TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Boden41715 Archive

View 1 post and 97 comments by Boden41715 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)
53

Boden41715/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:11 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Do you mind me asking what's your reasoning behind this? Aside from a useful hyperbole, I just don't see any correlation to the Bay of Pigs.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:24 PM
4

You said it yourself. They're a multi-billion dollar company. Do you think they really care about scrounging to save 13 million?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:51 PM
1

men don't get the same treatment and then some What do you mean?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:38 AM
2

It's a good thing no one expects them to be.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 10:15 PM
10

It would be naive to think that every instance of a woman being called bossy is based in some gender stereotype. Some women are straight-up bossy and there's no denying it. It would also be naive to think every instance of woman being called bossy is simply because they bossy individuals and not grounded in some sort of gender stereotype. Bottom line: it's a lot more of a grey area than you make it out to be, and acknowledging the grey area isn't making excuses but being practical. Personally, I…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 07:53 PM
0

Feminism isn't a cancer. Saying today's extreme form of radical feminism is a cancer is one thing, but to say the entire movement of feminism is a cancer is just plain wrong.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 05:23 PM
1

I just wanna say that the biggest proponents in favor of overturning their ruling were the female ob/gyn's themselves.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:19 AM
1

I think that their logic is if you're smart enough to crack a 4-digit encryption code, then you deserve to rape her. And if you can't tell I'm not serious then I'm sorry.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:02 PM
2

You'd enjoy this one article by Chris Hitchens, I think from Times. He argues that evolutionarily men had to be funny in order to woo a spouse for the purposes of procreation. Women had no evolutionary need for humor, so now most of the female comedians (i.e. Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Lisa Lampanelli, etc.), have styles of comedy that mimic types of comedy established by men. Right or wrong, an interesting read. I'll try to edit in the article if I can find it.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 01:51 AM
2

If I can play devil's advocate for a moment: Take George Carlin's example of the 81 year old woman being raped. Is it ok to laugh if he made up the example, but if he pulled the example out of a paper (i.e. A real innocent person), would that all of a sudden not be ok to laugh about?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 12:35 AM
30

I'm not trying to be derisive or contradictory, but I'm just curious what you and other MRM's think about the whole concept of rape and comedy. Is there ever a situation in which joking about rape isn't insensitive and wrong? I'm sure everyone's seen this before, but it's George Carlin discussing rape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQA6UStpOyQ
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:53 PM
1

You'd have to ask my professor on that one. Honestly, in today's society anyone can look at pretty much anything and claim its discrimination or prejudicial, and the only thing it does it make it more difficult to distinguish what actually is discrimination from the bullshit.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 04:03 PM
2

Yea: document everything, lawyer up. The internet can only be so helpful in times like this.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 03:04 PM
3

I've heard a philosophy professor in college use almost your exact same example as evidence of sexism against women. It was a couple years ago, but I think it went something like this: When guys are getting ready for class, they throw on a pair of jeans (or shorts in the summer) and a tshirt, and they're good to go. Women need to find trendy clothing, try various combinations, and make sure that they'll stand out when compared to other women. Part of his conclusion was that men have a solidarity…
/r/MensRights25/12/13 02:47 PM
3

If I can pick your brain on this - how prominent is the asshole right-wing group amongst the MRA activists? Different sources would say different things.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 01:23 AM
28

I agree. At the end of the article it said the school didn't immediately comment...but they provided a comment in the end which wasn't included in the article? It's straight up discrimination if true, but I'd like to look into it further before deciding for myself.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:37 PM
2

So you're saying every Nazi reference is a well thought-out, cogent analogy? Some of them are, other's aren't. If anything's an excuse to be lazy, it's using a Nazi reference. In constructing an argument there are usually other more apt ways of getting your point across. It's rather akin to when feminists try to write off the points raised against them because the person mentioned certain words or terms, or mentioned mens rights, etc. I think you're completely right but most people act this way,…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:41 PM
0

No no no see they don't realize they're internalizing their own oppression and that makes it so much worse! Another example she gave was high heels. They serve no purpose besides pure aesthetics so any woman that enjoys wearing them isn't aware that they objectify women.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:36 PM
0

Who's saying men "deserve what's come to them?" I must have totally missed it.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:08 AM
3

You're simply dismissing his analogy, out of hand, rather than addressing the actual argument and addressing whether he was right or not. If someone jumps right to Nazi references, it's pretty hard to actually have a genuine argument or discussion with them.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:54 AM
3

