TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Broodaskani Archive

View 0 posts and 127 comments by Broodaskani 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)
3

It's absolutely ridiculous. I am willing to bet 96% of "rapes" are actually woman who engaged in sex, and the guy did something to piss her off or she regretted it, so she cries rape, and then the guy's life gets ruined. You've got to be kidding me. Jesus fucking Christ.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 10:06 PM
1

I think it only 'reeks' if you're trying to smell it, since it's only a word for distinction. Think of it like the words hetero and homo.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 06:52 PM
1

Just saying it isn't sjw lingo, if that's what you meant by your reply.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:23 PM
2

It's not. Just the opposite of trans.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:52 PM
3

It doesn't. Cis identifies as the gender they were 'born' into
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:21 PM
-2

What was your point? You are comparing shoulders or back to speedos and cocks.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 07:40 PM
0

If you compare showing shoulders (or even gasp thighs) to flashlights and cocks swinging around, then you have a problem.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:21 PM
-12

I can only speak for myself, but despite of my sex drive, I was able to consentrate to the task at hand in class. Speaking as a person who's pubecent sex drive causes problems til this day.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:12 PM
-11

Guess I just mistook it for body language, but seriously, if someone's appearance distracts you so much, that's a one can of worms. E: There's also the thing, that you shouldn't assume that if someone dresses as they do, are doing it for the sake of sexual attraction or such.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:07 PM
0

I can see how that is a convenience, but still not a really big deal.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:02 PM
-10

Could be a cultural thing, since that is normal summerwear around here.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:00 PM
-12

Do you really think that someone just being there is non-verbal communication? It is not the same as shouting, unless you've somekind of attention disorder.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:51 PM
-15

There's nothing wrong about a dress code. But a dress code for "avoiding distraction" is a stupid as fuck, cause it feeds things like rape culture. Seriously, it's not that far from, "she was asking for it".
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:41 PM
-11

I believe you're able to control it?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:34 PM
-15

That's a class issue, not a gendered one. Also, that dress is tame as fuck, if someone get's riled up by shoulders, well, that's on them.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:33 PM
-4

I never wore any uniforms, so it's all foreign to me, but couldn't you pick your clothes the night before? :D
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:22 PM
-6

It's subjective then. But it's important to note, that it's by no means the girls' fault.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:20 PM
-7

I'm not, 'cause I'm citing the link /u/Demonspawn provided above.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:02 PM
-17

And I, for the life of me, can't understand why.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:57 PM
-15

Not that they would distract me from schoolwork, no. Were you?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:56 PM
-5

So what?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:47 PM
-12

Well, I guess we need to get our shit together then, and stop pressuring young fellers to try impress women.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:23 PM
59

Well, she's not wrong. It's pretty sexist against men to say her dress is a 'sexual distraction' to fellow male students. Like men couldn't control themselves because of a dress.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 02:50 PM
1

Oh, they're bot illegal that's for sure, and I do think the other one is way more reprehensible, and the law seems too, hence the using a minor in a sexual performance charge, in addition to the possession and dissemination.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 12:13 AM
1

One is a picture that you've send to another person. The other is a video of someone fucking you and shared to others by someone else. Do you not see the difference?
/r/MensRights21/02/15 07:34 PM
1

Surely it should differentiate between taking nudes of yourself and someone recording sex with you? Also, isn't age a mitigating factor?
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:22 PM
1

The boys took child porn of themselves. They didn't. The boys took child porn of the girl, they where 18 and over.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 04:59 PM
1

I think the law's the same everywhere the age of consent is lower than 18.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:44 PM
1

The difference is in taking pictures of yourself compared to taking pictures of someone else. Someone else who by the law can't consent to it. There is a clear distinction and apparently the reasons do make a difference since the girl isn't charged. You obvisouly think that nobody should be prosecuted for sexting, and neither does the prosecution, isn't it a good thing? The defence though apparently thinks that recording and sharing (to a third party) a sex tape where you or your mate is having …
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:42 PM
1

The boys recorded the sex, that is hardly sexting.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 12:42 PM
2

And it's stupid, since teens apparently do that all the time. But the boys aren't charged for that either. They recorded a video of them having sex with a 15-year-old-girl. Even if the girl took pictures of herself it doesn't mean you can take pictures of her, especially if you're an adult and basically making home made porn. Do you see the difference?
/r/MensRights21/02/15 12:36 PM
1

