TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BiDo_Boss Archive

View 0 posts and 143 comments by BiDo_Boss 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)
2

That is objectively NOT what cheating is
/r/MensRights29/07/23 04:23 AM
1

?
/r/MensRights22/04/21 03:02 AM
105

It's a bad idea. If you're gonna do it via email, might as well be polite in a "was my gift/flower delivery mishandled/mishandled or was I not sent one?" kind of way
/r/MensRights21/04/21 03:06 AM
1

How is it bad for either?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:26 PM
1

Basically, there is no other incentive to purposefully walk into a women-only compartment, except to harass women.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:26 PM
1

So you want to have both women-only coaches and men only coaches? What purpose would the men-only coaches serve if there are already women-only coaches?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:21 PM
1

http://www.harkavagrant.com/nonsense/strawfeministssm.png
/r/MensRights03/06/18 12:42 PM
1

Thank you! I'll edit the link into my original comment!
/r/MensRights03/06/18 12:41 PM
0

May be those women need help from their partners while traveling, they are new in the place, etc.? An obvious solution, as I said, would be for them to ride together in the common compartment. No reason for the male to ride in the female-designated compartment. Female-reserved compartments actually have a purpose. They are not oppressive. Why do you oppose them?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:51 AM
0

Well, then, I don't see how your above comment did anything to answer my original question: I still don't understand why a woman's husband would ride a female-designated compartment with his wife. Why not ride separate compartments, or better yet, ride together in a common compartment?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:38 AM
1

Are the compartments other than the female-reserved compartments explicitly labelled as male-reserved compartments in India?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:32 AM
0

I'm sorry, I still don't understand why a woman's husband would ride a female-designated compartment with his wife. Why not ride separate compartments, or better yet, ride together in a common compartment?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 07:25 AM
6

We have those too here (Egypt) in our Cairo subway trains. I don't the problem with them, though. Women truly need these female-only carriages to protect them from harassment.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 06:58 AM
2

That's neither reasonable enough to be serious nor funny enough to be a joke
/r/MensRights03/06/18 06:56 AM
1

It's because they want to protect women because they're the weaker sex and they value their lives more. No that's not it. It's because women legitimately need more protection against sexual assault. Rape culture in developing countries (at least here in Egypt) is a real issue.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 06:54 AM
3

In Delhi metro, men gets beaten if they get into metro compartments reserved for women, but women get into every compartment they feel and create a ruckus. Well, I mean men going into women-reserved compartments are breaking the rules. And not to make a statement either. I have no sympathy for these men.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 06:52 AM
8

Link to "that straw feminists comic" please? Edit: Found the comic thanks to /u/Lonemango, here it is: http://www.harkavagrant.com/nonsense/strawfeministssm.png
/r/MensRights03/06/18 04:22 AM
32

Who are you to say how people should feel towards being harassed, though? The crime is the same, and the criminal is just as guilty in both cases. If I drug and fuck a girl, it's going to "have a lot more impact" than doing the same thing to one who was into me. I would still be a rapist scum in both cases, and should be punished by the law.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 08:16 PM
55

It's just a teen having fun The thing is, do you also believe it's "just kids having fun" when guys go around catcalling, groping, and harassing girls?
/r/MensRights04/06/17 08:00 PM
1

They stated that "seduce" is the proper term for what this child did to the teacher. It is not inaccurate. To seduce is to persuade, entice, attract, and/or temp, which all fairly apply to the situation. This is not a gender thing at all. They said that "seduce" would be a proper term to use even if the genders were switched. They also implied that it wasn't rape because it wasn't forcible rape. They never did. In fact, they said that it is rape. Verbatim. Several times.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 01:54 AM
1

You're welcome. You're not being unreasonable. All definitions of "seduce" include synonyms like entice, persuade, attract, tempt, etc... So maybe it's not very inaccurate after all.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 10:26 PM
1

No position deserves to be ridiculed. If you ridicule somebody, then you have failed to argue against them. And really, if you fail to argue against an argument then ridiculing it would just make you the fool. We shouldn't have to explain to adults that a 13 year old can't consent to sex. First of all, we really should. Otherwise, we don't actually believe that a 13 year old can't consent to sex, or we don't know why. Otherwise, we're just following the hivemind. We would just be parroting that …
/r/MensRights19/01/17 10:17 PM
1

