TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ishmael999 Archive

View 0 posts and 155 comments by Ishmael999 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)
-10

This posted in a subreddit that regularly speaks of sperm-jacking as if it's a common occurrence?
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:14 AM
-14

Normally I don't upvote things posted by you or, indeed, things posted on this subreddit. But this is pretty messed up.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 02:08 AM
0

Well, if you're only polite to women and not men, then you're a bigot. But otherwise, carry on.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 04:58 PM
1

Yeah, it's a problem. But you know what? It's not the feminist's fault. What I do is just do my best to do the "chivalrous" stuff for both men and women.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 04:53 PM
2

You might be surprised to know that this is exactly what a lot of female feminists want you to do. They don't want to be portrayed as the weaker sex who has to have things done for them all the time.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 05:48 AM
-7

Look, unless you can explain to me accurately what Patriarchy, rape culture and male privilege are, don't spew this MRA Bullshit. You guys think those ideas are dangerous because you don't understand what they are. None of them are "us versus them" or man hating.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 12:53 PM
-7

I'm responding to the claim that feminism is a hate movement, that the OP made. Whether these particular terrible feminists have power has fuck all to do with that. The mainstream feminist movement isn't like this. It's definitely a minority view, and your not knowing this means that you haven't done any research on feminism that ventures outside of the Mens Rights blogs.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 12:32 PM
-6

You're talking about a minority view. Why in the world would you assume the majority holds a minority view?
/r/MensRights16/12/11 12:11 PM
-4

My point wasn't that you don't do those things, it was that it's ridiculous to expect people to have to have done those things in order to avoid moral responsibility for things done by other people. But it seems my point has been missed.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 12:07 PM
-4

Why should it be necessary to speak out against people in favor of eradicating an entire sex? Shouldn't it be obvious that we disapprove? By the way, if you're white, you're obviously responsible for slavery, and if you're Christian, you're responsible for the crusades, because this is apparently how responsibility works. If you're a part of the large vaguely defined group, you should have stopped them.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 11:46 AM
-5

Separatist feminists do not represent all of us. Acting like they do is a strawman attack.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 09:23 AM
-2

Does the word "some" mean anything to you at all? Ironically, you're probably the type of man he's talking about.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 01:33 AM
1

I'm sorry, but please explain to me in what sense that's shaming? He's playing off of popular stereotypes of gender studies people. He's not even talking about men.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 01:30 AM
0

What's funny about this is that this is what happens whenever I mention I'm a feminist. Where the hell do you live?
/r/MensRights13/12/11 08:32 PM
-1

Oh no, it's the PC police! Everybody hide the bigotry!
/r/MensRights10/12/11 08:37 PM
1

You said: that's funny, seeing as feminism has consistently painted fathers rights and equal rights for abuse victims as the "abusers lobby" and cannot make any sort of counter argument against mens rights without resorting to personal attacks and false accusations of crimes or thought crimes against women. Feminism is attacked largely because its a hostile polemic that relies on dirty tricks, scapegoating and cannot compromise. Now, I see a whole ton of claims there about what feminists think, …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:14 PM
2

Says the MRA who has still sourced nothing.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 06:29 PM
3

You are so amazing. I hope you never leave again.
/r/seduction08/12/11 07:52 AM
2

Yes, I know what the MR party line is. But you haven't sourced anything. Half the posts on MR are about how Feminism is so evil, but nobody references academic texts. Generally you reference absolutely nothing. When you do reference something, it's some random seperatist feminist on the internet who doesn't represent feminism any more than the WBC represents Christianity.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 07:10 PM
3

That's true. And they'd do it without slandering another rights group.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 04:12 AM
-2

Oh /r/MensRights. You so funny. You'd learn a lot if you did some reading on Feminism that wasn't on a Mens Rights blog. It's like when I was a young creationist and I thought I understood evolution because I'd read what creationists had to say about evolution. It's dressed up ignorance.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:27 AM
5

Oh Gosh, you made an assertion and then linked to a Men's Rights blog without a single citation. I have NO CHOICE but to agree with you.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:14 PM
-3

Gosh you /r/MensRights people are funny. Generalizations about women are taken as "insight".
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:12 PM
12

