TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FreeBroccoli Archive

View 2 posts and 173 comments by FreeBroccoli on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Except this parody law doesn't highlight any hypocrisy, because it's a non sequitur.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 03:44 AM
-1

See, that's more believable.
/r/MensRights22/01/25 09:07 PM
-5

Hm...I saw that, but it's not saying it very directly. Then again, it's an odd detail to include if that wasn't the reason.
/r/MensRights22/01/25 04:26 PM
-7

I don't see anything in the linked article that she was targeting him specifically for his truck. Is that reported somewhere else?
/r/MensRights22/01/25 04:00 PM
0

There are some honest people who have concerns about "toxic masculinity," and it's important to understand whether they mean "masculinity, which is toxic," or "masculinity which is toxic." The difference is the latter leaves room for constructive masculinity. There are no doubt elements of "masculinity" that are harmful and need to be addressed, but discourse about them is poisoned by those who take over the conversation asserting that all masculinity is toxic.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:23 AM
5

It is not; the author is emphasizing that this information is easy to find, even without looking at the public registry. The way it's written provides more information than if it left off the latter part.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 08:07 AM
6

There's an oxymoron (is that the right one?) in there. It says it lists her address two times. Redundancy is the one you're looking for. It isn't in this case though. Her photo, home address ... are listed on the state sheriff's website. Some news reports about her crime also list her address. So her address is listed twice because it's referring to two different sources.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 07:13 AM
4

I've heard some claim that men are better off after divorce because "women get the family house, men get the family business." Well, one solution is to sell the house and use the proceeds to start a new business; if that thought doesn't occur to her, it's unlikely that she would have done well with the business anyway, which suggests a reason why the husband ended up with it.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 10:58 PM
378

> "I live in a $1 million apartment, he lives in a multi-million dollar house," she said. Boo fucking hoo. How is it possible to say this with a straight face?
/r/MensRights26/07/18 05:56 AM
0

What I'm promoting is not giving free ammunition to one's opponents if it can be avoided. Surely it's possible to advocate for men's rights without giving clicks to white nationalists.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:55 AM
-15

Sharing comics by a white nationalist is probably not good for an already-controversial sub.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 06:05 AM
8

The more of a feminist ally the man is, the more fame controversy can be generated by accusing him of something.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 07:05 AM
1

That's how most people, who aren't trying to come up with the worst interpretation possible, will read it.
/r/MensRights12/05/18 05:11 PM
4

Hot takes from Reddit user WW2holocaustisamyth.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 07:50 AM
3

Pairbonding doesn't require patriarchy. I would agree that the social conventions called "patriarchy" evolved to solve survival problems, but that doesn't mean it's still the best solution in the modern day.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 09:07 PM
4

Asking about dating their kids, from a stranger, over the internet.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 09:06 PM
10

https://i.imgur.com/7oZsQAH.png
/r/MensRights14/04/18 06:58 AM
3

Bird in the last panel should have been saying "Lemme smash."
/r/MensRights08/04/18 01:50 AM
3

> male character is interesting "Sounds about right." > female character is interesting "What is this feminist bullshit?" 🤔🤔🤔
/r/MensRights17/08/17 05:57 AM
1

It was actually an Arya lookalike, IIRC.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 05:54 AM
1

I don't think she could reasonably be said to have consented to marrying him.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 05:53 AM
19

You shouldn't message people after they've told you to stop. If being a decent human isn't motivation enough, it gives them more examples of harassment and makes MRAs look bad.
/r/MensRights06/08/17 02:56 PM
1

I don't see the problem here.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 05:02 AM
5

"Wow, my head hurts because I keep hitting it with a hammer. How can I solve this problem?" "Have you tried drinking more liquor?"
/r/MensRights03/06/17 04:17 AM
15

She's taking the seat away from other women too.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 01:49 AM
2

