TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

InhabitantOfOddworld Archive

View 0 posts and 125 comments by InhabitantOfOddworld on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Depends how desperate the chicks are ;-)
/r/TheRedPill16/09/18 09:26 PM
2

Depends a lot on context. I've banged more co-workers from knowing them IRL than I got through Tinder. That isn't to say no online dating works. Tinder is specifically the worst. I've had some success with POF, OKCupid, Badoo etc before.
/r/TheRedPill16/09/18 12:07 PM
85

Even for guys who aren't particularly attractive, IRL will always be infinitely more successful. I'm not all that bad myself, probably circa a 6 but all my compliments and romantic success came from IRL. I abandoned Tinder long ago, it literally is just a corporate scheme that delivers zero results and is intended to keep you coming back through the addictive allure of the occasional match that brings you in like a carrot on a stick
/r/TheRedPill15/09/18 11:13 PM
2

Absolutely. The media are just the lapdogs of a malevolent state
/r/TheRedPill27/07/18 11:39 PM
4

Their entire purpose is simply to give a plausible excuse while whatever is causing this biological crisis continues unabated. This is precisely why I say they're out of touch. It's not plausible.
/r/TheRedPill27/07/18 05:42 PM
4

I used to have a spa Not saying no one does, I just question the frequency They're not that expensive Depends where you live I suppose, I'm a Britbong And I used it every night if I could, to alleviate back problems. Fair play. My only point was I don't think the stats for low sperm counts across men throughout the West are sufficiently explained by all those men using hot tubs. I think soy consumption and female hormonal contraception leaking into the public water supply is a better explanation…
/r/TheRedPill27/07/18 04:44 PM
133

Personally, the hot tub shit shows how out of touch the corporate lamestream media really is. Who the fuck has a hot tub? Or can afford one? Never mind use it so frequently that it creates an actual chronic effect on your sperm count. Next up on the NYT, eat cake if you can't afford bread.
/r/TheRedPill27/07/18 04:24 PM
1

Just a shame that no one can seemingly define traditionalism
/r/MensRights23/07/18 02:38 PM
1

I mean similar to you, they're both full of uglies but POF is definitely worse and has more of them
/r/TheRedPill16/07/18 04:17 PM
5

Is this a US thing? I have the opposite experience in the UK. POF is the useless cash grab constantly begging for boosts. Tinder has been pretty good. Something like 20 on POF compared to well over 100 on Tinder
/r/TheRedPill16/07/18 11:14 AM
1

I was referring to the Koch brothers style of "libertarianism." The word libertarian was actually first used in the US to describe anarchism -- both anti capitalist and anti-statist -- and was later appropriated via a public relations campaign financed by billionaires. If we're gonna talk about name appropriation then by your logic, Hitler was a socialist I consider right-libertarianism Utopian Most -isms are utopian. Communism is utopian. Fascism is utopian. There are examples of truly privatiz…
/r/MensRights15/07/18 11:24 AM
1

That flies in the face of libertarian dogma Explain. Most libertarians aren't supportive of US government policies that subsidise corporations. They reject the Marxist claim that the US is perfectly capitalist. Scandinavia ranks higher than the US for free marketeering. Now, about that egalitarian social mobility...
/r/MensRights15/07/18 11:09 AM
1

But you get the point. I do. My point was just that predictability alone isn't enough to be valid. I could say gravity works via little pixies who pull everything down. It works predictably because everything goes down when I let go. Forced analogy but you get my point as well. I think much of the time, Marxism is right by proxy. E.g. Labour theory of value explains the same things supply and demand do, but you can establish cases where S&D is the better explanation. I.e. Marxism was superficial…
/r/MensRights15/07/18 10:53 AM
1

If IdPol made any sense we wouldn't have white homeless men and black female billionaires. Not defending IdPol but black female billionaires aren't particularly common. So essentially the more money you give to politicians the more they will act on your behalf. Not exactly rocket science, but dispels the myth of "democracy." I'd say you're jumping the gun. Democracy isn't mythical and would exist more akin to what you want if there was a seperation of powers between state and economy. Or on smal…
/r/MensRights15/07/18 10:15 AM
1

