TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Emergencyegret Archive

View 1 posts and 244 comments by Emergencyegret 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)
7

QuestionEmergencyegret/r/MensRights09/04/15 03:59 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

You're right. It comes off that way and looks like someone responded in as brash a way. A lot of the rhetoric here seems to try to tear feminism down as a means to bring men's rights up
/r/MensRights06/12/17 01:15 PM
15

Aren't there always "better" causes?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:01 AM
1

triggered about people being triggered
/r/MensRights29/01/17 03:04 PM
1

Going to complain about jokes and then complain about how sensitive these women are!
/r/MensRights29/01/17 02:22 PM
1

This is the type of argument that gets made all the time though.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 12:50 PM
-8

i guess just as hypocritical as a parent getting mad that you don't wash your dishes and then getting mad that you don't use a plate to eat
/r/MensRights02/12/16 02:59 AM
-5

. . . you know those two statements are addressing different things right?
/r/MensRights02/12/16 02:28 AM
2

Can confirm, havnt been "part" of society since I was done with school. what does that mean?
/r/MensRights04/10/15 12:03 AM
2

LOL logic.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:31 AM
2

yeah, that's not me, but I value the input though. I've refuted your points from the beginning. It seems like you've dug yourself too deep here. Not surprising though, considering the age. Have to be pretty hard headed to have such a negative worldview, which I'm now attributing to age. Gotta know it all at 13.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:30 AM
2

now it's starting to make sense.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:26 AM
2

Yeah you've bought into the "feminism bad" rhetoric. Can't really expect you to understand, I guess.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:26 AM
5

I've been disputing it the entire time. Feminism supports equality for men and women. It's been pushing for women since they've been in a lower position for quite the long time. I've frequented this board and read about the movement. I've read how it spilled into other subreddits. You've sipped the koolaid, taken the red pill, I get it.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:51 PM
3

i explained it a few times already. The views that the two groups have of each other is very important to consider. If you buy into the rhetoric that feminism hates men, then how can you not understand those that buy into the rhetoric that MRAs hate women? and you can't see how that would cause these people to protest MRA functions? You have to see the logic there and how obvious the connections are. Apparently you don't appreciate the plea since you're going back to your canned "feminism bad, M…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:29 PM
2

Yeah, it helps when you don't buy into tumblr feminism and talk with real folk. Maybe even take some time to understand the context of things. It's not just, feminism bad, MRA good.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:57 PM
2

I explained that already. Numerous times. They aren't anti-men, as much as they are anti-MRA. They are anti-MRA because the MRA group is seen as a hate group that is anti-feminism and anti-women.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:36 PM
1

which i agreed that they don't directly fight for mens rights but I brought up that the issues that affect men easily fit in the framework of feminism and that the two aren't enemies. They are both fighting against a system that negatively affects both parties. And i explained that i believe the productive parts of the MRA movement (raising awareness to injustices that affect men) are easily an extension of feminism. You stated that feminism is anti-men because they boycott MRA functions, which …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:19 PM
1

This is the logic thing that I had an issue with in the beginning. When dealing with people who agree with aspects of feminism, logic goes out the window with MRA folk.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:07 PM
1

eh, I accuse the group of hatred towards feminism and in turn women. You can take personal offense to anything you'd like. First of all anti-feminist and anti-woman are two entirely different things. I am anti-feminist because feminists oppose equal rights. I oppose all hate groups- that means I oppose racist groups that promote inequality between races just as I oppose sexist groups that promote inequality between the genders. The same is said about MRA. I think we should fight against inequali…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:01 PM
1

It seems like, to me, that you have it backwards. But that's fine. That's what happens when a group spawns and rallies behind a hatred towards another group. Without that hatred, this group would be too similar and not be able to stand on its own. I'm for equality and I see the good parts of the MRA group (voicing concerns about problems facing men in our society) as easily complimentary to feminist philosophy. The bad parts (being anti feminist/anti women, against discussion of issues that plag…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:32 PM
2

Probably due to the idea that MRA's are seen as a hateful group. It's my understanding that this is mostly due to how they interact with feminists and people not entirely in their camp. From those instances, it doesn't seem like they're anti male as much as they are anti MRA, which makes sense since MRA is anti-feminist and, by similar logic, anti-women.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:55 PM
3

Yeah, the discussions that I've had with real people have generally come to agreement that men face issues as well as women. I wouldn't go as far to say that feminist philosophy is anti equality/male, since that doesn't really make sense in my understanding of feminism. Of course it's important to see them as the enemy because it's important to lay your target on something in order to unite behind. These problems that men face are not due to feminism, it is my understanding that they are due to …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:56 PM
-1

Any feminist that I've actually talked to is sympathetic to all of those points. Those issues don't seem to be at odds with the philosophy behind feminism. Even in that famous video with the red haired feminist railing against a passionate bunch of MRA people. she laid out how the movements aren't really enemies. A quick google search didn't bring up "feminist fighting for mens rights", but I see much of the points brought up around here as an extension of feminism in spite of the obnoxious anti…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:33 PM
-9

Its a losing battle dude. They tout respect for logic and all that, but it all goes out the window when feminists are brought up. They have a tumblr fueled image of feminism. Its "Not all men" but "yes all feminists" with these folk.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:33 PM
0

eh, passion loses its usefulness when it drives someone to insult and misrepresent the oppositions position in order to further your own agenda. I think you're putting more opinions in my mouth than I'm willing to agree with. I just haven't done that much research into the issue with circumcision to form a realistic opinion. I would assume that you'd rather someone have an educated opinion on something rather than listen to the loudest most obnoxious opinion of some computer chair activist. but …
/r/MensRights15/04/15 02:41 AM
-6

honestly i have no idea what that is but I keep hearing about it here and it is treated like some sort of silver bullet against the feminist monster.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:26 AM
-1

