TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Izicata Archive

View 3 posts and 113 comments by Izicata 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)
7

I think it was to make the rest of his body look larger in comparison.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 12:26 AM
19

He decided to throw out all his clothes and only wear tubes to reduce the amount of decisions he has to make per day.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 03:19 PM
2

No, they won't have to do that either. If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish. Either robots will be doing all the icky dirty jobs, or they'll generously allow the men that remain to risk their lives mining coal.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 08:06 PM
4

They're tea party derp central. Just check out some of the other articles, and be sure to have your adblock turned on when you do. Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left (Surrogacy is slavery, discrimination against gay people is totally fine) The Media, not Racism, Turned the South Republican (Southern Strategy never happened) Totalitarianism and the Silence of the Lambs (Gay marriage is literally fascism) American Thinker is fucking insane. I have no idea why OP didn't just link to the actua…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 08:16 AM
7

I oppose any event encouraging people to wear high heels because high heels are incredibly bad for your feet no matter your gender.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 12:56 AM
2

Other sources of head injuries don't encourage people with head injuries to continue to do things that cause head injuries. There are no skateboard scholarships on the line like there are with football.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 12:17 AM
15

Stop stand-up urination for men, Swedish politicians urge A Swedish political party is taking a stand against upright urination. At a county council meeting Monday, the Left Party, or Vänsterpartiet, tabled a motion that would require office washrooms to be genderless with a sit-down-only requirement, reported the news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå. For men who might refuse to comply, party representatives suggested a separate set of toilets clearly labeled for stand-up urination only. We nee…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 04:54 AM
12

She didn't, but the phrase "thinking with your dick" refers to bad decisions made for sexual reasons. You're also wrong. She's saying that it goes against natural female instinct; men generally do not have wombs to draw wisdom from.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:51 AM
15

The wounding of circumcision irreversibly alters both mother and child: the mother is fractured at the base of her deepest womb-wisdom, which knows that she must protect her child no matter what When a man thinks with his dick, that is folly. When a women thinks with her womb, that is wisdom.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:02 AM
1

In approximately 12 States, anonymity for the parent or agent of the parent is expressly guaranteed in statute. In 24 States and Puerto Rico, the safe haven provider cannot compel the parent or agent of the parent to provide identifying information. In addition, 13 States provide an assurance of confidentiality for any information that is voluntarily provided by the parent. The specifics depend on the state, but the process is generally entirely anonymous. If the state allows parents to reclaim …
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:18 AM
1

Yeah, but the mother is totally off the hook. She doesn't have to deal with the baby ever again, her parental rights and responsibilities are completely void. Fathers don't get a chance to do that.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:07 PM
2

I find it hard to believe that you don't have to have custody of the child or permission from a custodial parent to abandon the child under safe haven laws. I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't that mean, hypothetically, that a burglar could kidnap your baby, "abandon" it using the safe haven system, and all of your parental rights would be void? I know government can sometimes be incompetent, but I'm fairly sure it's not that incompetent. By relinquishing the right of custody to the state under safe…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:24 AM
3

Where the mother has used the anonymity right, the court need not give the father notice of the emergency hearing. Instead, the father must speculate that his child was deserted, find the court, and get a DNA match at his own expense. This doesn't happen the other way around, because mothers will always know that they have a baby. Fathers very often may not know that they are a father, given that 40% of births are to unmarried women. Under Safe Haven laws, single mothers have near-complete choic…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:59 AM
2

People don't have rights before they exist. There's nothing to give up.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:36 PM
5

The strongest argument is that women are currently capable of unilaterally terminating their parental rights, whereas men are not. Look into safe haven laws. Most states in the US have safe haven laws, which allow mothers who do not want to raise a baby to simply abandon them into the arms of the state. There are no legal ramifications and the process is entirely anonymous. Naturally, this means that the fathers of these children have no input in the matter. Women are currently able to terminate…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:31 PM
2