But since most women do that kind of thing, a man couldn't reasonably claim to have been deceived by them. He'd be as crazy as a guy who complains that his hamburger does look like the picture on the menu.
/r/MensRights30/12/16 04:43 AM
3

This is an example of what equality is only a good goal if it means everyone is equally free rather than equally enslaved.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 06:31 AM
-1

"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time." ― F. A. Hayek, The Constitution Of Liberty And this comic sums up why …
/r/MensRights07/10/16 08:44 AM
1

Essentially, you are at fault for saying nothing. But that's wrong too.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 04:01 AM
8

Thanks for adding that. Without that context, this seems like it's just reaching.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 02:27 AM
1

That's not my experience with that subreddit at all. Yes, it's pro-feminist, but it is also structured in a way that encourages discussion of the issues rather than just circle-jerking over how angry everyone is.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 08:38 AM
3

Were any of them wearing hockey pants?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 01:30 AM
-3

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights18/07/16 07:07 PM
1

I really don't understand the culture of sexual permissiveness. Who would someone want to have sex with a person for which they have such obvious contempt?
/r/MensRights01/07/16 11:01 PM
15

Most textbooks that define sexism are written by people who think men can't experience sexism.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 05:22 AM
8

It turns out some traditions have good reasons behind them.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 04:29 PM
1

Look, there's another one!
/r/MensRights21/06/16 02:13 AM
1

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 02:06 AM
1

Apply that logic to any other moral issue in history. "Slavery had been going on for millennia. Why stop now?"
/r/MensRights20/06/16 08:02 PM
1

That is correct. But it doesn't change the fact that the correct response is to stop making broccoli (really more like poison) mandatory for anyone.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:38 PM
1

If that's the case, then MRAs should make it clear that's our strategy. Instead of spitefully mocking women for not wanting to be drafted, consistently bring up the point that the only options are either everyone or no one, and encourage them to support the latter for their own preservation.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:34 PM
-2

Because withholding support for a just cause because of a personal vendetta is childish.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 06:12 AM
1

You are taking for granted that imposing the draft on men in exchange for the franchise is reasonable. OP (in the image) obviously doesn't feel that way. 1) the draft should be outlawed So to use your metaphor, she wants everyone to get cake, and nobody should be forced to eat broccoli.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 06:06 AM
1

You're taking for granted that the draft is a valid obligation to impose on someone in exchange for franchise. One could argue that women were getting for free what they haven't earned, but someone could just as easily say that men are being forced to pay for something that they should be getting by right.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 06:02 AM
-7

You're taking for granted that the draft is a valid obligation to impose on people. I interpreted /u/68696c6c 's comment as saying that he personally opposed the draft system at the time when he was subject to it, and if that's the case, then he should be against it being imposed on anyone.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 04:37 AM
1

Let me try to clarify what I'm saying here. Suppose that I believe that A) the draft is immoral and B) more equality is better. Given the current situation, both preferences are not being satisfied. One solution is to extend the draft to everyone. That satisfies (B) while making me far less satisfied with (A). So even though it's 'equality,' it's not the kind of equality I want, and so it upsets me. Would it be accurate to say that I don't truly support equality in this case?
/r/MensRights20/06/16 03:59 AM
-8

He should know better than to deny rights to others when he knows what it's like to not have them.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 03:53 AM
1

Okay, I think I get it. You're reading it as "I want equality in other areas, but not this one," while I'm reading it as "I want equality, but not this version of it."
/r/MensRights19/06/16 11:07 PM
1

I don't see how. Everyone can be registered for the draft, or nobody can be; either one is equality, but it's not contradictory for someone to prefer one over the other.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 10:53 PM
1

And as she said in the image, she wants the draft abolished altogether.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 10:35 PM
-18

Which means you should know better.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 07:42 PM
1

There's only one way to be equal There is definitely not. Men and women could be both required to register for the draft, or neither could be. In both cases you have equality, and there's nothing contradictory about saying that only one of them is a proper goal.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 07:40 PM
3