Which is why you conveniently skipped everything but the last line of the comment, because you can't argue with it. I didn't conveniently skip anything. If I didn't argue with what you said it's not because I can't, but rather because I don't want to, i.e. you convinced me. I do believe that it's legally rape and it's hypocritical that society dismisses the law because of their perceived gender roles. That I will not argue with. You do realize you're trying to defend the statement "Some rape isn…
/r/MensRights19/01/17 10:09 PM
1

I did not argue whether or not it should legally be considered rape. And I don't understand why you're bringing up gender when I didn't even mention it in my comment. Gender is irrelevant to me or my argument.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 09:57 PM
1

Let me clarify. You say that an adult shouldn't have sex with minors because minors aren't prepared for the physical or emotional consequences of sex, which is why you believe legal punishments should exist to stop that from happening. By that logic a minor shouldn't have sex at all.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 09:55 PM
1

By your logic, you support that any 2 minors who have sex with each other should both be charged with statutory rape, and should be punished.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:20 PM
0

whitewashing it "because it's not that bad" is jesus christ you sick fuck do you even read what you are writing. That's just really weak. You have to be able to argue for what you believe in, otherwise, you don't really believe in it, you're just following the hivemind. If you cannot argue why the statutory in this case is "that bad", then, in a way, you proved their point.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:17 PM
2

Children cannot consent to adults deciding to have sex with them. Except that's not a counter-argument to whether or not "seduce" is an accurate term to use. After all, they did clarify: not arguing on whether or not he has the ability to make that choice
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:13 PM
2

I'm sorry you're being downvoted for contributing to the discussion. That's not what downvotes are for. Now, as for the arguments, I'll just resort to the classic gender-switch and see how this pans out. Let's imagine we're discussing a scenario where the sex was between a 13-year-old girl and her adult male teacher: wouldn't seduce be a fairly accurate term? If the boy wanted it, (not arguing on whether or not he has the ability to make that choice.) and literally did "seduce" her by flirting/b…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:12 PM
1

Because it's his place?
/r/MensRights05/10/16 12:21 AM
2

I won't get executed if I make my atheism public, sure. But it's not "okay" by any means, either. Let's not act like I'm "lucky" that I'll live if I come out of the closet.
/r/TheRedPill02/07/16 07:36 AM
2

I'm most probably not getting killed if I announce my atheism here (Egypt) but I sure as hell will be oppressed. Comparable to the oppression an American homosexual will face if he comes out in the 1950's or something.
/r/TheRedPill02/07/16 07:35 AM
3

Dude, chill...
/r/MensRights08/05/16 01:17 PM
7

Which surprises me as well because "sencor" is such a common word.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 11:34 PM
7

And how exactly do you know he's a rapist?
/r/MensRights29/11/15 10:56 PM
1

Yes, it was an exclusive feature of reddit gold.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 01:21 PM
3

Haha no problem, buddy. You're very welcome :)
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:39 AM
7

see? /u/HalfMoonSky
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:11 AM
12

Nah. It's become a standard reddit feature a few months ago.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 07:10 AM
6

Mirror?
/r/MensRights31/05/15 04:36 AM
2

Depends on the writer/version, but he's never truly perfect.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 11:51 PM
1

I can certainly get behind that. Thanks for a civil discussion. Cheers.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:16 PM
1

for the sake of polite debate im going to make a presumption at the outset that you AREN'T a predatory pedophile to believes that there is no age at which a child should be deemed de facto unable to consent in law. Im going to make the assumption that you AREN'T suggesting that it should be arguable in court that children, and i mean legitimate children, not adolescents, are "enthusiastically consenting" to their child abuse Your assumption is definitely correct, and I admit, I originally wasn't…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:59 PM
1

Then your argument that "it's illegal in some places at 17 too" is invalid.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 08:24 AM
2

So you'd think it's completely consensual if such relationship occurs in a place where 14 is the age of consent?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 07:57 AM
1

Because 16 year olds are still not trusted to make all decisions The exact same thing can be said of 17 y/o's, yet there wouldn't be a problem whatsoever. Yet, if they're 16, then it's automatically rape?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:14 PM
1

Here's what I don't understand, though. You said you believe it should be legal for a couple of 14 y/o's to have sex with one another. By extension, that also means that you believe they are capable of giving consent.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 06:07 PM
1