Right. This is EXACTLY what happens on Reddit.
/r/MensRights26/11/11 06:07 PM
1

I challenge you to find one instance of anybody in SRS denying that it's a circlejerk. Maybe we'd keep it in our subreddit if there weren't an antagonistic bot placing a warning on everything we link to. When there are people attacking us in the original thread, we go to defend ourselves.
/r/MensRights26/11/11 05:58 PM
6

Right. My point was that Mens Rights has IRC, not that he's making shit up. You truly have bested me in a battle of wits. go celebrate with your bros.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:21 PM
9

Well if you're revealing your information, I should mention that people have been planning bisexual orgies in the Mens Rights IRC. See, I can make stuff up too. Good day.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 11:08 AM
1

Yes, I know you guys think people who disagree with you are bigots.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 05:04 PM
1

I don't know why you even bother posting to this subreddit. No matter how much you correct them, they will not concede even one point, ever. I feel like you're entirely wasting your time with every comment you leave here.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 08:02 AM
7

Eh Teefs can be pretty crazy, but the rest of them are pretty legit.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:00 AM
4

Have you met Antibigots?
/r/MensRights09/11/11 02:50 AM
4

It definitely is their personal version of it. I got placed in it back when it started for talking about patriarchy on /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 01:41 AM
16

I wouldn't bother if I were you. Anyone who has been to /r/bigotryshowcase and thinks they're balanced is beyond hope, beyond prayer, beyond everything. It's a really shitty subreddit.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 01:20 AM
2

This is a reasonable question. Most of us would argue that it's different for us to make a joke about the privileged groups of society, because nobody will ever take that joke seriously, and in fact most of us making the joke are the group the joke is making fun of. It's different when you make a joke about black people eating watermelon, because there are people on reddit who are going to look at that and actually think that represents black people. It can reinforce their already racist feeling…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:59 PM
2

DAWWWWW He keeps trying to catch that argument, but it keeps running away from him into Ad Hominem land!
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:21 PM
2

Look, when the first thing you tell me is that I'm part of a group of "deluded, bigoted losers," and you provide no examples to support it, I'm not about to treat you as a rational agent. Just saying. You act five, you get treated like you're five.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:16 PM
3

Awww he's still talking. Do it again!
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:06 PM
2

You're so cute for caring. Can you do any tricks?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:01 PM
6

Honestly, I'm not that interested in "defending" SRS. We're a circlejerk. That's what we're designed to be. We find comments we think are hilariously ignorant, and we make fun of them for it. We don't really want attention. We get more attention through the bots that follow us than from anything else.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 11:41 PM
11

Well... that's an odd thing for you to say. Somebody cares enough about SRS to come here and post here about our banner, but somebody from SRS drops by and says something and they're the ones who care too much?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 08:14 PM
2

He double posted.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 07:56 PM
11

You do realize we're making fun of your perceptions of us, right?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 06:19 PM
-1

This subreddit spends so much of its time hunting down instances where men are treated badly by the legal system as evidence of some supposed conspiracy against men by society, and then when you find one that is evidence against this contention, you just act like it's the only one to ever happen and therefore doesn't count. The truth is, when people break laws, they get convicted. It doesn't matter what sex they are. Being able to cherry-pick doesn't change this.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 10:28 PM
3

They're not perpetuating that belief. They are responding to people who already hold it. Edit: You know what, you're obviously very angry and not prepared to change your mind. You can respond to this and get the last word in, but I'm not going to be responding back. Good day.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:35 AM
3

Slutwalk is responding to your average citizen who believes that men are aggressors and women are victims, so their response has to combat that mentality. Which is exactly what I said. Now where, in my post, did I imply that I believe that all rapists are men and all victims are women?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:16 AM
3

No, I'm not saying that and I don't believe that. What part of what I said led you to believe I think that?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:41 AM
2

You're the one making an assertion. Support your own words.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:07 AM
6

Seasbass341 already provided you with the citation, which is good, but if you're claiming that the way women dress does affect whether they're raped or not, shouldn't you be the one to provide evidence?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:16 AM
2

Slut walks fight misandry. The common public has the idea that men just can't help rape women dressed provocatively. We're just sex-machines with no semblance of willpower. Slut Walk advocates hold that the average man is strong enough to be responsible for his actions and how the woman is dressed shouldn't matter.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:15 AM
5