I would expect Google to be well ahead of the others in coping with search manipulation Still, search engines that rate sites by user behavior will always be vulnerable to temporary manipulation by diffuse sources like The Donald. Google does just that and The Donald protest to successfully manipulating google rankings https://reddit.app.link/npqSodtlzO
/r/MensRights15/07/18 10:02 AM
1

It's reductionistic of you to reduce the whole of society and culture to radical leftist identity politics. I don't believe that's the case Neither do I but nice assumption you got there The dominant world view in my opinion is neo-liberal capitalism More agreement. How odd. Think you might be attacking a scarecrow here, or some other form of dehydrated plant matter humanoid. That is to say; corporations like to employ and service a diverse range of demographics Until those demographics resemble…
/r/MensRights15/07/18 09:17 AM
1

I know, your point? You seem to think pointing out cultural hegemony is some great argument against use of so called cultural Marxism. It's not. Cultural hegemony is merely a descriptor of the phenomenon. Beliefs held by the majority that go unquestioned. Cultural Marxism, no matter what semantic errors the term itself has, is used to describe what those beliefs are. It's the metaphorical difference between a beverage and merely the bottle in which it is contained.
/r/MensRights15/07/18 09:01 AM
1

Unlike ID politics class analysis makes a great deal of sense and is highly predictive SJWs would argue IdPol is predictive too In fact Adam Smith made essentially the same arguments as Marx about the role of the state under market systems. Indeed a great many classical liberal philosophers, from Herbert Spencer to Von Humboldt to John Stuart Mill, compared wage labor to slavery. Indeed they all did, but they don't reach the same outcome of historical materialism that is bourgeois vs proletariat…
/r/MensRights15/07/18 07:14 AM
1

It's goofy to use the word "Marxism" to describe Identify politics I agree, but that's not the claim you were making Marx himself was staunchly opposed to IDpolitics and wrote eloquently of how ruling elites turn average people against one another on the basis of race, ethnicity etc. Indeed. He just ironically used class as his own. If the argument is that that identarians use an "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic That would be the outline to it, with a little more nuance required, but essentially ye…
/r/MensRights14/07/18 10:50 PM
2

The term has since become synonymous with a right-wing conspiracy theory While it is certainly true that the right's ideas are often poor for optics and get left badly explained (think it was a study by Haidt that found left wingers had a worse understanding of right ideas than right wingers had of the left), it's not a lie to say the left's ideas dominate in certain areas such as academia or Hollywood. That is to which the right refers. I'm not entirely convinced by your assertion that it's use…
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:51 PM
2

The term "cultural Marxism" (as used by the right) is lifted directly from the term "cultural Bolshevism" Except for the fact the two are used in vastly different ways (CB being used to denounce modernist art that was seen as nihilistic, whilst CM is used to criticise those commonly called post-postmodernists who replace class conflict with IdPol) I mean come on, man, if you're gonna use conflation and guilt by similarity, at least do it properly and know what the terms mean before declaring muh…
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:47 PM
1

Not defined. You're moronic.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 01:38 PM
0

Ok I'm done with you. If you can be fucked to define your own terms then get stuffed.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 01:16 PM
0

You haven't. All I can gather is that you reckon it's some quaint 1950s white picket fence world where the man is polishing his automobile, little Johnny's playing catch in the yard and Martha's busy baking cookies Frankly I think it's rather absurd. You claim I'm trolling yet you seem to hold this uncited notion without even attempting to defend it or argue it.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 12:55 PM
0

Try telling me what your definition is, for the 4th time
/r/MensRights14/07/18 12:34 PM
20

American big tech. Whoops. No wonder you're seeing major red flags.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:47 AM
3

Where's your industry? I'm guessing the US or the UK? I could be wrong. My point being eastern and central Europe is less cucked about this kind of shit.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:29 AM
1

Is that simply what it's called? Because I type "traditionalism" into Wikipedia and get half a dozen results, which include Catholic Traditionalism, Traditionalism in Islam and the above Traditionalist School. I'm trying to be precise here so we're not dealing with a vague Platonic form of "gender roles prior to feminism" which cover what, every human culture for the past 5-6k years of recorded history.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:53 PM
1