Just as illegal It may be, but the boys aren't charged for taking nudes of themselves either. They're not even charged for having the pictures the girl sent. They're over 18 year old boys who recorded a sextape with a 15-year-old. it strongly suggests that she was a decision maker in the rest. It's not like they found videos of anyone else on the phones. Where does the article suggest the girl was making the descision the sex should be filmed?
/r/MensRights21/02/15 12:20 PM
6

The sex was legal, you just shouldn't record and distribute the act.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:25 AM
1

Prosecutors allege Smith took the images of the girl and Carey having sex, then sent the images to Carey, who then sent them to another person. This is not the same thing as taking pictures of yourself and sending it to others, the girl did just that.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:19 AM
-8

A Moorhead police detective who worked on the case, Seth Saarinen, testified that he found four different sex videos of the girl and Carey on Carey’s phone. This is not about nudes, it's about the boys making and sharing sex videos and images. Videos and images of having sex with the girl.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:18 AM
-8

It's not about the girl sending nudes or invitations to have sex, it's about the boys recording and sharing footage of the sex. The sex wasn't illegal, but 18 and 19-year-olds should be aware that it's illegal everywhere to record sex with a minor.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 01:56 AM
0

You already wrote the definition in your post above. Where did I contradict it? A quote from the article: It is important to note, however, that masculinity can be performed by any sex I'm not surprised the descriptions from Kimmel's book focus on men, since the book Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men, does focus on men. Also, our culture hasn't tought girls to act masculine, but it doesn't negate the fact that women can have masculine traits. It just isn't actively reinforced. Th…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 10:13 AM
0

Yes you did when it suited your argument, you mean. As is courteous in a discussion, I pointed out my overlook, and actually, my argument changed very little, the power still stands as a factor in both. Do you really think I would change my argument due to fucking magazine article? You see, the dictionary is very clear on the definitions. Masculinity is associated with males. I never disputed this. I stated that both men and women have masculine and feminine traits. A woman can have qualities th…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 01:09 AM
0

This oft-cited claim could also be a myth actually, as this[1] article by psychologist Nigel Barber, Ph.D. suggests. Ah, I did the fatal mistake of lumping all rapes in the same, which does complicate things although they still include the entitlement to other one's body. And I absolutely do not deny the existence of sexual gratification from overpowering. No one's demonising anyone but the rapists. Try it like this: Men rape because of toxic masculine trait, which only the bad ones share. Women…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 11:55 PM
-1

It seems like a nonsensical belief system created to unfairly demonise men, imo. There are times when I actively resent my own sexuality. The desire to procreate can be really strong sometimes, but most of the time I'd rather not be bothered by it. It's more trouble than it's worth. I can assure you it's a physiological, biological compulsion, and nothing at all to do with societal norms. It started when I hit puberty as a result of hormones making physical changes to my body and brain. Societal…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 11:22 PM
-2

Power is a masculine trait. Rape is about power, an absolute power over someone's body and life. Women can also be masculine to the extreme end, so it doesn't completely deny female rapists. Women are in the rape spectrum too. It just happens that women are not taught behaviour that enforces such things. Women have not been expected to be power hungry and sexually aggressive, but docile and passive. But there are women who break the feminine norms. Altough, it doesn't help when men are supposed …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:22 PM
1

Ah, thank you for clarifying.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:00 PM
1

I don't know where you're getting what my 'attitude. All I (facetiously) said was that conscription for right to vote, is not very good example of a democracy, or liberty for that sake.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:55 PM
-1

I don't seem to find anything pointing that as a reason for conscription. Only the supreme court ruling it constitutional. An I got to side with Daniel Webster and say: That would be some shitty view of democracy.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:56 PM
0

Whatever do you mean by this?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:39 PM
-1

I don't think these should be taken so personally, and think that according to this theory every man is a bucket of toxic masculinity. Maybe more like, that many of us have some of these qualities in different quantities. And when we're trying to leave the "table of the Culture", others (who either are unaware or don't see anything wrong in the norms) are telling us to sit the fuck down and be a man (not always directly but through something like fear of exculsion or being seen as weak). I, for …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:36 PM
1

According to social theory, sexism = power + prejudice Wasn't that racism?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:06 PM
1

Well, the term doesn't exclude women from upholding the system or the same values also.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 07:50 PM
0