So you don't think 14 year olds should even be allowed to have sex with each other? You think it's wrong? Genuinely asking.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:47 PM
0

If the student felt no duress, though, why would you call it rape?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:42 PM
4

Why not draw the line somewhere a little less ambiguous, though, like 13, and study any case above that line on a case by case basis? For example, if the minor in a case is 13, it's rape. If they're 14-16, the case shall be studied and the elder shall be presumed innocent unless there's proof of coercion. And if the minor is 17, then there's no case. It would seem much less arbitrary this way. There are many factors that affect whether a 16 y/o is raped or not. The law says that there aren't any…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 04:55 PM
2

The fact that you mentioned the elder is 30 is doing it case by case. A 17 y/o and a 14 y/o is by law considered rape. I think that it shouldn't be automatic rape. There are many factors that affect whether a 14 y/o is raped or not, the age of the elder is one of them. The law says that there aren't any factors affecting it, and all sex is rape. As for the woman, I don't know who she is, and quite frankly, I don't care. I'm discussing the idea, the concept of rape, not this specific case.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 04:54 PM
4

If someone has sex with a 16 y/o, instead of calling him a rapist and putting him in jail, study the case properly to find evidence of coercion first. The same rape laws that apply with adults should apply here. If it was consensual, then it wasn't rape.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:30 PM
6

I'm not going to claim that 16 year old girls have no fantasies of having sex with their hot 30 year old teachers; I realize they do. Should one decide to act upon that urge, you shouldn't throw the man in jail because of an arbitrary line in the sand. My argument is free of any double standards. The thing is, you do not have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. Cases of this sort should always be studied on a case by case basis.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:56 AM
0

Nah, just throw em in jail and call it a day.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:53 AM
6

The keyword is "might". An 18 year old is more or less just as likely to have been emotionally dominated. The problem is the cruel and lazy assumption that any relationship of the sort is rape. This is simply not true. Cases of this sort should always be studied on a case by case basis. You shouldn't send someone to jail because he might have dominated someone emotionally. That goes against every definition of a "guilty" verdict.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:51 AM
6

That's a huge understatement, I believe. This line is as arbitrary as it gets. I mean, many people's lives are ruined because the system is too lazy to judge it case by case, and would rather just follow an extremely arbitrary law instead. Why not draw the line somewhere a little less ambiguous like 13, and study any case above that line on a case by case basis? For example, if the minor in a case is 13, it's rape. If they're 14-16, the case shall be studied and the elder shall be presumed innoc…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:47 AM
3

There's a double standard, sure. But I'm of the opinion that it's not rape in either genders' cases.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:16 AM
14

Honest question, why not just ask the 16-year-olds whether it was consensual or coerced?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:13 AM
-3

Who's your fucking hair stylist? Hehehehe! Hey! Don't talk to me if you got a hair stylist! Better have a barber! That's the line just before that one. Obviously it's not just random "unrelated statement". That would have been stupid. I'm very sure I know what downvotes are for, yes.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 12:06 AM
-3

I know what downvotes are for. The thing is, by your logic, every reference to anything in every thread should be downvoted as it adds nothing to the discussion.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 11:56 PM
-5

A lyric that is not unique, and is a common phrase I've never heard it used. Ever. Plus, if someone doesn't get a reference, why would they downvote it? I mean, should I be downvoting every reference I didn't get?
/r/MensRights01/04/15 11:38 PM
-50

Learn something, nigga! Edit: It's a reference to a Joe Budden song, people Who's your fucking hair stylist? Hehehehe! Hey! Don't talk to me if you got a hair stylist! Better have a barber! Nigga!
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:45 PM
1

I believe your comment should be directed at /u/j0c1f3r not /u/cynoclast.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 02:29 PM
1

If you don't get the analogy, tell me this. Do you or do you not get why women would want an exclusive bathroom?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 04:30 PM
1

Well, fine. Women get a time of day exclusive to them, for those who are uncomfortable working out or showing too much skin in front of men, and also men also would get a time of day exclusive to them for the same reasons.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:35 AM
1

Can you answer just answer this question, do you want a specific time of the day to be exclusive to men?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:28 AM
0

There's absolutely no reason a man would not have had bad experiences in the past. I never said otherwise.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:00 AM
0

