TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CormacAndroid Archive

View 0 posts and 90 comments by CormacAndroid 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)
-7

The benefit of the doubt only goes so far. You never can know 100% but 1 woman in the cabinet is very suggestive. Either way this does need to be talked about. If it is not just Abbott being sexist why was there only 1 woman who was the best choice? Then whatever caused it needs to be fixed. Abbott being sexist is the most simple and the most likely answer, it is a valid thing to ask and question. 1 Female cabinet member should not be considered a normal and acceptable state of affairs.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:36 AM
-10

Making claims without evidence/putting forth reasoning. I was literally just asking for evidence and reasoning in this very comment chain. The only claim I have made here is that feminists focus on womans issues. Does anyone really want me to back that up?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:25 AM
-10

You misunderstand. He does not think the women would be better for the job. He firmly believes the people he picked are better suited and more qualified. His view on who is compitent is informed in part by his sexism (assuming that he is sexist here, he might not be I don't know the guy personally). Its not like he sees the candidates and goes ok that woman is the best choice but I hate woman so I am going to choose the man. That would not make sense, sexism can be far more subtle. Like racism w…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:14 AM
-13

Yet woman still face the same issues so maybe the focus is not heavy enough. Clearly you are wrong in your assessment. You might want to rethink it.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:38 AM
-2

Why would he pass up the oppurtunity for a stronger team? He is not, I am sure he believes he chose the best of the best, but his view is colored by sexism which is why he believes he chose the best, he discounted the women because he is sexist. That is the general arguement one could make. I am not claiming he is sexist. I don't know but selecting a pretty much all male cabinet is suggestive that he is sexist.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:27 AM
-6

Do you know any successful people? They do it all the time, no one is such a paragon of virtue that they can set outside themself and make 100% rational decisions everything we do is informed by other beliefs we hold. They are just like the rest of us. Their opinions sway what they believe is the right thing to do. If he believes consciously or unconsciously that woman are inferior to men or if he somehow resents woman or whatever the case might be that is going to affect his decisions. I don't …
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:16 AM
-7

Feminists focus on woman's issues. Does MensRights focusing on issues mens face mean you don't care about womans issues or somehow mean you think they don't exist?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:06 AM
-4

I am not seeing any being listed. I am not seeing any feminists denying these things exist. I am honestly curious, every feminist I know acknowledges men have problems as well, they stem from the same place as the problems woman face. In fighting against gender roles most of these issues will be resolved.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:55 AM
-9

Could it be that he thinks that because he is sexist which is what the entire point of this is? I have a hard time believing that out of everyone there was only one woman worthy.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:39 AM
-21

No one is saying that. But to elect appoint only one woman is a disgrace. Is anyone really going to argue that there was only 1 woman good enough for the job? edit: Unfortunately I can no longer respond to people as the mods have seen fit to ban me. (not for anything in this thread, I assume for telling someone they were jerking to hard over their hate a feminism in a spammy way)
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:17 AM
-4

Out of all the things you could get angry at. You are worrying about the fly buzzing on your wall ignoring the wrecking ball swinging towards it. Yeah they should probably have gotten some mens opinions but to be angry about that without a word about there only being 1 woman in the cabinet is just ridiculous. You are complaining there is a fly in my soup while the rest of the world is starving. Yeah the fly shouldn't be there but it is far from the most pressing issue.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:07 AM
-4

Which problems do feminists deny existing?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:52 AM
11

Wait so now rape culture exists because it happened to a boy? This subreddit will argue to no end about how rape culture is not a thing but now it is a boy that got raped and people are excusing it no one says a thing about it?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 12:11 PM
-7

shitthatneverhappened.txt
/r/MensRights05/09/13 11:43 AM
1

So saying a glib sarcastic remark about how women want weddings not marriages is hateful, but saying that women are the primary victims of war because they have to watch their husbands and sons die is not. One is directly attacking the other is by omission. As I said I wouldn't argue if someone wanted to argue that it was. Where do they recognise it? They say men oppressed women without acknowledging that men had obligations and responsibilities that women did not have. That it was an exchange a…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:26 PM
1

Hilary Clinton saying that women are the primary victims of war because they have to watch their husbands and sons die. If there is conscription then that statement is fucked up, but if people are choosing to fight and die then it is just slightly less bad. Men have families to after all. Im not sure I would call it hateful but it is certainly undermining the suffering men go through. Which some might call hateful and I wouldn't argue with that. Patriarchy theory claims that men created a societ…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:52 PM
1