I see what you're saying, and I agree.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:36 PM
2

I disagree, but that's changing the subject. You said that "If she was against oppression and abolishing the draft than she would have said that" despite the fact that she clearly said it. You're not arguing in good faith.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:08 PM
2

1) the draft should be outlawed. Bruh.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 04:39 PM
-5

That doesn't mean they don't want equality, just that some other values take priority.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 04:39 PM
3

This is a perfectly valid response. More oppression isn't a good thing just because it's equal. As long as they want the draft to be abolished overall, it's not hypocritical to be opposed to expanding it, even in the name of equality.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 03:12 PM
1

As I understand it, one reason that attempted suicide is illegal is that police officers are not supposed to interfere with non-criminal activities, so by criminalizing it it enables them to intervene. The government does indeed treat humans as property, but I don't think that's the motive in this case.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:22 PM
1

True, but this is specifically forced labor. It's one thing to be required to not harm other individuals or contribute to collective projects, and quite another to be force to enter a profession for someone else's benefit.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:12 PM
2

I didn't say being in the military is slavery, I said being drafted is slavery. If you want to join the military of your own free will, then more power to you. If you're being required to join under threat of punishment, that is slavery, and any concessions about lawful orders or time off don't change that fact; plantation slaves in America typically had Sundays off and couldn't be ordered to break the law, but they were still slaves.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:10 PM
6

I would say that the defining feature of slavery is that it's involuntary. Google's definition of a slave is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." While the law might not call a conscript "property," the fact that you are forced to obey by threat of punishment makes the distinction somewhat academic, IMO
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:39 AM
13

Forced labor is slavery, even when practiced by the military, even if it's "for a good cause" or "for your own good."
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:54 AM
0

He was a state governor for eight years.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 08:49 AM
1

That's fair. I don't think the city should be funding a gym at all, so the specific motivation behind ending it is less interesting to me.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 06:52 AM
1

Abolishing and recategorizing are entirely different things. When you recategorize schools or gyms, the government is still funding discrimination, so you still have the immorality of forcing people to pay for services from which they are then excluded. When you actually abolish something, there are no more public funds going to any category, and so people are free to send their own money where they want it to go. What those states did with schools and what I'm calling for in the gym are two ent…
/r/MensRights08/06/16 06:31 AM
1

Charter schools which received public funding. They didn't abolish public schools, they just recategorised them.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 03:36 AM
0

During the Jim Crow South, businesses were required by law to segregate, and black people didn't have the opportunity to create their own competing businesses.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:57 PM
0

Then the solution is to stop funding gyms with public money.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:51 PM
1

Reminder that racial segregation was enforced by law. The private property rights of those businesses were violated being by Jim Crow.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:50 AM
-7

If men are willing to pay more for less product, then sure you can. It's the same principle as the "pink tax."
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:48 AM
13

Imagine if a gym actually tried that though. How many white people would actually be willing to show up during those hours?
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:46 AM
4

There are two ways to look at this. I agree with you that private businesses should be allowed to set their own policies and discriminate if they wish; however, a lot of people don't believe this, and turning it around on them highlights their hypocrisy. So if this lawsuit is serious and they guy thinks private businesses shouldn't be allowed to set their own policies, then forget him. If he is doing this as a rhetorical strategy or a piece of performance art, then more power to him.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:45 AM
12

People who are struggling to put food on the table don't have time for this kind of nonsense.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 08:21 AM
11

Equal pay laws are dumb. Let them make their bad business decisions and suffer the consequences.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 08:15 AM
2

I'd be nice if we had more content like this in this subreddit. More analysis and discussion and less outrage-of-the-day-hour. I agree with most of these, but I am a little thrown off by what they're calling "effeminate" villains. I can't say I ever regarded Jafar or Hades as effeminate, and I'd never even considered Hux in that way until the moment I read the sentence in this post. The supposedly effeminate villains are highly-educated, well-spoken men of taste i.e. aristocrats, in contrast to …
/r/MensRights23/05/16 09:24 AM
3