I mean, that's pretty much r/tumblrinaction
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:24 AM
-8

??? I mean, i guess a non group can't really get behind anything.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:51 PM
-5

because AMR is not a movement.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:40 PM
-6

For sure, but I am excited to see the anger/hate/ bullshit separated from real messages. It's terrible to read and hard to get behind when for every "we need to give a voice to battered men" sentiment is accompanied by like 10 crazy "videotape your self having sex with a girl in case she says it's rape" statements. It seems like it at least. yeah of course AMR would never get behind that. Not sure if that's a real point you're trying to make. Glad to see some positive action coming out of this n…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:21 PM
-6

It's great to see that there are some people actually have the right mentality when dealing with issues that face men. I appreciate your optimism about the movement and your view that this subreddit is half full of people wanting to vent about depression and not just hating on feminism. That's another big critique of this movement. There isn't really any action to help men as much as effort to tear at feminism. I do hope that this group can grow to see commonalities it has with parts of feminism…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 10:28 PM
-6

I think you are mixing up too many ideas that aren't really related to one another. Your version of "opening up" may not be the same "opening up" that is being promoted by these feminists. Having frequented both subreddits it seems like againstmensrights likes to point out the double standards and lack of self awareness of this subreddit. Those instances usually occur in issues that don't really fit into the main issues promoted by the MRA community. It happens mostly in the fluff anti-feminist/…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 06:52 PM
0

bingo bango you got it!
/r/MensRights14/04/15 05:09 PM
2

yeah, I remember the first big disagreement I had on this sub with someone who seemed to be well versed in the movement, and he brought up how this is an "angry man's movement" and didn't see that as an issue. He seemed to be very open to the idea that there should be a lot of emotionally charged discourse full of insults and brash statements while toting the idea that this is a group of reason and the feminists are the loonies. It's a bizarre duality that I've found a lot with this group. I enj…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 03:55 PM
-2

that's not blaming the male participants. It's not an "either/or" thing.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 07:47 PM
0

I think the idea is to look for something that can be twisted into a message that singles out men, then say the whole article is against men.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 07:44 PM
1

yeah, everyone made some pretty bad decisions. Grimy on her part, and grimy on all the guys' parts doesn't really sound like she is saying it's completely the men's fault though.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:06 PM
1

you need to dehumanize the "defectors"
/r/MensRights11/04/15 03:05 AM
1

haha yeah it's tough to do. I get it though. If she was an anti vaxxer as well then wowzers would that be tough to look past.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 09:26 PM
1

But then you wouldn't really know that aside from that single issue and then you'd be basing everything off of that one issue. In essence, the person holding that belief is doing the exact same thing they are accusing the politician of. Wowzers. Full circle.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 09:22 PM
1

It most certainly makes that a single issue stance because that is the only issue considered and used to describe the entire candidate. It's the same thing for people who hated Romney without any knowledge about his stances on issues and bashed him because of how he transported his dog in one instance. They wanted a candidate with compassion and one that wasn't "cruel to animals". You are just rephrasing and explaining what a single issue voter is.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:57 PM
1

thank you! That's speaks to her character more.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:05 PM
1

I understand that. Believe me I do, but what I am saying, is that without any other example, that comes off as a sign of someone who is a single issue voter. He clearly doesn't know much about her but deems her opinion on video games so important to frame everything she stands for in that light. I know there has to be plenty of reasons not to like her, but this one is ridiculous. Especially on its own. Look at the initial comment. Dear America, Anyone but her. Imagine her versus Putin :/ she is …
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:04 PM
3

lol ok. That's a reasonable conclusion. I didn't need every instance of her incompetence. Just like one or two that didn't have to do with video games. And you didn't really catalogue anything. But honestly, it just seems like you care about video games way too much, which is fine. I like them too. I disagree with the view that video games cause/support violent behavior. Just because she thinks they do doesn't really seem like that big a deal to me considering she wouldn't be elected president o…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:19 PM
2

dude, I think you're placing too much importance on someones view on violence in video games. I asked if there were other instances where she was lacking in her ability to be a leader, and you haven't addressed anything else besides this one point. It wasn't hostile or argumentative or anything. I was asking if that was the only issue you are at odds with, or if there were other areas that brought up the same issue with you. you can call me an idiot all you'd like. But it really just seems like …
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:08 PM
2

You are sounding like a single issue voter now. That's pretty much the same exact reasoning people have when they are that type of voter. Your single issue is "violence in videogames". and i'm pretty sure if the surgeon was into conspiracy theories it really has nothing to do with his ability to perform his task. I mean, he went through all the schooling and I would hope I wouldn't be his first patient.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:52 PM
2

haha that's fine. just wanted to know. She gets a lot of hate and most of it seems to be somehow related to her being an evil politician.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:47 PM
5

I'm just asking for more information. It would suck if someone was a single issue voter and that issue happened to be videogames. All i've ever heard about her was how she is a bitch and a career politician or whatever. Just wanted to try and ground those understandings in reality.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:45 PM
0

are these opinions mostly from your experience with her opinions on video games and how you can see her approaching other issues in the same manner? Or are there other issues that she's addressed that you feel lack will or come off as "appeasing"?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:39 PM
5

but like, why? I have a similar opinion of her but I don't really know why to be honest. Just what people have been saying about her without any reason known to me.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:32 PM
7

can you elaborate?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:08 PM
2

LOL sure, dude.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:39 PM
4

LOL you are joking. Alright.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:23 PM
10

. . . . you're joking right?
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:17 PM
9

I don't cat call people. I also don't consider it a means of approaching a person as much as method of harassment. If you think they are the same, then you most likely need to reevaluate your relationship with the group you're attracted to.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:47 PM
1

might have to do with my Reddit Companion Extension. yep that's it.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:10 PM
1