The prohibition of prostitution in the US is what causes the majority of sex-work-related crime. when prostitutes get raped, what are they supposed to do if their profession is illegal?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 03:30 AM
-1

Your entire post hinges on the first sentence which is a strawman. Downvote.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 08:13 PM
2

Really? Of all the threads in /r/MensRights, this is the one that you leave over? I see no reason to think that there are more male abusers than female. It's likely there are more male physical abusers, but physical abuse isn't the only abuse. And even if you were right, that wouldn't justify having posters that imply that men are never the abused and always the abuser. The posters also lock women into the historic victim role. They don't seem very empowering to me.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:25 AM
2

You're right. This is a problem. I remember getting angry at the Women's Center at my school for pulling things like this.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:22 AM
2

If they do it for one gender they should do it for the other. As an antinatalist, though, I really don't want them to incentivize having children.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 09:25 AM
14

Yes, absolutely. Women should have the right to choose if and when they should shoulder the responsibility of a child, and men should have the same rights.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:33 AM
-5

I really don't think it sums up anything. You know that this wouldn't actually happen. If the kid were 12, the parent would likely be put in jail, but I don't know why a dad would be photographing his 12 year old daughter.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 10:00 AM
-2

To be fair, it's not nearly as negative as most of my comments on this subreddit. Edit: And hilariously, even this comment gets downvoted. I swear this subreddit parodies itself.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 04:50 PM
0

I get that. Or honestly I don't get it. I can't possibly understand it, because I've never been a soldier and it's be belittling to their experience just to pretend I've seen something like it. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment that you're responding to. The OP called this the price of being a man. This is the price of being a soldier. Not all men are soldiers. Not all soldiers are men.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 02:22 AM
-1

The unacknowledged price of being a man in modern society is being in a trench? Forgive me if I can't follow. There were drafts in earlier wars, but I think by now society has realized this is tyrannical and can't happen again. I realize the word "modern" can mean any time since the late 1500s, but it's a little misleading.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:09 AM
-8

So, /r/MensRights have moved on from posting strawmen about homeless people to posting fake conversations by evil women. Look, I get that Alimony is unfairly given out. I get that child support needs reform. But this is so blatantly made-up that only your wanting it to be true could possibly explain your believing it.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 11:20 PM
6

There's a woman pointing out that something is sexist against men, and the author takes the opportunity to take pot shots against her entire gender. Real smooth.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:43 PM
3

In what sense are feminists responsible for the actions of a restaurant?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:28 PM
1

"Patriarchy" isn't based on psychology at all. It's more of a sociological observation. It has nothing to do with minds or intentions. It has to do with social constructs that give men in certain situations certain advantages.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:49 AM
1

That's not what Patriarchy is. Nobody insists that all men are in power. I literally don't understand what you're saying in the second part. It's incoherent.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:45 AM
1

In what way? How does it put words into the mouths of opponents?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:13 AM
0

I'm pretty sure he's just a troll. He made his account seven days ago, and started a new subreddit to document comments other people made that he thinks are bigoted. I'm apparently one of his newest victims. Suffice it to say, he has little understanding of what the word "bigot" means, so your best course of action is to ignore him, IMO. You won't find any reasonable discourse with him. Pleasant Day :)
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:10 AM
1

So, you think that the idea of the Patriarchy is wrong, not that it's a strawman. Because what you just described isn't a strawman.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:03 AM
1

It is a strawman. It doesn't represent what those who espouse a "Patriarchy" define the "Patriarchy" to be. I could say the exact same thing and believe that the Patriarchy is utter bullshit, but that this nonetheless fails as an argument against it. For instance, I'm an atheist, and I frequent /r/atheism. The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't mean that I don't spend a decent amount of time arguing with other atheists because they misrepresent other peoples' positions. This post is a misrepresent…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 06:55 PM
-1

That's not what a strawman is.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 06:22 PM
0

Look, I'm not an expert on the subject. I can get things wrong. I'll likely be hounded by dozens of people on this subreddit. Every comment I post will be downvoted into oblivion. I never even implied I believe in the Patriarchy. I mean, I do, but you couldn't gather that from the things I've said before in this post. So, why are you petitioning me for an argument? Just to make my point: Would you expect me to argue for evolutionary theory in /r/Creationism (Not sure if that exists or not)? Mayb…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:20 PM
1