Not really relevant to the MRM though.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 10:35 AM
13

Who themselves had stolen it from a different tribe of Native Americans
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:29 PM
-1

I appreciate that.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 11:45 AM
0

It seems we're the among the few in this sub that agree. It's too bad some people seem to think that opposing social justice is more important than seeking the the truth.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 11:12 AM
-6

That wasn't her point though. She was saying that a black man from America would have known better than to steal the poster, because he wouldn't have been used to being let off the hook via privilege. Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying that her argument is either correct or not; I'm just saying that the person above me was rebutting an argument she never made.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 11:46 PM
19

Most parents set their sights at least a little bit higher than "at least the government didn't take my kids away."
/r/MensRights28/02/16 12:22 AM
1

What do you mean by trusty?
/r/MensRights03/02/16 11:03 PM
2

Among other things, America has a very different culture, political structure, size, etc from all of those European countries. Just because a policy works there doesn't mean it will work here.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:59 PM
1

One almost gets the impression politics is all about the strategic redefinition of words.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:35 PM
1

You almost have it. Hillary will definitely win. But Sanders is going to be her VP pick, and that was the plan all along.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:24 PM
1

When Hillary's supporters are pulling stuff like this, not being phased is the only rational response.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:22 PM
1

If we can reclaim 'liberal' and I'm all for it.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:20 PM
1

Just like "liberal" used to mean what libertarian does now.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:19 PM
1

Not in MMA, but I am a nidan in Karate. We were taught that the appropriate amount of force to use when attacked is the minimum necessary to stop the aggression. I agree with that. If someone attacks and MMA fighter, they were asking for whatever they get; nonetheless, if you must use force to stop harm to your personal, it's your responsibility to hold yourself back. This goes double for anyone with training, as they should have learned control.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 01:28 AM
1

I can't tell whether that's sarcasm or not. If democracy is so sacred that you'd rather vote for Kanye than not vote at all, then it's too valuable to write in Kanye.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:13 AM
3

Regulatory capture is the opposite of "corporate freedom and lack of oversight." It's not possible to give the government the power to choose winners and losers in the market without incentivizing corporations to influence that decision.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:42 PM
0

Or just don't vote.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:39 PM
1

The State always prosecutes crimes against itself more harshly than crimes against then citizens.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 06:48 AM
3

How could they do that go the poor orphan?
/r/MensRights05/12/15 11:01 AM
1

I'm subscribed to a number of subs that have rules forbidding posting certain things that are too frequent. I'm not saying that it's a good modding practice in this case, but there are perfectly reasonable explanations other than "sjws are taking over."
/r/MensRights03/12/15 12:12 AM
1

TiA is about making fun of SJWs, but that doesn't mean any stupid post by an SJW is TiA material. "White men suck" is par for the course for them; it's not entertaining at all. TiA is for the content that is extreme and shocking. The purpose of that rule seems to be to ensure that the sub is stocked with fresh content, rather that the same things over and over again.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 03:52 PM
1

I'm on that subreddit rather frequently, and I'm just not seeing it. Do you have some specific examples?
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:43 PM
1

Thank you for linking me. That didn't seem like SJWs though. Just clarifying that TiA is about bizarre claims, not just hating white men. Be cautious not to see malice where there isn't any.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 12:17 PM
1

I don't see this thread. Can you link to it?
/r/MensRights02/12/15 09:54 AM
5

I'm really glad this is the top-voted post here. I hate this crap all the more when it's on "my side" because we should be better than this.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:12 PM
4

I'm a libertarian, but don't conflate the MRM with libertarianism. That way leads to trouble.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:15 AM
3