You've given me nothing to respond to. I've asked at least thrice what traditionalism you're talking about. If you told me, I could at least learn what definitions we're working from and start there. We're just talking past eachother at this point. You only see fit to insult when I'm after actual solid information.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:49 PM
1

Still not an argument, bucko. What traditionalism are you thinking of? Still have yet to answer this. Given the above context you can at least understand the initial enquiry of how traditionalism is remotely gynocentric. We're talking past eachother yet you only see fit to insult. Not trolling. Genuine inquiry. what is your idea of traditionalism?
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:45 PM
-1

This is at least a fair argument from you for once so far. In those terms, perhaps so, but Trad is still therefore the better deal. Not perfect. Utopianism is a fool's quest, but better.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:44 PM
0

Which traditionalism are you talking about? This is the only one I know; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:42 PM
2

Yeah, communists often say this because they reckon the US is deliberately "dividing the proletariat" to hurt their ideology. Steinem worked for the CIA once, but like you said, no idea how much truth is actually in it.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:52 PM
3

Indeed it does, but it's not entirely an apt comparison.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:18 PM
5

Trouble I find with these arguments is that while they may well be correct, Google search algorithms are easy to manipulate if you get people repeating search terms. r/theDonald does this a lot themselves, Googling "Fake News" and clicking on CNN to bring it further up the search ranks
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:11 PM
1

Let's try something else; Is this what you're arguing for in terms of traditionalism? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism Because the only traditionalism I am familiar with is the traditionalism along the lines of Julius Evola https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:06 PM
-1

Try the last comment where your only response was "haha bigot".
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:04 PM
-1

Says the guy who couldn't address anything I said. You have a warped view of traditionalists based on the verbal nonsense you've been unleashing.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 06:53 PM
-1

Bigot against them? Lmao please. I know them and support them. You're the one with your man tits in a twist because you haven't got a personal harem feeding you grapes all day.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 06:49 PM
1

As much as any group is. So not at all. Glad we agree. Traditionalists voted for it with feminists Hahahahahahaha. Right. Next you'll time me traditionalists voted for nihilism and the Kalergi Plan. they are just going to abandon single mothers? Most trads I've met care absolutely zero for them. I know I do. You make your bed and lie in it. She made her choice of man. That does not happen in isolation. That happens at the costs of men's lives. Most of them die white knighting for radfems. Yes, t…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:59 PM
0

Jesus, look at this big fat mess It doesn't. So all traditionalists are a monolith? Neato receive the overwhelming majority of domestic violence funding And traditionalists want to keep this specific aspect of modern capitalist culture because? They don't. They just fucking don't. Hell, men are net tax payers, and women are net tax receivers. That's been proven in nearly every first world country Indeed it has. But since trads support nuclear families, it becomes a non-issue. Tax gets paid out a…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:31 PM
15

Always see who you can't criticise to know who's in power
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:05 PM
-2

women are extremely protected I think this varies They receive massive amounts of support from men and society Really, only their husbands have literally zero responsibilities, but none of the corresponding rights. What is explicitly wrong with this? After debating others on this topic here, I get the impression you all want women to have massive responsibility without rights, like some kind of spiteful revenge. I don't follow this logic. It's like no tax without representation. If you get neith…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 04:26 PM
1

Nice ad-hom, I'm very persuaded
/r/MensRights13/07/18 04:13 PM
1

Good argument. 10/10, very convincing.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 04:02 PM
1

Call me what you like. If only saying it would make it so.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:59 PM
0

But the context is circumcision, and that's critical. They think his parents were just ignorant instead of being idiots and that's just a baseless assertion I disagree with on the basis that's it's unfounded AND you have to be an idiot to do that to an infant to begin with.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:52 PM
-2

And we're all entirely assuming that deliberately mutilating a baby's genitals is a matter of ignorance that one can unlearn. Believe me, most sane people don't do that. Not saying the Americans are stupid but there are reasons their circumcision rate is higher than most countries and their women are led to believe cut dicks are better.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:42 PM
3

That antisemitism is a common trait across cultures. Think you folks assume I'm justifying it. Not at all. Just pointing out that it exists.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:40 PM
0