The practices are mainly enforced by the relatives of the deceased, but the paper didn't specify genders, except in the case of inheritance (which goes to a male relative) or in the case if the widow has to be married to the deceased relative. Now, I don't know why you asked, but the attitude of subordination seems to be quite ingrained, for at least in Nigeria 40% of women think a man is justified to beat his wife (for one of the reasons listed in this study) (PDF) When only 30% of men think so…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 07:29 PM
2

I fail to see how, for example, not having a right to vote because you're a woman doesn't fall in to that.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:43 PM
3

Yes, it does. And just to be clear, by 'ever' do you mean past, present and future?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:24 PM
2

I would not recommend it! In Nigeria, one in three women have faced violence (most from their partners) and one in four women have been forced to sex by their partners. Of course you could try not get married, but there's a chance that you will be by the age of 15, like the 45% of girls in Northern Nigeria. Well, maybe your husband dies and you'll be a widow? Let's hope you don't have to go through one the traditional widohood rituals of west Africa, that have been described as "cruel and dehuma…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:12 PM
2

I can maybe clarify: Both statements are basically the same, the latter only specifies from what perspective the equality is driven. For simplicity's sake, something like: "Women should have the same rights as men".
/r/MensRights05/02/15 05:13 PM
1

Even if all of that stuff you said was true, you're not accounting the fact that not all women want babies, the least when they're still in school. Do you really think all women just want from life is a free ride and to raise babies?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 04:07 PM
0

Well I for one, think that people like these create even more resistance. Like, the whole anti-feminism in the internet gets so much traction because the idots and baby feminists get so much "screen-time".
/r/MensRights05/02/15 04:01 PM
1

Did you not understand this line: Of course you can talk about issues multifaceted but you can also talk about issues specifically How does that read 'unwelcoming'? The list you wrote is basics and is nothing new to anyone, ever. Remember when I said about the 'necessary comparisons'? You seem to be under the impression that men and women are so wildly different that there's no way the problems women face could be directly correlated with the problems that men face, and thus discussions about ea…
/r/MensRights04/02/15 02:04 AM
1

I'm skimming these, but I'm gonna throw in something. You talk alot about how you aren't listened to, so it's good to keep in mind that though you have a right to speak, you don't have a right to audience. Mens Rights has been bolstered and become so huge in the last few years as a direct response to this kind of issue in the Feminist movement What I see the reason for this is cherrypicked examples, exaggerated stories, clickbait articles and youtube videos. Outrage culture. Just look at GamerGa…
/r/MensRights04/02/15 01:42 AM
1

It could, and none would be the wiser! But that's the beauty of it, it's a shitty situation all around.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 11:42 PM
-2

That guy really thinks there's some kind of a war going on: It’s an attempt to force men out of tech so that women can take it over while at the same retain control over female dominated professions like elementary education. Like, what? Any woman who complains about the lack of women in tech is a hypocrite and a fraud unless she’s willing to become a boilermaker. So, basically if any man complains about lack of men in psychology he's a fraud unless he's willing to become a kindergarten teacher …
/r/MensRights03/02/15 11:17 PM
0

It's a pretty unfair outcome if you want to be a father to the child and it is unilaterally terminated. It is. And that is also why generally children should be concieved in agreement. Flipped: It sucks to have to pay support for the child and suffer discomfort but he would have had that in the back of his mind when he decided to have sex, I would hope.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 11:04 PM
0

No one should ever have a say over other's body. But the so called financial abortion is very tricky, 'cause in the end, it's both of the parents responsibility they concieved. It's really not that hard to shroud your sprout and pop a pill (if it's suitable). Every time you have sex, there should be a small disclaimer running through your mind: "May result in having a baby or an STD" And making the mother to "choose" between abortion or raising the kid alone, is pretty unfair outcome for somethi…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 10:29 PM
6

Woops, didn't only mean this case. Clarified!
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:46 PM
31

The Society of Professional Journalists has pretty clear code of ethics, in this code you can find such suggestions as: Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast. Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. Balance a suspect’s right to a fair tri…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 08:08 PM
2

"The book actually contains a detailed two-page spread on sexual reproduction that some might consider too mature for fourth graders." Do these kids not have biology in the fourth grade?
/r/MensRights03/02/15 07:42 PM
1

