TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Fastbreak99 Archive

View 0 posts and 134 comments by Fastbreak99 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)
2

You disproved this article and story just fine, why the fuck are you trying to police everyone? Because the same way we criticize feminists for not distancing themselves from the kill all men crazies, and therefore people can conflate them, we need to distance ourselves from this. I don't post, but I read just fine. And if I want to be able to tell people men need help when it comes to suicide rates, education, and homelessness, I want to be able to use the term "Men's Rights" without the first …
/r/MensRights28/01/17 05:32 PM
26

We need to stop posting ridiculous misleading stuff to be taken seriously. Something that can be easily disproved in 10 seconds should not be on our frontpage if we want to shake the image of being unreasonable. http://masslawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/warren-law-license-matter-called-non-issue/ And there is no source on who she was supposed to disclose this line of credit to; there is no evidence of wrong doing. Even Fox news didn't cover this and they would love nothing more than to take a swip…
/r/MensRights28/01/17 08:18 AM
2

So for starters, he was bragging about women letting him touch them. Going up and grabbing someone in the genitals is not "letting." He said it. He bragged about it. Now you want evidence to prove it happened. If someone walked up to someone you cared about and grabbed them by the crotch, would you give them shit for LETTING someone do that to them? If so, we have very different understandings of normal human interactions. I think crime has gone up a little, I may be wrong. You are. 10 seconds t…
/r/MensRights27/10/16 03:02 AM
1

There where more leak d emails of Hillary's the day trumps rape came out and guess what got the most coverage. I mean come on guess? It is obvious which one got more coverage. Because one was disproportionately worse than the other. Bragging about sexually assaulting women, and making excuses as if it's normal instead of apologizing, is much worse than the text of her wall street speeches which we already wrote her off as in their pocket. What she did sucks, what he did was appalling. They both …
/r/MensRights26/10/16 08:57 PM
2

This is also demonstrably false. The idea that everyone is against Trump and that's why people are debunking him is silly. There has not been a single election where people did not analyze and scrutinize every position of a candidate. This feels like an outlier because there is a nominated candidate who gets so many things wrong and refuses to change his position even when shown he is wrong. Hilary said her deplorable line and it was dumb and stupid. Just like How Romney said that half the count…
/r/MensRights26/10/16 05:23 AM
2

No sir. I am not a fan of politicians or politics in general, but the degree at which he takes these attitudes is an extreme. All politicians will try to bend the truth, put things bleak things in a rosy picture, and the worst lie if they think they will not be caught. Trump says things demonstrably false repeatedly, that he has been called out on over and over again, and his response is to maintain the same position and call the debunker a "loser." This isn't even clever, it is the thought proc…
/r/MensRights25/10/16 01:56 PM
9

Indeed. To expound on that, he is basically the worst of not only a man, but a person. He is egotistical, short tempered, admires and advocates violence, and tries to distort the truth to fit his agenda. Not only is he embarrassing for men, he embarrasses the country.
/r/MensRights25/10/16 05:16 AM
-5

I really don't see her swinging at him. Watched it several times. Why you don't see a reason for a bouncer to subdue someone who was just in a fight... I just don't know what to tell you. They aren't going to sit and hope the person who has resorted to violence is just going to stop, they are paid to stop the situation. They did it really well too, the man received discomfort at most until they can make sure he is not a threat, that's what every class is going to teach you to do.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 12:03 AM
-15

Okay downvote brigade...,bring it on. I can't understand the audio hardly at all. But unless there was something said where she said "My friend is about to go attack that guy for no reason" and even then it's shady, he threw the first punch and the bouncers only subdued him. Sure he wasn't happy, but it's not like he got a beat down. They subdued the person who was clearly the one administering violence. A woman having a mouth on her isn't cause for throwing punches.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 02:35 PM
1

Was wondering the exact same thing. This article is falling really short on explaining the case.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 08:43 PM
6

A very funny video, I am a fan of their work. But what does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights05/07/16 05:17 AM
2

These videos are not really evidence of anything. They stand there waiting for hours for 2 or 3 people to give some dumb responses and they edit them all together ignoring the 100's of other intelligent responses. They do this at Trump rallies, Clinton rallies, Veteran hospitals, even welfare lines, just to push whatever agenda to make the other side look dumb.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 05:13 AM
14

There isn't anything that supports the claim made by the OP. I wholeheartedly agree. I wasted a good chunk of time trying to find anything of substance, or related to men's rights, in what was linked. Can we put some sort of disclaimer on this so other do not waste their time trying to find relevance?
/r/MensRights21/06/16 04:40 PM
-1

I was assuming the rest of everyone was joking, but if you are genuinely curious... She is obviously joking and I hope to god everyone else in the thread knows it. The same way Tracy Morgan was joking when he said he would eat a mile of shit to get with Beyonce, they are exaggerating for effect. If you are seriously concerned by this, you need to take a step back.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 04:30 PM
0

An those would be the parts people right here in this very discussion thread are pointing out the irrelevancies of. Which literally makes it no different than when we post articles from Jezebel, or HuffPo or the Guardian where we point out the errors in it. Error, irrelevancy, whichever you prefer. Yet it was not posted to point out those shortcomings, like others have done for the other outlets you mentioned, it was posted as representative of this forums views. Neither is Jezebel, the Mary Sue…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 05:36 AM
-1