You were incredulous that people with similar beliefs could also hate each other. Not at all. I'm pointing out that trads hate fems for specific reasons related to women's roles that put them at odds. You just need a better understanding of history and human behavior. Speak for yourself No that's not true. It is true. Trads give women the obligation to women of staying home raising kids and being subserviant to the husband. Feminists want traditional male obligations and female privileges. Yes, …
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:39 PM
2

Depends on their context. Their current threat is far overblown in regards to everything. The media loves neo nazis because they're excellent bread and circuses for the shady shit that really goes on.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:28 PM
1

No, the question you ask isn't about what the men should do. It's about what the women have to do. You said it yourself, trad gives women obligations. Feminism gives them free rule to do whatever and get away with it. Ask a woman about traditional marriage and gender roles and they'll run a mile. That's how you know feminism and traditionalism barely overlap. Granted this is a men's rights sub so I don't blame you for being male role focused, but the roles that men take up is the only overlap th…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:26 PM
-1

Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other for centuries by the thousands, maybe millions. Well that is some whataboutism for sure. Not sure where you're going with that analogy. I specified the overlap is on burdens for men and obligations for women Men would have less burdens than today, while women would have more obligations. The two have very little in common. More men favour traditionalism than women. If it was going to give women such an easy ride like feminism does, you'd have trad…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:11 PM
2

Which makes feminism and traditionalism overlap very little in my view.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:03 PM
1

Feminists do, yes. Not traditionalists.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:02 PM
-1

Most of those mean ignorant, yes
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:01 PM
-1

It gives certain advantages to both, I'd say. More men advocate for it than women, whicb suggests to me that more men would get something out of it than women.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 02:00 PM
1

Sounds like you're not admitting a reality
/r/MensRights13/07/18 01:50 PM
-1

Synonyms if I ever saw one
/r/MensRights13/07/18 01:49 PM
-3

I'd hesitate to agree. As far as I can see under traditionalism, women have very few rights and the only responsibility is popping out as many kids as possible. But then maybe we're thinking of different notions of traditionalism.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 01:32 PM
0

Is that why most, if not all, traditionalists hate feminists? Most traditionalists I've spoken to basically want a wife that looks good and is ready to stay home and pop out half a dozen kids. Doesn't appear to me to be much overlap with feminists who want the opposite of that.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 01:31 PM
7

I speak German, and? What, you worried about muh nahtzees?
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:57 PM
4

Because why not, it means the same thing
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:53 PM
0

Not many people are fans of the Juden.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:47 PM
-3

Obviously all that is bad but come on. Anyone joining a political career today and not expecting all that horseshit is like James Damore not expecting Google to backstab him.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:47 PM
0

Thanks. I was hoping for a better link because OP's isn't working. As per that link, I'd say traditionalism based on his "gynocentrism 1.0" is perfectly ok. It basically just says men caring for wife and kids, which any reasonable family guy should do anyway, as these relatives would reciprocate also. His idea of 2.0 doesn't seem too elaborated and 3.0 would be avoided anyway by virtue of being traditionalist.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 10:38 AM
6

Genuine question, how is traditionalism gynocentric? PS link isn't working
/r/MensRights13/07/18 10:13 AM
1

Ah, London boy eh? I live in the North
/r/MensRights13/07/18 08:48 AM
71

Good. Norway is a good country.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:47 AM
5

Spotted another patch of hypocrisy, friend. Women are Wonderful TM but it's the man's taxes and labour they're always clamouring for. Those kinds of women are just parasites. Yet men have a patriarchy apparently. Some patriachy.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:33 AM
3

Absolutely. We should start making concerted efforts to get this view across.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:28 AM
14

Other points aside, backward desert religions are barbaric. You can throw Islam and Christianity in while you're at it, preferably down into Mount Doom or the Nth circle of Hell so we never have to deal with the retards who follow that shit.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:25 AM
-6

if you want a political career in the UK Then we already have a reason to despise him. People who seek that kind of power are seldom benevolent. Poetic justice as I see it.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:18 AM
13

No stats as such, tried Google to no avail. Just experiencial opinion from having been born and lived in the UK. It's not a common procedure like the US. The only person I know who's cut is indeed foreign. No women I've dated have ever expressed it as a preference.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:27 AM
31

Depends where you are. The most women thing seems to be a US phenomenon. Circumcision basically never happens in the UK outside of religious rules or medical reasons. As such, few women even see them, let alone have an opinion or preference.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:14 AM
23

