TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Das_Mime Archive

View 0 posts and 155 comments by Das_Mime on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Genital mutilation predates Islam. So your statement that it originated with Islam can only be true if Muhammad was a time traveler.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 09:15 AM
2

I am asserting a political movement does not have a right to dictate what a group of people should do unilaterally. Nobody's doing that. Nobody's prosecuting. They're criticizing. As in, exercising their right to free speech. And if a group of swimmers was using swimming to escape socially dictated gender roles, then yes, I would argue that swimmer was a gender nonconforming identity. But they don't, and neither do the majority of gamers. There are certainly some people who roleplay as character…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:24 AM
2

rolls of bread winner. Heh. You realize that gaming doesn't in any way contradict earning money, and that it's a lot more than an escapism tool, right? Becouse "gamer" is a gender non conforming identity. You cannot possibly be serious. The majority of adults play video games. That's even more ridiculous than claiming that being a swimmer is a gender non conforming identity. Regardless, gaming doesn't belong to us men. That's completely preposterous. You haven't given a single reason why women h…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:55 PM
1

And maybe they'll look it up and find out that it was instituted by Vice Admiral Penrose-Fitzgerald. What's that? A man? You're telling me that men were involved in sending other men to fight? Perish the thought! We have to maintain the narrative that all wars are caused by women and that women have intentionally deprived themselves of civil rights for much of history just so that they could gleefully watch men go die in war! You're actually insane if you think pictures of bloody feathers are go…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 04:41 PM
2

By attacking the cultural spaces men would retreat to Because gaming somehow belongs exclusively to men?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:22 AM
4

It's a white supremacist site.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 03:56 PM
-6

If you were a white male would you want her handling your legal documents? As a white male, yes, I'd be fine with her handling my legal documents provided she has the appropriate qualifications.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:59 AM
-10

How does this explain why the admins have spent 6 years not doing the thing that you claim they want to do? If I call you a troll and an awful person (both true), does that make me right? After all, you're a person who believes that marital rape is impossible, and frankly I can't think of a whole lot of things more utterly reprehensible than defending rape. I think that any movement that actually cares about men, women, or any human beings of any sort should strongly reject you and other pro-rap…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:39 AM
0

/r/mensrights has been around for 6 years and hasn't been banned. On what basis are you saying that they're looking for "any excuse"? They (temporarily) banned /r/pcmasterrace for much less.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 10:37 PM
4

It's /r/FeMRAdebates, not /r/menvswomen (which apparently exists). It doesn't make much sense to accuse the mods there of favoring posters of a particular gender, unless notnotnotfred means that they favor both female MRAs and female feminists over male MRAs and male feminists (which would be a rather odd situation for a debate-based sub). Just another example of an MRA accidentally admitting that they see it as a men-vs-women issue.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 12:50 AM
4

A conspiracy is an agreement to break the law, It is not. That's certainly a connotation, but conspiracies are not limited to those things which are illegal. Even if that's not the mods' intent, that is what the sub will become. When they create an environment that can only generate low hanging fruit for people to mischaracterize the group a speaker identifies with, then that is what they will get. If they come up with rules like that to benefit MRAs then they ultimately do the MRM no favors by …
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:36 PM
4

That just leads me to believe that the sub is only a rhetoric factory to help radical feminists cite claims that might assist them in libeling the MRM. The mods favor MRAs and therefore the mods are radical feminist plants? That's a hell of a conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:10 PM
19

The mods there have ruled that it's against the rules to claim that an MRA made an untrue statement. It's also interesting that you say "favoring women". I guess it just betrays what you really have a problem with.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 09:10 PM
-8

The whole comments section was mostly dead. Then, suddenly, the one section that was linked to /r/mensrights starts getting dozens of votes. A child could figure this out.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 07:38 PM
-3

Do you still not understand what vitriol is? You're intentionally misrepresenting the provided definition by excluding the key word "caustic". Try this definition: something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech Can't believe I'm having to actually explain to you how dictionaries work. Probably a complete waste of my time.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 05:26 PM
-8

What does that have to do with brigading?
/r/MensRights28/06/14 04:14 PM
-4

If you actually read the definition that is presented, you will see that "criticism" is presented only as an example of something that can be vitriolic, not as the sum total of the meanings of the word. The actual definition that's presented under #3 is "something highly caustic or severe in effect", under which definition there was plenty of vitriol in the thread.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 03:25 PM
-17