It keeps blocking my nav menu.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:00 PM
11

I don't think "cat calling" = "being approached".
/r/MensRights09/04/15 03:55 PM
8

exactly. Men and women can be friends.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 01:59 PM
1

exactly, but at the same time, it's annoying to have to walk on egg shells around someone because you folks disagree a lot.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 10:20 PM
-1

yeah, and this post only represents men as merely soldiers in the military and women as simple, useless, and naive. Pretty much the same stereotypes as seen in Patriarchal theory.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 04:07 PM
67

Yeah, if the entire accusation was spun out of lies and what not. I don't think that it would be a good idea to punish those who lose cases. There would have to be some very specific criteria to punish the false rape claims.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:35 PM
6

eh, you'll feel better when you stop reading this subreddit for a while. This subreddit and their ideas are interesting to think about and to consider it when you're forming opinions regarding gender/sex relations, but this place, as well as other incredibly filtered/biased/one sided sources, creates a paranoid world view. Don't let this make you scared of doing things like going to university or going out doors or talking with people who are a different sex/gender than you.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:25 PM
0

I've been noticing that this anti-feminist movement is oddly conservative. it would make sense how she would be one of their "stars" because she's "one of the good ones".
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:29 PM
-1

exactly. It's common sense!
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:09 PM
2

exactly. "not all men" is the same response the other side has.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:45 PM
1

didn't get that point from your post at all.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:18 AM
1

I think he is not necessarily making a point to directly go against yours. Your point sounded like it was sort of a pro-feminist one, so, to combat it, he wanted to make an anti-feminist argument.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 09:26 PM
1

he is making the point that in his one particular situation, he has to lift things, something men are usually "used" for, and women are not "generally" asked to lift things when there is a man available.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:52 PM
2

why?
/r/MensRights18/03/15 04:52 PM
-8

Yeah there is a lot of bullshit that gets spread around in this thread. this happens to be one of the usual ones.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:19 PM
1

It's hard not to find someone upset when they have strong views about something and are presented with facts that go against their strongly held beliefs.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:43 PM
1

yeah this is a real issue. Should the shelters be in the same facility? or different parts of the same facility? or different facilities?
/r/MensRights11/03/15 09:55 PM
1

Yeah i've seen a lot. I guess it depends on the size of the bathroom.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 01:20 PM
2

yeah it's hard to believe this is actually true. seems like click bait/spam aimed towards getting hits from this niche market.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 04:43 AM
1

I don't think so. But it does affect a marriage a lot. So I'm not sure.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 03:31 PM
1

Sorry, these arguments tend to blend together for me sometimes. I think that since the biological process takes place in a woman's body, it inherently provides her with more options. That makes all the difference in my understanding of how the responsibilities get laid out. If it took place outside of both parties, then they should have the same exact options. But with how the process occurs currently, then I can't not consider the roles different. If there was an agreement to keep the child, an…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:56 AM
1

Yeah, I definitely do. You think forcing someone to carry a child to term is the right way to go? I am holding both to the same expectations, but in a framework that acknowledges the realities that the situation exists in. Your argument doesn't really promote the cultivation of a willing partnership as much as it cultivates a reality where there is literally nothing at stake for men. Honestly, it's ridiculous to read all these reasons that use "fairness" and "equality" to promote a method of aba…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 02:37 AM
1

I agree with the idea that she should follow through on a promise made, but in the end, it is in her body, therefore it is her choice. You think forcing someone to carry a child to term is the right way to go?
/r/MensRights07/03/15 10:18 PM
1

Because it's in her body and that makes it her choice? Is that something that you disagree with?
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:24 PM
0

If the woman changes her mind within the window of time when it is legal for her to have an abortion, then no. Otherwise, then sure! This is because the process of childbirth is continuing within her body and you cannot force a woman to continue that process within her own body.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 02:41 PM
0

I was assuming we're talking about preferable hypothetical situations. I don't believe the MRA's vision of fairness in regards to this situation will ever become reality.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 05:10 AM
-2

Yeah, as i said before. The only way I could agree with you is if I ignored the biology of the process and the understanding built around it.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 02:30 AM
-4

yeah, if that agreement is able to be proven to have taken place, then sure.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:29 PM
-2

I would agree with you, only if there roles each party has in child birth were the same. There are real factors that your stance is ignoring to the point of fault.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 09:31 PM
-2

I don't think it's as clear as you're making it out to be. When you ignore the reality of the steps of the process then sure it's simple. The roles in the process of child birth are different. If they were the same, then I would agree with you whole heartedly. I can understand the idea that Group A is able to do something and Group B doesn't, then sure. That's unfair. But when there's more factors to consider then it's not as simple.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:44 PM
-4

The roles in the process of child birth are different. If they were the same, then I would agree with you whole heartedly. here is my previous post where I expanded on it Not in this case. At least that's what I think. The two are engaging in an act (sex) that has an outcome that's directly related to it (childbirth). If the terms are agreed upon prior to the act and can be proven to have been made then they both should abide by those terms. Otherwise the terms are in line with their actions and…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:28 PM
-1

Sorry, you may have missed my edit.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:27 PM
-2

I would say so. Unless there is some sort of agreement beforehand that can be proven to have occurred. and of course with the stipulations that I explained in my previous post.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:08 PM
-2

Not in this case. At least that's what I think. The two are engaging in an act (sex) that has an outcome that's directly related to it (childbirth). If the terms are agreed upon prior to the act and can be proven to have been made then they both should abide by those terms. Otherwise the terms are in line with their actions and their outcomes. and due to the way process happens, consent from both parties is given during the act, then since the seed is planted in the woman and carried inside her …
/r/MensRights06/03/15 07:46 PM
-3

