TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Jarka_Ruus Archive

View 0 posts and 53 comments by Jarka_Ruus 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)
3

But she seemed to have a change of mind after reading the probation report, saying in a statement on Turner’s sentencing day: “The probation officer’s recommendation of a year or less in county jail is…an insult to me and all the women.” From here
/r/MensRights10/06/16 01:15 AM
11

Stories like those are heart breaking to read. For every one in which justice is served, five are told in which the victim has no recourse. The amount of times "this changed my perspective" is said is utterly disgusting. That society can be so blind to its such obvious double standards is infuriating. I'm so jaded by this I can't even enjoy my muffin, god dammit!
/r/MensRights07/08/15 10:35 AM
1

Perhaps you should learn to read. 8+2.5 = what now? I'm not seeing this extra 8 years anywhere in the report. A man convicted of having sex on a Florida beach in front of families was sentenced to two and a half years in prison on Monday. “We are grateful that the state has offered 2.5 years,” said Ronald Kurpiers, defence attorney for Caballero.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:28 PM
0

He trafficked cocaine. He was having sex in public; in front of children. You, also, may want to read the sentencing again. Two and a half years is a quarter of a decade, genius.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 10:26 PM
5

Prosecutors say they were tougher on Caballero because he previously served eight years for cocaine trafficking. Getting another felony charge less than 3 years after getting out of prison for a prior felony charge wasn't the smartest idea.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 07:40 AM
1

Holy lord, this tawt's twitter feeds is a non-stop loony train.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:46 PM
16

It is okay to objectify men and women. Just because feminism is taking the ridiculous stance that any interaction with women, up to and including looking at a picture, must be on a personal level does not mean the MHRM has to collectively put their pants on their heads and do the same for men. Yes, there are instances where is it wrong to reduce someone to an object, but objectification is not inherently wrong.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:00 PM
2

The link is broken. Here's a working one.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 11:00 PM
1

How is this a Men's Right's issue?
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:41 AM
1

Yeah, not all that clear, but it does show that neither had full control of the embryos.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 07:37 AM
1

Source? I didn't see that in the linked article.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 02:53 AM
1

If people were arguing this was wrong because it's hypocritical I am arguing that, genius, as well as others. You still have not refuted it other than to say you would rob both men and women of these reproductive rights. Don't even try to re-frame this as losing freedom, as if the state forcing an individual to adhere to a contract rather than having the other individual seek compensation is more free. And yes, he did make that agreement. I have argued that the agreement is no longer valid and t…
/r/MensRights14/06/15 12:10 AM
4

You're ignoring that the state is enforcing these agreements for one group but not the other. A woman has the right to back out of this agreement; a man does not. You can continue to peddle your "he made an agreement" twaddle, but that doesn't refute the argument that this man is being denied reproductive rights given to any woman. Thus, a question of rights.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:22 PM
4

The state is only enforcing their mutual agreement. "The state is only denying men a right women have." FTFY
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:02 PM
3

Because he was in a relationship when the agreement was made. Thus, the decision would be having kids for them, not just her. This doesn't even get into the fact that the state is forcing fatherhood on someone who does not want to be a father. The state can't force a woman to be a mother, regardless of prior contracts. It doesn't matter if you believe he should be held to the contract. That said contract is only viable because he is male is directly related to the lack of reproductive rights men…
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:37 PM
3

Don't agree to a contract you don't want to honour. The 'terms' of the oral contract were made under different conditions than those currently standing. The embryos were made so that they could have kids, not so she could have kids. There is no they anymore. He did not agree to father children for her, he agreed to father children for them.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:33 PM
2

If she wanted kids she should have had her eggs frozen; not embryos. This guy shouldn't have to be a father just because the lady couldn't foresee the end of a relationship.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:22 PM
13