Nice brigading. It's pretty pathetic that you run crying to mensrights for upvotes.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 03:15 PM
-1

There's also no connection between feminism and covering up sexual abuse. So actually it's the exact same argument: complete nonsense. Pull it together man, you're floundering big time.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 08:26 PM
-1

Did you know that all MRAs rape babies every Tuesday morning? It's true, I just said it. How dare you associate with those baby-rapers! Tell me, why do you support baby-raping? Same argument. Make a plainly untrue statement, then act as though it's true because you said it. Eat shit.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 08:03 PM
6

Only a literally insane person can possibly believe that. You know it's not true, you just get a little rush from saying it.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 01:56 AM
2

Do you think such actions will result in less feminism or more feminism? The Holocaust made antisemitism less popular in many places, therefore the Holocaust was perpetrated by Jews. That is the exact same identical argument that you are making.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:19 AM
2

If by 'always', you mean 'roughly twice', then no, I don't think that's a problem, since men have higher survival rates in shipwrecks.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 05:15 PM
-3

...are you from stormfront? Because you're parroting their talking points.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 10:55 PM
42

/r/thathappened
/r/MensRights10/04/14 08:51 PM
-1

the judge said "men earn their rights as citizens through the draft". If a judge actually said that then he's simply incorrect. That's fundamentally not how the US Constitution works.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 01:02 AM
1

I've criticized plenty of content on badhistory and never been banned for it. People do that all the time.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:22 AM
1

I actually am a subscriber, just not one that agrees with most of the sub. The difference is I post the criticisms here, instead of in circlejerks. Mensrights isn't a circlejerk? Since when?
/r/MensRights15/03/14 11:18 PM
-1

Go on, tell them what the poster in question actually said. Oh wait, you won't, because you don't like to admit that there are people in the MRM who are like that. Coward.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 06:14 PM
-10

Because the situation of men today is totally equivalent to that of black people in the Jim Crow South. edit: Guys, if you're going to make a direct comparison between two situations and use the latter as justification for the former, then it's not at all a straw man to point out that the two situations are radically different to such a degree that there is almost no resemblance between them whatsoever. Please actually learn what a logical fallacy is before you run around crowing about how you f…
/r/MensRights15/03/14 09:36 AM
-2

There's a big difference between incivility and bigotry.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:46 AM
-2

And you wonder why nobody takes MRAs seriously.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:02 AM
-1

Sorry, he doesn't get off the hook for his opinions. He is explicitly making an interpretation of what is occurring, and his interpretation is that raping children can be a positive thing. I'm sorry that you don't have the basic level of moral awareness required to realize that it's abhorrent, not beautiful.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 12:40 AM
-1

He realized it was really unpopular with the general public, of course.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 11:01 PM
1

How do you not care about the fact that someone was advocating the rape of children? That's not just a political phase that you go through in college or something.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 08:47 PM
0

If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..." Even Farrell hasn't argued that this was a misquote.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:54 PM
-1

If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..." This is not what the families told him. This is his own opinion and interpretation. And you know perfectly well that there is zero chance that he said "generally caressing". He was specifically discussing incest throughout the entire interview. There is no reason why he would go off onto a different topic-- it doe…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 05:53 PM
-2

We're back to where he's simply reporting his observations. No, this is unequivocally his opinions about incest, and his opinion is that it can be positive. Just give it up. Let go of the molestation apologist. You're only making yourself look worse by associating with that sick fuck.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 05:43 PM
-8

And yet people like yourself want to believe that he supports incest and rape. Why? I'd actually like not to believe that, but he clearly stated that he thinks it can be a positive thing. If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..." Would ya look at that! But again, you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go to any length to avoid acknowledg…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 11:25 AM
-3

Read the rest of what he said. He's clearly and unequivocally talking about incest the whole time. f pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..." http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:19 AM
-6

If it says "generally" then it hardly makes sense for him to be talking about sexuality and incest and so on. Read the rest of the interview. If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..." http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm
/r/MensRights11/03/14 06:37 AM
-5

I misspell it once out of how many times? Seriously now. Also I don't recall mentioning civility.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 05:57 AM
-8

You know perfectly well that that's a huge crock of shit. If it was just about the benefits of friendly physical contact, he wouldn't be focusing on incest. All of his quotes about the book deal with incest. If you are in denial about that, probably nothing is going to convince you otherwise, and I'm wasting my time.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 05:27 AM
-3