A traditional feminist response (or at least the one my feminist philosophy professor stated) was that by holding the door for women we're implicitly reinforcing the notion that women can't open the door themselves and so it serves as an example of how women are forced to depend upon men. On top of that, it creates a form of psychosocial oppression that is internalized by the female so that the simple act of having a man hold the door for her reminds her that she isn't equal to the man.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:42 AM
1

So you're saying every father has the option to opt out of supporting any and every child they have just like women always have the option to abort their child? I'm not trying to disagree with you I'd just to hear your thoughts on the comparison.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 12:36 AM
1

Yea, that's definitely better than the way it is now. My only fear with that if everyone has a no-strings-attached way of getting out of it then it'll make the issue of unwanted pregnancy even worse than it already is.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:20 PM
2

Not every child is a product of the woman tricking the man? Sometimes the woman doesn't want the child just as much as the man. It's a lot more complicated than you make it sound and any law needs to reflect that.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:33 PM
2

Is it a proposed law? Can I read it anywhere? And I just find both sides of the argument take it to such extremes sometimes it's unproductive. There has to be some sort of rational middle ground.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 08:23 PM
-1

Aren't most obligations called obligations because they're base in some sense of duty instead of desire? The way many women force men into child support is appalling, but in other instances it's hard to argue against the father having a duty to raise the child.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 06:41 PM
6

If we called out every crazy tweet...we'd be at it for a while. Most people are just stupid.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 06:36 PM
8

Can and will are two different things. If you think everyone is always going to take the time to think rationally, then you're gonna have a bad time.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 04:16 AM
6

He pulled a bucking bronco. Started off great, but then he screamed out the name "Jar-Jar Binks" and he kept riding us while we tried to get him off.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 04:48 PM
0

What ingrained view are you talking about? The only view I see is a bunch of young kids making a joke.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 04:45 PM
2

Guys, you're forgetting that everything written down ever is always 100% true...as long as someone's trying to contort events to justify themselves. If a woman jokingly texts something to the effect of "he's going to rape me" to a friend even if she texted "yes" to the guy...just wait and see which text means more.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 04:50 AM
2

That used to be the case, before patients began bringing lawsuits against doctors whenever there was any complication. As unfortunate as it is, most of these advisory boards don't give a damn about patients, they're more interested in the business aspect of medicine.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 03:12 PM
2

If you could go back and read what I've said, at no point did I ever defend the review board, in fact what I said was their policy is illogical. If something I said came off that way, then I apologize because in no way do I support that position. My original and only intention was to draw the distinction between the physicians and the review board. If you believe the review board is responsible for the discriminatory policy and not the physicians themselves, then we're in agreement. If you think…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 11:36 PM
-8

And I agree with the article. I'd like to find out the rationale behind the review board's decision. Trying to understand someone else's position isn't the same as rationalizing what they do. I suppose my question for you would be: who's practicing discriminatory sexism? I might agree if you say the review board, but I could not disagree more if you believe the physician (in this case, Dr. Stier) is being sexist.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 10:12 PM
4

I'm not saying that at all. I wholeheartedly agree that she should be able to treat men if she's qualified, and I'm saying it's illogical for ob/gyn's to treat only women and are punished for treating men. And it isn't the doctor discriminating against men. That's the only point I'm trying to emphasize. The doctor's furious with the new policy - that's the point of the article. The problem lies with the new policy of ABOG.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 10:12 PM
-21

This is a different issue from what your original post was. And it's not bullcrap. If you think she wants to stop treating patients then you missed the point of the article and don't understand the drive of physicians. She's being forced to stop. All the physician wants to do is treat patients. It's the board that's preventing her from doing so. But you're right. Patients in your area should be able to visit the oncologist if he's qualified to handle their needs, just as men needing the procedur…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:47 PM
-19

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at...they didn't say ob/gyn's must provide medical care to women/damn men. What they said was basically, "You've spent upwards of 400k and half a decade of your life specializing in issues of the female reproductive system. Focus on that. Let other medical specialties deal with men's anal cancer." If men had an equally unique medical issue that demanded a doctor's specialization as does pregnancy, then there already would be one. Having said that, I didn…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 08:28 PM
1

Which is more likely: a woman steals sperm or the man and woman unintentionally have a child (whether that's through an accident, poor planning, or any of the other possible scenarios leading to an in intended child)? Hint: it's the second.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 02:18 PM
1

Yea, picture a pipe with 4 strings going down it, and the vas deferens is on the outside but a whole bunch of anatomical variations can crop up. Cheers, mate.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:59 PM
1

Just out of curiosity, did the doctor ever admit to slightly nicking anything? the way the procedure's done, there's a very fine line between the target (vas deferens) and other important structures.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:12 PM
3