I am throwing the term "fairness" in quotes due to the way it is being used in the image. I don't think it's version of "fair" to equal my version.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 07:12 PM
1

Yes. Through the lens of how childbirth is currently processed. It is an interesting argument though to use the language of the zygote not being a child yet and during that window a man should have the same choice to not be liable for it.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 07:09 PM
0

this makes sense to me! If the terms are agreed upon prior to the act and can be proven to have been made then that's the ticket!
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:29 PM
-4

yeah the expectation for it to be "fair" is a little unreasonable. If the process of childbirth was different than it is now, then I can see the argument of "fairness" being reasonable. This of course applies to everything aside from the third, maybe the fourth, and the last point in the infograph.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:27 PM
-7

Eh, it seems like this sub is more /r/againstfeminism
/r/MensRights02/03/15 02:03 PM
-8

yeah, i've been looking at the sub as well. Pretty interesting stuff!
/r/MensRights02/03/15 02:01 PM
-5

tape?
/r/MensRights02/03/15 02:00 PM
2

Most of these are great reasons! edit: it's mostly a series of situations of when the guy thinks men shouldn't pay child support.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:40 PM
1

take the worst of a group and use it to characterize the whole. Everybody does it.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:04 PM
10

:(
/r/MensRights26/12/14 01:11 AM
10

can you elaborate on that?
/r/MensRights26/12/14 12:43 AM
1

I agree. I feel like I have answered your questions and we have the same opinions of each others arguments.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 07:11 PM
1

Ive read back through our conversation and dont see an argument laid out other than "it doesnt account for the childs birth." Yeah, my basis for my understanding of how things should be is the process leading up to the birth of a child. If it happened any other way, I'd agree with you. Im saying I dont see that childs birth being dependent on the father, are you saying that it is? I thought we agreed the biological need for the male was completed after insemination? Yes, his part in the process,…
/r/MensRights23/12/14 02:41 AM
0

exactly, his choices are only valid if she agrees with them. You have successfully argued my point that she has choices and he has none. Yeah, I see that. Because I think a man chooses to become a father when he has sex with a woman. How is equality a detriment for women? Yeah, I dunno how else to keep explaining it. Because it allows for a man to sleep with women and not deal with any of the responsibilities that have a high possibility of coming after I know. You keep saying this part but are …
/r/MensRights22/12/14 11:17 PM
0

But it is fundamentally NOT the same risk. She has 3 options (Keep it, Adopt it, Abort it) if an accident happens he has ZERO. Her risk is GREATLY reduced compared to his and her risk is 100% dependent on her decisions, please try and keep that in mind. Well, the man essentially has the same options, but his options are affected by whether or not the woman wants to abort it or not. And the only reason the man can't make a women abort or not abort the child is due to the fact that you cannot make…
/r/MensRights22/12/14 09:03 PM
1

Lol, of course she can abort it or not. It makes a lot of sense since it is her body. Can she put the child up for adoption in spite of the fathers wishes? Like can he not take care of the child if she wants to have it adopted by someone else? That's interesting. We can have a lot of fun playing this game of "fairness" that exists in a weird niche of logic outside the realities that these processes occur in. And "Ilk like me scream like banshees"? Wtf are you talking about?
/r/MensRights20/12/14 05:44 AM
1

They both are held accountable. In reality, things are different for men and women in the process of child birth. That's why I can't get behind your proposed line of thought. It ignores too much.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 05:31 AM
1

Yeah, I pretty much disagree with most of what your advocating. I don't see your strides for equality as anything more than advocating for men being able to abandon their responsibilities brought upon by engaging in an act that has a known, probable outcome.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 05:19 AM
0

As i stated earlier, he chooses to be a parent when he has sex. Taking into account the biological process, it makes total sense. I don't agree with the strides to make it "fair" or "equal" in the sense that you and some others are arguing. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's essentially advocating that a man should be able to get a woman pregnant and leave without any responsibility and that's something that is not reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 03:49 AM
1

Yeah, I don't know. Sorry. Seems like a situation that needs a lot more information to make a decision. Not positive about the implications of a legal decision about that either. At least contact the authorities maybe?
/r/MensRights19/12/14 09:58 PM
1

For sure dude. You can't force someone to have an abortion. I'm not sure you can force someone to not drink during their pregnancy. Not sure about the legalities surrounding your situation. Sorry!
/r/MensRights19/12/14 04:55 PM
1

I don't think he should be able to force her to have an abortion. Not sure about the other suggestion either. has that been done before? In any circumstance?
/r/MensRights19/12/14 02:00 PM
1

sweet I think we are actually starting to have some back and forth dialogue!!! Yeah! Sucks that I'm getting downvoted though. So if either party has a previous child from another relationship, they would automatically not be able to prove "evidence" of not wanting kids? I don't think so. Different relationships. What about the man and women that meet up at a bar and decided to fuck? Will they both be able to prove neither wanted a kid before hand? I mean, if the guy doesn't want to have kids and…
/r/MensRights19/12/14 04:30 AM
1

How? How is he going to prove after the fact that there was a mutual agreement to not carry a child to term? Legal documents? Would you be ok with that being enforced? Can they also then create a compact, to force the mother to carry the possible child to term no matter what her opinion becomes after the fact? She new the risks ahead of time after all. I guess that's where evidence of a pattern of not wanting a child could be produced? That's the only thing that is reasonable to me. Going throug…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 11:10 PM
1

you start off by saying I didn't answer any of your questions, then proceed to portray how I engaged your points and effectively answered them. ?????? So you know there is risk involved. Condoms are not 100% effective. You know this. You know there isn't an 100% effective way to not have kids than not having sex. You choose to make the decision to have sex, an activity that is known, widely known, as one that has a capacity to bear children. You know there aren't that many (if any) completely "s…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 10:23 PM
1