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves." That sound like an endorsement to you? It certainly does to me. Perhaps you're not capable of the level of cognition required to read a paragraph. That could explain the brevity of your response.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 05:16 AM
-2

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration." --Warren Farrell Still gonna defend him? He outright stated that molesting children is a "caring, loving, expression".
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:49 AM
-2

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration." What do you think this means? I don't see how any rational person can see it as anything other than an attempt to normalize molestation of children (after…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:35 AM
-10

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.” Farrell's own words. He stated that "genitally caressing" children is part of caring, loving expression. That is unequivocally sick.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:23 AM
-8

That's how Ferrell described it. Nice pejorative use of "retard", by the way. Really shoring up y'all's credentials in the equality and civil rights department.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:04 AM
0

In other words, it is in no way shape or form synonymous with feminist.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:49 AM
-2

You realize that they aren't actually synonymous at all, right? There are millions of feminists and only about 50,000 accounts subscribed to SRS. The vast majority of feminists have never even heard of reddit.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:36 AM
-1

It's odd that you believe I'm an SRSer. Pray tell, which of my exactly zero comments in SRS lead you to believe that? Or is SRS just your equivalent of "suppressive person", i.e. anyone who disagrees with you?
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:26 AM
-10

The book he said he was writing, obviously.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:16 AM
-6

If it wasn't, find me a piece of legislation declaring women are responsible for debts acquired in their name alone. This is literally how the law works. People who acquire debts in their name alone are responsible for those debts. This is the default state of affairs. I don't know why you need a citation for the incredibly well-known, existing legal system. Spouses can potentially be liable for their spouse's debts. This just has to do with how marriage contracts work, it's not about women or m…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:28 AM
-5

So one single thread related to women makes it SRS?
/r/MensRights11/03/14 01:53 AM
5

Look, you insolent kid. You want a list of names? Fine, here goes: James Loeffler, Robert L. Wilken, J. Andrew Overman, Paul L. Maier, Bart Ehrman, Emma Dench, Susanna Elm, etc etc. Virtually every scholar agrees on this. I'm not sure what you think will be accomplished by listing their names. I'm sorry for your complete and utter ignorance but please don't take it out on other people. If you actually want to learn about the subject, read a book or ask /r/askhistorians or something like that. An…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:45 AM
-5

That's the exact opposite of what Ferrell was arguing.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:32 AM
-9

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.” Debunk that one. Or, since none of you actually want to address the problems with that, try this on for size: “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:26 AM
-3

So now anecdotes matter? You explicitly asked for anecdotal evidence, so I gave it to you. What a hypocrite you are. And no academic sub bans people for that. Besides which, scholarship on sexual abuse shows that it is, in fact, highly traumatic. This is extremely well-established.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:25 AM
1

You and I both know that you won't present one in return? Of course I will. The claim is yours to support, and we both know you can't. I certainly can. This is well-trodden territory. Try to pawn off biblical scholars as historians (because you won't be able to produce a single real historian who agrees with you) Nearly every single historian who studies anything even remotely related to Christianity, Judaism, or the Roman Empire recognizes that Jesus was almost certainly a real person. This deb…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:23 AM
-8

There aren't. She's just obfuscating.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:18 AM
-5

I know people who've been sexually abused by relatives. All of them find it to be awful and traumatic.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:18 AM
-13

So if someone considers themselves to be affiliated with multiple groups, they can't possibly be an ideologue? Great reasoning there.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:17 AM
-5

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.” That's what he said. Word for word. He's trying to rehabilitate incest. There is no other possible interpretation.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:09 AM
-9

If there's no cosigner on a debt, then the signer is responsible.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:05 AM
2

That's a quintessential example of the ad hominem! You accuse me of lying without any substantiating whatsoever! At least do me the decency of presenting an argument.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:05 AM
-15

I think you're confusing "having an unusual agenda" with "not being an ideologue".
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:37 PM
-4

I'll take his word for the fact that he believes incest isn't all that bad.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:37 PM
2

...voting is unrelated to the draft.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:36 PM
-11

Feminists didn't actually lobby for women to be held accountable for their debts. They lobbied for the outlawing of the informal requirement of many lenders for a male cosigner. You get that that's the same thing, right?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:20 PM
-8

The premise is basically SRS with a focus on "herstory". ..surely nobody can seriously believe that? Do you actually read the sub?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:18 PM
3