I wouldn't say it's because society values women more. Female activist groups have been more successful in establishing breast cancer donations at the forefront of cancer donation. Whether they take advantage of certain social/gender factors, sure, you can always make that claim but it'd be almost impossible to prove it. What's more startling to me is how irresponsible certain charities can be, most notably the Susan G. Komen foundation. Try looking into where your money actually goes (for any c…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:17 PM
1

Granted, the article talks about a more specific segment of the all-male school demographic, but I couldn't agree more. I went to an all-male high school and (out of 376) I wanna say maybe 3 didn't go to college. Also, close to 50% went to Ivy League schools. I fully support the notion of an all-male high school positively contributing to our education and personal development, but being one of the richest and most prestigious private schools on Long Island didn't hurt.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:44 PM
3

any relevant story should be posted regardless of who it happened to. Agreed
/r/MensRights14/10/13 05:14 PM
4

I don't hate them. I'm a 22 year old med school student who has other interests not One Direction-related I'd rather hear about.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 04:39 PM
1

Yes and women have always been able to do any job they want to. You're not a sexist. Just don't generalize.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 04:03 PM
267

As much as I disapprove of anything One Direction-related popping up on my front page, this is actually a rather interesting story.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 02:43 PM
1

So you're saying all female discrimination has historically been rooted in their physical in-capabilities? Again, Iargely agreed with your point, but don't use sweeping generalizations. If you've ever taken a standardized test, you know to stay away from any answer choice with always or never. Same can be said for arguments.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 12:40 PM
2

Just wanna say you should be careful about making generalizations. Women haven't ALWAYS been able to do any job they want to. We all know about the role sexism has played in history. But your point's the same and I largely agree with you because recently (last half-century? I don't have a good handle on dates so I don't want to assume too much) the only limitations on a woman's ability to obtain a job are merits and those which are self-imposed.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 01:53 AM
2

Of course other people's/groups' opinions don't dictate one's legitimacy, but it's always nice to be recognized as legitimate by one's peers (is this a good way to describe our feminist counterpart? I don't know). Hopefully starting points like these can be used as launching points for productive discussions between us.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 01:41 AM
1

Yea, I looked at my Mayo Clinic link after reading some of yours and I saw it in a completely different light. I found it hard to believe such a reputable organization could say such things. I'm probably reading into it too much, but at certain places they begin using qualifying language, saying things like "sometimes there's a medical need" while citing cultural or religious reasons as the main motives for it. "Circumcision MIGHT have various health benefits..." I loved that one.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:49 PM
1

This is awesome, thanks!! And sorry about the name mix-up ;P
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:17 PM
1

That's a good analogy, I never thought of it like that. Do you have any links to cases or stories about medical practitioners abusing the procedure? Not to say you're wrong, but it's something I'd want to read more about.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:34 PM
-1

Possibly why I'm not sold on genital mutilation is because it's divisive and highly politicized and makes it very difficult to have a true discussion on the topic. Even if circumcision has justifiable therapeutic benefit in 0% of cases, it's hard to reach this point when using such inflammatory language as mutilation.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:29 PM
1

I love MagicRiver for being the only one to provide me with information without assuming I'm an idiot for asking. So I'm here trying to find out more from those who have more knowledge on circumcision (thanks again MagicRiver) because as a medical student I'd like to find out more about a subject before I reach conclusion on it. Maybe it's just me, but if there's a topic I admittedly know little about (i.e. circumcision), I find it difficult to unequivocally condemn it while knowing so little ab…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:28 PM
1

Counter-argument? No. Motivation to come on here and ask people who know more about the topic for information so I can learn more about it? Yes.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:55 PM
3

I'm sure people will continue to downvote me cuz I'm trying to understand your argument but whatever. What makes you say that this money is the sole force guiding physicians to push male circumcision? As I said to someone earlier, it seems that outdated social norms and cultural/social pressures that have been indoctrinated into entrenched physicians are the reasons for their support of circumcision. I'd find it hard to stomach physicians pushing circumcision simply to make money.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:05 AM
3

I'm spending my Firday night researching circumcision...wow don't I know how to have fun. Thanks for all of the links; it'll take me a while to properly sift through them. Do you have any ideas where the term male genital mutilation started? To me, it just seems like using such non-neutral language precludes any productive discussion on the topic. I'm thinking that although the outdated norms and cultural pressure that have created the system of circumcision as a standard procedure need to be ad…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:05 AM
2