A contributing factor may be that the whole women-in-high-powered-law-careers thing is still relatively new. Societal change takes time to percolate through slow moving institutions like the Supreme Court, and honestly there haven't been very many opportunities to appoint new Supreme Court justices anyway. IIRC there have only been eleven new SCOTUS justices since 1980, and four of them have been women. Sandra Day O'Connor (1981, appointed by Reagan), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993, appointed by Clin…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:15 PM
5

Won what? The big prize of continued existence? The privilege of coming home with more limbs than the people he shot? Stories to tell his grandchildren about how the time he stormed Omaha Beach and watched his trench-buddy be torn apart by machine-gun fire? Or are you talking about winning by not starving to death or getting gassed in a concentration camp? Winning by being the only member of your family to survive Auschwitz? Winning by hiding in an attic until the SS is gone, then being smuggled…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 08:14 AM
16

They didn't win. They just lost less than the other side.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 05:26 AM
2

Right, this discussion thread is about how your argument could be used to support the legalization of murder when the killer believes the victim consented. Rape and murder are alike in that they're a illegal kind of a legal act; sex is legal given certain criteria (consent), and killing is legal given certain criteria (self defense or, in certain states, consent). They can be compared on that basis.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:46 AM
2

I agree with your emotional rhetoric, but I don't see how it changed your argument.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:37 AM
2

Rape and murder are different acts, but are comparable. Your argument, here, could be used to support legalizing murder if the murderer believes the victim consents to being murdered. Therefore, it's not a good argument to apply to the definition of rape. That's my point.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:14 AM
3

You're conflating murder with killing. Killing is something that can be done legally, murder is not. Sex is something that can be done legally, rape is not. If the killed person consents and other criteria are met, it can be legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US states of Oregon and Washington. We clear?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:05 AM
1

Signing a contract is no guarantee that the signer consented to be killed, much like signing a contract is no guarantee that the signer consented to sex. The question is not whether the signer consented to be killed when the contract was signed, but whether they consented while they were being killed. In that aspect, it's like sex. The question is not only about whether person A believes that person B consents to sexual activity, but about whether person B actually consents to sexual activity as…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:41 AM
1

Please provide an argument that cannot be used to support legalizing murder if the murderer believes the victim consents to being murdered.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:26 AM
0

EDIT: Oops, I meant Euthanasia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Voluntary_euthanasia Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In several areas killing someone is not legally murder if the "victim" consented.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:24 AM
-2

comment = comment.replace('rape', 'placeholder') comment = comment.replace('murder', 'rape') comment = comment.replace('placeholder', 'murder') that's different, unless you're 8 or have a mental disability that means to literally have no way of understanding that raping a person it wrong then you are fully aware that raping a person is wrong. I'm talking about if, for example, a man believes that a woman is consenting to have a death experience with him and there is no good reason why he should …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:10 AM
2

She's not hurting anyone in the process because the sperm donors have willingly abdicated their right to choose who that sperm impregnates. That's the whole point of a sperm bank. Sperm donors have essentially said "I am okay with my sperm impregnating people I haven't personally chosen." You still need two people to have a baby, sperm banks just minimize the involvement of one of those two people. The male is still required but not involved in the process beyond making his sperm available for a…
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:55 PM
0

We will set fires in your nations and burn down your cities, if only to ensure that there is some space for new life to grow and thrive. That is not a threat of violence, but the visualization of a glorious rebirth for the world. Well that's alright then. I was a little bit confused about how burning down cities wasn't violent, but then I realized it's a metaphor for removing the civil rights of men to save men from themselves, and creating a new pacifist femyle ruling class. Sacrifices must be …
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:10 PM
8

Wrong thread mate. Try here, or the /r/bdsm subreddit.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:44 PM
8

Holy shit, you're psychic. I didn't say anything about what form that agreement would take, but you literally read my mind. You're right. I, a person posting on /mensrights, believe that a woman's word is completely infallible in all situations. James Randi is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal phenomena, and I think thought-reading over the internet certainly counts. You could totally win that million dollars with your magical telepathic powers.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:34 PM
53