The historicity of Jesus is a settled question in the field of history, as every historian knows. Even those who disagree acknowledge that they're a very tiny minority. Why are you surprised that /r/badhistory agrees with the overwhelming academic consensus?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:18 PM
-11

You straight-up accused the mods of politically biased deletion of comments, which is preposterously false. All bigots are treated equally in badhistory.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:14 PM
-12

Am I supposed to believe a bunch of ideologues over the man himself? Are you implying that he isn't an ideologue?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:11 PM
-8

He decided to abandon the idea of publishing it because the interview was misleading and misconstrued his point. No, he abandoned the idea of publishing it because he realized that it made him look really bad. Because the ideas are atrocious. Tell me, what was the book about?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:10 PM
-5

That is a completely awful analogy and you know it. An actual analogy that worked would be if KKK members are voting for you for public office. Come on, a little intellectual integrity from you is all I'm asking. Why resort to ridiculous comparisons? You know that I was referring to the fact that a lot of redpillers like your sub because its ideological bent is one that they find agreeable.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:09 PM
-11

badhistory mods have never removed anything just because it's an MRA post. Only if it's bigoted or flamey does it get removed. badhistory mods are only partisan against bad history.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:35 PM
-10

And since the comment in the badhistory post was about the US, how is this relevant?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:33 PM
-5

Nobody's read the book since it never actually got published. How is that a sensible question to ask? All the same, Farrell, in an interview, told the world what his book was about and said that he was trying to argue that parent-child incest wasn't automatically bad.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:32 PM
-6

But there's a huge overlap here. Try masstagging redpillers. They show up more here than in any other subreddit. I know how subs work. I'm just saying that it's not good if redpillers like your sub.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:28 PM
-6

If you're going to make that claim, why not back it up? Point out the falsified history.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 09:56 PM
-13

...are you under the impression that there's going to be a draft and American troops will be sent to Ukraine? What ever for?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 09:55 PM
-14

Moderators don't censor any arguments in badhistory. They only remove posts that are abusive or spammy. And if you're complaining about partisan mods, why are you on mensrights? For the record, /r/badhistory makes plenty of posts about bad history coming from feminists as well as from MRAs. If you don't think cordis_melum's post is any good, then you should make one of your own where you debunk it, instead of just complaining in another subreddit-- the latter actions makes it look like you're ju…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 09:52 PM
-13

The entire premise of his book was that incest could be a good thing. edit: since you people apparently don't believe me, do you believe Farrell's own words? “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploratio…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 09:48 PM
-16

Instead of reading AVFM, why don't you read the article by the person who actually interviewed him? http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm His whole argument was that parent-child incest wasn't getting a fair shake and could actually be a healthy bonding activity. There is no possible context that makes the things he said okay.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 09:00 PM
-6

Coincidentally enough, the comment directly below yours is from a redpiller, /u/luxury_banana.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:57 PM
-13

If you have a problem with the mean things I said about Warren Farrell, why not try debunking them? Perhaps it's because they're true?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:51 PM
1

What is that even supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:16 PM
1

That Warren Farrell comment was taken out of context and everyone knows it. No, it wasn't. The context is talking about parent-on-child incest. You're lying by trying to pretend it was something else. And no, Catherine Comins has never said anything remotely as disgusting as endorsing the rape of children by their parents. It's typical of MRAs that you can't think of anything worse than being accused of rape.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 03:41 AM
9

Taking relationship advice from this sub is like taking medical advice from homeopaths.
/r/RedPillWomen11/02/14 07:45 PM
0

r/mensrights utters quite a lot of misogynistic crap that can often get very enthusiastically upvoted. Remember when you guys started spamming false rape reports? Several hundred false reports were filed in a couple days. This sub went absolutely wild. NAMALT, amirite? Do you see the problem? If we want to start the paint-everyone-with-the-same-brush competition, MRAs are going to lose, and lose hard. Remember when Warren Farrell, one of the founders of the movement, argued that parents raping t…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:14 PM
1

So your argument is to completely ignore reality in order to pursue your hatred of women? Nice one there.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 04:24 AM
-6

That's not even a slightly accurate description of feminist thought. You're circlejerking about something that exists only in your imagination.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 03:37 AM
1

The National Organization for Women, one of the largest feminist organizations in the country, has been opposed to males-only selective service since 1980. Get your facts straight.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 03:30 AM
3

Women have been included in the last several bills to instate the draft. I don't know why you think they haven't been.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:38 AM
1