I'm English but had a fling with an American chick once. I'm uncircumcised. Don't even think it became a topic of conversation. If it was, it was a passing observation. Didn't seem to bother her, but then I did give her a good time.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 12:12 AM
163

Because sadly, your parents were idiots. Have my condolences.
/r/MensRights12/07/18 11:42 PM
11

In another less ideological time, his ideas would be perfectly innocuous Sadly he works at Google, a company engaged in active political manipulation with all the plans it has for YouTube et al
/r/MensRights12/07/18 07:40 PM
5

Experience also finds this country is getting steadily fucked by these very views Weird coincidence, that
/r/MensRights10/07/18 05:13 PM
10

The game is simple. They want you to live life as a slave for women, give them all your cash and then lie in a box 6 feet under. They won't tell you how to play the game because there is no game. Game implies you actually have a chance or a way of winning.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 03:53 PM
1

Living things who give in to their base instincts are just animals. We are humans. We are capable of better. An animal does not see the future. It cannot think in abstractions. It simply satisfies it's current desires on a whim without consideration for when that need may arise again and does not prepare contingencies accordingly. We humans are not like that. We are capable of some very heavy abstractions. Almost everything we do on a daily basis is preparing for the future, not the now. Student…
/r/TheRedPill02/01/18 04:02 PM
1

Interesting information, thank you for your time I was just under the impression that commies include feminists under "liberalism", because they despise the way identity politics "divides the proletariat", and/or detracts the issues away from class conflict etc. But who knows.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 12:12 AM
1

Interesting information, thank you for your time
/r/MensRights31/12/17 12:12 AM
0

Fair enough. But what of communists who include feminists in their common mantra "liberals get the bullet too"?
/r/MensRights30/12/17 10:23 PM
1

Then why are they called liberals?
/r/MensRights30/12/17 10:18 PM
2

1) pot kettle black, you've contributed fuck all apart from some bullshit false equivalency strawmen. Get back to me when you actually want to debate this topic i.e. the bitch who beat up her kid and now laughs about it 2) the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is a working definition. I don't think it works at all. Hardly valid and the methodology of these studies is rarely sound. The implicit association test is an example of a sociological task that it flawed to the very core. 3…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 12:22 PM
1

1) you know nothing about me, you retard. I actually have 2 degrees so far, more on the way 2) Pol and Soc Science are sciences in name only 3) If you start off a thread with boundless strawmen, don't be surprised if everyone thinks you're a twat and gives you no information. You don't need sociology to see that comparing Malcolm X and the KKK isn't the same, they're just different for other reasons than you're using i.e. "power" reductionism
/r/MensRights28/12/17 12:01 PM
1

If you think I made no argument, maybe try reading words slowly. tries to argue that fields outside of the humanities use the same BS notion of power proceeds to list humanities subjects as examples of fields outside of the humanities Are you even trying? We're reaching levels of stupidity not thought possible.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 11:39 AM
1

Reductionist? Not if the boot fits. It's what the female chavinists do. What a strawman indeed. Point is that sociological notion of "power" is seldom shared by other academic fields. Very much an arts and humanities thing. You won't find it in science. Again, more strawmen. Easier than forming an actual argument though, eh, "nate20140074"?
/r/MensRights28/12/17 10:28 AM
1

So far you've wanted blanket leniency for every case. You have no regard for human behaviour or how to accurately assess it over time. You act like sentences are final and infallible. You create false and gendered dichotomies to set up strawmen. I really could go on. Also, not the fallacy fallacy. I didn't reject your conclusion based on your poor argument. It may still be true. Problem is the conclusion is not logically provable from your premises. Your logic is easily disprovable, as well as a…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:51 AM
1

Whatever you say, pal. You've not exactly put forward any credentials. This is just dismissal based on lack of argument/response. Classic tactic.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:41 AM
1

1) Right, and sentences totally can't be overturned or amended when new evidence comes in, right? Yeah, silly me. Those people who've been falsely arrested and charged should just stay there now. What's done is done, right? Your thin veneer of a persona as someone who truly cares about legal injustice to start harping about "leniency" is vague and unconvincing. 2) that's just a solid egg of ad-hom. Try better next time. Also, projection.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:37 AM
1