I'm really not interested in having this debate on /r/MensRights again. I was just pointing out that the OP was a strawman.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:08 PM
0

I don't think you know what a strawman is. A strawman is when you construct a flimsy caricature of your opponent's position, like when the OP implies that Patriarchy means there should be few homeless men. You're alleging that Patriarchy is wrong, which has nothing to do with it being a strawman.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 04:02 PM
5

The word isn't. But the image implies that what "Patriarchy" means is that every man has power. That's not what it means, so this is a strawman. Even if patriarchy were a terrible concept, completely untrue, this image would still have nothing to do with it. It's a childish attack, aimed to be convincing to people with no idea what the Feminists' arguments actually are.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 04:00 PM
-2

That literally doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:56 AM
0

Of course he has no obligation to cater to my rhetorical style, but avoiding strawmen isn't a style. It's a basic rule of civilized conversation.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 06:02 AM
0

I agree. Which is why I think it's a shame that the OP decided to make a strawman of feminists instead of talking about that.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:52 AM
-1

I know what you mean. When I joined Reddit a few months ago, I joined Men's Rights expecting to find reasonable conversation, but it's a little bit sparse around these parts. This post, for instance. We could talk about how there are more homeless men than women, how that's a problem, and how we should fix it, but instead OP decides to make a "gotcha" post about how male privilege obviously doesn't exist because there are lots of homeless men! All this demonstrates is that he A: Doesn't know wha…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:31 AM
3

Sometimes I feel like I could reply with 75% of MensRights posts with a single word: Strawman. It's a shame because there are legitimate Men's Rights issues we could be talking about.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 02:33 AM
-9

Really? Really? You're a moron and so is everyone who upvotes this. Normally, regardless of how infantile a post is I try to interact with it, but this is really dumb.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:57 PM
6

Well, there are situations when I'm somewhat okay with the phrase. If people are comparing men to boys, and speaking about maturity, I don't mind (so long as they're not sticking gender stereotypes into it). But ridiculously often, people are acting like cultural, contingent aspects of "manhood" as opposed to "womanhood" are in fact permanent, inherent parts of what it means to be a man. This is a problem, because it leads to the judgment of those who don't share the same arbitrary cultural tast…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 04:59 PM
3

Things like this are why people hate MRAs.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:32 PM
1

I just bookmarked that list for future usage. I just want you to know that not everyone reading this thread is going to treat you like a moron for pointing out their strawman.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:29 PM
1

What feminists say that men are the primary slut shamers? You can't throw a stone in this subreddit without hitting a straw-feminist.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 06:01 AM
1

This was the first thing I noticed. What if he raised the kid as his own for a few years? This might be the case, but we don't know because he doesn't say anything.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 03:08 AM
1

The point I make isn't contrary to the findings. The study says that alcohol makes people care less about their judgments. I'm making the case that caring about something is integral to the judgment process. Which is exactly what I said in the last comment. I think you'll find if you do a little more research that any effect the substances you name have on people is really negligible. It's played up in television shows, but there's no good science that suggests it has any real effect. If it did,…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 04:09 AM
1

But there's a difference. When you're "buttering up" a girl, she's able to make a rational decision based on what she cares about (which in this case could be cars and money, but obviously needn't be that way). Other girls might value religion, or intelligence, or some interest. But in the case of the alcohol, their values no longer inform their decisions as strongly, and this change can be linked directly to a substance that they imbibed. This seems to indicate that one is not fully in possessi…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 02:41 AM
1

Well, to start, I think that if you use something that you can't actually own up to to convince a person to have sex with you, I'm not sure I'd call it sexual assault, but there's something not right going on there. But I really don't think it's even completely analogous. In one case, she does it because she thinks she will get something out of it. In the other case, she does it because she is mentally affected by a substance that makes her not care about her decisions as much. I have a hard tim…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 02:00 AM
2

I don't see that it does. (Though I see the hypocrisy of it not counting for men). It is affecting their perception of their decision. Its making them consent to something they wouldn't have otherwise. It still seems relevant to me.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 01:42 AM
-2