I mean actual words said. Not just a list of things. Hilary has said tons of things, Which part of patriarchy is it you object to etc. Certain anti rape campaigns are hateful, saying teach men not to rape is a pretty horrible thing to say, it implies raping is a default for men, something you have to teach them not to do.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:36 PM
1

Direct me to specific things and I will let you know.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:26 PM
1

Go for it. Any feminist who spread anti male rhetoric should be called out on it. It should be noted saying quite hateful things can serve a point (think some posts on SRS, they circlejerk over how bad reddit is flipping it against men) but it is still hateful.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:01 PM
1

a glib sarcastic comment True but one that spreads hatred of women. If we're talking social dynamics and statistics we have to talk in generalities, and if 70% of divorces are initiated by women and the number 1 reason is boredom, then its okay to draw some kind of a general interpretation from that. Yeah um only around 50% of couples divorce, so it ends up being a minority of women that we are now talking about not to those that never marry. Even if you are ok with generalizing when it is a maj…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 01:42 PM
1

Your way is better, it wouldn't be indicative of misogyny but I would still have a problem with it. They might have wanted a marriage but not the one that they ended up in. I will use an extreme example which will not be the norm but you will be able to see better how it would relate. A woman gets married, then the husband starts beating her. So she files for divorce. It is clear that not wanting marriage was not the problem. Better is to say "those women did not want the marriage they were invo…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 01:28 PM
2

Yes if she is clear in the beginning and active participates during she cannot claim afterwards that she wanted you to stop mid way without letting you know. The being clear in the beginning and actively participating is important though. Context is also important, some people like bdsm and other such activities were a safe word would mean stop and no wouldn't necessarily mean stop. But such ground rules would have to be set in advance and well understood by both parties. edit: and vice versa fo…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:20 PM
1

That's not a generalization, that's just plain incorrect. No more incorrect than saying woman want a wedding not a marriage. In fact more woman want a marriage and a wedding than the number of people who have ever gone into space.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:35 PM
1

But if it were a majority, it would be a perfectly justifiable generalization, which would be correct. Humans are straight. Humans are Asian. Humans are have never gone into space etc. All bad generalizations which should not be made. Even if it is a majority you should always recognize the minority in appropriate situations, as a rule of thumb any time you are saying something negative it is appropriate to be specific. Resentment (also called ranklement or bitterness) is the experience of a neg…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:25 PM
1

So you're saying that you still would object if it were a proven fact? That's frightening, that you would still believe your own ideology over scientifically proven truth. Majority does not mean all woman, it would still be a generalization. Which would still be wrong. And now you conflate resentment with hatred. I resent having to get up to go to work every morning, but I don't hate my job. See your confusion here? Look up the definition. It is consistent with hatred. So wait, you say it isn't …
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:02 PM
-1

Not all marriages end in divorce, not all woman marry and there is the 30% who don't initiate the divorce. This is why you should not generalize, I am fairly certain those numbers make woman divorcing the minority of woman. Even if it was the majority I would still object. The only relevant point here is whether it indicates hatred. I am not saying they want to beat woman in the streets but there certainly is some resentment there. edit: even if you disagree, it certainly is anti women. Which wa…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:39 PM
6

Fairly certain it means that a person can revoke consent during sex and the other person must stop. It seems a good rule to me.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:28 PM
0

Are you seriously going to suggest that saying "Woman want a wedding not a marriage", i.e. that they want a fancy ceremony but not the life long commitment to their partner was not meant to portray woman in a negative light?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:17 PM
1

True but if it made the practice safer I would prefer the people who were participating in the practice use it. If you want to criticize the South African government for pushing for people to be circumcised I understand and can agree regardless of the question of preventing aids weather you believe that it does or does not help it certainly should be the choice of the person doing it and should not be pushed for by society but left to the individual to decide. It certainly shouldn't be done to a…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:07 PM
-1

The people said the original remarks do think it is wrong, that was why they were saying it. That should be pretty obvious. That either you aren't serious enough about what you say to say it properly, or you aren't educated enough to be able to do so. Yet you get the point well enough.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:56 PM
-1

Yeah it means you have a prejudice against blue cars, you think they are worse (assuming you count speed as an important factor) for reasons that do not correspond to reality. edit: yeah my spelling and grammar suck but that does not have any bearing on the issue at all but I do apologize for that.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:42 PM
5

As it says in the video In South Africa circumcision is the right to manhood for many tribes as wrong as that is. The people that would be using this device they are normally late teenagers (over 18) when they choose to do it (there is societal pressure so take choose with a grain of salt). They are done out in the rural areas, not even in a hospital by people who are not doctors. As a result every year people die. While this practice should probably not be viewed as necessary to become a man a …
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:47 PM
-1