I haven't reported anything, and Arstan doesn't seem to be the only one receiving downvotes either. And as far as impoliteness goes, I think I'm hardly alone.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 06:40 PM
3

What? The person is using her (alleged) credentials to support her argument. Therefore she shouldn't be taken at face value if evidence of her credentials can't be found. If it were just someone giving their opinion, then who they are doesn't matter. But when someone says "My opinions are buttressed by my medical experience" then yeah, you should ask for evidence of their credentials. Also I'm not entirely clear on who "you people" are. I've never doxxed anyone nor have I started a "campaign of …
/r/MensRights09/02/14 10:12 AM
6

Did you expect a basic level of skepticism and critical thinking?
/r/MensRights08/02/14 09:50 PM
0

Tackle poverty and institutional racism, but tech fields themselves don't have it. You are blind.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 07:51 PM
0

You literally can't comprehend the idea that some women actually didn't want the right to vote. Your mind literally can't grasp it. "No! It must be internalized misogyny!" Internalized misogyny caused some women to not want the right to vote. That's what I said. Why are you so horrible at reading?
/r/MensRights08/02/14 09:19 AM
0

For the longest time, women didn't want the right to vote. Hahaha oh my sides. Women have been agitating for the right to vote since the US has existed, and you're claiming that internalized misogyny in some women is evidence that misogyny doesn't exist. You are probably beyond help. You're too deep in your worldview to actually catch a glimpse of reality. Let me know if you ever pull your head out of your ass. In the meantime, talking to someone who can't go a single sentence without contradict…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 08:23 AM
0

I'm denying that it exists for being a man. You know, you're right. Men are, after all, the ones who have always had to fight to have their basic rights recognized, who were prohibited from voting by the matriarchy, who even today suffer a wide range of discrimination in many career fields, accounting for their serious underrepresentation in the workplace! If men aren't privileged, then I'd love to see you explain why not even one of our 43 presidents has been a woman.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 07:31 AM
1

this took me literally two seconds to find. Your google-fu is lacking, young padawan.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 05:48 AM
-6

I think the point is that 1) you don't actually have any of these statistics to back up such a claim I do, they're so readily available that you can find them in a five-second google search. A woman born into a wealthy family has a lot more "privilege" than a man born into a poor one. Class privilege. I don't understand how you think you're debunking the concept of privilege by referencing it. Newsflash, there's more than one kind of privilege.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 10:47 AM
-1

And I quote, feminism wants to destroy all male spaces for ideological reasons. = "evil plot against men". It's a less frilly way of saying the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:30 AM
-1

I did. Still no evidence that feminism is an evil plot against men.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:54 AM
-10

That's not what "privilege" means. Privilege doesn't mean that every person in a given category is going to have a wonderful life. Nobody thinks that. What it means is that you're statistically likely to be worse off if you were black or a woman.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:57 PM
-6

You would be less insane if you just attributed everything to demonic possession.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:53 PM
-13

Why does anybody care how many whites or blacks are in tech? Are you serious? Because one of those groups has been subjected to discrimination and prejudice which can deter or prevent them from obtaining many jobs. (more proof that MRAs are as opposed to racial equality as they are to gender equality)
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:32 PM
2

How much of that is composed of students from abroad?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:27 PM
-2

Hackers, technical people, they are born, not made. Quite possibly the dumbest sentence I've heard in quite a while.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:24 PM
2

I'm not against medical regulations in general (laws governing patient privacy, human testing, disposal of medical waste, etc. are very useful and do a great deal to protect people's health and rights) but I am against the government passing laws that require a procedure that is usually medically unnecessary.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 11:38 PM
2

Clearly there's at best a weak argument to require it in every scenario, but there are situations where it is the best course of action. Universally requiring it is not reflective of its necessity, yes. That's basically what I'm saying. It should be up to doctors and patients to decide when a medical procedure should be carried out.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 11:23 PM
1

They consider it necessary to have fully informed consent. No they don't, they just want to intimidate women into not having abortions. I can't believe you're defending such vile misogynists. There is absolutely no way in which that procedure is medically necessary for any but a tiny minority of cases. Women can be fully informed without that procedure. It adds nothing but a violation of one's body and an attempt at a guilt trip.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 10:49 PM
2