I wouldn't call people who don't understand, or misunderstand, things stupid. That's a very negative outlook you have.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 04:12 AM
1

He was re-framed things I plainly stated early. I surmised he was was pretending to not understand to stay in an argument (intentionally obtuse) or he genuinely did not understand that you can link something in agreement or in contrast. I addressed both possibilities.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 04:09 AM
1

Analyzing the shortcomings in a point of view or argument is not an insult.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 03:42 AM
1

Again this is an opinion site. He started with facts, and then went on to express some opinions which most would find pretty distasteful and certainly not "correct information" just because you agree with his opinion. If you want to agree with the opinions on that site, knock yourself out, but it is not a news site; it's goal is not unbias information.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 03:41 AM
2

You are being intentionally obtuse, or you do not see the difference between posting something in contrast, and posting something in agreement.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 01:41 AM
5

You don't see why MRAs would want to distance themselves from a site that mocks "fags" and belittles men they do not feel are masculine enough, or you don't see why I would worry about the impression that would give for a movement trying to support men who are trying to find identity and their place in modern day society? And the site you link to doesn't make you an ideology, but if you are linking to it as an example of your movements needs, then yes you are, at least ostensibly, endorsing or a…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 01:21 AM
9

I respectfully disagree. This is just as bad a Jezebel, and just because something else is trashy, doesn't make anything else less trashy; hanging around short people doesn't make you taller. To break down some points on it: This story raises the question of whether should be able to fire someone for their opinions. On the one hand, it would be a fitting way to punish feminists for their hateful views. On the other hand, anti-feminist men have become targets as well, and at a much higher rate. I…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:05 PM
8

Considering how much MRAs are trying to distance themselves from ROK, or at least I hope they are, I just worry about impression. Having the archive link helps, but people trying to further make villains of MRAs are only getting some more evidence if these are the sort of articles we think represent the movement.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:01 PM
2

This is actually the standard way you trick people with this riddle. Some people asking the riddle do it intentionally, others don't realize they were gendering surgeons already. People don't remember pronouns unless you are on tumblr. Your subconscious goes right to male when you hear "he" and when they call you out on it, you have no idea why your mind went there, so maybe I am sexist?!
/r/MensRights11/03/16 05:07 PM
9

He was not attacking your character, he was claiming your argument was absurd. And sadly it kind of was. Every sort of over the counter birth control available to men are available to women. That only thing being condoms. Women have several more and many are covered by insurance. Not to mention options post pregnancy, men have none. The picket line of anti-choicers sucks, but again not rights; assholes are everywhere and you can't police them away. However, to make an apt comparison, there are s…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 07:36 AM
5

Well for one, this is not a right, this is a social dynamic. Second, it's a poor example of a social dynamic anyways, but I see what you are saying. It's a bad example because someone having something happen to them when they are passed out is definitely not gender specific. To specifically make it about rape only is an odd choice, as if other bad events don't matter. Your better example would have been around women being in sports being perceived as less feminine. Or women who don't have famili…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 07:26 AM
3

The site is very NSFW, warning to all.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 04:11 PM
1

I disagree, strongly in fact. We have not been loud, angry, or mean in the ways in which we gained traction. There is a reason the Red Pill is mocked, and they can't ignore our positions easily because they are well through out and reasoned. There will be the people whose mind we cannot change, the hysterical (or perhaps radical) people. But now joining in by calling her a rapist or abuser (an eye for an eye as you advocate), because they won't stop exaggerating everything beyond all reason, the…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 07:58 PM
4

I see what you are saying, but combating hysterics with hysterics just makes hysteria the norm.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 03:45 PM
2

Here here. Lets pick the battles that are worth winning.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 11:18 PM
3

Free speech is a tenet of American culture, but free speech isn't implicitly American.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 05:07 PM
0

This is the correct approach. My current problem with overzealous progressivism more than any other is how they belittle women. Men control and cultivate women? Women are made impure by men? I have been lucky enough to have strong, independent women in my life, so I guess I think more highly of women than this speaker and think they can and should have agency. I think you can legitimately frame this as insulting to both men and women, and you would like to invite a speaker who actually respects …
/r/MensRights11/11/15 04:14 PM
1

I will keep taking the downvotes as to try and show you how over sensationalizing, like radical feminists do, is only hurting our already delicate PR situation, but let me show you something; lets pretend the reporter was female and had the exact same experience and a feminist was describing it: A bunch of people start taking space from her, a common female problem, and won't let her do her job like men have stopped women from doing for years. She tried to be passive but the second she tries to …
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:36 PM
-14

Men and women alike were being unfair to him not because he was a man, but because he was a reporter; his gender was never brought into the event. Which leads to the question that I wish more people would ask before they post here: are you rallying against feminism, or bringing up an issue that affects all or a subset of men? If it is the former, and it certainly seems like it is, I recommend posting in /r/AgainstFeminism/ since this has little to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 06:00 AM
2