That's is the nature of the activity. There is risk I guess. If there is a good case to be made where the father did not want to have children and took all the necessary precautions but the mother wanted to keep it in spite of all the effort to not have it, then I can see how there would be an issue, but going about it in a manner where there is a high risk of having a child, i don't really think it would be justified for a man to "choose" not to have a child after he went through the work of ma…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:44 PM
1

Their say is when they decide to have unprotected sex? I don't understand how that isn't obvious?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:32 PM
0

You may need to expand more on that last statement. "But she does. Women can abandon children as long as its done safely and walk away from parenting responsibilities. Why can't men do the same? At this point the fact that she gave birth has no bearing." If you're talking about adoption then I don't see any problem with that. Foster care? I don't see any problem with that either.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:34 PM
0

? Wait what? How doesn't the mother's role mean anything? It's not a blank check. How do you even see it that way? You aren't extending the logic the same. A man, who after playing an integral role in creating a life, shouldn't have the ability to just say "i don't want to support that" and leave. There's a fundamental difference between the role of a man and woman in the process of child birth. It's not "equal", but that's how it is. It's something that I can't really gloss over in the search f…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:47 PM
0

Well, the only reason I say that men would have less say is just due to the process of childbirth. The man's say ends when the woman becomes pregnant/gets pregnant/whatever verbiage you'd like to use. Since he tacitly agreed to having the child when he took part in the act. If childbirth wasn't a direct outcome of sex, the process continued by the mother, then I would understand a want for "fairness" in parental responsibility.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:57 PM
0

Yeah, I don't really agree on the idea that men should be able to surrender their responsibilities post pregnancy. Unless that is something agreed upon by both parties. Not sure I understand the last question.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:41 PM
1

I mean, expand on the "men want control of their own bodies" part. Hopefully with some ties with parental responsibilities.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:23 PM
1

can you expand on that?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 02:32 AM
-1

I agree, however, that say ends the moment the woman becomes pregnant.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 01:19 AM
1

I guess this is stemming from arguments htat I've had with some people on this board in the past. It seems like a step in the direction of "fairness" in the way of men having a say in whether or not their child gets aborted. But it seems more like the idea is only for men to have a way out of fatherhood.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 10:25 PM
-5

i was actually thinking that this was nearing something to what an MRA would want.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 10:06 PM
1

I can see that. I may be using the term pop psychology wrong. It was just a popular piece of information regarding the psychology of suicide.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 05:57 AM
1

exactly. Intensity doesn't mean it does more damage or whatever. Different people have different reactions and be come aggressive in different ways. a greater understanding of the issue could only bring upon better things. It just seems like whenever these types of things come to light it's less about a greater understanding of the problem and more about 1 upping the opposition. It's annoying.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 09:59 PM
1

I don't think I said anything in regards to downplaying any sort of information. I think that's the internal bias you might have. I in no way mean to downplay anything. I guess it's similar to the pop psychology idea that women apparently attempt suicide more as a cry for help while men attempt it less but succeed more. Or something like that. People have used that information in a wide variety of ways, like to make women out to be babies and men out to be more practical which was weird to me. T…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 09:23 PM
6

In the common occurrence where a feminist is bringing up the issue of sexual violence against women. She brings up stats regarding the chances of a woman being sexually assaulted in her life time. A man (usually MRA dude) brings up that it's not only women who get sexually assaulted and puts out some statistics. The feminist usually responds to that information with something very similar to how you responded "And there were have it. Men sexually abusing women isn't as important because men get …
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:54 PM
2

that's what I'm saying. more information.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:39 PM
2

exactly. More information about it. This guy probably see's me as an enemy right now so he's not gonna get off the "who has it worse" trip because it's somehow a competition
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:30 PM
4

No. Not who punches harder. Not who rapes harder. Just more information. Your making the argument that asking for more information somehow trivializes the plight of men. That men punch harder than women? It is you who is ignoring things, and that's that women are more likely to use a weapon which balances the odds. this is pretty much the exact information that I'm asking for. More information about the aggressiveness.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:20 PM
1

No? It's not rating. Are we trying to ignore parts of this issue to "stick it" to the "enemy"? It's part of the issue of domestic violence. Why not ask the question. The same shit happens when feminists bring up rape statistics regarding women. A man brings to male statistics and is met with the same stupid reaction.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 05:32 PM
2

What? It's important to know.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 05:22 PM
5

I agree. I haven't read the article yet but I wonder if there is a comparison between the rate at which it is possible to occur and the intensity.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 04:38 PM
1

how often do false rape accusations occur? Opposed to ones that are proven true? opposed to ones that are brought forth but not followed up on?
/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:45 PM
1

I think the goal is to create that climate in order facilitate the understanding that it needs to be done.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:24 PM
5

I hate how we have to think of it this way. The marriage between intention and execution needs to be done better.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:08 PM
1

I can see that. The many commercials, sporting events, and other mass experiences have made the sexual objectification of women more acceptable, but if it's done on a smaller scale I could see how that's where people consuming that image would be seen as perverted.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 09:36 PM
1

yeah it's not completely new, but attitudes towards it changes.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 08:56 PM
1

yeah, and the countless other bands that occurred in between.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 08:24 PM
2

Yeah, it's weird how a lot of things are like that. Wars, drugs, poverty.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 07:42 PM
1

I do not think that at all.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 07:32 PM
1

I don't really know anything about her tbh. I'm sure the sexualization of girls and boys has been happening forever. It just seems more like a recent prevalence. I've experienced some of it as well growing up.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 06:23 PM
2