Why is this the surgery thats had the most purported health benefits all through history? Are you sure about this? I thought its prevalence was driven primarily by outdated social/cultural norms. I mean, my quick search pulled up a few medical conditions in which circumcision is a viable treatment option [one of multiple medical treatments available, I mean].
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:05 AM
2

As a medical student I read articles by the AAP, JAMA, listen to lectures by policy makers, and I also learn a bit about medicine on the side. Setting aside a few outliars, physicians as a whole always keep the patient's wellbeing as their #1 priority. Maybe I'm too naive to believe otherwise, but if I thought that physicians prioritized money over the patients I'd be entering the wrong field. I was asking for more information, that's all.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:23 AM
1

Sorry to be that guy, but do you have any evidence to support what you're saying? I'm a medical student and in my experience you're pretty far off the mark.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:07 AM
1

I didn't know enough about the statistics of boys performing worse than girls so I tried not to comment on its validity (that was one of my problems with the article: it made this claim but doesn't provide any additional support for it. It simply accepts it as fact). My main point was the main issue is far worse than only having boys with lower grades. Any measure aimed at fully resolving the issue must address both the poor grades of boys and of girls. Here was my line of thinking: Accepting th…
/r/MensRights28/09/13 08:09 PM
2

Can you say a bit more? I'm not sure what you're getting at, but depending on how you define "primary victims, " men weren't. No war was fought with the express purpose of doing harm to men while leaving women and children untouched. Wars are fought to achieve a primary purpose, and the unintended yet inescapable consequence is that the overwhelming majority of all deaths in war are male (since men traditionally have been the instrument through which war is fought).
/r/MensRights28/09/13 06:41 AM
0

There is a serious issue with schooling, but I don't think it can be best characterized as anti-boy. I try to watch out for articles like these because although she (I'm assuming she because it was posted in a woman's forum) provides in-text factual claims with no supporting evidence for them (i.e. rates of boys being suspended more than girls, boys struggle more academically than girls, etc.). Rather than anti-boy, I've heard our current quandary referred to as the "pussification of America." C…
/r/MensRights28/09/13 06:36 AM
2

Maybe they're following the Tobias Funke writing method of referring to all individuals in the male form as opposed to the female form, most notably in his best-selling book "The Man Inside Me." But in all seriousness that's pretty messed up.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 04:08 PM
4

And to think that entire article would never have been written if only the woman figured out how to fold tickets.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 10:45 PM
2

Yea thanks, and you're right, referring to relevant issues sounds like a much better way of describing it.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:30 PM
2

Hey just a quick question, what do you think are the specific rights of men that MRM advocates? Referring to the rights of men seems a bit general. I'm pretty new to this sub but I haven't seen any posts delving into specifics.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 04:11 PM
5

Problem with statistics is that they almost never tell the whole story, and almost any statistic can be twisted to support almost any viewpoint. What's worse, 96% of statistics are made up, and people believe them.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:44 PM
1

I just want to clarify that I'm not supporting these incorrect assertions, I was merely trying to provide a historical context for much of the legal debate that's so prevalent today. Apparently people in this subreddit don't like that. Early efforts to detect love from a neurological level often used small, skewed populations that gave rise to misconceptions about the mother's love being stronger: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/29/2/143.refs Books like Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" also argu…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 12:42 PM
2

Drinking may not be a crime, but you shouldn't have that superimposed on top of 4 seemingly underage girls when you say it.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 11:49 PM
2

Why are there no politicians speaking out about how men/boys are oppressed with having bits of them cut off for religious reasons? Are most cases of circumcision still driven by religious motives? I thought it was more from social pressure/uninformed parents that anything to do with religion.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 11:47 PM
1

Come on, he was asking for it. What mother WOULDN'T want to have sex with that child?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 11:43 PM
1

In my mind laws such as these aren't made to be unilaterally enforceable, they're made so that universities can say they have laws against such things. An analogous example is a lot of universities impossible curfews in which men and women can't be in the same room after a certain hour. Not that these laws are strictly enforced, but the universities (speaking from experience Catholic-run orders) can claim to anyone who inquires about their policies that they don't tolerate sex/rape. I think it's…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 11:43 PM
96

He's a good looking kid. By showing him maybe they're trying to justify what she did. They're showing him present-day, not what he looked like at 14.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:25 PM
2

Try going to a bar or a club of any frat party in college, and women have a good chance of being free. It entices more guys to come, makes women feel more comfortable, and just increases the party atmosphere overall. My point is that right or wrong, discriminatory or not, that's the way business is done. It isn't changing anytime soon.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 01:37 PM
0

I know dude...it's a joke...look up what facetious means..
/r/MensRights14/09/13 01:34 PM
1