Just a reminder that point out how tall someone stood does not make anyone else shorter. Hedy Lamarr, from what I can tell, obviously was a big contributor (at minimum) and possibly a primary contributor. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging her for what she did. With all due respect, it's a pretty weak argument to say she is being celebrated only because she was female.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:12 PM
1

How do you mean?
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:26 AM
1

I think basing the outcome soley on gender is quite naive. As I said from another reply: If you only see the difference of the 2 cases as being female vs male, you are boiling down a complex situation to a very small variable. Different countries, different judges, different attorneys, different heroes, different assholes, to only name a few things. Things we can't possibly measure from behind a keyboard. So from that, I am celebrating the victory for free speech, no matter how much I dislike it…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:26 AM
1

Yes, I agree. That's all point 2. But also, if you only see the difference of the 2 cases as being female vs male, you are boiling down a complex situation to a very small variable. Different countries, different judges, different attorneys, different heroes, different assholes, to only name a few things. Things we can't possibly measure from behind a keyboard. So from that, I am celebrating the victory for free speech, no matter how much I dislike it. Edit: But to be clear, I do recognize that …
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:25 AM
1

I agree with all that you have posted. However, I separate 2 things: The merit of the accusation in which we are judging guilt or not. The reaction to the accusation For the first point, both Mustafa's and Elliot's case is ridiculous to me. She was an idiot that posted a trendy, wanna-be rebellious hashtag. He got into a stupid argument, with even more stupid people, online and went to court for it. You would have to be a fool to think either person should go to prison for this. Which leads to t…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 10:34 PM
-1

Gregory Elliott I am familiar with it. I haven't been following it super closely, but I know that he has been charged and sent to court for a disagreement on twitter; probably even more ridiculous than this case. As for why 2 being obviously false, I am afraid that isn't convincing. She would have been charged under incitement which requires Mens Rea, which means she had to have intended someone to kill all white men. I don't think that holds up.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 08:40 PM
-5

Genuine question, how do you know 1 is true and 2 is false? I think it's obvious she was not actually calling for people to kill all men, so by the letter of the law Mens Rea could not be established for incitement, therefore the courts did not pursue.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 05:28 PM
-1

I am in the US, I did not know you could be fined for hate speech in UK. I see your point, and I agree it needs to be consistently applied, but I think it is far more important that we push for it to be applied appropriately. Instead of encouraging a crappy interpretation of the law that everyone is subject to, I would rather us withstand some inconsistency in order to have it applied correctly in the end.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 05:26 PM
-7

This whole forum has been asking for them to be repealed, and quite vehemently. When they are not applied, we should celebrate that as a victory to our POV. We should not take satisfaction in the laws being used unfairly because it's targeting a woman, or show frustration when logic prevails to the benefit of a woman; we should be happy logic has prevailed.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 05:21 PM
3

Honestly my friend, I am trying to take you seriously but if you say fee fees, or use more baby talk, I am going to have to move excuse myself from this chain. It seems you no longer want fairness, but retribution. Since something bad happened to a man, you want the same to happen to a woman. You should be pushing for this illogical approach of "stupid things being said is the same as a crime" to be excused, regardless of gender. Encouraging it to happen to Mustafa because it is happening to a m…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 04:23 PM
-2

Calling her a public figure is incredibly generous. She is only in the public eye now because of the case. Also, if you read the rules on incitement, she does not fit the bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement. Mens Rea is required, and no reasonable person would conclude she actually wanted someone to go out and kill white men. It boils down to a stupid person saying something stupid on the internet. We should not start charging people for this. Point out they are despicable and irrespo…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 04:07 PM
3

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse. We both agree that he should not have been charged, have lost his job, etc... So based on that, removing gender from the equation, we would hope the same for her. If she did get charged, this opens the door for saying stupid shit on the internet as being a crime. And if you DID want to bring gender into it, women tend to file formal complaints based on communication than men do, therefore the precedent would be set that those complaints have me…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 04:01 PM
10

And in regards from the Toronto case: he should not have been charged he should not have lost his job he should not have lost other jobs And both of those are frivolous. The differences between the cases are actually quite small. If you disagree with one, you should on principal disagree with the other. Sarcastically framing Mustafa as speaking in a childlike tone to doesn't make the fact that they boil down to policing opinions on the internet. I personally think her's was more despicable than …
/r/MensRights03/11/15 03:37 PM
10

Not surprised by this, but for different reasons. Honestly, we should all be relieved... she should not have been arrested in the first place. Same as the gentleman now in court for disagreeing with 2 women on twitter, this was very frivolous. Until they can show she incited violence, this was just another batshit crazy person being batshit crazy on twitter, which is not a crime. Luckily, free speech won out on this one despite how detestable the message.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 03:06 PM
19

This is actually a really poorly written article. :( You can see where she is going, but she never connects that "Patriarchal" or "oppressive" doesn't mean mild gender imbalances. That should have been the crux of her argument, instead she makes a bit of a false dichotomy in saying that if you aren't treated like a literal slave, then you are not allowed to talk about gender specific issues. She had a good lead in to establish that, and just went a little too extreme with it.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 04:11 PM
10