If the man aborts and the woman would be unable to support the child on their own, then she still has several options. Abortion, adoption, etc. The only situation in which there's not really an okay solution is if she really really wants this specific child right now and doesn't want to wait until she can support a child on her own. That desire probably isn't going to lead to anything besides poverty and misery. If you're talking about a post-birth situation, everything gets a lot more complicat…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 02:25 PM
20

Early Human Ancestors Had More Variable Diet According to Thackeray, the results of the study show that Paranthropus had a primarily herbivorous-like diet, while Homo included a greater consumption of meat. […] Strontium and barium levels in organic tissues, including teeth, decrease in animals higher in the food chain. The scientists used a laser ablation device, which allowed them to sample very small quantities of fossil material for analysis. Since the laser beam was pointed along the growth…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 05:16 PM
17

You are so very incorrect. Rape is widespread in the animal kingdom. Ducks, for example, have evolved 8-inch corkscrew penises that can become erect and ejaculate in less than a second to better facilitate raping, and labyrinthine maze-vaginas that attempt to fool rapist ducks into thinking they've managed to impregnate a female. If you're really skeptical, here's a slow-motion video of duck ejaculation. Groups of male bottlenose dolphins will gang rape female dolphins, and rape male dolphins to…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 05:06 PM
1

Thanks. I've ran into the defunct-domain problem too; it's kind of hard to find sources I'd personally consider legitimate when most of them are linking to dead sites. I guess that's an indicator of how old some of this stuff is.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:33 AM
2

Given that the RadFem movement isn't very big, I'm not expecting a CNN special edition. Just some sort of discussion. And since the RadFem movement seems to consist mostly of individual obscure blog posts, that's kind of the highest standard of evidence we can possibly hope to get in this case. The movement does mostly seem to consist of patriarchy theory, transphobia, and a weird hatred of BDSM, though.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:18 AM
2

Okay, cool. Can you point to any denouncements of these sort of anti-male screeds by radical feminists? Because generally when a movement doesn't agree with what a minority within that movement says, there's some sort of debate or criticism about that. Can you point me to any such writings?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 12:58 AM
2

Again, nobody's saying that the words of a few extremist radicals represents the entire feminist movement. I'm taking issue with your specific claim that ErasmusMRA's post was a strawman argument painting the entire feminist movement as extremist and gendercidal, when he specified "radfems" and was relaying an argument presented by that extremist subset.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:29 PM
1

Well, neither of us are trying to paint the entire feminist movement as gendercidal. Just the bits that are. Claims that we're making strawmen are kind of toothless considering that there are actual feminists who believe this.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:09 PM
2

You mean the radical feminists who propose genetically modifying men so they are no longer "sick"? My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy. It's at the bottom of t…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:59 PM
3

I'm not exactly sure how your anecdotal experience is relevant. You not having met a feminist who believes gendercide is a good idea doesn't necessarily mean anything other than you haven't met a feminist who believes gendercide is a good idea. And, people who believe gendercide is a good idea are rare and likely wouldn't actually admit to it in person, just like people who actually believe women are explicitly inherently inferior to men are rare and likely wouldn't admit to it in person. Or at …
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:10 PM
14

Take a good look at what goodzillo wrote. I've never heard an actual feminist say anything like this seriously. Goodzillo's just going to say that she's not an actual feminist, because No True Feminist would say that.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:49 PM
4

The fore skin effectively creates a pocket for viruses to lay hidden. That is nowhere near how anything in human anatomy works. The foreskin helps create a mucus membrane that protects the glans from viruses and irritants, as well as protecting the glans directly by covering it. Viruses are far too small to be "hidden" by a foreskin anyway, as they're too small to be seen by the human eye. The foreskin may trap dirt or other irritants, but that is easily prevented by basic hygienic measures.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:47 AM
6

This is a comprehensive collection of cited data about the effects of circumcision. I've found it very useful for debating about circumcision on the internet and elsewhere.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:42 PM
1

