh. Tell me why I should consume your content and I'll give it a fair shot but a random person on the Internet has no credibility to say 'watch this, it's long.'
/r/MensRights19/03/12 01:16 AM
-1

If you consumed the content and can't think of anything to loosely sum it up, should you really be posting?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:54 AM
2

That's because it's an issue still at the core of our society. Historically, comedy has been the only way to discuss hot issues without excommunication.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 08:44 PM
-4

No it isn't: I have no idea what it is about, who that is, or why I should care. Get a better title.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:41 PM
10

I upvoted the first version of this image I saw because it's hilarious and I didn't see it coming. Some people don't get bent out of shape over every slightly distasteful image or phrase.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:35 PM
2

Pay for the extra insurance at the rental agency. Then she can do what she wants to the car, you won't have to pay for it, and she might get sent court.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 11:19 PM
7

My first thought was to meet up with her like I was going to take her or give her the tickets on game day...then eat the tickets in front of her. I've been trying to cut back on the vindictive shit I do but that bitch pushed the wrong buttons.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:02 PM
14

I would eat them right in front of her.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 07:55 PM
2

Certain types of discrimination are legal though and private organizations are free to do so as they choose. Since gender-based discrimination is legal in many forms and is the topic of discussion, bringing up racially based discrimination, being illegal nor the topic of the thread, is off-topic.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 02:55 AM
4

More like gyms that only offer membership to women of all races. Or Masonic lodges at only accept male members of all races. Or the Girl Scouts who only take girls of all races. Stay on topic.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:45 PM
7

How so? If a man had sent a picture of his penis to 4 underage female students, he's probably be in jail right now: She's getting off light. You can be put on the sex offender registry for urinating in public anymore, it's a joke.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:09 AM
7

In the case at hand, physical superiority doesn't mean anything except that he'll just about always be at the bottom of the pyramid. Also, men being stronger than women doesn't mean that all men are stronger than all women just that men tend to, on average, be stronger than women if all other variables are roughy equal.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 04:46 AM
12

I've already made up my mind, why are you trying to confuse me with facts?
/r/MensRights15/12/11 02:16 AM
2

I don't dispute that the current state of family courts is really messed up but we're on a thread about a guy who is admittedly and knowingly behind on his child support to the point that he has a warrant for his arrest and he knows it. He didn't anywhere in the backstory mention filing a grievance with the courts being that he is now unemployed and has no source of income. He didn't mention seeking financial help anywhere actually and since he's trying not to seem like the bad guy here, stands …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:37 PM
3

But if she has custody of the kid, she also has the kid to deal with too. In an ideal world both parents would be consenting and reasonable adults that have decided to raise a child together but we don't live in an ideal world so we don't always get those results. Moral of the story, wrap your dick or don't have sex; if you choose to ignore those two options (which you're free to do) then be prepared to be financially burdened with a child.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:08 PM
0

PeterPrinciple was saying that child support is in no way just. Thinks_Like_A_Man brought up that the only way you can have a child is by having sex. You go off on a tangent about how the parents could have been in a previously loving relationship that has nothing to do with child support and its justifications. Stay on topic.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:25 PM
4

It's always easy to spend someone else's money, that's for sure. The points you're raising make it seem like you're keen on forcing the mother to take on 100% of the financial obligation of raising a child that took two people to make. Unless you were raped, 50% of the cost of raising your child is your responsibility; no ifs ands or buts about it. Don't want even the possibility of being liable for child support? Get sterilized or don't have sex.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:19 PM
13

You don't generate statistics of medicinal efficacy based on reports from the general populace, you do it in a double blind test where user error is ruled out and the results must be peer-reviewed and often repeated before anything becomes official. If you want to see THAT literature, go to the Wikipedia page about the pill and scroll to the bottom where all the citations are; I'm too lazy to do it for you. I would also be curious to see what the real world efficacy of the pill is once you accou…
/r/MensRights22/11/11 06:41 PM
13

The less than 1% failure rate is for when the medication is working it's course. If not taken correctly, the rate of failure skyrockets.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 05:17 PM
10

Because the US prison system is designed to create criminals, not rehabilitate them.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:34 PM
1

As soon as you tell redditors to not down vote you, that's all they'll do. It's best to take the hit to karma and get on your merry way.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:27 PM
6