Sadly, the government is pushing for this to not be the defacto. Mattress girl being the perfect example of how it should be done, yet the school faced scrutiny. The school, in order to be title IX compliant, is encouraged to do something they are ill equipped to do at the cost of punishing innocent men, and removing due process. As much as I am not happy with the schools and how they behave, the buck stops with the government on this one. The courts are siding with the people who have their due…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:08 PM
5

That is what they are arguing for, the OP's title is misleading. They are critiquing the current method of using a single investigator to decide, and the alternative of a kangaroo court. Without explicitly saying it, they are suggesting that the police should be the ones investigating the case.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:03 PM
3

I think they are reporting on it, not trying to change it. It does seem to be common thought that he was not a nice person. I am not sure what your beef is with the article, nor how it pertains to mens rights.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:31 PM
5

That's a bit dramatic. No one is saying that anyone doesn't have a right to be here, but this is not an example of something per the MRM.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 08:54 PM
2

Agreed this is messed up, but don't see how it's a men's rights issue. This was just poor medical practice involving someone's gender.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 06:20 PM
20

Upvoted for the record, but he does have a point in that it does not make sense to blame MEN in a field dominated by women, which is a common feminist argument vis-à-vis media and objectification of women.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:43 PM
3

Though I wish the titles to these were not so hyped up, it was a great discussion. Milo can often come off as condescending to people who are contrary to him, which I am sure a lot of people like, but I appreciate how reasoned he was this time. Particularly praising women for the personal choices they make towards motherhood, if they choose to do so.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 08:57 PM
3

A more apt point would be that she is making the same idiotic argument as those who are pro-life. Why give them access to abortions if they can just always wear a condom?
/r/MensRights11/07/15 03:10 AM
-4

Not trying to stir the pot, but I don't see the self defense that clearly here. She was struggling and they grasped each other, but I don't see her make a real strike. The FSU QB in a bar? That was obviously self defense, but here I don't think the cameras shows her being the initial aggressor. Is there a timestamp I should pay close attention to?
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:04 PM
1

You were doing so well before this. He may be annoying, but this is your thread where you want to have a discussion. His questions are following a train of thought, and it's worth answering. In the 2005 filing, part of a civil case, Cosby, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women, said that he obtained seven prescriptions for the drugs and answered “yes” when asked if he got them with the intent on giving them to women with whom he wanted to have sex. In the filings, which th…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 02:50 PM
7

This is an honest, no BS question, but where did you read that about supporting changing the definition of rape? The most I see is a quote from a person in NOW about how it will give more accurate statistics, but I can't find where they were actively lobbying or pushing for this to go through. I would love for this to be true, but the most I see is that they weren't fighting against something that should have been universally accepted decades ago.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 02:53 PM
6

This is an important point. It's something the Simpsons does very well, being a reflection of both stereotypes and reality, and mocking them both with the same joke. Something Dave Chappelle did very well. When compared to Mencia, who replaced Chappelle at that time slot, you learned the difference between making racist jokes (Mencia) and making fun of racism (Chappelle).
/r/MensRights19/06/15 02:28 PM
6

You want to be objective, use the numbers. This is something people should listen to more often. And when you use the numbers, don't cherry pick them from flawed studies!
/r/MensRights15/06/15 03:36 PM
2

Here here. I must agree that they seem to have a point and found themselves a genuine misogynist. I am trying to find how this could not be taken as sexist to be honest. If they performed bad science, regardless of gender, reject the paper. If they have shown bias because of their gender, or any other factor, reject the paper. But because they did not include a male on the research team, they were rejected? This should upset us as much as if an all male team had their paper rejected for not incl…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 01:45 PM
3

Old public speaking saying: "You don't always get to pick your audience." There are ways to speak to a hostile or contradictory audience, and he just didn't do that. I am not "faulting" him for that, no more than I am faulting steak for not winning a hot dog competition; it's just not what he does, while the woman next to him was obviously a professional speaker (or could be). He writes fine articles, if I remember his stuff correctly, but he just didn't relate to the audience well. The woman ne…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 07:10 PM
7

This was painful to watch, but honestly the gentleman from Breitbart was doing a horrible job of communicating correctly to that audience. It was obvious he had a good solid point in mind, but tangetted himself into talking about muslims, or some other emotionally heated issue, so that he got interrupted before he could get to the crux of his argument and came off sounding like his whole point was to criticize a minority or be misogynistic. He just wasn't made to be in that sort of format, the w…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:30 PM
12

Well thought out argument, but you are moving the goal posts a bit. We both agreed all movements have it. But no one is advocating for "purging" or "excluding" emotional statements, it's that they have there own place away from intelligent discourse. By definition, emotional arguments are about feelings, not logic. We have men's rants so people can get that out. No one is saying it's invalid, but it's also not the proper face of a Men's rights movement. We mock the position of how people feel be…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:03 PM
18

Of course all movements have it. The point is whether or not it is helping or hurting. This movement is new, and some things that are posted here will be what defines it to visitors. Right now, some people know nothing more about Men's Rights other than how Lena Dunham presented it on SNL, and they came here to see what we actually say. Do you want that to be an emotionally laden rant with vitriol and possibly rage, or an intellectually compelling argument with data and logical conclusions? We a…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 02:53 PM
1