You really read in to it :D Let me clarify my view: it's easy for these kinds of echo chambers to form and they often form when people begin to assume that they've already taken everything into consideration when they haven't. Yes, circlejerks form all the time, especially in the internet and places with clear agenda. But, always assuming people don't posess critical thinking, is kinda condecending. but eventually people began discussing how men were affected This thread is not really a good exa…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 07:19 PM
1

Hah, no problem. It's to be expected when expressing these kind of views. Now, the only reason why the perps gender is important and should be discussed separately is because of the difference in how women and men deal and express aggression. Of course, if you're writing generally about DV, it's different story, but that wasn't the case with this article. Now the arrest percent is interesting and positive as it states that men can also be just as victimized as women.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 10:24 AM
1

How exactly are the answers different for starters? Women and men deal with aggression differently based on things like social and gender roles, so it's not that simple. Furthermore, the article itself propagates a lot of the same misinformation that we've all heard about constantly. Such as? I thought the article was quite positive, in the way it criticised the Duluth model and actually advocated helping the men instead of just demonizing and locking them up.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 12:37 AM
-1

That's assuming necessary comparisons aren't already considered. There's no way anybody who's having a serious discussion about, for example, female victims of domestic abuse is not aware of male victims. Shouting #AllLivesMatter doesn't help when you're discussing #BlackLivesMatter.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 01:30 PM
0

While I agree, that male victims of domestic abuse is definitely not discussed enough in the mainstream media, I don't see any reason not to discuss "Why men hit?" separately from "Why women hit?", since the answers are not same.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 11:20 AM
0

Why is it 'obligatory'?
/r/MensRights01/02/15 10:18 AM
4

Yes. The thing is, Internet is probably the worst place to read about women, men or some different groups of people in general. You're gonna have alot of one-sided, over simplified stories and blatant lies. And to build your image from that is a huge mistake. In the end you're gonna find yourself as a lonely, bitter feller, confirming your biases with horror stories about gold digging, spermjacking, false accusing, cheating whores. Common sense is all you need. Sure, there's a chance you're goin…
/r/MensRights01/02/15 04:53 AM
1

Just read the guidelines yourselves. What is consent? (PDF Warning) Rest of the guidelines from CPS
/r/MensRights01/02/15 04:24 AM
1

Well, no. Did you read the article? It's an article about men who abuse their spouses, why they do it, and how can they be rehabilitated. It's about men, you can't just slap a "Why do people hit?" on the cover, can you? Also, it even acknowledges that there is a gender symmetry in some domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 04:07 AM
2

Here are the guidelines, regarding consent. (PDF) And here you can find the rest of the published CPS guidelines. Also the BBC article linked in the MJ one, is way better.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 03:17 AM
1

Well, sometimes it does detract. I mean, it doesn't really help when you're discussing about an exact part of an issue to start talking about another one.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 02:33 AM
1

I said the site was sexist, you said it's necessary to overcorrect and I questioned this sarcastically by pointing the top posts on the site which aren't by a long shot heplful to anyone, regarding equality. It didn't address the white knight vs black knight thingy, since it should be obvious that fighting harmful (doing something because of sex) with harmful (doing something to disdain) is a stupid notion. It just adds more assholes to the equation, even with the possibility that there really a…
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:50 AM
1

Ah, so the road to equality should be paved with sentiments (Top posts) such as "Women: Don't cut your damn hair because it doesn't sexually gratify me" and "Women don't even logic". What a great idea.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 04:59 PM
1

More specifically, we have [in global society] a problem with widespread male violence and an unwillingness to even recognise, let alone confront it. and By allowing ourselves to believe this latest gunman did it purely because of Islam, we don't have to confront those questions about what it means to be human, and the violence that is indelibly entrenched in our collective experience of humanity. To me it reads more like instead of blaming men the writer rather blames us all for neglecting the …
/r/MensRights16/12/14 04:28 PM
3

The writer does raise a fair point. Westerners are regarded as complex human beings who are driven and influenced by a wide range of factors, including politics, mental health, and personal dispositions. It's not unusual to see crimes made by people of color regarded as their 'cultures' fault (as if the culture, religion or ethincity makes them inherently violent), but when a white person commits something heinous there is a big talk about how society may have failed them and how there needs to …
/r/MensRights16/12/14 02:28 PM
-2