I'm only going to fight for equality in the eyes of the law. Currently, men are not treated equally in the eyes of the law in the area of price discrimination. Charging higher prices to one ethnicity than every other ethnicity is already illegal. Wells-Fargo charged higher mortgage interest rates to African-American and Hispanic homeowners than Caucasian homeowners "because of their race or national origin rather than the borrowers’ credit worthiness or other objective criteria related to borrow…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 07:26 PM
3

If you want to satisfy the definition of a real man, you need to meet exactly three requirements: You must belong to the human species. You must have a Y chromosome. You must exist. I don't think the author actually has anything against trans* people, but this definition does exclude transmen from being "real men". It's almost certainly not intentional, but it's still an incorrect definition in an otherwise great article. Something more along the lines of mental identification as male would be m…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:53 PM
4

Actually, the whole point of the distinction between equity and gender feminism is that modern feminism is split so severely that just saying "I'm a feminist" is far too vague to be informative. Anyone who uses term "feminist" to describe themselves doesn't actually know what they're talking about simply because feminism today is fractured into at least two parts. You need at least one adjective for the noun to be useful. The word isn't an evil slur, it's just not a useful description. The femin…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:57 PM
4

Can you provide a citation to a scientific study of the lifespans of enunchs, or are you basing this on the Korean genealogical "study" that was all over the news a week or so ago? Because if it's the latter, you're making a very extraordinary claim based on very minimal evidence. Not quite making shit up, but close.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:00 PM
6

If you're looking for the technical terms for that sort of thing, it's equity feminism vs gender feminism. Personally I think that defining this in terms of feminism is still misleading. I prefer to use the term egalitarian, as it doesn't have nearly as much political and emotional baggage as feminist or MRA does. It's a whole lot easier to talk to people about equality issues when they don't automatically dismiss you as a nutjob.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 02:49 PM
0

Why? Ladies Night is discrimination based on gender. If discrimination based on gender is wrong, then so is Ladies' Night. If the MRM is actually a movement based around gender equality, then Ladies Night has to be on the list of things to eventually get around to doing something about. Probably somewhere near the bottom of the list because our resources aren't infinite and we have to prioritize, but still on the list.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 07:36 AM
2

I'm all for black rights, but to fight against whites' night is just stupid. I got involved in the civil rights movement to stop government favoritism of white people. If a small business owner decides that he/she'll make a few more bucks by having a whites' night, we shouldn't try to get in his/her way. We live in a capitalist society, if you don't like the policy you shouldn't patronize the bar. Oh no wait that's racism.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:17 AM
7

Or, you could walk on the inside of the curb and pull her out of the way with your Magnificent Manly Muscles™. That way nobody gets hit by a car.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:06 PM
34

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men This reads like the Onion, but it's from HuffPo.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:59 AM
8

Marilyn Bagley's "consent" to the sexual assaults by Defendant Edward Bagley does not change whether the acts legally constitute assault or not,' prosecutors wrote in court documents filed last month. 'Pursuant to the Missouri state assault statute... consent is not a defense to assault resulting in serious physical injury.' This is no different than a sodomy law. The government doesn't like what some consenting adults are doing, so it legislates that it's illegal even with consent, and there go…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:53 AM
1

No problem. People communicate all the time, so people sometimes getting the wrong impressions is frankly inevitable.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:15 PM
1

He acknowledges that it's a commonly held belief, but disagrees with it. Those sentences could have just been expressed as "A guy would go to jail for this and I'd disagree with that, if the girls were of consenting age."
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:00 PM
4

So, is she going to cite any of these studies that contradict every other study done on this topic or what? The only source she linked to was a different page on the same site that said something about alcohol and depression, but nothing about divorce rates.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:45 AM
2

I think that everyone in a movement using the same quick soundbite is actually legitimately dangerous. We see this all the time from feminism, the same short statements appearing again and again, bullshit dogma that just doesn't die. 1/4 women have been raped, women earn 70% of what men do, men can stop rape, etc. They're just thought-terminating clichés that attempt to prevent actual discussion and count for less than nothing in an actual debate. I think the amount of argumentative diversity in…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:15 PM
9