So a school is serving chicken tenders for lunch, but one student asks the lunchlady for meatballs, and she obliges. Does that mean everyone will have meatballs now? If you want meatballs, says so. How would I know you want something if you don't make the slightest attempt to communicate it. If you do, it is my duty to oblige. If you don't, then that's on you. Do you even want meatballs?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 10:59 AM
1

I find it as reasonable as someone to want a bathroom exclusive to their gender. Even if not because of any bad experiences, do find it preposterous that one would be much more comfortable this way?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 10:54 AM
-5

So men should their own time because they might be uncomfortable working out with attractive women around, right? If a man came out and asked for just that, I would find it also a reasonable request. Why would you assume I'm a hypocrite?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 08:40 AM
-12

Am I the only one here who feels like this is a reasonable request? I mean, some of these comments are making fun of her, shit like the women get the time they want to be able to work out without any scary men around I mean, seriously? That's not what she's saying at all. Look at her reasoning: I think there are many reasons women would want to work out only with other women. They might feel more comfortable. They might have had bad experiences in the past I mean, let's imagine there is a facili…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 07:31 AM
1

I was replying given the implication /u/graffiti81 made with his comment is that all women wouldn't wanna be with you if you pull off something like that. You seem to understand he merely implied that your girl would hate you and leave you, but I understood it more generally.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 06:11 AM
2

We're talking about the case where both parties agree beforehand to split the check.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:20 PM
14

I don't know whether or not you're joking. But let's say I'm on a date with a woman and we both agree to split the check. Then she orders food a million times more expensive than what I did. She wouldn't have me pay for what she ate. If she did, I don't think many people would disagree with the fact that it would be a dick move.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 09:40 PM
6

As opposed to being with a girl who actually believes in the bullshit in OP's picture, yet at the same time refuse to believe there's such a thing as female privilege? I'd rather be single than to be in a relationship with someone like that. But that's just me.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 09:25 PM
86

So you're saying that she wasn't hypocritical and did agree to split the check. But then, instead of paying for your own food, you pull off this shit? I'm sorry, but that's a dick move, mate.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 09:20 PM
1

Gotcha.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 09:23 PM
1

If someone hits me constantly, and then one time, I hit back. That is not self defense in your book?
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:37 PM
3

I'm not talking "legally" either. I'm talking purely in principle as well. morally, physical retaliation isn't the right answer. You think self-defense is morally wrong?! Elaborate.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 04:46 PM
2

Well, to be honest, it wouldn't be wrong to defend yourself. The problem isn't that a man is defending himself; that's completely fine. The actual that society would treat the man as a criminal if he did.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:16 AM
-4

I disagree with /u/Llkkoop in a lot of things, but that was rude and uncalled for. And hitting back in this case would be self-defense. The only douchebag would be someone who discourages people from defending themselves.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:11 AM
6

Except that self-defense isn't wrong. And that's a toxic mentality to have (no offense), as that's basically victim blaming in a sense. You're taking away their right to defend themselves by calling it "wrong" or "evil".
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:08 AM
6

Not in self-defense it's not.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:07 AM
0

Okay, his wording is poor, and he's pointing his fingers in the wrong direction. But he actually somewhat has a point. If your SO hits you and you hit back, it's not wrong, it's self-defense. Why should self-defense be morally wrong? Regardless of gender. Whether or not the police would believe you if you were a male, that's another story.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 11:06 AM
3

I don't think he implied that. He just said that calling the police doesn't always mean that everything will be alright and justice will be served.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 10:59 AM
2

If a woman had no stigma from society to build muscle on her upper body then she would be just as strong as any boy. Except that males are born stronger than females. There's no denying that. I'm not agreeing with his point, but your argument is just invalid.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 06:55 PM
3

It's not a false statistic as much as it's a pointless (in the context it's used) and misleading statistic.
/r/MensRights12/10/14 07:31 PM
1

You'd think you'd be getting the best of both worlds, and I understand why he'd want that, but let's take a second to think about it, it's actually the worst of both worlds. Saying f*ck doesn't really enhance what you're saying, it just kinda makes it more lame. If it's added to imply intensity or seriousness, censoring it negates that effect. At the same time, if somebody find "fuck" to be harsh, he'll probably also find "f*ck" to be harsh as well. So, it's more or less the same negative associ…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 08:17 PM
5