1) The timing of the text is relevant how? Yeah, because long term offender behaviour is totally not important at all ever. All that matters is that tiny window of time between offence and sentencing. Totally not an invalid and unreliable snapshot of behaviour that may not represent the individual in their entirety. Funny, because last I checked, other psychologists in my field observe behaviour longitudinally to remove these basic kinds of errors. 2) In the same vein as the last, how reliable a…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:24 AM
2

Yes, with given context. It may well be the case that murdering at least 5 prostitutes was Jack the Ripper's hypothetical first crime. Does that deserve leniency? On the presupposition that a "first crime" is less severe, your argument may hold some water. In one case, the "first crime" might be a teenage smoking a bit of weed. Then you'd have a point. It's not particularly cogent however, to assume that every criminal starts their first foray into illegality as a teenager with a bit of weed. Th…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:08 AM
2

A criminal shouldn't receive worse outcomes than if they didn't commit crimes? Explain your logic. Also, rehabilitation is an argument in it's own right. You're the one, however, making a deliberate false dichotomy between punishing women more and punishing men less, and reaching some pretty trite conclusions as a result. It's a very poor, not to mention biased, way of framing the issue.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:00 AM
1

Haha fuck off with your postmodern ideology of power. That same backward thought process spawned the female chauvinistic attitude that men can't be raped because they have "power" or non-PoC can't be discriminated against because they have "power". It's reductionist beyond belief, intellectually dishonest and weak, and doesn't make it into any academic literature outside of their own sociology niches.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:56 AM
2

I'd rather women were punished more. No criminal should be treated leniently regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:50 AM
5

I understood that reference
/r/MensRights24/12/17 02:42 PM
1

Very true, and well said. I don't think either gender can carry on following their inherent natures. How exactly you fight against nature, though, is another matter entirely. Hence, why social constructivism becomes desirable. You can just "teach" not to rape blah blah blah.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 10:00 AM
2

Well this is the age-old question that both sides need to answer. At least on this issue, both feminists and MRA's blame socialization and upbringing Men are not socialized to be sympathetic to their own gender I would say this to people all up in the social constructivist ideology; things just aren't that simple. It's sure nice to think any injustice is simply taught in the hope that it can change, any activist from a Marxist to a feminist has to believe this to make their cause possible. But I…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 09:37 AM
3

So a headline isn't a focus? News to me, pardon the pun. A headline is exactly that.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 12:56 AM
3

missing the point Says the one deliberately avoiding the key text which says the specific sexual encounter in question was consensual and not rape. You're floundering on the issue, literal whataboutery. Building up a strawman to avoid the elephant in the room.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 12:35 AM
1

I disagree with the sugar and fructose aspects, but everything else is bang on the money. Thank you for adding that, the vegan narrative of meat = atherosclerosis annoys me with it being factually wrong.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 01:56 PM
1

Exactly. I have great respect for the US. The constitution is a large part of that respect.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 02:05 PM
13

But we all know that the most economical and common sense approach IF that were the motive, would be to increase funding for only female STEM applicants, and not across the board. Maybe even increase the fees on other courses just to push the incentive further. A handy tip if you don't know the motive is to watch the outcome and infer from there. Universities want more women who are freely allowed to choose their naturally inclined subjects i.e. sociology, women's studies etc. Just ask yourself …
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:24 AM
6

As a local myself, I'd add this.... that genuinely racist category has expanded itself pretty nicely over here. We're moderate within a select range of acceptable opinion. Take Brexit or the NHS, for example. Say the wrong thing and you'll get eviscerated in the press. America definitely has the easier time. They have a bigger range of acceptable opinion in my estimation. But they also have a bigger population and more "SJW" types that give you that big reaction when shit goes bad. We're the peo…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:17 AM
0

Yeah Reddit really is a blackhole for consensus, downvotes and group think. Myself and friends of mine also cross into the dark side of that when it comes to ideology.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 08:13 AM
4

I wouldn't be too keen on studies if I were you. The current replication crisis and the Woozle Effect (citation by evidence) means you should ideally take every study with the same scepticism rather than follow them blindly like deference to authority.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 08:09 AM
2