We read 2 very different reports it seems. Sure you didn't read an opinion summary? Not really. They said there needed to be a balance (whereas in fact there should be no balance at all - the truth should outweigh sentiment). They didn't say RS got the balance wrong. A quote from the report: [Rolling Stone staff] were searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show what it’s like to be on campus now . . . where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasi…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:30 PM
1

I think you are talking about 2 different things. Both are legitimate things to take a look at, but they are separate. I actually commend that report. It would have been very easy for them to let RS off the hook because of the sensitivity of the issue, or because of the importance of rape awareness, or whatever other popular feminist line that is mainstream and infect an otherwise intellectual assessment. But they didn't, they called out that they should not have let emotion get in the way of go…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:17 PM
-1

You're right, it isn't. It just wasn't what you did. That's correct, and you called it whining. Did you already forget what you wrote 2 posts above? You mean aside from the unspoken "If it's not a 100% bona-fide, non-peripheral FDA-certified Men's Rights Issue™, we shouldn't be discussing it" rule? I know you are trying to strawman what I said into something unreasonable, and I applaud the last ditch effort, but if you are trying to say that I am only encouraging things that have a trade mark Me…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 06:54 PM
-1

Pointing out the behavior that this subreddit, and all subreddits to a degree, has toward unpopular opinions is not whining. Nor did we pretend it was a men's rights issue, you can note that by us not making a thread about it like this one. And we most certainly didn't talk about rules. So the "lawyery-ness" is all in your court, my friend.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:58 PM
7

Afraid I have to agree. There is a dedicated person who keeps her wiki page updated. There are plenty of people who do this for a lot of public figures, the fact that it's a woman in this case does not make it a gendered issue, and even less so a Men's Rights issue. We will ride the downvote train from the more radical of our group together, Dimitrisan.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 03:48 PM
1

And you can see how, just as easily, a feminist poster would say the same thing with the roles reversed. Both sides could provide a ton of information showing their interpretation of reality. The point is that it is hypocritical to point out logical fallacies on one side, but think we are exempt from the same standard. That happens here, just like everywhere else, and it removes from the strength of the message. We have completely valid points and grievances, we do not need to lie or exaggerate …
/r/MensRights05/03/15 02:14 PM
3

I did misread your post, my mistake.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:36 PM
2

I am not advocating for feminism, I am advocating against using certain reasoning to disqualify one platform, but then advocating the same reasoning for another. The most popular are usually criticisms of feminism. Radical feminism will use every logical fallacy in the book to twist reality to fit their views, and there are several good posts calling them out for that. However when when someone posts a link to an article where most women would like to not work if they were financially stable eno…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:34 PM
-7

I wish I didn't have to disagree with you, but sadly there are posts directly against feminism or women, with mixed reactions. For instance: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xqtfu/if_you_want_to_engage_with_the_mens_rights/ Posts like these are the ones that draw lines, and make people cross them if we are to get support. That is not beneficial to our cause.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:03 PM
-1

Comparable in severity? No. Comparable in level of reason? Yes. Lets not turn this into a pissing contest about which "side" is more or less crazy.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:00 PM
17

It would be naive of us to pretend that some of the people on this forum are not anti-woman. Like all movements, their are the extreme outliers who find some solace in reasonable points of views, but take them to extremes. Much like how there are feminist who call for the death of all men, there are men who think all woman are evil and manipulative. Much to the chagrin of some users, and my karma, I make an effort to call out some of the unfair comparisons. There are plenty of times where you wi…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 09:26 PM
0

You are missing the point of this discussion, it's not that whether or not feminism is bad for men, and you obviously think it is, but whether or not people who disagree with you are allowed to be MRAs. You are stating, very specifically, that if you do not hate feminism, and tangentially feminists, you are not an MRA. This basically means that if a man is passionate about male circumcision, or workplace fatalities, or any other subject independent of women and the feminist movement, they aren't…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 02:30 PM
-1

To illustrate why what you are saying is so shortsighted, if a feminist told you: "Mens Rights itself is anti-woman. Therefore MRAs are, by definition. Perhaps you should ask these "MRAs" you know why they voluntarily self-identify as members of a sexist hate group." Would you say that they have a point and rethink your position, or assume that they are taking their impression of your movement from a vocal minority they encountered which tarnished the whole movement? Feminism is a bit different,…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:50 AM
0

You are declaring, with a wide brush, that all feminists are anti-man. I know several feminists who not would act or identify as such. I am not against them, in fact I encourage their efforts around education for women in the middle east. But, in your opinion, I cannot see them as such and be an MRA, only because you said so. Fucking common sense, goes both ways eh?
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:28 AM
0

True Scotsman back at it. With all do respect to you and your views, you do not get to decide if the opinions of other MRAs are valid or not. I hope the courtesy and respect I provide to your point of view, without immediately dismissing it, you would provide to others as well.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 11:14 PM
7

Strongly disagree with the premise. Feminism may have negative affects on men, and you may think it is even the root of all the problems facing men. You do not have to acknowledge that in order to be part of MRM. There are plenty of Men's Rights Activists who define their position completely independently of feminism. Though you may disagree with that, that doesn't mean those who disagree with you cannot engage with MRM, as the title says. This is practically a True Scotsman fallacy right off th…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 05:20 PM
1