Idiots think that something will happen if you leave your kids in the car alone, and they call the police, who are only too eager to prove that they are "doing something."
/r/MensRights07/09/15 07:07 AM
17

That's why you don't mention it until the deliberations.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:23 AM
5

All of the areas in which Obama was bad, he got away with as much as he did because he is able to present himself as sympathetic. If Romney or McCain has even started to think about doing what Obama did in Syria or Lybia, they would have faced intense opposition; same deal with anything involving the NSA. And while I'm against stimulus spending, I doubt a Republican would have shied away from it. At the most, the money would have just gone to different places, and the media would have been more …
/r/MensRights25/07/15 07:06 AM
6

"You committed a victimless crime? Better send you to jail so you can learn to commit actual crimes."
/r/MensRights25/07/15 06:44 AM
24

McCain and Romney wouldn't have been able to get away with nearly as much as Obama did.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 06:40 AM
-1

Right, but those hobbies and professions weren't stigmatized specifically because of the sexualization of female characters.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 08:57 PM
-1

This is a good explanation. Even if one doesn't agree with the idea, it's not totally ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 08:43 PM
8

Why would you assume that he was less drunk than her? If she were less drunk than him, would you consider it her fault? How do you determine who was more drunk when it's too late for a breathalyzer test?
/r/MensRights13/07/15 06:23 AM
16

But he can't either.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 05:38 AM
-1

I'm referring to IQ, which I'll grant has some problems as a measurement, but it's the best we have. "Men and women are equally intelligent" is an ideological claim, not a factual one.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:35 AM
-3

If she had just said "Your right, men and women are equally intelligent" She would have been wrong. IIRC, women tend to cluster slightly right of the bell curve, but men have a higher standard deviation. The average woman is smarter than the average man, while men have more geniuses and more idiots.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 11:13 PM
2

The way that people perceive words affects how most people handle them.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 06:34 AM
2

The fact that it's not as offensive means it's not equivalent.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 10:34 PM
2

The fact that it's not as offensive means it's not equivalent.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 06:36 PM
2

The fact that it's not as offensive means it's not equivalent.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 06:36 PM
4

I'm not saying that history doesn't matter, but some actions are objectionable regardless of the history behind them. Murdering innocent people because of their race is wrong, no matter how oppressed you are. A history of oppression might make bigotry more understandable, but in my opinion, judging and punishing someone because of things beyond their control is always unjust and immoral.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 04:33 AM
4

So the reason you are against racial discrimination is because of the history behind it? Bigotry qua bigotry is not a bad thing?
/r/MensRights24/06/15 03:03 AM
7

Once again, put your statements in a racial context and what's wrong with them will be readily apparent.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 01:16 AM
14

If tthe had a history of incidents with black people, would you be okay with banning them?
/r/MensRights24/06/15 12:09 AM
15

On an individual lever that's true. This image is more accurate if you think of it as being about public perception. When people talk about public benefits programs, single mothers are held up as reasons we need those programs. It's a social idea that women who can't afford children need help, and men that can't afford children need to go to jail.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 09:45 AM
1

Josh could never earn forgiveness through his own efforts; no one can put enough effort to earn forgiveness from any sin. The message of Christianity is that the effort has already been put in by Christ, and forgiveness is available to anyone who would repent and submit to Christ's lordship. If Josh Duggar has repented - evidence suggests that he has - then forgiveness is his. I don't expect you to believe that, but it's more than just "1. do bad thing 2. ask forgiveness 3. get out of jail free.…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 07:31 AM
-1

This is a very incorrect understanding of Christian theology. How would they have reacted if a teenage girl had fooled around with a boy? They would have wanted her to repent and ask forgiveness. Just like he did.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 07:05 AM
1

What language is that one guy speaking?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 07:48 PM
-1

This isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 08:37 PM
3

This came up in The New Republic's reaction to the Rolling Stone rape story. Their logic is that focusing on individual anecdotes (read: facts) is the flawed right-wing way to look at things, while left-wingers should look at "narratives" and at whole systems.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 11:56 PM
3