There is your problem, you want people who do not share your point of view to leave.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:23 AM
4

Call me what you want, but calling the people you need to convince "unthinking apes" is not helping the mens rights cause.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:04 AM
0

No staying woman do not want marriage, they want a wedding is, also the chirp about a paycheck. read the comment chain linked to. I am not talking about the article
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:54 AM
-1

Drop that 'superior' attitude and maybe people will be more open to what you say.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:35 AM
-4

When stuff like this happens and is up voted and people defend it like here. I tend to think this place at the very least has an undercurrent of hating woman. It could be ignorance on how those statements affect people but the effect they have is just the same. Before anyone objects please read all the comment chains in both links, chances are I have already responded to your objections.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:09 AM
1

The reason I did not respond sooner is I have been downvoted well below 0 karma for this sub reddit, this means I am limited to 1 post every 10 minutes on this subreddit. It is an anti spam feature reddit has. Lots of people are responding to me, I cannot respond to all in a timely manner because of the posting restriction. Your comment fell to the wayside however I shall answer now as I have just come across your post again. The point of marriage today is stability for a family and a way to ens…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:51 PM
-1

Women is a plural, when you say woman are x, x applies to everything in the category of women. Most of the time when people do this they are generalizing which is fine in many contexts, but here it is inappropriate because of the negative context of the remarks. It is like me saying men are perverts. Not every man is a pervert, you might not be a pervert (assuming you are a man) but you are included in the statement.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:23 PM
0

Wow I totally failed at English there edited it. Other than the English fail I don't see anything wrong with what I said. If they were making broad generalizations about what woman want in a negative context then sure go ahead you are free to say they are anti woman... because it would mean they were. I don't really care what they had to say. Each person, woman included want different things based on what they feel is important, saying woman are x, where x is bad makes you look anti woman, inten…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:13 PM
1

Men are perverts. Sorry I was only talking about men over the age of 25. It just doesn't work that way. It is a generalization. Which in this case is highly inappropriate.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:03 PM
-4

It really doesn't matter as long as it is not true of all men...which it isn't . Just like with woman and marriage.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 03:24 PM
-2

True I did edit. It, felt a fuller answer would be more apropriate. Do you disagree with it as it stands? Seems like you agree with me. Considering as of right now you have not edited your post you saw my edited post before submiting yours. I don't see a problem. You have just written edit: a few times for what ever reason.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 01:26 PM
-2

It says nothing for the reason the marriage happened in the first place. Woman do come off better in a divorce than the man in a lot of cases. Not all but they tend to get the children etc. So it is not suprising that they intitiate it as men have more risk of losing more than is acceptable to them. Very general there are plenty cases that do not match this. It doesn't say why they married in the first place though.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 01:16 PM
-10

Majority != all woman. I question wether it is actually the majority as we need the numbers who never divorce and never marry as well. But none of that is the point, that number has nothing to do with why woman marry which is what I am linking to. The claim is they marry specifically for the wedding and money. Woman initiating more divorces certainly doesn't say that.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 01:02 PM
-3

So true of all woman then? If not why are you supporting a comment which says so. Even if I accept the articles numbers and everything, it doesn't matter. it cannot be true for all the woman who stay married and the 30% who do not initiate the divorce and in a sense those that never marry (because that is why they would marry if they did). The comment includes all these woman. Saying woman marry for money is misogynistic simply because it is not true (because it is not true for all woman) and se…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:52 PM
-3

Either you didn't read the comment of you do not understand english. The second is a perfectly accepable reason. When you say woman are x, that includes everyone in the category of woman, there is no reference to a subset within the category of woman. So saying woman don't want marriage, they want a wedding and a paycheck. You are saying all the people in the category of woman, so every woman on the planet partakes in this activity. You can speak of multiple woman but you should make an exclusio…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:42 PM
-8

And you ignore the point entirely. You cannot look at the behavior of part of a group and say that is the behavor of the entire group. Even if I just accept the numbers from that article, that is still 30% of divorced woman who do not match. But even that is inaccurate because the claim is woman do not want marriage, they want a wedding. Also the enxt comment suggests they marry for a paycheck in the form of alimony. those numbers say nothing about the actual comments I am talking about.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:14 PM
-10

Most of woman != woman as a whole. Just because some partake in a certain behavior that does not mean you can slander all woman. The comment I linked to suggests woman get married for the purpose of alimony, it is straight of hatred of woman.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:02 PM
-7

great many != woman Men are perverts. Men are rapists. Saying that is pretty much doing the same thing. There are many men who are both of those things, but that doesn't make the statment men are perverts true. It is slander against all men.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:51 AM
-18