This sounded like a good thing. The debate was if police were doing enough, even though the police were trying to bring attention to the matter on their own FB wall. Are you saying that of course they aren't doing enough, so why is there even a debate about it?
/r/MensRights20/02/15 03:38 PM
1

Well that is definitive. Thank you for clarifying.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 03:48 AM
-5

Planned parenthood never stated they endorsed infant circumcision. They stated their are health benefits to circumcision which there is some information to support that, whether we agree or not. Perhaps they did mean to associate the 2, but I am not one to put words in anyone's mouth, and more joyed that a level headed article for both sides was presented.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 09:13 PM
-4

I disagree with your interpretation of what planned parenthood said. But first I want to make sure some things are in context, this is talking about weather or not circumcision should be cover by medical insurance. So what planned parenthood said was this: Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, meanwhile, countered circumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases. Which, whether you believe it or not, is n…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 09:11 PM
7

I see your point and it is somewhat valid, but lets take a look at the good that happened in this article. There is plenty of back and forth, and people taking into question the numbers that an anti-circumcision advocate provides, but this is the core of a healthy debate. The fact that this article unbiasedly and quite succinctly provided both sides to this argument in a balanced fashion, without any detrimental labels, is a huge bolster to the topic being discussed. Sure we may not like Planned…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:24 PM
1

A lot of things to respond to here. I will try to separate them out. You may make life decisions based on and driven by sex - I do not, and I may be among a minority of men, but I am certainly not alone in this. Sure, there are a subset of people, men and women, who have no sexual attractions, or severely reduced libidos. If you are one of them, you have to acknowledge that the a vast majority of the world is still driven by sex, and appealing to those desires is a common sales/marketing tactic …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 07:13 PM
1

Well that's misleading. It was one time claimed to do something along those lines, but that argument has long been abandoned. The most common reasons are now hygiene and religious practices. Now that's not to say I am in favor of circumcision on newborns, but if you try to represent the other side of the argument inaccurately, it deflates the power of your side from logical observers.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:58 PM
4

Are you mad that men are indeed driven by sex, or that Chevy is pointing it out?
/r/MensRights14/02/15 03:50 AM
1

And to throw in, I am enjoying the healthy discussion that hasn't regressed to a single slur or strawman! :)
/r/MensRights12/02/15 11:18 PM
3

Are you then claiming that "social awareness" is infinite, and that "social awareness" alone generates rights? Who guarantees said rights? Where does the enforcement come from? I would say that social awareness for inequities does, in fact, lead to action by the population and law makers to "generate rights." The enforcement and guarantees would come from the same place as every other social change that became law; there is no reason to think this would be different. Except that they did. That m…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 11:12 PM
3

Where exactly does your social awareness come from? How much do you have? Are you capped out after prostrate cancer and therefore you can't worry about heart disease? Perhaps the example I gave for money was too simple for you. But it is supposed to illustrate that 2 complimentary things don't necessarily have to cannibalize each other. If you think it is not possible for someone to care deeply for the rights and issues of women, and the rights and issues of men, then I am not sure you are an eg…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 09:41 PM
3

Let me give you the most common, simple, example and then I will response to each of your points. DemonSpawn is walking down the street, and sees someone asking for money to help the homeless. DemonSpawn is a good person, wants to help others and decides that donating 5 dollars to this cause is worthy. Next year, he walks down the same street and see the same donation box, however there is also someone asking for donations for prostate cancer research. Despite his namesake, he is still a good pe…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 08:34 PM
3

To say that unless you have unlimited resources, it has to be zero sum, implies that there is no way to increase values for both efforts. I hope you realize that increasing donation to person A means that you have to decrease donations to person B is certainly not the case. By increasing awareness and showing the need for other causes does not implicitly lessen the importance or awareness of another cause. Gender equality is definitely not a zero sum game. By stating so, you are advocating for o…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 06:13 PM
1

Fair enough, but I would have a hard time thinking of anything they were going for other than bringing attention to the problem of heart disease for women. That's what it is on it's face, and what it seems that the result would be. I hate for my reply to only be putting the onus on you for content, but I think for me to to try to defend their motives would be trying to prove a negative; an logical fallacy I don't think we want to go down. I think it's fair to say that for us to question the moti…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:27 PM
1

This is a classic case of "just because your right, it doesn't mean I am wrong." I never claimed we have the same level of representation in those areas, in fact I more or less stated we don't. The reason we have this board is because males are not represented enough in those concerns: domestic abuse, rape victims, breast cancer, etc. That does not mean since we are not getting enough attention in one area, we should make sure women don't get attention in another where they may need it. We shoul…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:00 PM
1

Please explain to me how giving the female perspective of a health concern will take away from male needs, and then I can start to see your point of view. But heart disease is already largely seen as a male concern (it is) and showing that women also need to be conscious of it is not a bad thing. I certainly hope you have some women in your life who you want to be conscious of their health.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:55 PM
1

They raised almost 20 million in the US alone last year, and almost 80 million globally. To say barely anyone knows about this is simply not true. Yes female causes get more donations, but again this is not a zero sum game.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:52 PM
2