I see it as these newly realized instances of women sexualizing men is a reaction to the long history in america of men doing the same to women. I think it'll even out to a whole lot of sexualization.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 03:13 PM
1

has he been dating this girl and knows that these jokes upset her yet he keeps making them in order to get a bigger response?
/r/MensRights17/11/14 01:48 AM
1

Yeah, I've never been harassed on the streets. I can't imagine it happening to men as much as it happens to women.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 07:01 PM
2

yeah, that's what I was afraid of when I first heard about this new wave of laws.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 02:42 PM
0

I don't really understand what's good or bad about this law. It seems like it's just strengthening already present laws.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 02:26 PM
1

what? "I'm all for the increase in discussion of consent for both parties involved in the act. The importance of consent and increased methods of preventing rape." That's too much? Too unreasonable? Massive restrictions in freedoms? Like what? Put lives at risk? what?
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:58 AM
1

Which is what I addressed in the final two sentences. Striving for something better isn't naive or unrealistic. As someone who (I'm guessing) frequents this subreddit, I think you should be familiar with the discussion of change.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 01:43 PM
0

No one has argued against the point you are trying to make.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 03:46 PM
-1

Yeah I get that. It's a little different than the security system though. The effect of those security systems vs the anti rape tech is different on most levels. Like how the rape tech goes on/in your person and serves as a reminder for that threat. I see it more similar to assault, though. I don't think it's offensive as much as it's saddening/enraging. There is one aspect that offends me though. The "i told you so" attitude that some people have. It may come from a "good" place, but it's reall…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:03 PM
0

I've heard/read the "she was asking for it" part numerous times in different forms in reactions to rape stories/discussion. It's bizarre.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 05:25 AM
2

they shouldn't have to, though. The same way guys shouldn't have to put on drug activated nail polish. The same way guys shouldn't have to put a contraption on their dick that has spikes all over it. It's pretty bizarre to have to fear that shit when you just want to go out to have a drink. And when you "forget" to do something in the laundry list of "preventative measures" there's that "I told you so attitude" that assholes put on. I guess that's the world we live in though. I'm all for the inc…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 05:15 AM
1

it's funny how the same shit happens over in feminist country. You disagree with me? You must be a <enemy group>, or else you'd be beating off your <friendly group> cock with me right now.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 10:03 PM
2

lol wow, you're obviously a troll.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:53 PM
0

can you expand on that? It's bordering very close on the topic of some very humorous stand up routines. Is it more than getting pissed off at some women getting offended over holding the door open for them? or doing "gentlemanly" things for them?
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:43 PM
0

You sound like a weirdo, tbh. Can't tell if you're trolling or not. I've had talks with many different people about these topics. I don't consider them battles as much as you do, though. While we often disagreed, I don't pretend that I'm a battle scarred MRA who has earned enough stripes to be a close minded fool. The talks have always been an exchange of ideas rather than a series of verbal onslaughts that leave both parties at a loss in the end. I'm more interested in the discussion of these i…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:33 PM
1

lol got me good, ya redpiller
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:23 PM
1

read more of the thread.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:13 PM
0

lol "ya scumbag"
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:29 PM
1

Sorry dude. You're a little off. Your strategy does more damage than good. And the odd sense of smugness really makes MRA's look like a bunch of idiots. It's a real shame that those people who are being productive have to deal with your conscious "woman-hating", "anti-feminist" bullshit.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:19 PM
0

Makes sense. You are purposefully being a an angry man. One that will do things to fall into the little "anti-woman" box over and over. Then get even more angry that you have been put into that box, and wonder why you got there, in spite of knowing exactly how you earned that label. And then drag others down with you to create more angry men. Must be very frustrating. I'm sorry for your burden. :(
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:05 PM
0

That's not what is being said here. You're too stuck in your anti-feminist world that it's clouding your ability to comprehend fairly simple ideas. You can disagree with people all you want. But if you make your goal to be anti-"another group", you are going to be fighting on their terms. In regards to my examples above, you are meeting my opposing view point with a ridiculous outcome in order to somehow prove that you are correct. That is not a good way to get people on your side because your a…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:54 PM
0

no, wtf? Are you serious? You can't meet opposing view points/arguments with the most extreme of outcomes and expect to be taken seriously. Examples: When driving - Don't run through stop signs. Am I not supposed to drive my car ever again? When eating - Chew your food. Am I not supposed to eat ever again?
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:43 PM
1

the two are easily conflated and are often done so. You seem to be aware of this. No you don't. wtf?
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:32 PM
2

If they have nothing to back it up, then egg on their face.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 04:59 PM
4

because it's dumb put on a front that seems to be only anti feminist. You lose footing in discussions because you just play into the woman hater position. Then you try to say that you don't hate women but you have already given enough fodder to keep that argument alive.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 03:52 PM
2

yeah, this is very tumblr-esque. The bait and switch approach. Make unfounded claims to get attention, then bring in the real arguments regarding the issue.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 03:36 PM
0

weird way to respond to the accusation of being petty by being petty.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:51 PM
11

Even though she isn't a man, we shouldn't disregard her words. The same way some men want to be taken seriously when dealing with women's issues.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:35 PM
2

that's interesting! Never thought of it that way. I always figured it had to do with how women wanted to be treated in general.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:07 PM
24

bullseye! That post brings together most (if not all) of the issues and wraps it up in a nice concise message.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:31 PM
1

eh, the "anti-sarkesian" folk do that as well.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:46 PM
0

it's not really that obvious at all tbh.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:02 PM
1

this is a popular phrase around here in regards to women's rights. I wonder who coined it.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:56 PM
3

I am reminded of that joke on family guy where it is mocking a DeBeers commercial where the man buys the woman a piece of jewelry and the woman slinks down to give him a blow job and the tag line is "yeah, she'll pretty much have to".
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:29 PM
6