Saying woman don't want to get marriage, they want a wedding (next comment) and a pay check that is anti woman. What do you need them to openly say I hate woman?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:40 AM
-12

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gnj0t/survey_of_101_divorce_lawyers_show_the_1_reason/cam0255 Read the comments below as well. Currently on the front page.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:25 AM
10

The mother is dead so no it won't.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:15 AM
-34

Well when misogynist comments are upvoted and defended here people get a certain impression of the place.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:05 AM
-8

Disagreeing is not trolling.... You felt the need to warn people that someone holds a different point of view that says a lot...
/r/MensRights20/06/13 07:20 AM
-6

Once again read, no one was talking about divorce rather they are talking about the reasons woman marry. In this case the claim is basically woman don't want marriage, they want a wedding and a paycheck. That is an anti woman view.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 07:09 AM
-7

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gnj0t/survey_of_101_divorce_lawyers_show_the_1_reason/cam0255 Specifically talking about woman. No one is talking about feminism.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:15 PM
-8

Notice how no one takes them seriously either?
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:03 PM
-2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gnj0t/survey_of_101_divorce_lawyers_show_the_1_reason/cam0255 If you read you succeed! They are talking about woman.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:49 PM
-28

It is that everyone is upvoting it that makes me think this sub is anti woman. People here might not be but if you say things like that and if you tolerate people displaying that attitude (ie not speaking out against it) people are going to rightfully think that is what you are, anti woman. Considering that is one of the biggest image issues of mens rights movement you would think people might be move careful with how they present themselves. If you want people to take you seriously you cannot c…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 08:35 PM
-90

Nope this sub isn't anti woman at all. /s
/r/MensRights19/06/13 07:29 PM
0

Go play any game with teamspeak and be a woman. There are completely reasonable people in the community the vast majority infact but as a whole there is still a lot of sexism. Everytime there is a discussion on "girl gamers" people come out of the wood work. reddit is one of the nicest places in this respect.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 08:32 AM
-2

There has been a ton of discussion. She sparked it and people have been talking about it since. We are commenting on it in a video discussing it. There has been a ton of discussion.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:11 PM
-1

How do we know? If she played all the games she talked about I would say she has. People deserve to get payed for their work, it is not just expenses. She promised youtube videos, she said she needed money to get that done, people gave her the money. If you think she hasn't done enough that is the danger of kickstarter, you are giving money without any evidence that it is going to be a quality product. If we take the goal of the videos as to create discussion on the topic as TAA seems to say in …
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:58 PM
-3

While you are right that she really isn't having a discussion about it, she certainly has caused a lot of discussion on the topic. Honestly overall I think her videos have been a good thing. If you agree with her or not a discussion of sexism in gaming is not a bad thing, the gaming community is quite sexist at times. I personally believe most of it comes from immaturity but introspection is generally a good thing.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:03 PM
-5

I am sure there is the odd good comment I just haven't seen it. Why do you even care? You can debate anywhere not just youtube comments. You can make a video response if you like. What it does stop is a lot of hate in the comments which lots of people don't want to see. Even if she is doing it to stop debate so what? If her ideas don't stand up disabling youtube comments is not going to stop people finding out.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:51 PM
1

Youtube is a private website they are free to remove whatever the like. I would obviously be against singling out an entire ideology from the site though. Comments are not one point of view so it doesn't bother me as much. If you want to respond, a video response seems reasonable considering it is a video sharing platform. You can also mail Anita directly if you like, more chance of her reading that than reading the comments of a youtube video.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:23 PM
1

She said she was going to make some youtube videos. And she is now releasing what she promised presumably to the best of her ability. There is no con there. She is doing what she promised. Now people are talking about the issue. I would say it has overall been positive. Whether you agree with her or not she has gotten people to talk about the issue which I would consider a good thing for gaming, at the very least she is helping bring to light how many games do the same tired things over and over…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:13 PM
6

Depends what you consider rape. Some feminists consider a woman being drunk as unable to give consent (not talking black out drunk here). I would be concerned with these numbers also because who reports on campus. I would think most would go off campus to report based on the university I went to. I don't think those numbers are included here. It is never going to get to 1 in 4 by most people standards or what constitutes rape though.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:01 PM
-11

and shut down debate No debate to be found in youtube comments. More likely she wanted to avoid the death and rape threats. It is her private channel she can do what she wants.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:50 PM
1