"Mr. Szafranski agreed to create these embryos for one purpose: so that Dr. Dunston could use them to attempt to have children if she survived cancer." No, no he didn't. He did not go into this thinking "Oh boy, I hope she's happy with these kids." He didn't do this for her, he did it for them; there is no them anymore. However, if the state won't pursue him for child support and the lady respects that the guy does not want to father the kids, I don't really see a problem.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 03:53 AM
8

So, your response to her being the responsible party is to ignore any of her agency and blame the kid. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 05:19 AM
9

Stop acting like this kid can't make decisions for himself just because he's 15. I don't think he is capable of understanding those decisions, and neither does the State. In other news, this woman is the adult and responsible party. Therefore, the only reason this happened is because she said yes. Had she said no there would be no issue here. Don't act like your assumption that the family is lying is anything other than speculation. You have absolutely no insight into this kids life. Acting like…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:47 AM
11

He came onto her SO FUCKING WHAT? Is she a goddamn vegetable who can't say no? She is an adult in a position of authority who should know better, who did know better and did it anyway. Stop trying to excuse her actions like she's incapable of making decisions for herself.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:00 AM
66

So, the fact that all if this has been happening to men is... irrelevant. The men that it is currently affecting are... irrelevant. The men it will affect are... irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that women are being held to the same standards as men, and that is sexist. Sorry, I'm just floored by this stupidity.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 08:18 PM
2

How is the misandry ironic if it is sincere and practiced? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Remove the word irony from the language because no one can use it properly.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 12:15 AM
2

It's ironic How? Can someone please just get rid of the word irony, not even writers are using it correctly. It's funny Subjective and dat double standard. #killall(non-white, male demographic) would be considered hate speech. It's thought provoking No it is not. Unless you count the thought "what fucking drivel!"
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:54 AM
14

You missed the point. There are benefits to female circumcision, yet it is banned, in every form, because it violates the child's bodily autonomy. The bodily autonomy of a girl is not any less important than that of a boy. Well, it shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 02:00 AM
3

...is designed to counter male-centered language's limitations on women, who are forced to respond "I know I said that, but I meant this". Today I learned that men never need to clarify or otherwise make mistakes when talking.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:50 PM
183

“Whoa,” panelist Katty Kay interjected. “I’m a little skeptical of that. Look, that’s one example of one woman beating another woman, with countless examples of men beating women.” She added that Solo should face the same “retribution” as her male counterparts, “but let’s not try and use that as an example to suggest that women are as guilty of domestic violence as men are.” Except that we don't(shouldn't) determine guilt based on the sex of the accused. Men are not collectively guilty of domest…
/r/MensRights19/09/14 06:22 PM
1

Of course it isn't her fault. By merit of privilege, the closest male (preferably white) is at fault for her failings. /s
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:20 PM
3

"We want information. We want answers. We've decided not to practice because of a change-up in the coaching situation." I never credited football players with an abundance of brain power, and these ones not seeing "cleared of the charges" as information and an answer isn't really helping.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 02:10 PM
31

People who base their political views on the opinions of musicians are why we can't have nice things.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 02:26 AM
4

“Given that I was defamed in the commission of my duties and that somewhat shockingly I was the only professor there at Fiamengo’s talk to support our students, I fully expect it is [their] responsibility,” she said. "I supported silencing these people, and now I demand the university defend my reputation!" It's always telling when they admit they're okay with censorship, but it's comical when they use that as justification for someone to come to their aid.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 06:01 AM
13

I didn't get past the first quote. If the lady wanted privacy, she has the ability to change her privacy settings; not mentioning the block tool. The two rights in the quote (privacy/free speech) do not collide in this case. The lady was too inept to properly set her privacy settings, her privacy was not violated. If you don't want random people liking your posts, change your settings!
/r/MensRights27/03/14 03:44 PM
13

I gave a small presentation on MGM for a class once in college. The professor said that it could be seen as a female health issue in that women could possibly get STI/Ds more easily from men who were not circumcised.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:28 PM
15

Why is it that any reference to the MHRM always includes "but they can be just as bad as radfems" as a caveat? Can we ever get referenced to without having the looming negativity? It's like the whole movement is questionable and possibly dangerous because of a few wackos. The article itself is very good, but that last remark just creams my corn.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:27 AM
91