But they still get a little fucked in the process but it's just the tip so shut up and take it like a man.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 07:19 PM
5

What about all the other benefits that genetic testing has built in? Not only would this law clear up any doubt about who's the father but would also allow screening for all sorts of genetic diseases. Genetic testing is going to be standard practice for every birth within the next 5-10 years anyway, Kansas is just ahead of the curve. Also, with the increase in the number of tests being done, the price per test goes down just like buying anything in bulk. Try to use reason instead of emotion when…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 12:13 PM
5

FSM help anyone that ever lost my kids. Those staff members have never truly known fear...
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:05 AM
2

Believe you me, if I were being accused of child molestation, my side of the story would be plastered on every corner and blaring anywhere and everywhere.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 12:41 AM
1

Yes, both situations have some inherent risk with some possibly dire consequences but what good is life if you have to live in fear? If you remember, a lot of people were arrested and killed during the civil rights movement to prevent exactly this sort of stuff. I suspect many more innocent men will sit behind bars before this insanity is over but let's be a subreddit that shows people that men are not to be feared simply because we're not women; this thread does exactly the opposite.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:22 PM
2

I totally see where you're coming from but in a mens rights thread, a post advising men to avoid the possibility of being alone with other people's kids strikes me like telling womens rights group to avoid sexy clothes or they're probably going to get raped.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:15 PM
2

Being guilty until proven innocent. Needing adult supervision to be an adult male around kids. Call it whatever you like, it's a problem and it needs to stop. "Just make sure another adult is in the room" reinforces the men=pedophiles stereotype and tells the world that no man should be trusted around children under any circumstance. True, there are pedophiles out there and you should be wary of them but there's all sorts of bad things out there that are way more likely to harm or even kill your…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:06 PM
1

It does not solve the problem, it creates a new one.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 06:34 PM
1

Maybe I will but in the mean time, I'm not going to be walked all over or fear getting sued for doing the right thing. Fuck. That. Shit.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 06:25 PM
1

I'm defending my right to be a man; I'll be damned if I let civilization (or the internet) tell me to stay away from kids so I don't get arrested even though I'm not a pedo or have any sort of malicious intent. Once again, man up and don't let the world castrate you. *Edit: typos
/r/MensRights25/11/10 06:11 PM
-4

Most guys are also little bitches so I guess you're right...
/r/MensRights25/11/10 05:36 PM
1

You also can't afford to die but it might happen right as you finish reading this senten
/r/MensRights25/11/10 05:25 PM
5

Also, I'm really tired of seeing posts like this in r/MensRights. You wouldn't see "Make sure dinner is hot and on the table when your husband gets home," posts in womens rights so let's stop proving to people that pedophiles are the only ones that want anything to do with their kids. If we as a gender avoid interaction with children (and women for that matter) for fear of litigation, the terrorists have won because you've been scared out of being a decent human being. Quit being a bitch and man…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 05:04 PM
8

No. Fuck that. I will not be ashamed for having a y chromosome. If there's some kids in the next room and no adults, I'm going to make sure everything is ok and if anyone has a problem with that, they will be entitled to my most boisterous, "Fuck you shitty parent that leaves their children unattended."
/r/MensRights25/11/10 04:41 PM
2

40 year olds were as rare then as 80-90 year olds are now. You had to start making babies as soon as it was physically possible because 20 used to be middle aged...
/r/MensRights16/11/10 09:41 PM
4

Do you wear face altering makeup? If not, you're probably on camera.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 08:53 PM
8

Reporting her messages on Reddit might add to a potential future legal defense if she has a history of her harassing you. You shouldn't delete anything that could be used against her, I can assure you she isn't
/r/MensRights03/10/10 07:51 PM
10

But not all; if you're living with a person of the opposite sex and don't want to be common-law married, find out what the laws are in your state, ignorance is no excuse if so-&-so is trying to take half your shit.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 08:52 PM
2

A legally notarized will is just as binding whether you're married or not...
/r/MensRights28/09/10 08:43 PM
13

Just be careful of the states that have rent-to-own laws.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 08:25 PM
8

That sounds about right.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 10:56 PM
-1

How is that any different from pretty much every other industry?
/r/MensRights19/09/10 09:26 PM
11

I have no idea the cost involved in doing a DNA test but this seems like it's a good idea that will probably be included in the future when genetic disease screening becomes commonplace.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 08:49 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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