All these links also address the issue https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RKp7Utw4VcsC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=boys+forced+to+wear+dresses+serial+killers&source=bl&ots=nMlWkBl5gw&sig=0RP0XVJ8MCg7bYmIQAu7eMWXw0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigiO-f7-rXAhUjDMAKHZQbCBUQ6AEIajAN#v=onepage&q=boys%20forced%20to%20wear%20dresses%20serial%20killers&f=false https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/research%2520-%2520forensic/2005%252020-1-Mitchell-40-47.pdf&ved=0ahUKEw…
/r/MensRights02/12/17 08:08 AM
8

Some phenomena are just observed, when the full research hasn't been conducted yet. But Psychology, like Physics, always starts theory first. People likewise said Darwin and Copernicus were full of fluff. Yay for quote mining. Second paragraph says That being said, I have run across this item in several bios of serial killers, and I have wondered if it was a contributing factor to their self-esteem issues. It seems logical that if your mother does not accept who you are in your most fundamental …
/r/MensRights02/12/17 08:02 AM
4

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201611/boys-dressed-girls-who-became-serial-killers%3famp
/r/MensRights02/12/17 07:31 AM
1

Ah ok, sorry for the confusion
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:52 PM
1

What are you even arguing with me about? u/Grasshopa is trying to argue that this isn't abuse, and that they put their daughter in a similar situation. I'm saying that unless they go fully like for like, they cannot claim that this news story isn't abuse because their own daughter isn't claiming abuse. It's wrong to force any child of any age to cross dress at school to satisfy your own political sensitivities.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:47 PM
1

Not frowned upon by whom? Adults? Maybe so. Other kids? Definitely not. Kids are brutal, girls easily more so than boys. Send that girl to school in really boyish clothes and a buzzcut and watch the fireworks.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:40 PM
2

Very much bet he/she didn't force their daughter to cross-dress. He/she is a imbecile for defending this story
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:20 PM
1

Depends where you live, I guess. Here jn the UK there's no christian evangelicals so the conservatives are doing just fine, but the libs are still getting torn apart by the rabid activists Still fun to watch.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 07:09 AM
2

Alright. Thomas Sowell then. No? Try Morgan Freeman. I've heard a few different voices all say the same thing so try me
/r/MensRights21/11/17 07:03 AM
2

Can't say I've ever seen it, not properly, but it's certainly cast with women of a certain age and likely marketed to a similar audience. I'd love to see what a comedy with the usual bitchy 20-somethings would do if they tried to make the same slut jokes. It'd be all over Vox and Salon before you can say misogyny.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 12:11 AM
3

If you want to know, I'm 22
/r/MensRights20/11/17 10:56 PM
5

Why is that relevant?
/r/MensRights20/11/17 10:52 PM
14

No. This difference is that they're not smart. They make vague references to sci-fi and fantasy pop-culture, maybe the occasional pop-science factoid, and then you queue the laughing track. What you actually have is a group of guys, all socially inept and unsuitable to living their own lives autonomously, being laughed at because the humour is made intentionally to derive from their own personality and character traits. One is even autistic, a disorder that affects men far more than it does wome…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 07:05 PM
4

In my opinion, the 60's screwed everything up. Men became weak, women became crazy, the African-Americans got put on welfare and had their culture ruined (not my own take, heard guys like Tommy Sotomayor talk about it). I don't know if a lot is deliberate. I think a lot of it comes down to changes in diet and the birth control pill, but that's just my own "biological determinism" as the Rad-Fems call it.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 06:48 PM
32

Just shows you how far down the rabbit hole we are
/r/MensRights20/11/17 04:59 PM
44

To be fair, I suppose the whole show is incompetent characters. In return, I'll suggest the Big Bang Theory as a better example of the misandrist approach to comedy now.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 04:19 PM
95

What a prattling load of crap. You know, the lazy dad trope really bugs me. If you go back before the 1950's, women were often the comic relief. Once you get to the 60's and onward, it changed to be the incompetent husband and the put-upon wife. All these types we know; Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Hank Hill, basically any male character in any western world sitcom (the 3 guys from Friends as well) are all portrayed as incompetent and inept. Clearly the author's anecdotes here are mixed. She kn…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 03:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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