I fail to see how a substance making you not care as much about the outcome of a behaviour isn't still reason to blame the alcohol for the behaviour.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 01:26 AM
-4

Facepalm I was asking where I belittled them.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 07:15 AM
-3

Oh yes, I definitely belittled the plight of hundreds of thousands of homeless men... where exactly? You respond to me pointing out that the OP is a strawman by posting another stawman? Give me a break. What's belittling to the homeless is trying to use them to make a point that "Feminists are wrong, man!"
/r/MensRights18/09/11 05:06 AM
5

Has anyone here actually read the book? What if it actually is hostile toward women there? Numbers aren't everything. Maybe it isn't hostile, but I'm not going to make a judgment until I've read parts of the books.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 11:46 PM
-8

This must be great for scaring away birds, considering it's a gigantic strawman.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 11:26 PM
0

Acting like social support for people who are gutted by society and the media is a bad thing really seems like trolling to me. I'm sorry if you're serious. We, as a society, do not have a problem of too much compassion for fat people. I'm sorry, we don't. And people who are overweight know that it's unhealthy, know that they would benefit from losing weight. We don't need to add to that by acting like they're abnormal. It's perfectly normal for many humans to instinctively take in all the calori…
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:22 PM
2

Wut?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:15 PM
2

People are downvoting this, but we have as much evidence of this viewpoint as the one he's responding to. Seriously, people, be a little skeptical.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 05:01 AM
1

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled that kind of stuff unconstitutional at least in civilian organizations. I'm not sure how that intersects with the military.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 05:01 AM
2

I understand that you feel that way, but you do realize that nobody but you can really use this as evidence of discrimination. For all we know, the women deserved it more than you and you're just venting.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:59 AM
0

I'm going to assume this is trolling...
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:57 AM
3

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in weeks. Feminism was never necessary? Break open a history book and see what society was like in the 19th century or any time before it. Imagine a world in which women are legally bound to their husbands, whether they beat them or not. Imagine a world in which a woman who has been beaten by her husband runs to a police officer, who is required to take her back to her husband. And at the same time, they're considered property of their fathers before t…
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:56 AM
2

Exactly who wants to be paid more than men for less effort? You know you can prove anything if you're allowed to just make shit up.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 04:53 AM
2

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. There's no reason for it to be wrong except for how it affects the kids, yet very many people find it wrong anyway.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:16 PM
7

You've made a good argument and changed my mind. Thank you.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 05:41 AM
1

I shouldn't have used the word "allowed" because I'm not actually in favor of any kind of governmental control over who has children, but I'm an anti-natalist, so I'm largely opposed to anyone having children (at least until we get population under control).
/r/MensRights04/09/11 05:40 AM
6

Look, some of the other comments on my comment convinced me that it shouldn't be illegal for anyone, but your comment was useless. Making something illegal to prevent diseases is not social darwinism. Social darwinism would be breeding specifically to eliminate traits thought to be negative by society. Diseases are objectively negative. Don't just throw those words around. They become meaningless.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 05:38 AM
3

What if one of the parties is infertile. Do you think it's wrong in that situation?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:09 AM
2

Okay, so incest is frequently wrong because children that result from it often have genetic diseases. But let's say one of the two consenting adults is infertile. Give me one reason why I should oppose that. It's not my business.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:08 AM
3

Actually that probably is illegal...
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:06 AM
8

I think incest should be allowed among infertile people. There's strong evidence that any children that come out of it have a higher chance of genetic diseases, and that should be prevented. But the sex itself? There's nothing at all wrong with it, and we have no right to punish people for it. But we do.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 01:06 AM
7

I just don't understand how they can not see that even though one of them is "voluntary" it's obviously coercion. The school is set up so that people who aren't part of the Greek system feel like absolute outcasts, but to be in the Greek system you have to be a loser. It's completely unconscionable, and Temseh is a soulless asshole for acting like it's okay.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 05:49 AM
6

Point taken. I just hope nobody's trying to dismiss their experiences.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:49 PM
40

I agree to a large degree, but you realize in a lot of cases the woman gets called a murderer, right?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:13 PM
2

Honestly, the thought that it should be necessary is what I don't like. The thought that a man is responsible for a child he fathered by default, when the woman had every chance to abort it with or without the man's consent is a problem.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 06:40 PM
2