I refuse to believe this person is actually arguing for 100% certainty of consent to be necessary to not be rape. By this metric, since nobody can read minds, every single interaction between two people is non-consensual, and that's fucking insane. You sold me a coffee? No, we stole each other's goods at the same time. I invited you to my house for a party? No, you're tresspassing and I'm a kidnapper. We had consensual sex? No, we raped each other, because neither of us can be 100% sure that the…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:46 PM
1

I explicitly stated that it was not a civil rights win multiple times Yes, you did explicitly state that, and that contradicts your more recent statement of "whatever". Perhaps you should be less vague in the future. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. Oh boy, an uninformed opinion based on hearsay. Maybe you should actually have talked to some doctors, like this guy did. "It's great when low-cost generics are available, if one …
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:27 AM
1

Whatever Definition Adjective 6) in any amount; to any extent: whatever merit the work has. 7) no matter what: whatever rebuffs he might receive. 8) being what or who it may be: Whatever the reason, he refuses to go. 9) of any kind (used as an intensifier following the noun or pronoun it modifies): any person whatever. "A win of whatever kind" would include "A win of the civil kind". If that's not the meaning you intended, maybe you should know what a word actually means before you use it. When …
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:32 PM
3

81 people spread across 500 years does not constitute a valid statistical sample.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 05:32 AM
21

Finally, Lee said the only other possibility was that Bishop-McKean was responsible for the attack but if so, the evidence suggests "a very half-hearted attempt" to kill. "I did try to cut off his head with an electric saw, but I didn't really push down on the blade because I only kinda wanted him dead." How the fuck do you "half-heartedly" attempt to kill someone?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 04:57 AM
1

Let's, for a moment, imagine that beaches are racially segregated; would creating a free whites-only shuttle service, to ensure that all white people can enjoy the beach for free, be a civil rights win? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure you would agree that in fact desegregation would be a civil rights win. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women, but to call it a civil rights win belittles all historical civil rights movements. It was a huge…
/r/MensRights23/09/12 03:13 AM
1

I've said quite a few times this it is a good thing for contraception to be covered, even if only for women It was a huge win of whatever kind for women to get contraception, yay Reproductive rights are subject to gender segregation, and rather than desegregating them, the mandate simply makes it cheaper and easier for women to exercise their unilateral control. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see coverage added for men rather than removed from women, but to call it a civil rights win belittles …
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:39 AM
-1

It's not, perhaps I just see them as tiny minnows in a larger pond. I'm not even arguing about the relative importance of issues. I have said nothing but that they exist, and everyone who bothered to respond thinks I'm trying to delegitimize the Mens Rights Movement. Fuck. My point of bringing up Sandra Fluke's testimony was that her friend's insurance did cover birth control for medical reasons, but since it wasn't mandated to cover birth control for any and all reasons her insurance decided no…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:00 AM
-1

I'm not sure that this is a distinct issue from other disparities in sentencing between genders and the false perception of women as generally less capable of doing bad things than men. There are a whole ton of sources in that comment about female criminals getting far lighter sentences than male criminals, just not getting charged, etc. The justice system is massively biased towards women and against men, and the American justice system in particular is very heavy on the punishment and pretty m…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:29 AM
-1

Condoms aren't covered Yup. I agree with you that condoms can be considered preventative medicine, that condoms should be covered by insurance, and that it doesn't make sense either economically or rights-wise that they aren't. They're not even covered in Canada, even though a free condom program would quite probably pay for itself in decreased STI treatment cost. Look, I'm not a feminist. I've already said things to that effect to multiple people multiple times. If you ask me about an area wher…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:53 AM
-2

for the majority, it's not medicine It's a drug prescribed by a doctor that prevents a specific biological situation which is considered bad, i.e. pregnancy. Pregnancy has a whole host of bad effects such as morning sickness, weight gain, and a whole lot of money disappearing over at least 18 years. If you start trying to define birth control as "not medicine" you'll have to start asking if a whole bunch of other drugs might not be medicine, because you don't really need to take Tylenol to get r…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 01:24 AM
-2