That's good to hear! I'm glad some places do it right.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 07:24 AM
2

It's the store owner's right to provide a special space for pregnant women. If you want to park in their lot, it's your responsibility to respect that choice.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:20 AM
6

It does say "Moms & Tots," and I don't think fetuses count as tots.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:13 AM
4

No discrimination in the name anyway. Is it enforced equally?
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:12 AM
1

I wouldn't say its exactly the opposite. Feminists and MRAs are called [opposite sex]-haters, and when someone actually does murder someone, people are quick to try and find an explanation, which usually is found in psychological disorders. People seek to hyperbolize their political opponents and explain away murderers. Not really surprising.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 08:44 PM
13

Thumbs down = rape threat.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 01:42 AM
2

Children were taught to pattern-match rather than really think about right and wrong. They weren't taught to treat others as unique individuals and to avoid prejudice - they were taught to avoid "sexism." Since all they know is to avoid the word, anyone who can redefine the words can effectively control their reactions to thing.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:07 PM
2

And apparently being able to impose your ideas on academics doesn't constitute "institutional power."
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:06 PM
1

You can't bring in your own phone, so I guess it won't work for you. They piggy back off of Sprint's network, so you get the same coverage that they have.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 11:00 PM
1

Republic Wireless gets you unlimited talk, text, and data for $25/month. No contract either, you just have to pay for the phone.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 07:09 PM
2

The joke, as I understood it, was the disparity between what she said and what they heard. She* said, "Sorry for being distracted, it's a boy." They heard, "Sorry that it's a boy;" hence their reactions. *She being the character; Silverman obvious knew what she was doing.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 07:07 PM
1

That seems like a pretty solid insight. I didn't expect to read anything thought-provoking while passing through this sub. Thanks.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/15 05:58 AM
42

Men ALWAYS want sex, don't you know? If they say no, they're lying, and that's abusive. /s
/r/MensRights08/01/15 11:39 AM
9

Both parents should work and run the household. Why? If both spouses are mature enough to understand the arrangement, the division of labor brings economic benefits. It's not always the optimal arrangement, but it certainly is in some cases.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:37 PM
1

I was under the impression that the market for teachers is oversaturated.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 08:28 PM
1

The only purpose is to activate people's emotional need to be part of a team in a battle against the bad guys This is it right here. If you can divide everyone into left and right, no matter how arbitrarily, you automatically know who to hate without having to think about it.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 03:32 AM
11

That's a method, not an orientation. People of all political stances do it.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 11:59 PM
2

Right-wing deep end? How?
/r/MensRights15/12/14 11:57 PM
2

Would but it were that simple. The false beliefs feminists have about the MRM is not due to communication errors; they intentionally believe the worst about us and make a point to spread those misconceptions. Go ahead and make some positive comments about the MRM on/r/feminism, and watch how fast you get banned. They don't want anything to do with us. And while both group claim to support equal rights, we have different analyses of and therefore solutions for the problem. These differences are l…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:54 AM
3

All of this seems to be based on severe, fundamental misunderstandings of the mrm. For one thing thing, we aren't in favor of the status quo by any means. It all goes downhill from there. Try hanging out around here and learning what we stand for, rather than what feminists tell you we stand for.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 10:19 PM
4

That's similar to asking, "Why is racism such a big topic on /r/antiracism? Isn't racism commonplace?"
/r/MensRights10/11/14 08:35 PM
1

Being called names isn't considered severe either, but what if the name is a racial slur? Not a serious problem anymore?
/r/MensRights02/11/14 12:23 AM
2

Should I bother watching it? Or will it just make me want to pull out my hair?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 08:49 AM
1

I'm so livid at this. Emotional abuse of men is only bad if it hurts women, I guess.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:12 AM
1