Well, sure, I'm just saying it's unnecessary and looks stupid. It shouldn't be banned, but they're pointless. I mean, if you wanna say "fuck", why not say "fuck"? On the other hand, if you actually don't wanna swear, then why did you say "f*ck"?! It makes no sense.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 07:49 PM
7

If he choose not to use the word, it's fine. But I don't get why the f*ck would anybody censor their words like this? Only a**holes would do this sh*t. TLDR: It looks stupid. Either swear, or don't. There isn't a middle ground.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 07:16 PM
3

That's true of just about every woman on the planet It really ain't, though.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 01:42 AM
1

You'd think so. But millions still tune in to Fox News.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:10 AM
2

So, wait, I'm confused as fuck now. What did the girls tell you to do? And what did the SJWs tell you to do?
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:09 AM
2

Dude, there was a time where everybody was against gay rights. Throughout history until late 20's century, almost nobody saw homosexuality any different from how you see pedophilia.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 04:14 AM
1

Not really, it's not a disease. People are just born that way.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 04:09 AM
1

KKK chose to oppress blacks and Nazis chose to commit those crimes and murders. Pedophilia is neither a disease, nor a mental illness. There was a time where 95% of people didn't agree with gay rights.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:38 PM
4

Excuse me?
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:13 PM
4

That's like saying "Homosexuality is not a disease, but it might as well be". Also, getting high is a choice. As for the legality of an act/state doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. Homosexuality is illegal in the vast majority of the world. Does that automatically make it wrong? Also, for your information, being attracted to little kids in and of itself isn't a crime. Not illegal. Now, personally, I'm not into little kids, but that doesn't stop me from defending the innocent, those of who are t…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:47 PM
3

Well, pedophilia isn't a disease, so yeah.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 08:12 PM
3

That's hilarious, you're using that term and you don't even know what it means.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 08:11 PM
3

Nice debate skills.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 07:04 PM
3

that is not natural behavior The same is said about gays. they were conditioned that way by other [gay] pedophiles molesting them The same thing is said about gays. I have no idea why for the life of me anyone would ever take their defense The same has been said about gays. Say something about pedophilia that has not been said about homosexuality.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 06:13 PM
2

First of all, I'll have to ask you to refrain from being so disrespectful. I've never disrespected you, so it's not too much to ask. I never said anything about "sexualizing children". A pedophile is someone who is born attracted to children. It's not a choice.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 05:19 PM
2

But the difference is that [MRA's] are trying to legislate for equality (where they can at least) and don't blame women for all gender issues But Feminists are trying to legislate for equality, too. Also, MRA's pretty much blame every problem on feminism.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 05:02 PM
1

It is exactly the same. You seem to be having trouble stating one way they're different.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 04:55 PM
1

Nope, that doesn't make you sick at all. That's the same as saying "If you're turned on by the same sex, you're sick!"
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:16 AM
2

Well, if they aren't equalists, and we are a direct counter, that wouldn't make us any more "equalistic" than they are.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 11:10 PM
1

Well, our name isn't /r/EqualistsWithAParticularFocusOnMensRights, either.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:53 PM
2

I see your point, but how can we ever draw the line for the ability to consent? A 10 year old almost certainly can't consent, a 16 year old almost certainly can, but where's the middle of the spectrum? What do you suggest?
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:47 PM
-3

Feminism is from the ground up in conflict with equality I disagree. The basic principles of feminism are mainly those of equality. The fact that a number of people who identify as feminists ignore these rules, doesn't mean that feminism in essence and principle conflicting with equality. Pretty much the same can be said about Men's Rights, too.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:41 PM
6

Not necessarily. But all rapists are bad.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:37 PM
1

I've never seen any evidence of that to be honest. Not even in /r/Feminism, and I'm subscribed.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 06:45 PM
10

As someone who is a little on the fence, those ridiculous bans are a major reason I'm leaning towards this sub.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:15 AM
13

To be fair, they say they'll do that to parent comments, which is still fucked up really, but they don't state that they'll ban child comments with opposing beliefs as explicitly as they they do to parent comments. Again, still fucked up.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:13 AM
1

the fact that there has been and continues to be evidence of a wage gap is a clear indication that our culture is pushing men and women into different career tracks. It's not about the degree of the wage gap, but that one exists at all that reminds us that our society doesn't allow both men and women to pursue every career equally. That's from the top comment in thread linked in /r/Feminism's sidebar. persue every career equally
/r/MensRights01/07/14 07:00 PM
2