I've already talked about this in another post here, but the definition of sexual assault that the military uses is as follows. The term “sexual violence,” herein referred to as “sexual assault,” is defined as: intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The crime of sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful, or a…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:52 AM
-3

You edited your post to correct your statement that "men are more likely than women to be sexually assaulted in the military". The edit-asterisk beside your post time belies your attempt to troll. However, the statistics which actually matter are the likelihood statistics. If three times more Africans than Mexicans are struck by lightning every year in the country of Doesntexiststan, but there are three times more Africans than Mexicans in Doesntexiststan, does that mean Africans are lighting ro…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:42 AM
-1

Yup. You're right, I'm wrong. I've already admitted this in a separate post, and I'll say it again here. That paragraph I wrote was completely incorrect.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:38 AM
0

Points one, two, and four are all true, correct, and don't make anything I said wrong. They are completely indisputable and do not disprove or contradict anything I have said in any way. What I have said, and what you have said, can both be true at the same time and you can believe them both to be true as long as you do not take acknowledgement of one for disagreement with the other. Your third point is simply incorrect. Looking at the actual survey (Warning: 10 Megabyte PDF), the definition the…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:36 AM
-3

I don't even have to look at that article to know you're wrong, because you quoted the bit which proves you wrong. In a 2006 survey of active-duty troops, 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in the previous 12 months. Yes, more men than women were sexually assaulted, because the vast majority of the people in the military are men. But, in 2006, if you were a women in the military, you had a 6.8% chance of being assaulted in the previous y…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:16 AM
-5

Economics issues + strip club comparison One, you're comparing medical insurance covering medicine to medical insurance covering strip clubs. This comparison is very invalid, as monthly strip clubs don't have a research-verified medicinal effect. If you can actually show valid scientific studies showing the medicinal effect of monthly strip-club visits, I will eat my computer. Two, births are expensive and babies are expensive. Cheap contraception means less babies and less births. It's actually…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:05 AM
-4

Yup, I agree with that. It's definitely used by feminist groups to end discussion with something that sounds reasonable, then those same groups turn around and don't do anything about the issues they supposedly admitted exist.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:40 PM
0

I've already said upthread that I think the war on women hyperbole is ridiculous. If you're seriously claiming that I was at the DNC, said that there was a "War on Women", and that you're somehow able to link that to this reddit account, you're delusional. If you're not claiming that, the fact that someone who I do not agree with at an event I've never been to said something that I think is insanely hyperbolic is completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:26 PM
0

Yes, that is true. Men's reproductive rights are being denied in pretty much the entirety of North America. However, that does not mean that women's reproductive rights are not being denied in Kansas. This isn't the Oppression Olympics, the two statements are not contradictory and they can both be true at the same time.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:12 PM
-3

The contraception isn't free. Women pay for medical insurance, through their employer, that covers the birth control pill. All the mandate does is ensure that when an employer offers to let their employees pay for a medical insurance plan, that insurance plan covers the pill. The birth control pill is not only used as contraception, it's also used to treat Endometriosis and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, so there are medical reasons to take the pill. Currently reproductive rights are subject to ge…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:10 PM
3

Currently, men in the USA have absolutely no reproductive rights outside of the right to use condoms/get a vasectomy. Yes, this is a civil rights issue. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I disagreed with that.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:33 PM
-1

I'm not, I'm arguing with you. Yes, because I totally claimed that "nobody else can have problems until women have none", and that "we HAVE to resolve peoples views towards women first, fuck everyone else with cultural issues.", and that your being mutilated as a child is totally okay. No, wait, those words are ones you put in my mouth. You're ranting at an empty chair. No one is disregarding that there are issues women face, but they aren't "Women's" issues. Yes, because abortion rights, which …
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:29 PM
-5