And then setting herself on fire in a moving train, endangering all the people on that car. She should have been kept in the asylum.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 05:42 AM
-15

Does anyone take sociologists seriously anymore? There might have been some legitimacy in the field, but today it seems like a way to justify political correctness.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 11:05 PM
1

Yes because boots can kill. /s Why is this sarcastic? It is well documented that the human head is fucking fragile, and you just brush it off as if it were nothing. Are you dense, dismissive, or both? The rest of your comment is a cop-out. You neither validate your argument by showing that his actions would be excessive nor that her actions do not justify the reaction. I did not forget that there were others present, and it doesn't change the fact that this woman was attempting to harm that guy …
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:29 PM
1

Yeah, what you say means jack squat without proper validation.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:25 PM
20

Skeptics, however, worry that it fuels a gender war and undermines attempts to minimize conflict in cases loaded with emotional baggage. Oh, so as soon as husbands realize they can actually fight back against the biased family courts it's a "gender war." Nancy Dowd, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, worries that firms touting themselves as defenders of "men's rights" may feed in clients the notion that they're going into battle rather than seeking reasonable soluti…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:08 PM
2

Excessive force is defined by the situation, as I explained in my other comment. Clearly, you don't even understand the concepts with which you're attempting to validate your argument.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:27 AM
2

Except there isn't any concrete definition of excessive force. What defines excessive force is subjective based upon the situation. While she was attacking him, he had every right to punch her in the head; just as she was doing to him. That is not excessive. That she may or may not fall unconscious matches that he may or may not have fallen unconscious(or been killed by one of her flailing boots). So, the consequences of each others' actions would be matched; neither in excess. So, in conclusion…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:26 AM
2

Actually, it explicitly states A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.. Nothing about deadly force. Please stop talking out of your ass and at least attempt intelligent discussion.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:40 AM
3

Actually, it isn't. You see, Louisiana does not require you to retreat and you have the right to defend yourself anywhere you have the legal right to be. Here, read the law. I don't see it written anywhere that you're legally required to not defend yourself when a woman is the aggressor.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:59 AM
0

A couple of knocks to the noggin would remind her, as it would anyone, that acting like a rapid ape is not acceptable. There is more than enough video evidence to show that the man had every justification to introduce her face to his fist. Incapacitating her is not excessive, especially since she aggravated the situation by jumping on them, punching and kicking him in the head; after being escorted away.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:42 AM
5

The music made this perfect.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:27 PM
5

Your premise does not support your conclusion, and what does this have to do with English cops or their reputation? The UK can have the best cops in the world, but that doesn't mean shit if their "Justice" system is putting innocent people in prison. This man was wronged in a way that has utterly destroyed his life, and you're trying to play it off as a mishap. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you don't actually know what mishap means, just like you don't seem to know that WW1 …
/r/MensRights02/01/14 10:33 AM
9

Calling 17 years in prison for something you didn't do a 'mishap' is blatant misrepresentation. Might as well call WWI a border dispute.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 09:46 AM
35

He's only thinking of suing the police?!
/r/MensRights01/01/14 08:59 PM
3

"get it in writing" This is probably the single most important thing I've read thus far. Make it known that you're uncomfortable, and get physical records. You may not need them, but holy crap will they be useful if shit hits the fan.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:07 PM
-2

http://ripplemagne.weebly.com/1/post/2012/10/gop-war-on-women-abortion.html Relevant.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 03:32 PM
4

The difference in losing a valid case and starting one based on false information is rather important.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:29 PM
2

Clicked the link thinking that a judge literally injects sanity into child support discussions. As in, questioning the sanity of the parents. I'm pleasantly surprised that my assumptions were incorrect. The sarcasm in the article was slightly over done, but a good read all the same.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:43 PM
25

And the women you know wouldn't brush it off as if it were nothing? That's both parties upholding the standard.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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