If it's on the border between 2nd and 3rd trimester, transabdominal ultrasounds will do just fine. If it's early enough that a transabdominal ultrasound doesn't tell you much, then you know that the abortion pill will suffice. The fact that it's a blanket requirement makes it unambiguously clear that the objective is to punish and intimidate women into not getting abortions, not to implement any sort of valid medical protocol. Any rational person can see this. It's the job of medical professiona…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 10:26 PM
2

Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that all women have a right to access. Predicating access to medical care on an invasive and 100% unnecessary procedure is a horrible policy. And it's rape because it's under coercion. Some women have conditions which make it dangerous for them to carry a fetus to term. For them, an abortion may be medically necessary, but the state nonetheless says that they should be raped for wanting access to life-saving medicine.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 10:14 PM
3

Further, there is an argument for due diligence in disconfirming an ectopic pregnancy which would require an ultrasound. Which is only relevant if the woman wants to carry a baby to term. If she wants an abortion, then it doesn't matter what might happen months down the line.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 10:10 PM
3

or you can pick media cases like Trayvon Martin where the media disseminates poor second hand bias information on a wide range to the public and sways their judgement. Fine, let's use the Martin case as an example. Zimmerman was not convicted of anything, but I wouldn't say he's exactly popular in the public eye. You can't just randomly point fingers of murder accusations at a random guy. Someone has to be dead. This is just an empirical fact. Someone's gotta be dead or missing in order to make …
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:06 PM
2

it's widely known that sex offenders are treated worse, not only in prison, but in the general public. That's not widely known at all. And the stigma of a rape accusation not resulting in a conviction is not worse than that of a murder accusation. Casey Anthony was acquitted, yeah? Last I checked she was a household synonym for evil.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:53 PM
2

I've lived in the US most of my life, and I've never seen anyone express the idea that rapists are worse than murderers. Maybe you're living in some especially odd corner of the country, but that's just not the majority opinion in most of the US.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:42 PM
4

You've got some pretty strange ideas about the world. I've never been to a country where rapists are considered worse than murderers. Certainly in the US murder is considered much worse than rape. Hell, rapists are pretty much outright tolerated in many countries.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:33 PM
7

In which case that's hardly a problem unique to rape accusations.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:22 PM
6

They do, unless you can find an example of a trial in which they didn't. But I'm going to guess that you're just full of shit.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:11 PM
12

The main problem is that men accused of rape do not have constitutional rights to due process You're full of shit. Find me a single man who's been sentenced to prison for rape without due process. When rape accusations seem false, but are not proven false, often the man is prosecuted, never the woman You can't convict someone of filing a false report unless you can demonstrate that they knew the report to be false. There's also a huge difference between prosecuting someone and convicting them. I…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:15 AM
0

you don't think a woman can generally get laid 100x more easily then a man? No, I don't.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 03:27 AM
1

I'll tell you what, you explain why you think it is consistent, then I will criticise what you say, since that is what you are asking from me it seems only fair. I'm just asking you to back up the statement you originally made. Burden of proof, etc. It's pretty clear you don't actually know anything about Marxism. So when you say it's internally consistent, you mean as long as you ignore the basic status quo opinion that it isn't. That's not even close to being a "status quo opinion". It's a min…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 02:53 AM
0

They can pretty much have sex with men whenever they choose Oh christ not another person who thinks this and if the result is pregnancy they can choose to have the child with absolute impunity regardless if the father is in favor or not. Bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental of human rights. What you're suggesting is that men be able to force women to have abortions, which is pretty fucked up.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 02:49 AM
1

I'm not a Marxist, actually, it's just that it's the ideology being discussed (sort of) in this thread and it's pretty internally consistent.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 02:36 PM
1

Given that Marxism is the political ideology at hand, care to explain how Marxism is not internally consistent?
/r/MensRights23/12/13 11:55 AM
-2

Women don't control the means of reproduction. Women can't reproduce without sperm. This is really basic biology.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 11:55 AM
2

Okay, shut up about your rationality-preaching for just a second, and realize that the problem isn't whether or not she had a good reason for what she did, the problem is that you're assuming that her actions are motivated by an "irrational fear of technology" because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:49 PM
5

You realize it's kind of misogynistic to automatically ascribe an "irrational fear of technology" to her?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:49 PM
5

Remember that the allied forces were reactionaries that came about as a result of the axis forces. You don't understand what the word "reactionary" means.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 04:19 AM
4