I dunno, the whole, if you take her out to dinner/on a date/ pay for things and she doesn't put out then she is somehow a prude/bitch idea was fairly prevalent throughout the 90s and 2000s.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 11:12 PM
0

but I would still say that outside of online dating, it's way different.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:32 PM
0

I guess I'm assuming the type of date we are talking about isn 't completely brought upon from a scenario where you two have no interaction before aside from an electronic message saying "hey you're cute want to go out with me?". I understand though. Online dating and the expectation to pay for everything in the initial date is sort of annoying. Especially when there are people who may view it as a free meal.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:06 PM
0

"get away with it". God. What sneaky creatures.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:56 PM
-1

Exactly, why would you invite someone over for the holidays who doesn't show any interest in spending that time with you? Yeah, there is somewhat of an expectation, depending on how the situation comes to be. If it's a casual lunch with someone you're interested in, then there isn't really that much of an obligation to pay, but if you're trying to take the relationship further then i'm sure there are things that you'd do that you usually wouldn't.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:46 PM
-4

I would think of it more like I invited someone over for the holidays and didn't get them anything. Sort of an expectation was created and then it was left unmet. and it feels good to me to pay for others. It may not feel that way for them though. Different people act differently. I do agree that there is an expectation for men to ask women out but it's not always like that either. Just more often. I've never seen a girl actually ask a guy out but I've seen girls overtly show interest in guys. T…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:09 PM
-10

You don't really have to do any of that. It's your choice. For me, I'd want to ask a girl out and pay for things. Not really because it's expected of me, I just feel good doing it. Not to mention it gives off a good impression too.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 04:27 PM
-4

That makes the most sense though. If I wanted to take a girl out i'd ask if I could take her out to lunch (implying that I would pay). If i said "would you like to get dinner/lunch with me tomorrow/tonight?" there would be some uncertainty as to her expecting me to pay, but I'd be sure I'd have enough to pay for both our meals. There are a lot of variables of course.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 03:08 PM
1

yeah, same thing with my gf, but it was an agreement/understanding that we came to down the line. It wasn't like that from the start.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 02:56 PM
1

is there any stats regarding this? I'm interested in seeing if it outdoes the number of fathers who completely leave or work all the time.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 02:31 PM
-1

Cool, man.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 10:53 PM
0

:D Well i am done here though. What a long discussion. Good one too!
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:41 PM
0

yeah, pretty much. I think there could be progress made by the use of legal documents signed prior to having sex but I'm sure that would possibly kill the mood. And depending on the woman, she may feel morally obligated to keep the child as well, but she alone has the power to choose whehter or not she wants to keep what is growing inside her or not. The choice to have unprotected sex and create the situation where life was created, was made by both parties, but I guess that is where the man's a…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:29 PM
0

Mid 20's with a girlfriend and cats. Here is a longer response to your question that I made to someone else who had the same question. "yeah! I don't think it's right htat people steal anything from anyone. But I don't think that the chance for someone to steal my sperm will make me consider that a man has the ability to walk away from raising a child that was conceived through his consentual actions just because he decides that he doesn't want to be responsible." ok nevermind, that was your que…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:25 PM
0

oh gad. I can't keep repeating myself. Feel free to look at the other questions that I've been asked in this thread and see my answers. "It just makes sense to me that a man's decision to be a father and consent to unprotected sex are tied together since a mans seed is entering a different person's body to create a life within that other body" "Before the child is conceived (probably not the best word to use), both parties have equal amount of say as to whether or not they want to be parents or …
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:16 PM
0

I am for gender equality but I understand the process in which a child is born and believe it is very important to take that into consideration during this discussion.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:12 PM
0

I think that is another issue.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:10 PM
0

yes, due to the process in which a child is made.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:09 PM
-2

because we are dealing with the man's rights in the situation. I've covered where I believe the women's rights are and decisions are made. sorry it gets confusing having to answer to a bunch of different people about similar threads of the same argument system.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:06 PM
0

yeah! I don't think it's right htat people steal anything from anyone. But I don't think that the chance for someone to steal my sperm will make me consider that a man has the ability to walk away from raising a child that was conceived through his consentual actions just because he decides that he doesn't want to be responsible.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:04 PM
0

Sort of. With less drama and less attacks on those in poverty or with less intelligence.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:01 PM
-1

I don't really have an answer for making the decision to have sex with someone who appears to be honest but isn't.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:58 PM
-5

I don't understand what parts of your question that I haven't answered. We are assuming that the woman consented the whole time. and if she didn't then it's another problem.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:57 PM
-6

yes, exactly. That is what I am saying. Due to the process in which a child is made, a man's decision to become a father starts and ends with engaging in an activity that has a high probability of yielding a child (unprotected sex). Why is that crazy? When you understand how the child is created, then it just makes complete and total sense.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:56 PM
-1

that's really shitty. In the off chance that my sperm was stolen by a woman to impregnate herself, I would obviously be fore some sort of law to protect men from sperm stealing and the subsequent issues. I wouldn't advocate that a man, after consenting to unprotected sex with a woman (a situaation that yields a high probability of conception) has the ability to walk away from talking responsibility for the child.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:51 PM
-1

consent to protected sex is great! especially if you don't want to have kids.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:49 PM
-2

It just makes sense to me that a man's decision to be a father and consent to unprotected sex are tied together since a mans seed is entering a different person's body to create a life within that other body.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:39 PM
-1

I guess, I really value the fact that the body that the child is developing in has more of a say in what to do with that child than some other body.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:37 PM
-3

Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but due to the process in which a baby is born, the child develops within the mother, so during that development stages, she has more of a say to keep the baby because it is within her body. Before the child is conceived (probably not the best word to use), both parties have equal amount of say as to whether or not they want to be parents or have sex. For the woman, her ability to choose to have sex or be a parent is different than a man's ability to cho…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:35 PM
0