Depends on who you mean by "they." There is no doubt that female issues receive more charitable contributions than male issues, but that's not to say they don't exist. Do I think people in general will get behind a male issues and help? This already happens, with Movember being a great example. Does it happen as much for female issues? No. But more importantly, and too the point, does this mean that helping female issues, or the female side of a gender neutral issue, will somehow take away from …
/r/MensRights04/02/15 10:52 PM
7

Heart attacks are seen as largely a thing that happens to men, though everyone knows it's false. This is just a reminder and getting those who may immediately make the connection to their female loved ones, should. We try to do this all the time by reminding others that certain problems are not just a female issue. This is no different. At no point is this trying to take away any help or assistance a man may get on the topic. Lets try not to be over sensitive.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 08:56 PM
-6

This is pretty much spot on. Postpartum is no joke, yet they make it clear she was the one responsible.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 02:59 PM
12

No, this paraphrasing is not spot on. The correct paraphrasing would be that 84% of new mothers wish to be financially independent enough to stay home with their children. saying that means 84% of women don't even want to work, and therefore they wouldn't need feminism, is at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst intentionally deceitful. This is exactly the type of rewording and reframing that we criticize radical feminists for doing, do not do the same.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 08:45 PM
6

Are we trying to criticize men for their music tastes on this board now? Should he "man up?" Do we have a standard issue list of acceptable music or your balls are traded for ovaries? Your opinion on this matter is one of the many things this board is trying to change. He is not less of a man because of the instrument he plays, the music he likes, or the person he does it with. To each their own.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 03:44 PM
2

I agree. The same reason many people who still think OJ did it are not doing anything criminal, not agreeing with the courts is not something that should be considered illegal. Now he may not be wrong, but that doesn't mean he isn't an asshole for repeatedly calling him a rapist when he is found innocent.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 03:37 PM
0

Given your insistence on Mike Tyson, I will have to say I don't know. But I assume you are not close to him, so basically you shouldn't do anything to Mike Tyson but introduce yourself and shake his hand, tops. However, with my girlfriend if she gave me a half hearted, barely there, smack on the face, the last thing I would be thinking is that I am fearing for my safety. I have no reason to believe, and neither did Rice, that Rice's safety was being compromised. If the one's doing the backhands …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 06:01 PM
-1

I think the divide is we have completely different definitions of "hit." If she balled up her fist and put her weight, no matter how little there is, behind a blow then I would not be as harsh on Ray Rice if he had a genuine reason to think she was out to hurt him. Her ability to do so being a minor factor compared to her actually intention to cause physical harm. However what she did is not even the definition of a strike for me, and if you are arguing that Rice was defending himself from someo…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 03:25 PM
6

You are going to have to help me out here, I do not see this at all. Any aggression she showed towards him that I can see is extremely minor compared to his instigating blow, followed by a knockout punch. Ray Rice seems to be the aggressor, and very much at fault in this scenario. There is no "hitting Mike Tyson" going on from what I can see. If you disagree, I would appreciate you pointing it out because I can't see it. But also remember a part of Men's Rights isn't always defending men no matt…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:43 PM
1

The interviewer asked questions without agenda. There is no bias in the article, it's not advocating her views other than reporting on a popular internet personality. The article doesn't even try to hide her crazy. Pretending like they are advocating for genocide because they interviewed someone who does is like saying ABC advocates for murder if they interview a convicted murderer. There are plenty of other articles out there with bias that you could be sending letters about, this is not one of…
/r/MensRights15/08/14 02:28 PM
1

This might be the most insulting thing to women I have ever seen.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:54 PM
1

My mistake if that was the case, I can't seem to see where it says that, but you are correct it does not say the accusations came out when she was 13. I would agree she does need some sort of punishment if she was 17 at the time. She should know the gravity of her actions at that point.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 01:35 PM
1

I actually understand not suing, she was a 13 year old girl at the time, most spent as a minor. It really wouldn't make a great precedant to sue the girl. He won;t really get anything out of it anyhow, his life is ruined either way. I wish he could sue the courts and police department who put him through this with no evidence at all other than the girl's word. Thats the example I would like to be set.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 06:45 PM
1

You are moving the goal posts. I am well aware of the WaW phenomenon, and it simply doesn't apply here. A woman acting alone, committing a crime, and the article accurately reporting such, is not displaying WaW. If you are saying that because of WaW that she was not found at fault, or that she has some sort of reduced sentence, then that would be relevant to that article. Neither is the case. That is not an emotional knee-jerk reaction, thats simply a fact. You can try to paint me as some illogi…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:43 AM
5

Sadly, like all movements, there are some who are here for the wrong reasons. Even with good intentions, they think pointing out women can be bad will somehow make a point for us, and it's really not part of what we are talking about. The MRA's who think women doing bad things proves our point aren't really arguing for the right things. And the feminists who think that women can do no wrong ever are too crazy to pay attention to evidence anyhow, so no bother addressing them.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 06:56 PM
3

Not sure if this counts as a Mens Rights issues based on the title. Bad people are everywhere, of any gender. The fact this one happens to be a woman doesn't necessarily make it a Mens Rights issue. Even the blogger takes liberties with an interpretation of a statement by the judge where he states he wouldn't be doing his job if he suspended the sentence, and then makes it a gender issue when there is no mention of it at all in the article. if they did suspend her sentence because she was a woma…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 05:30 PM
2