Is there empirical evidence to support this?
/r/MensRights19/10/14 06:47 AM
2

Probably more often than you think.
/r/PussyPass18/10/14 08:29 AM
6

The analogy is still valid. Just because you're conditioned to believe that men are the attackers "close to 100%" of the time doesn't absolve you of the need to have some proof for that belief, especially when similar beliefs have been debunked in the past. Feminists sure don't like being told that women can be dangerous, in my experience, unless it's convenient at the moment. If you try to point out a case of women hitting men, they're quick to point out that "women just aren't strong enough to…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 04:38 AM
7

Don't discredit my position for not having access to statistics not readily available. You and I both know the acid attackers are almost always men. I actually don't know that. People "know" that there are no female rapists or domestic abusers, but it turns out that's false too. We are socially conditioned to believe that women are not dangerous. Honestly, no shit they aren't focused on man on man crime and frankly I wouldn't expect them to, except that they keep telling us that they're going to…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 04:13 AM
7

Let me ask you guys this: what percentage of acid attackers of men are other men? I'm guessing close to 100%. Interesting assumption, considering you don't seem to have any evidence for it. Maybe that's precisely the kind of assumption we object to? First off, feminists would say that those men are victims in patriarchy and point to it as evidence about why men should be feminists. In other words, "your problems are actually about women, so you should just forget about your problems and focus on…
/r/MensRights15/10/14 03:56 AM
2

but you're still innocent until proven guilty. This is increasingly less true with rape. Even if you aren't convicted, people will know you as the guy who was accused of rape. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out, but precedent suggests that it's not going to have fair results.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:33 PM
2

It's not going to be equally enforced. Literacy requirements for voting were racially-neutral, but it was still intended and used to target a particular class of people.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:20 PM
1

Interesting. I wonder what the motivation was here.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:42 AM
4

This is the kind of thread that gives /r/mensrights a bad reputation.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 07:26 PM
3

Grammar is a tool of the patriarch to control how women can express themselves.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:50 AM
2

"It's not as bad because I don't personally experience it."
/r/MensRights27/08/14 04:44 AM
36

Can I get a link to this so I can reblog it?
/r/MensRights02/08/14 11:21 PM
11

The mother complained about HIS video, but not her precious little girl, never mind who started it.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 07:02 PM
1

No. It ended up being irrelevant from a practical standpoint because I had to leave for college anyway. It didn't hurt me much in this case, but the principle is still bullshit.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 10:48 PM
32

It probably does apply to women technically, but no one is going to call the police on a woman.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 02:29 PM
27

Can confirm. I was fired from my first job in childcare for being a man. It seems that the insurance company would refuse to cover them if they employed adult men.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:53 PM
2

Where are these male-friendly feminists? The only ones I've heard from identify as egalitarians and admit that feminism is 90% crap.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 09:23 PM
8

Funny how a lot of the comments on this thread disagree with the message of this comment, yet you pretend that the fact that it's posted here means that everybody likes it.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 09:02 PM
1

If you care to enlighten me, I'm listening.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 05:45 PM
2

What if... I understand you AND I still disagree with you. That would be something, wouldn't it?
/r/MensRights03/06/14 07:29 AM
2

You would have a point if feminists peacefully coexisted with the MRM, allowing us to work on men's issues while feminists work with women's issues, with both working toward the same goal. That's not the case though. Any effort address men's issues to almost universally met with the equivalent of "what about the women?!" If feminists really cared about men's issues, they'd let us work on men's issues in peace, because as you pointed out, the MRM does not interfere with women's rights.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 02:11 AM
1

This site is blocked on my network. Is there are mirror somewhere?
/r/MensRights30/05/14 07:34 AM
1

I got banned from both r/feminists and r/askfeminists because I asked someone for a source. I really thought that MRA's and feminists were just misguided in their hostility toward one another until the Rodgers shooting. It's more obvious now that feminists don't want to understand the MRM.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 03:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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