Wow, your reading comprehension is poor. I agree with pretty much everything else in the article Just because men have civil rights issues doesn't mean women don't also have civil rights issues. Seriously. Stop arguing with the imaginary me in your head, and actually read what I've wrote. Yes, men are currently facing civil rights issues. That's why I'm subscribed to this subreddit. But women are also facing civil rights issues, and acknowledging that doesn't mean I also have to be a feminist or…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:45 PM
-4

We're still talking about civil rights issues. The contraception mandate is a civil rights win for women, but a very recent and a very opposed one. This is an example of both a recent women's civil rights issue, and an example of why a women's civil rights movement is still needed due to the significant opposition of the mandate. Women being more likely than men to be sexually assaulted in the military is a civil rights issue in the same way that men being more likely to be injured at work then …
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:53 PM
-5

I don't have a complete list, but here are some examples.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:31 PM
1

The contraception mandate is a civil right now enforced by law. It just passed very recently with significant opposition, and was previously not enforced by law. It's a win for civil rights, but a very recent one and one that was opposed by a large portion of the legislative body. Women being astoundingly more likely than men to be sexually assaulted in the military is a women's rights issue in the same sort of way that men being astoundingly more likely to be homeless than women or being astoun…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:29 PM
4

Currently women's reproductive rights are being curtailed in certain states such as Kansas. Link. The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death. There was the whole contraception insuran…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:42 PM
3

She just used the "war" hyperbole not one sentence earlier. "War on men" is in the title of the book she wrote. She sees nothing wrong with using war as hyperbole. What other meaning can we take from that sentence?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:24 PM
6

“I absolutely think there’s a war on men. I laugh and cringe every time I see something on the ‘war on women'” Personally, I'd have to disagree with this. I agree with pretty much everything else in the article, but I disagree that women are not disadvantaged by societal/governmental/other institutions in certain areas. Just because men have civil rights issues doesn't mean women don't also have civil rights issues. They're generally in different areas, but they both exist. And the whole "war on…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:01 PM
4

Alledgedly Assange said he would use a condom, put it on, then took it off before actual penetration. IIRC the charge for this in sweden is "rape by deception", I.E. the victim consented to a different activity than actually happened. The condom was kept as evidence, and there's none of his DNA in it. If Assange actually put the condom on, then there would be his DNA in it, just from skin cells rubbing off and the various fluids produced before sex.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 08:37 PM
1

That's entirely possible. Fortunately for my sanity, there's no obligation to get into relationships with people that hypocritical.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 07:32 PM
3

There's no point to getting married anymore. The only thing getting married adds to a relationship is legal bullshit. Long-term fulfilling relationships work in almost exactly the same way without that ring on your finger. The only change is that there's less court stupidity if you break up. Sexually monogamous relationships also tend not to work long-term. For some reason, humans in general tend to like to fuck more than one person per decade, even if they fuck that one person a whole lot. Reco…
/r/MensRights15/09/12 06:50 PM
7

I submitted this to /r/worldnews for more publicity.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:28 PM
2

Thanks. It's nice to see that /r/mensrights consistently has statistics available.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:45 PM
6

Citation? I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I'd really like to see those stats.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:21 PM
1

Wouldn't paternity fraud be a way to trap a man into paying child support, rather than a way to get a kid? I mean, if all a women wants is a kid, she can have a kid without lying about who the father is.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:49 AM
4

It's not considered rape because it's not rape, it's paternity fraud. Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, paternity fraud is a woman lying about who the father of her child is. They're both bad, but they're different things.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:36 AM
3

It's cheap because it can cause kypokalemia and permanent infertility. The most currently promising male contraceptive is RISUG, also known as Vasalgel. You might remember hearing about it a while back, as it's currently going through testing in India.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:15 AM
96

It’s not unlocked doors that cause burglary, although they're a vulnerability factor. It’s burglars that that cause burglary. Sure, but it's still a good idea to lock your damn doors.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:34 PM
1