"The Hammer is my penis."
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:37 AM
1

This would be an incredibly hypocritical thing for a feminist to say.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:20 PM
2

Carrying a good amount of average size is not "shift[ing] all the sizes up to make fat people happy." It's a good business model.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:19 PM
1

Even most bodybuilders don't look like that all the time. They work especially hard and take off their weight right before a competition, but the other times they have some weight on them. That's because it's unhealthy to be like that all the time.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:17 PM
3

Even most bodybuilders don't look like that all the time. They work especially hard and take off their weight right before a competition, but the other times they have some weight on them. That's because it's unhealthy to be like that all the time.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:17 PM
2

I agree with your message, but as a piece of advice, putting the word "secretly" in all caps makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. As a tactical decision, I recommend putting it in lower case next time. That said, the mods at /r/feminisms often are embarrassing in their censorship. Despite being a feminist, I think that that subreddit, and many other aspects of feminism, have some serious flaws.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:42 AM
1

Whoah now. If I'm not mistaken, even within cities, child molesters are uncommon occurrances. You really don't have that much to worry about, and you certainly don't have anything to harass plumeria over.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:21 AM
2

While I think this law is BS, I'm glad to see it applied to both genders.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:18 AM
7

Those were perfectly reasonable, well-thought out comments. I'm very sorry that /r/feminisms deleted them.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:44 PM
34

I hate alimony. It's inherantly sexist against women because it assumes they can't take care of themselves. It's ironic when women pursue something like this.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 03:03 AM
3

When I started reading this, I thought it was some kind of absurd parody written by an angry MRA misrepresenting feminist views. I was surprised to see that it's an authentic article. It worries me that the people in the comment section seem to agree with her in her bigotry. I would hope most mainstream feminists would simply disregard this and let it sink into obscurity. Edit: I commented on the article with this: I had a hard time believing this was real at first. This is so, sad, so terrifyin…
/r/MensRights16/05/11 04:43 AM
13

This is not exclusive to women, nor have you shown that a majority of women think this way. This kind of comment is why people hate this subreddit. It's just hateful generalization.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 04:39 AM
1

It's really not just a Victorian custom. They did a good job of codifying it into the laws during the Victorian era, but at least in the families that have any sort of power, that was always how they did things.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 11:12 PM
2

I meant that women tend to control what types of babies are born (men tend to ask women. Women say yes or no. This isn't universal, but where it is the custom, the women have a good deal of control.) I wasn't trying to say anything controversial, and the religious right's crusade to force women to carry every fetus they conceive to birth is a problem. I would never deny this.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 11:11 PM
10

The first paragraph contains a grave factual error, so I'm not even going to bother reading this. Women did NOT historically control breeding, though they do now. Women were largely considered property, owned by their father until he married them off for the benefit of the family. Maybe I'm missing something good, but I just take this as a red flag.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 07:20 AM
3

I should imagine the transgender community would be offended by this. They're generally all about being considered the gender they've chosen.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:53 AM
3

Can I call you a bigot against me if you refuse to have sex with me? We're not talking about clubs and things like that admitting people into their premises. We're talking about sex, probably the most intimate, personal thing anyone can do. It's not bigotry to not have sex with any group of people. Sexual preference is just that: preference. Show me a definition for bigot that includes people who don't want to have sex with certain groups of people.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:06 PM
2

I can understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, I still think it's really important that people have the right to deny sexual relationship for whatever reason they choose. I think that people can be accepting of trans-gender people, but still, for whatever reason, be uncomfortable with the prospect of actually having sex with them, and i don't think this is outright bigotry. Sexuality is just such a personal thing that I don't think we should judge anybody's decisions regarding their…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 07:02 PM
2

You think it's bigoted to not be attracted to black people? It's bigoted to think that they are inherently different in intelligence or in abilities, but it's a fact that they're difference in appearance. Your argument also seems to assume that a person has to have a legitimate reason not to have sex with somebody. Everyone should have the right to not have sex with anybody they please. There's nothing bigoted about that.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:46 PM
3

Your comment seems to imply that being trans is somehow analogous to being a murderer or an alien. I agree with your conclusion, that you should know your partner's history before you do anything, but your framing of this just seems bigoted to me.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:39 PM
1