I guess there needs to be some sort of flow chart with lines where decisions need to be made and where the loss of choices happen. I should mark one up some time today. This is all just my opinion of course!
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:29 PM
-3

nah, I think she should have the right to choose. I am fairly certain i know what you are getting at, but I guess I have to repeat that you might not be taking into consideration how a baby is born, and where the child develops.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:26 PM
-8

No, not really. I don't think of it that way. They both have their part, and depending on the position you could assign who is doing what to whom.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:26 PM
-5

for sure, due to the processes in which human life is formed. If the man was the one carrying the child, then I would think that he would be able to decide.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:24 PM
-3

I guess that is what happens when the situation includes shady parties and faulty equiment :/ I don't really have an answer to that to be honest. If everything goes wrong then that is the luck of the draw when having sex. :(
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:22 PM
-1

yes, due to the process in which achild is born. That needs to be taken into consideration. You are welcome, lol. I usually agree with a lot of things on here, but I just cant agree with the guy having the ability to walk away if he changes his mind after creating life.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:21 PM
-2

if the situation is set in motion is designed to conceive a child, then yes, consent to have unprotected sex is consent to raise the child. It is not that crazy to understand.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:18 PM
-9

yes, because the child is in her body. If the child were able to be growing in the man's body, then i'm sure the decision would be completely different! Which is why I am repeating that the mechanics in which a child is born is very important to consider.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:16 PM
0

Then that is a very specific issue that doesn't really go against what I am saying!
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:16 PM
-1

it is though. If proper actions were taken to protect yourself from having a child, then there shouldn't be any problems.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:15 PM
-8

yes, due to the process in which a child is born, the man nuts in the girls body and through the magic of life, there is a high possibility of a child being born. Had the man not wanted to have a child, the man could have used protection or have been sure to know that there is birth control is in use in order to protect himself from having to take care of the child. I guess most of the issue here lies with the fact that if the woman wants to keep the child (after it starts to develop in her body…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:14 PM
-3

Oh most definitely, when you consent to have sex but do not want kids, wrap it up or be sure the girl is on birth control. It makes too much sense. well the second part is tryign to ignore the process in which a child is born.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 08:07 PM
2

I sort of agree. I just don't think it would be right for the guy to be able to just walk away from a life that he helped create. He could have easily worn a condom or have made sure the boning would be without consequence.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:57 PM
-4

what?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:52 PM
-10

the mechanics have to deal with the child is in teh womans body. not in the mans. That has to be taken in to consideration.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:47 PM
0

If I am going to be in a situation with a girl who wants to have kids with me and I do not want to have children, I would not have unprotected sex with them. That's stupid. Wrap it up. use birth control. don't do something that will create a kid if you don't want the kid.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:45 PM
-6

then don't have unprotected sex?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:42 PM
-7

well if you are trying to ignore the mechanics of how a child is born then it shouldn't be any different for men and women.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:40 PM
-11

dramatics aside, it takes "two to tango", in terms of making a baby. If the guy decides along the way that he doesn't want the baby, he already had his hand in commiting the act to create the child. It makes sense not tot have unprotected sex if you do not want to have the child.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:39 PM
0

yeah, it takes two to have sex, but I guess there would have to be a moment where there is an agreement that both parties don't want a child.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:36 PM
-5

Sounds like a pretty shitty way to go about it. "I didn't want the baby, but I consciously performed the act in a manner in which a baby was a likely outcome." Would the guy be liable to pay for part of the medical bills for the abortion? What about whatever stress that comes after the procedure?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:35 PM
-13

ok, so the guy should not have any responsibility after entering the situation and setting the stage for a pregnancy as long as he didn't want the child in the first place?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:17 PM
1

but if both parties enter the situation under the circumstances that will have a heightened chance to conceive (IE bareback), then what? What happens if the guy chooses not to wear a condom but doesn't want a kid?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:03 PM
1

Not saying that the assumption is right or wrong. Just explaining how I believe the situation comes to be.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:22 AM
1

I agree with him/her/it
/r/MensRights29/07/13 09:28 PM
1

I forgot to expand that the onlooker is making a judgement based on the limited information and whatever preconceived notions that they have.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 04:11 PM
1

when person A is seen insulting person B, and the onlooker knows nothing of person B, the only known assumptions that are able to be made are off of physical appearance. So to the onlooker, person A is insulting person B due to those physical traits (gender/race). Makes sense without any information!
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:00 PM
1

that is what I thought it actually was. I was confused as to what exactly he was saying and that it sounded wrong.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:46 AM
5

a "week-long" donation drive every month?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 02:03 PM
2

definitely agree. I've found that MRA's and Feminists agree on a lot of things but some feminists try to make it seem otherwise (mostly at the cost of their rationale).
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:39 PM
1

It's not worse. It just bothers me more.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:36 PM
11

I think what makes Feminists so hostile towards Men's Rights activists because of their names. Men's Rights , IMO (not really studied in this), came about as a reaction to Feminism. It was created to combat feminism, so why wouldn't they be hostile to one another. The most frustrating part about the dissagreements/lack of proper discourse, is that the men's rights people say that they are for men's rights but somehow advocate equality over all. Feminists do this as well, but it is more frustrati…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:26 PM
15

yeah, she is most likely arguing against her idea of what men's rights activists are. Where she got those ideas, I'm not sure. Maybe from previous arguments that she has had with Men's Rights actvists (like the OP), or from heavily practiced scenarios that her and other like minded people have gone through to strengthen their convictions.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:53 PM
-6

two lines? what's next, TWO WATER FOUNTAINS?!
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:32 AM
9

wtf? you're trying too hard to highlight "inequality"
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:46 PM
5

I think queer is an acceptable term now.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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