They will or they won't, the point is, feminism wants them to, and is fighting for it.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:47 PM
1

Who ever said give up and be weak? I said the exact opposite More girls should definitely join campus security
/r/MensRights01/07/14 03:53 PM
2

Ok, let's be real for a second. More girls should definitely join campus security. But a girl security employee aren't nearly as feared/respected as their male counterparts. The goal is to fight that discriminatory disrespect.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:35 PM
3

Disingenuous?! Are you serious? What I said is the equivalent of saying "The fact that weight lifting doesn't affect growth is basically in /r/fitness's sidebar"
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:25 PM
-2

Here's the thread I was talking about It's linked in the sidebar. Recommended introductory reading > recurrent questions
/r/MensRights30/06/14 01:42 PM
0

My comment was a call for stopping the bash on feminism. By all means, I'm all for raising awareness. This is most definitely an issue like you said. I'm just saying, bashing /r/feminism, especially wrongly, will not help our cause.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 01:29 PM
9

You know, things like the wage gap. They realize that it exists because more men work overtime and that men in general tend to fill higher paying position. They're concerned with how they can get more women to fill such positions, and encourage them to join professions that society discourage them from joining. They don't really want women to be paid more than men for the exact same job. That's just off the top of my head, though. I've only read it once. I recommend checking out their sidebar, e…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 01:24 PM
-3

Everybody, unless they're stupid as shit plus, the way to fight this is raising awareness, not bashing (/r/)feminism, because as I said, they seem to have this one right
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:52 PM
-4

tfw I'm subscribed to /r/Feminism I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what that means. A quick Google search tells me it's "the feeling when" but I still don't understand what you said. Anyway, let me rephrase if you think his comment was poorly phrased: "Everybody (yes, even feminists) acknowledges that forced penetration is rape unless they're stupid as shit
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:03 PM
-1

The fact that men can be raped is basically in /r/Feminism's sidebar. fyi
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:23 AM
0

The vast majority of /r/Feminism. Get off your high horse.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:19 AM
9

To be fair, in /r/Feminism they acknowledge that men can and are raped. "A man being forced into penetrative sex" is definitely included in their definition of rape.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:13 AM
22

Nobody said anything about "telling boys they might be rapists". I agree with him, teens should be educated about rape. All teens, boys and girls.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:07 AM
3

This isn't sex ed though.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:02 AM
5

Calm down, bro. We all already agree that boys and girls should both attend. No need to get so worked up.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:01 AM
0

Well, yeah, that's why this was downvoted when it was posted in /r/Feminism
/r/MensRights16/06/14 02:31 PM
0

I know that. Feminism is also not just about women's rights either, though. And if you claim that they are bigoted sexists who don't care for equality, remember that some of them say the same about us.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 02:52 PM
0

Are you forgetting we're called Men's Rights? You can replace Feminism with Men Rights and your statement would be just as correct.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 02:11 PM
0

I don't think /r/MensRights disrespect women, you're right. However, I do think this sub bashes Feminism too much sometimes. It doesn't happen all the times, not always, but sometimes the hivemind takes over to be honest.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 07:35 AM
1

Is there a law against adultery?
/r/MensRights15/04/14 08:29 PM
6

Is adultery a crime? (I'm not from the US)
/r/MensRights15/04/14 08:29 PM
5

As a guy who'd never had ONS/FWB... how in seven hells is a guy's ONS different from a girl's ONS?! You said: I do not value a female who has given her pussy up for no reason other than a relationship. Then neither should a female value you as you have had sex for no reason! It goes both ways, buddy.
/r/TheRedPill11/12/13 11:54 AM
2

thanks
/r/MensRights13/06/13 03:14 AM
1

OK, will do in he future. Thanks.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:41 PM
1

Of-course it's unacceptable to hit a woman because she hits you. You should never defend yourself. That would be a terrible thing to do. /s Like this?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:10 PM
1

And where should I place this tag?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:04 PM
3

Sarcasm tag?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:17 PM
13

Of-course it's unacceptable to hit a woman because she hits you. You should never defend yourself. That would be a terrible thing to do.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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