Basically the facebook post was based on crap numbers then. You cannot go on reported numbers at each campus. It does not include the many that do not report or that report off campus. The 1 in 4 stat is probably bogus but so is this.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:40 PM
2

Not her fault people donated so much. She did not ask for people to donate 5 times whar she asked for. Obviously it is overkill but people are free to use there money however they see fit. They chose to donate.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:30 PM
-3

As I said I am not a feminist, I don't feel the need to defend it. I will just point you towards the history of feminism, speaks for its self. But since you want to call me on my bullshit. You divide up my post and answer the first half without the context of the second half when the second half invalidates your answer you the first bit. Now that is some bullshit. Your entire first half is based on a lack of understanding on what feminism is. This for example is another huge misunderstanding. Fe…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:12 PM
-2

So not all feminists are bad... yet you refuse to just criticize the bigots but rather feminism as a whole despite not all feminists being bad?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:26 PM
-3

Can you demonstrate a single instance of them actually advocating for equality? Not like you know the entire history of feminism ever happened. By that I mean an instance where they fought for a cause that didn't benefit them, but helped men? The idea of feminism is to get woman to a point where that are equal to men. You don't protest for someone who is privileged. We are at a point where men do suffer certain disadvantages and feminism agrees with this. Or can you point to a single aspect of f…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:24 PM
-3

That is what feminism is, if someone is promoting female supremacy that are staying from feminism. Which is why I suggested you focus on bigots instead because you know not all feminists are as you describe them.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:01 PM
-8

Not counter productive at all, we are making good progress on getting the message out there on the female side of things. I mean reddit is still a fan of abusing woman but in society at large the message is getting across. Is that really counter productive? People are not getting hurt as much as they used to in the past. That is a win. Sucks that men have not had the same success but that doesn't mean all the progress on the womans side has been counter productive. Less violence against woman is…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:57 PM
-3

Obviously a very biased source but it does link through to it's source.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:39 PM
-5

Here
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:38 PM
-7

And many MRA issues are not male specific. male victims of rape or violence Do woman not suffer from this? father's rights Do woman not also have parental rights? misandry No way woman face hate based on their gender at all.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:32 PM
-12

By that logic MRA's don't give a shit about womans rights. Just because you advocate for one thing does not mean that others are less important. Do you assume mens rights are more important than womans rights because you post here?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:11 PM
-3

I don't think we should be swearing in public billboards but I have no issue with a sign educating woman about safe sex. I.e. insist on a condom from the guy or wear a female condom. I don't believe in abstinence education. But adding something about trust being important I would also feel comfortable with.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:23 PM
-8

Please continue, I am still not reading it. I assume you are correct about all these things. I still don't see why i should treat these as anything more than individuals acting by themselves. The theory of feminism is all about equality. What you should have a problem with are people who are bigots.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:31 PM
-10

By that logic saying everyone teach all your kids to respect everyone is saying everyone is bad. Are you bad? Why do you support that? Unfortunately /r/MensRights has seen fit to prevent me from responding in a timely manner. 10 minutes wait between posts, so this will be my last post, far to annoying waiting 10 minutes to respond to people.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:17 PM
-9

Please do, I am not even going to read that. I am just going to assume it is accurate. One person doe not define a movement. I could direct you to a prominent mens rights author talking up incest with children. but it would be silly to suggest all men's rights activists are so keen to talk about the benefits of incest with young children.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:07 PM
-1

Here is the website related to the campaign. I see no hate of men. I see them trying to help solve a specific problem. http://www.respectwomen.ca/teachchild.html I see a campaign to teach respect. Respect is important. There is no need to look for conspiracy theories about feminists.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:56 PM
1

It does not assume anything, it was put up for a specific purpose. Most likely violence against woman. Just because there are other related issues that doesn't mean this one excludes the others from being important. It does not make any claims to their importance, it is trying to deal with one specific issue. Putting up a sign saying respect everyone does not deal with that one issue as well as directly addressing it. There is a reason we don't say don't use substances that effect you mentally w…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:45 PM
-32

It was already a good message just not as broad as you would like? I don't see the issue with the sign, it was not perfect but it was still a good message.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:24 PM
-5

I just don't see why the obsession with it. There are many very real problem woman face around the world, if we look outside first world countries those problems are very very serious, in the first world many of these problems have gone away as a direct result of feminism. Yeah it is not perfect but the ire it gets from MRAs is baffling.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:43 PM
-10

Half the posts in this sub seem to be talking about feminism... and woman related things, normally criticizing them.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:22 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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