While the reasons and conclusions in this piece are altogether total shite, if someone makes you feel unconfortable at work you absolutely should go to the HR, it's their job. I don't see how that is knighting of any color. I thought the Men's Rights advocated for dismanteling harmful gender roles and frankly this kind of 'Alpha' babble is the total opposite of that. Also, the site is blatantly sexist.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 03:36 AM
1

First, I must admit I should've continued to use the word 'believe' instead of 'acknowledge' as I apparently didn't know they are nothing alike. Sometimes the investigation for the evidence doesn't really even start or isn't taken seriously because the police didn't believe the victim or that rape never occured. Here's a pretty good article about it, with some studies.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:15 AM
1

Now, I'm prefectly fine with my cognitive dissonance, but if you'd just read the next line: You can acknowledge a rape has happened and there is a suspect. That is my interpretation of believing the victim, treat them as such. We assume the suspect is innocent until proven guilty but let's not assume the accuser is untouched until proven raped. It is quite important that the possible victim gets the help they need as if they were the victim. Even if the accusation doesn't reach an investigation,…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 01:46 AM
1

Not necessarily. You can actually believe the victim's story, but also withhold your judgement on the accused. You can acknowledge a rape has happened and there is a suspect. Of course, not everyone is talented enough to perform a mental feat like this, which is why I think no names should be published in media before conviction, like you do in cases with minors.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 12:02 AM
0

So you're saying that false accusations are so prevalent that one shouldn't believe the possible victim? And is it really so unreasonable to expect that a well known publication actually does it's job and investigates before reporting, especially with such a piece?
/r/MensRights11/12/14 11:45 PM
1

I don't see how. You don't think it's good for victims to know they're believed? And it's not unreasonable to assume that a publication would actally do research and fact checking before publishing such a high profile story. By any measure, the fact that Jackie was believed will end up hurting rape victims. That is the worst part of this whole debacle, but I meant the good thing was the public believing, not RS. And it's their shoddy work that made this so goddamn big pile o' shit, in the end.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 11:23 PM
-1

Good for victims generally, it sends a message that it's safe to come out and report your experiences. That you won't get blamed for what was done to you.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 06:18 PM
-2

It's absolutely a good thing people believed her, and there was no reason not to believe her when the story was published in a renowned magazine. The consequences should be on Rolling Stone for doing shitty journalism and neglecting fact-checking. I'm afraid that because of this huge oversight by RS, more rape incidents go unreported because the air has shifted towards doubt. Note, that I don't condone Jackie's actions if she was lying, who would? But it was ultimately RS who made this public wi…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:48 PM
-2

The article actually is speaking to everyone in regards that it doesn't state that only men 'gaslight'. It merely states that women get gaslighted more. ("It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of [women] than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men."). Yes- if it is the intent of the person speaking, to undermine or manipulate the emotional reaction of the person who is having that emotion, then I agree, that can be considered to be gaslighting. That's ri…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 12:30 PM
-4

I have no idea what you're saying. Are we having a debate? I will say this, it is a gendered issue and it does happen quite often. The whole thing has the same basis as to why women get more lenient sentences (because they're not taken seriously). Also, the article doesn't state that men are the sole perpetrators (because they aren't), it doesn't blame men. All it says is: "this thing happens, maybe we should think about it". If you feel blamed of guilted by something, then maybe you should thin…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 11:27 AM
-2

Who hasn't heard these at some point? Most people are occasionally emotionally, irrational, or simply impulsive. The point is that you don't actually have to be "emotional, irrational or impulsive" but just by expressing a dissenting opinion or addressing inappropriate behaviour you're being shot down as if your thoughts don't matter. Another form of this kind of dismissal is "You look so cute when you're angry". And while the 'gaslighting' in this article is more about making the person seem mo…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 11:05 AM
-3

The article talks about speaking your mind and getting dismissed because you're (usually) a woman, and let's face it, there is a history that woman is supposed to be passive and submissive. And actually handwaving it as irrational is, well, read the link. What this whole thing has to do with Men's Rights, I have no fucking clue.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 01:40 AM
-3

It is not that women are the only people allowed to have a reaction, it's about undermining that reaction, not taking it seriously or dismissing it, and there's a history of it. You've probably heard such things as: "She's hysterical", "She's PMSing" or "You look so cute when you're angry". Also, the article doesn't give the response for the late-spouse-scenario, but it's interesting that the only options you gave for it are either a screaming bitch or Betty Draper. God forbid the reaction actua…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 01:28 AM
1