He's saying that America is becoming a Big Brother police state because women are able to vote, thus we should try to remove women's right to vote. Downvote and move on.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:10 AM
2

Thing is, since I can't examine the actual study, I can't actually say that. Unless you've got a copy of the study and you're holding out, you can't actually truthfully say that either. The study could be a perfect example of science, or it could be flawed in myriad ways, but we don't know which one it is because it's behind a bullshit paywall. The fact that it's been filtered through two other people's perspectives doesn't help either. The conclusions you're drawing are twice hearsay.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:57 PM
2

That's some guy's blog, which links to some other guy's blog, which finally links to the actual citation, which is on a pay-site which I don't have access to. Sluts may have higher testosterone levels, leading them to cheat and, thus, to increase marital instability. Sluts may get bored faster with any one man. Sluts attract the sorts of men who themselves have no use for monogamous commitment. Sluts may just be fucked in the head. Their psychology doesn’t matter as much as the ability to quickl…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:22 PM
3

The analogy isn't ever used in relation to marriage. It's pretty much always talking about unmarried women who've slept with a lot of different men. But if your wife is sleeping around on you, that's obviously a bad thing due to the betrayal of intimacy, broken promises, etc. I'd also like to see some citations to back up your claim. OFC I also think marriage is a bit obsolete anyway. At the very least, it's not a good idea to enter into a marriage in its current state.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:05 PM
-1

TL:DR? Can't find it online for free, and I'm not paying for something just to argue about it.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 10:22 PM
13

Dude, the whole "lock and key" analogy is THE bullshit double standard. The only possible reason for it's existence, determining paternity of children, has been obsolete since the invention of birth control and is even more obsolete now that we can determine paternity through genetic testing. Stop being a cock about sex.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:48 PM
3

The thing is, those are all still very good reasons to be up in arms, simply because they're still double standards. A whole lot of that list is stuff we're complaining about.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 11:45 PM
3

It's a claim based on a Disney story. Of course it has no merit.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 01:44 AM
8

It's not that scholarships for women impede men's rights, it's that there is an imbalance between scholarships for women and scholarships for men. As the title says, there are three women for every two men in university, and there are still far more women-only scholarships then there are men-only scholarships. The scholarship system in the United States favours women; the scholarship system in the United States is sexist. I don't think offering more money for women in CS programs is exactly the …
/r/MensRights08/05/12 03:16 PM
0

It's not obvious what you're actually referring to when you phrase it as "You believe embarrassing someone is okay, therefore you believe false accusations of rape are okay". Please try to remember this is the internet, and tone of voice does not carry through text. Additionally, since there are probably more dumbasses than geniuses on the internet, if you don't phrase your arguments correctly people will just assume you're stupid. Frankly, this whole argument could have been avoided if td9red h…
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:28 AM
0

Are you taking the position then, that airing of false rape accusations is OK, since embarrassing someone is not a crime? That's not what I was doing. If that's what you meant, you should have actually said that.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 03:35 AM
5

False rape accusations are not mere embarrassment; they can lead to someone's life being ruined because accused rapists are treated as guilty until proven innocent by the media and our culture. Even after someone is cleared of rape charges, those news articles about the rape charges will follow that someone forever; they will constantly have to face people thinking that they are a rapist due to those charges. Equivocating false rape accusations to mere embarrassment is disrespectful to the victi…
/r/MensRights20/03/12 02:26 AM
0

Please show the connection between the claim "Obama is a radical feminist" and the statement "He ran with Biden as VP".
/r/MensRights19/03/12 05:51 PM
1

That is correct, and the link you cited shows that Obama is at the very least unaware of the MRM. However, brunt2 specifically accused Obama of being a radical feminist, which he is certainly not.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:37 PM
4

Actually, he did assert that Obama is a radical feminist. For men's rights, not as scary as a second term of radfem Shillbama and Biden. Whether or not he "meant to say that", that is what those words mean. Thank you for the information.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 10:12 PM
1

Please provide evidence that Obama is a radical feminist.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 05:57 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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