Fair enough, but here is a load of stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_females_by_males Look at the references section, not just the article. All sexual assault, because of the taboo associated with it, will be hard to measure for a long long time. But based on the information we do have, it is safe to say that there are more female victims than male. But once again, that does not discredit abuse when the victim is male, nor should it be taken that way as some may think.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 11:14 PM
48

I tried to think of how to word this without sounding like I was discrediting your question, I certainly don't mean to, but I feel as though it's loaded to imply that almost all women's concerns aren't legitimate; I believe most of them are. For instance, sexual assault is more of a problem for women than for men, this movement just wants to point out that men are victims of sexual abuse as well when mainstream media and feminism does not act as so. MRAs should not have a problem with women, or …
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:12 PM
1

Once again, show how she is not being impartial, then the video poster has a point. As of now, this is just a man harassing another for supporting women and having a position in family court. Implying that one says you cannot do another is just as valid as saying someone who supports mens rights should not be able to have a position in family court. In case you missed it, my point is that neither argument is valid.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 05:07 PM
3

My impression is that this guy is just bitter. The fact she fights for women's rights is not directly indicative that she would be unfair in custody hearings. Some proof of her doing something negligent at her job would be an appropriate reason to try and shame her, but fighting against domestic violence, and receiving awards for it, regardless of the gender you do it for, is not going to make me dislike someone. Let's not turn the turn the movement into "if you are for women's rights, you can't…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:06 PM
1

I did bring up that they were demi-gods, thats what you were posting pictures of after all. You brought up that they were male or female, when I would think the fact were are talking about gods, in a marvel movie, getting slapped by human being is not a mens rights issue. Of course the media can reinforce ideas, one being that it is more acceptable for female on male violence. And there are dozens of examples where this can be shown, but I was pointing out that a movie that is fantastical as Tho…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:56 PM
4

The movie opened with a huge battle scene where a female Asgardian was taking blows as well as she was giving them. But, and I am saying this as respectfully as I can, you have steered this discussion into whether or not punching demi-gods by gender demonstrates a mens rights issue. I personally do not this this is an example of the issue we should be trying to address. Our line is/should be violence, regardless of the gender perpetrating it or receiving it, should not be acceptable. But it's ha…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:11 PM
2

This might be a bit of a stretch. We are talking about a 110 pound human, female or not, slapping demi-gods. Especially since we see ostensibly male characters murdering each other constantly. This really isn't even on the violence radar for the movie.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:11 PM
4

The entire premise is a false statement, "Caused by a power imbalance. Systematic and institutionalized." Sexism is not something that has to be institutionalized, systematic, or anything else other than: If you discriminate against someone based on their sex, it's sexism. Since they re-define sexism off the bat, they can now say everything is sexist thereafter according to their construction until you confront them about the definition. For instance, you could have just as easily have said that…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:24 PM
1

To be clear, bias would not allowing the apposing point of view to be stated. And it was stated very matter of fact. We don't need to make up facts, or skew normal things our way, or distort opinions. There are obvious things in gender differences that need to be addressed, we don't have to make this article to be something it isn't to prove that.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:12 PM
11

If you can't find the irony of people purposefully going to a dominatrix to be abused consensually, they do manual labor for a week under the self-imposed guise of being "owned", then realize they aren't being abused the way they like, then I don't know what to tell you. Gender has nothing to do with the humor, it's just funny. Feels straight out of South Park.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:05 PM
19

No, the journalist was stating her point of view. he was not justifying it. It's a very funny article, and I will be downvoted for it, but the journalist was not taking a side; he accurately states the facts.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:29 PM
10

Rant means that you are not looking to start a conversation, you simply want to be heard. Thats not what this forum is for in any connotation. Mensrants is where this should belong to get stuff off his chest.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 05:32 PM
-2

I have to say that them having an opinion on the subject is fine, thats really not a problem or a rights issue. It's a widely accepted procedure, regardless of how you feel about it, so we shouldn't be surprised if thats what they are used to, let alone be sick to your stomach about it. Just keep on stating facts about how it is not necessary is the best you can do until they pay attention.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:03 PM
0

Fair enough, but I would think it would be a lot more applicable if she was being so abusive because they were men instead of just because she was a shitty cop.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:37 PM
2

Not sure how this is Men's Rights, as opposed to stupid police, but I am glad they didn't open the door. Is there any official follow up to what happened?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:25 PM
1

We don't want it, but the cost of not allowing opinions you may not like is worse. This is more akin to acknowledging there are different sexes, that they have different motivations, and giving both what they want; we don't have to pretend men and women are exactly the same for equality.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 11:58 AM
1

Which I think is dumb. The whole point, I would hope, of any gender equality movement is to make sure that the law stays equal, and that one group has a healthy respect for the other. If letting ladies into your bar for free gets men to show up, and you make more money, thats just good business. No one is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. Women want free drinks, men want to be around women, you make more money. Sort of a win-win all around.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:21 PM
4

What this is really saying... If you disagree with me you are either: Ignorant Too stupid to see why I am right Feminist version of Godwin's law
/r/MensRights09/05/13 05:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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