It's not just about hurt feelings it's about an expectation in relationships that each person will be open with the other.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:37 PM
2

I don't think they're placing more blame on them. I think they're emphasizing that there is blame to be placed there, because they already assume that those perpetrating the assault are behaving in an unforgivable manner. We don't need to debate that point.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 03:17 AM
2

That is odd considering men make up the larger group...
/r/MensRights23/04/11 03:09 AM
5

"Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations" I honestly hate it when somebody gives feminists this bad of a name. I'm in favor of gender egalitarianism, and this just makes those who fight for women's rights seem sick. Women don't have the right to choose a man who may or not be responsible for the creation of their child and demand support from him.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 04:10 AM
-1

I'm fairly certain the commercial was condemning the type of people who call their friends strong and good when they are sexually agressive. I'd also like to point out that weak and passive is not the opposite of aggressive.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:31 AM
2

I can't properly respond to this because it's incoherent. But, benevolent sexism is sexism because it was instituted by men in order to "protect weak women". Contrary to belief on this forum, most feminists do disagree with it, else the term benevolent sexism wouldn't exist. They want it gone.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:49 PM
3

This is the best thing I've ever seen on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:44 PM
0

That's because it's actually bad for them. Insisting that women should go first on a sinking ship is benevolent sexism, because it implies that the women need to be protected.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:42 PM
10

Something can be a rights issue but not a be legal issue. The societal pressures pushing on people make it very much not in your interest to crossdress if you're a guy, because people will make fun of you, mentally and physically hurt you, etc. It's sort of a law of the masses. It's not men's fault exclusively, though.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:53 AM
20

They were ignored by feminists, it's true. They were also ignored by most men. The blame doesn't rest in a single group. That's one of the things many feminists have problems with.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:50 AM
0

You mentioned a lot of real men's issues in this post, and that's good. But when I just survey the Men's Rights page, what do I see? I see page after page of alleged false rape convictions. Even if these allegations are true, you realize this is still cherry-picking the data and is not in any sense evidence that and significant number of rape charges are also false? False-rape charges are important for the individual who is falsely accused, but aren't really an indication of a greater societal p…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:49 PM
2

Oh absolutely not. I find it quite stress--relieving.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:58 AM
1

So that suddenly makes it rational to speak with charged rhetoric that assumes feminists are all evil people whose only goal is to destroy the rights of all men?
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:56 AM
-1

And you got downvoted for speaking against the general opinion of the place. It's funny that people seem to vote toward their opinion rather than voting based on the soundness of the argument given. You really cogently explained a major problem here in Men's Rights, so people hate you for it. When I first came to Men's Rights, I came hoping to find discussion of the issues in which men do have a disadvantage. When I started reading posts, I found instead a thick rhetoric against feminists in gen…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:39 AM
3

I just read through his post again, and I really don't find it to be universal at all. He's referring to specific trolls who come and profess misogynistic opinions they don't really hold to try to give Men's Rights a bad reputation. He's not talking about feminists who give actual arguments for their beliefs when they come here.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:21 AM
1

Yes, that's probably true. I doubt that US politics would change very much simply by the addition of more women into legislation.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 06:41 AM
1

Well as long as you're consistent with that. I'm afraid I can't agree. I think it's certainly possible for a person to have aspirations to politics with the public's good in mind, even if it doesn't happen often. In any case, that people who aspire to power are often bad people to have it isn't a good argument against having representational numbers of women in office.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 06:34 AM
1

By this logic, anyone who ever ran for office should be disqualified.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:18 AM
6

All of the good that is included in this article is overshadowed by the bigotry expressed earlier in it, when the author remarks about "feminist babbling... that women are as good as men at leadership." It's otherwise a good article, for the most part, but that paragraph should be taken out.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:16 AM
1

"There's no suggestion that most men carry out harassment in the street" "But why do some men harass women in public" You've picked the wrong article to criticize on this matter.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 06:53 PM
1

Upvote. People need to have their preconceived notions challenged.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 07:14 PM
13

Everyone in that police department should be fired. At least everyone involved in this kind of behaviour. Even if the person happens to be guilty, it's not okay to presume so before their trial. Even if it were okay to do that, it wouldn't be okay to endorse assault on them.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 04:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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