So what are you driving at?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 03:32 PM
1

So? Taking emotions and feelings into consideration is important. We are not Vulcans.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 02:43 PM
1

Could you elaborate? Are you saying that because the names are in the court record, they should also be in the press? Or that they're public because there may be more victims?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 01:38 PM
2

Of course I wouldn't, and as you can interpret from my comment I don't want any names to be in the press before conviction, unless the crime concerns the public. That would be the ideal situtation and not possibly stigmatizing victims or innocents. Also, I asked for your opinion, but I take it's "yes"?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 12:36 PM
1

So instead of demanding the press not to disclose the names of people found to be criminally unaccountable and to wait for conviction, everyone should be miserable? In a case where you or someone close to you is raped, would you want the information to be public?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 09:06 AM
0

I guess they do. Never thought they could mean something as dumb as what you're saying though.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:46 PM
1

You don't happen to know where I could find these objective raitings?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 03:29 AM
0

So you're saying that in all of these vastly different societies, in which some of them women have had a subordinate role and very few rights compared to men, they have infact not been oppressed because the purpose of these societies is to provide and protect them? And to think that women have been oppressed, for example, by not being able to attend universities or otherwise not given even close the same chances as men, is "disingenuous and stupid"? Did I get it right?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 03:25 AM
1

I wonder what kind of society you mean. Is it for example a hunter-gatherer, agrarian or a modern civilization? And wouldn't it be more accurate to say the child should get the protection and provision. And are you implying with your comment, that since the male's "purpose in the human society is to provide and protect women", men should just suck it up and do the dangerous work?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 02:06 AM
1

Yeah, no. Of course white men were able to do slavework, it was just considered beneath them. Also, are you seriously comparing a man and a woman to a slave and an owner?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:14 AM
0

Well to be fair, women were (and sometimes still are) perceived to be unable to do "a man's job" which are the dangerous ones. It is also perceived masculine to be aggressive, eat a lot of meat, smoke cigarettes and drink heavily thus making men more susceptible to poor health and untimely death.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 08:52 PM
1

There was actually a report from Moody's just today! While I disagree that the social problems stem just from religion, the government probably should've directed the flow of immigrants and refugees out from larger cities (creating areas with lots of unemployed). For example, there has been some good results with integration in Finland when the reception centers have been in smaller towns.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 08:22 PM
2

What do you mean? It's credit rating is still a stellar AAA. Bigger problem the country seems to face is Sverigedemokraterna keeping the government hostage.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 06:57 PM
2

What a beautiful insight. Thank you for this, changed my world.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 06:37 PM
1

Surely you have some kind of basis for your statement?
/r/MensRights08/12/14 06:26 PM
2

One can be both; humanism is a philosophy but feminism is an ideology/movement.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 05:43 PM
7

I hope you're right but are you sure they just haven't told you? Many cases go unreported because of shame and fear. And since most rapes are perpetrated by someone close (which also raises the bar to report), neighbourhood is not really a factor.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 05:06 PM
1

Propably would, but then again, you shouldn't tweet penis pics to your followers. But it's different from sending pictures to your partner and later someone publishing them for revenge (although, I don't know if Breitbart had something against Weiner). I would still see that he would be preceived more as a virile young man or a skirt chacer, but for example, Kirsten Gillibrand would just be called a whore.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 07:35 PM
0

Are you talking about Anthony Weiner? He sent pictures (or links) from his public Twitter account to total strangers and continued to do so even after the scandal. I don't think it was the pictures per se that made him resign, but the fact that he was married man with a family who messaged and 'sexted' with other women, which is seen as morally reprehensible.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 05:43 PM
7

But in the end, aren't many crimes frameable? It still doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to investigate or prosecute them. If someone is going to jail without evidence or reasonable doubt, it's a lot bigger problem than this law. And as for the social stigma, maybe the press shouldn't be able to state names before conviction.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:27 PM
1

What is this 'mangina' you speak of?
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:33 AM
1

I'm pretty sure the law applies to any gender the same way.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 09:48 PM
0

If you only look at iOS games, then yes, women seem to be under 40% by that definition, but I would ask you to add Managemet/Simulators, to your list too. Also, the time consumed and money spent on microtransactions could also be some kind of indicator how serious the hobby is. Most of the women I know who play the games above, also play different games on different platforms. But it could be because most of the women I know also work in the industry.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 01:08 PM
1