The label implies the matter is wide spread and most or even all men are "rapists". The matter is widespread, but nothing about the idea of rape cultures implies in any way that most men are rapists. You're misunderstanding the concept if you think that's what it is. Rape culture is when a judge rules that raping a sex worker at gunpoint is not rape, just "theft of services". The judge in the case was a woman, as you may note. Rape culture isn't a concept that exists to demonize men, it describe…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:39 PM
10

The linked article is the clearest example of rape culture I've seen in a while. Girl raped and left to freeze outside? It's her fault! Get your shit together OP. You suck.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 10:38 AM
3

Despite the admins demonstrating that they suck SRS's dick repeatedly and without shame Out of curiosity, do you actually have any evidence that SRS engages in vote brigading? I know it's an article of faith, but do you have proof?
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:57 AM
1

Fuck off, men couldn't vote either you fool. Yes, they could. How can you say things that are so obviously wrong?
/r/MensRights03/10/13 07:01 PM
-1

If you don't know anything, just try fucking reading Actually I've read lots of things go to the sidebars for instance. That's pretty much the worst place to go for information about the origins of feminism. I'm sorry, but a sub which explicitly opposes feminism is not a reliable place to learn about feminism. Hint: there's a difference between "some feminists use marxist analysis in their work" and "feminism is just lady marxism".
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:46 PM
-1

Um, yes they have. That's so far beyond dispute that you have to be either lying or clinically insane to state that they haven't. Women have been subjugated in the vast majority of cultures throughout history. Women have only been allowed to vote for less than a century in the US, for crying out loud. Although I'm sure you'll come back with some nutjob argument about how they were really privileged because they didn't have to go stand in lines at the polls. Lucky them.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 09:12 AM
-2

Female + Communism = Feminism. This is priceless. Only in this sub would people have such a ridiculous misunderstanding. Dude, just cuz there's an 'ism' on the end doesn't mean they go together. I don't even know where to start, because literally every thing you said is riddled with misconceptions.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 07:03 AM
-3

Okay, sure, feminism is full of misandry, and there's a monster under your bed at night. Believe what you like, kid.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 04:35 AM
-2

Do you want to just respond "citation required" to every self-evident statement? The entire point of feminism is that for most of human history, women have been in a severely unequal position and ought to be treated equally.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:48 AM
0

Yes I did, read the first sentence.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 01:55 AM
-4

Feminism as a movement is dedicated to equality. A lot of people get hung up on the term "feminism", and try to argue that the name itself means that feminists are somehow advocating a matriarchy or some other ridiculous stuff like that. The simple fact is, if you were living a hundred years ago in a society where women were by default considered inferior, and you were trying to win equal rights for women, it makes perfect sense to call that movement "feminism". You can argue about the name all …
/r/MensRights02/10/13 11:41 PM
5

So really his problem is just that he subscribes to patriarchal concepts of masculinity.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 01:57 AM
10

He's mad because he isn't good at communicating when he wants sex?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 10:24 PM
-5

I missed the part where I was supposed to care.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 06:12 PM
-10

If you were here to learn about or debate MR There's nothing to learn about. It's a bunch of deluded misogynists trying to roll back women's rights whilst doing precisely nothing to better the situation of any men in the real world.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 10:09 AM
-17

It's honestly pathetic how many people in this subreddit have such a serious belief that men are the real victims.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 09:39 AM
0

Meh, still better than you sorry MRA trolls.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 11:11 PM
4

Look, just because you just read the first four chapters of 1984 for freshman English doesn't mean it's relevant to everything you encounter.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 08:25 AM
1

the obvious under reporting Got evidence that there will be under reporting? Or is that just an assumption?
/r/MensRights11/08/13 08:19 PM
7

Girls are having sex younger and younger No, they're not.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 04:57 AM
6

Girls nowadays are sexually active 18 picoseconds after their first egg drops. The average age of first sexual intercourse for a girl in the U.S. is 17. If you think that women hit puberty at 17, well, you might want to retake health class. Check and see if your high school offers it as a summer session.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 04:43 AM
1

I honestly have no idea if you're being serious or not.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:23 PM
1

From the same study: Our enthusiasm for the use and interpretation of DNA typing, however, should be tempered inasmuch as the vast majority of sexual assault cases involving both child and adult victims do not require resolution of identity. The majority of child and adult sexual assault cases presented to us for determinations of whether to file criminal charges involve a perpetrator known to the victim. The defense normally presented is consent. In other cases, there is a denial that any sexua…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 02:23 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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