This is entirely unrelated to what you're saying, but it got me thinking: I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's a word for a woman whose husband cheats on her, while the man whose wife cheats on him is called a cuckold. I realize the term was more pertinent back in the Middle Ages, but it says something when a woman cheats on her husband, it's the husband that's negatively judged, developing a stigma and being labeled a cuckold. If a woman cheats on her husband, it's the husband's fault…
/r/MensRights14/09/13 04:38 AM
1

To play devil's advocate (I don't believe this but it's a very realistic feminist retort): Women are the victims of oppression and, as the traditionally oppressive and victim-less party, men can't adequately understand and empathize with the plight of women. therefore, they have no right to judge feminist ideology.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 04:31 AM
5

If you avoid any place that allows free entry to girls, then where do you go for fun? Discrimination or not (I'm leaning more toward the not), it's the way business works for a lot of places.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 04:18 AM
2

tl;dr if you don't use facts...you're a feminist.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 04:05 AM
3

I was trying not to paint every feminist in the same light, it's really a splintered group when you look at it...but I doubt your feminist friend speaks for all feminists. she could just be toward the more militant/extreme end of the spectrum.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:24 PM
6

From what I've seen (and I admit it's a rather limited sampling I'll admit), the feminists I've read don't expect men to change anything for them. The point was more that feminists claim women at large internalized their oppression so the feminists need to serve as a spark that ignites women to change their societal perspectives. Another thing that struck me was that these feminist articles seemed almost purely academic, so there's little ability to translate their goal into tangible action. But…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:13 PM
13

Completely agree. If a woman is just as physically qualified, she's fair game. OP and a majority of feminists would be able to agree on that. However, I would also like to say it is more likely that the average female applicant for a job has less physical strength than the average male applicant.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:09 PM
32

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it plays out.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:28 PM
3

Careful, you're making sweeping generalizations. Plenty of atheists are un-accepting of dimwitted, close-minded theists just as many Christians or pro-Israelis are much more tolerant of other viewpoints than you give them credit. Also, it seems as if you don't know much about feminism. Today's feminism is very multifaceted without one unifying goal or agenda. While the feminists to which you refer may be given inordinate amounts of publicity, they by no means characterize the entire feminist mov…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:26 PM
40

...the fact they have less physical strength is no valid excuse to rule them out from those tasks. From whose perspective? From an employer's perspective, it absolutely is a valid reason. It's a means through which the employer can maximize productivity.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:17 PM
2

If she's faking her orgasm and you can't tell...you're a rapist.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:13 PM
14

There's a significant segment in modern feminism that think female oppression in today's world is so dangerous because it's been internalized by women and no longer viewed as oppressive. So they would argue that the "female privilege" described above is actually a form of female oppression.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:11 PM
3

As Louis CK so eloquently put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-7lV-_XgE4
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:26 PM
6

But what if we pair up a woman box lifter with a male box lifter and simply let the male lift all the boxes while the woman stands there telling him he's doing it wrong? I think we can all agree that's equality.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:20 PM
0

I'm not asking because of his dick, I'm asking because I don't believe his description of events. I don't know what part of the country he's from but his portrayal of medicine is so different than what it is like by me (NY) that it's straight-up slanderous and untrue, and as a medical resident myself I take offense to it. The surgeon wasn't enthused... ...was treated to her constant complaining throughout the procedure. ...the experienced anesthesiologist called her out on something...[and told …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:14 PM
-1

Where'd you here that? Any published research to support it? And if a medical issue isn't a good reason to justify something to you, then idk what is.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:13 PM
4

Thank you for being one of the few people who actually take the time to provide evidence to support their claim. I stand corrected.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:10 PM
-12

Well, ears and nails serve a functional purpose, foreskin does not. It's more like saying, "I'm glad I had my appendix [or wisdom teeth] removed."
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:02 AM
-5

Do you mind me asking where your surgery was performed? Without sounding too prick-ish, I find it hard to believe events unfolded exactly as you say.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:00 AM
1

Does anyone know (or can find easily) any relevant medical articles? I'm far from an expert on both male and female circumcision, and I feel like a rational discussion about male circumcision needs to begin with the reasons behind why it's done (i.e. medical benefits, conscious or subconscious social driving factors, etc.). As I understand it, there are certain instances in which male circumcision is medically beneficial to the patient.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:56 AM
6

Honestly, reading any further into it than that is similar to feminists saying females like to wear heels because they've internalized their objectification and repression by men...maybe they just like heels. Don't read too far into things with obvious explanations.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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