So the attitude towards liberal arts and humanities in Reddit boils down to being marketable? Not having a high paying job or did you mean that there are no jobs? Surely the world needs philologists, economists and other researchers and such. Well, time to brush up with the American education system.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 07:31 AM
-4

Thereport used in those articles also states: "Adult gamers have been playing for an average of 16 years, with adult men averaging 18 years and adult women averaging 13 years." [Total average 14.] "Of the most frequent game purchasers: Men 50% Women 50%" Which might help to think how much games like Criminal Case or Vikings Gone Wild is part of this. But I for one am not going decide for other people what they are or aren't. But I don't think the number is far off. According to Nielsen in early …
/r/MensRights06/11/14 05:57 AM
1

Wait, whats wrong with liberal arts ed? I see these notions everywhere on Reddit, but don't know why.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 04:32 AM
-8

using misleading statistics for their own agenda How? Do you have any proof for this claim? The 'Gamers are dead' articles point that since gaming has gotten more diverse, 'gamers' are no longer the 'angry, basement-dwelling white male nerds". There is no longer that stereotypical 'gamer' identity; hence 'Gamers are dead'. So there's really no reason to turn on gamers, there are gamers on both sides.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 04:03 AM
1

Public figures have been harassed since the dawn of publicity and I believe they have their ways of dealing with it. But nowadays it's our average blog posters, youtubers and tumblr users, the not so public figures. You don't even have to do anything more than just comment on an article or post a picture of yourself on Reddit to have a chance to get harrassed or doxxed. It can affect your personal life through that. And I don't blame if you're scared, or annoyed or insulted when somebody is laug…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 11:00 PM
4

It's not the 90's early 00's when only few are connecting through chatting and trolling on forums. Anonymously. We live in an age, where many haven't even lived without access to internet. Nowadays people have their lives, their personality, their social circles online, it's about time some should realize that there are real people on the other end of their vile posts. "Internet is srs bizns", you know what? It really is. It's a big part of our lives and overlaps with the outside that it's not u…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 08:49 PM
1

When it's a gender related issue, it's a feminist issue, also regardless of gender. In this case, it's women who are treated differently because of how their society views women and girls. Should there be more inclusion of men who suffer from the same consequences? Absolutely. But since the ingrained sexism and toxic masculinity is such a big issue (wich, in the end is the basis of violence between men), MRM could lend a helping hand on it too and talk about the men's side of things instead of p…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 09:26 AM
-1

Yes, the latter was a joke. I was merely frustrated that you can't seem to see why there is a focus on the women's aspect of things. Every victim is as important. But do you just not see the difference in the motives of the incidences? The attacks against women and girls are mostly based on sexism and misogyny wich makes it a feminist issue. And just to be clear: I think it's horrendous that anyone has to suffer such a fate like an acid attack surivor, regardless of gender. I just ask you to und…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 07:05 PM
-1

No one's saying that men don't suffer from the faults of patriarchal societies that these nations have in place, women and girls just suffer more. Empowering women help men just as well when the traditions start to crumble and people start to realize that maybe your honour, or losing it, doesn't entitle you to throw acid on somebody's face. Women and girls get acid when they're doing things AS or because they ARE female, how do you not see why feminists would focus on the women's side of things.…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 05:30 PM
1

It is true that the acid violence is often based on loss of honour, but so is every fist fight. It is toxic masculinity. And while I think you're absolutely right, there is still a bit of difference in the motivations behind the attacks as sometimes the woman is attacked for the loss of her honour, not for treading on someone elses. I'm just trying to explain why the coverage is mostly women related, And maybe AVFM should focus more on the male victims and awereness of the issues in patriarchal …
/r/MensRights15/10/14 10:36 AM
2

I was simply citing the same organization as the article. Now, I think why the men are left out of the mainstream awareness, is because the attacks on men are for usually something like property disputes and not based on how their gender is positioned in their society.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 10:13 AM
6

While there's no denial that male victims of acid attacks are very underrepresented, it's still pretty clear from the ASF statistics page that the attacks on women are gender related. Clear gender based motivations include: dowry (3), marital dispute (1 male, 5 female) and Refusal/rejection of love/marriage/sex (1 male, 9 female, 9 children (considering it's Bangladesh, are mostly girls). The site also states, that 99% of the attacks against women were perpetrated by men. Also, I find it disturb…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 02:04 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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