TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Jiral Archive

View 3 posts and 102 comments by Jiral 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)
3

I'll second JCurry's statement. Just because 'if the genders were reversed' people would be crying sexism left, right, and center doesn't mean they're right about it. Fighting fire with fire may be effective, but then we end up collectively burning everything to the ground.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 04:16 PM
4

I just have a problem with your first sentence. Racism is discrimination based on race. Plain and simple. Sociology and feminism don't get to change the basic definition of the word. For that matter, to redefine the term with the stipulation that white people can't experience racism because they're in power is racist in itself.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 06:55 PM
1

Sounds like "John Tucker Must Die" part 2.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 03:40 PM
1

I got -80. I think we're winning the oppression olympics, bra!
/r/MensRights13/12/13 06:18 PM
0

You, sir, have just provided me the words I need to sum up my own position on the matter. Well said!
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:44 PM
1

Wut Please enlighten me to what's at all incorrect about that interpretation of the phrase "women want a wedding, not a marriage." wedding = ceremony to celebrate marriage marriage = legal agreement between 2 people to remain dedicated to each other.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:51 AM
-1

I agree, facts are very important. But he did mention that one of the quotes is a line from a fictional character in a fictional novel. Among several quotes that are from those feminists themselves, this is pretty important to mention. The words of fictional characters do not necessarily constitute the beliefs of the author. Just because Pierce from Community is extremely racist does not mean Dan Harmon feels the same way. Implying that a quote from a fictional character is a direct quote from t…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:15 PM
-1

What he's saying seems pretty basic: don't quotemine feminist writing and take it out of context because that's exactly what feminists did with Warren Farrel. To do the same thing you've condemned feminists for is hypocritical.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:11 PM
-1

Well, you've got my upvote. It's really ironic in a thread pointing out misandric feminist quotes that generalize men that they're defending a quote that generalizes women. I could easily see a feminist equivalent to this thread using that specific quote to make the same point. Unfortunately, upvotes suggest a lot of MRAs are pretty supportive of the same feminist tactics they condemn.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:35 PM
-1

Well, clearly you're more interested in being a prick than calmly debating anything, but I'll try to refrain from returning your underhanded insults. "Women want a wedding, not a marriage" does imply negativity, aka "women want a massive ceremony but not the dedication to their husbands that comes afterward" or "women do not want the commitment of a marriage but want to throw a fancy party to show off as though they do." There are some definite negative connotations there which imply both that w…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:56 PM
-4

He's got a point. The statement that "Women want a wedding, not a marriage" is pretty similar to "All men are rapists". Just because one statement may have more evidence supporting it doesn't mean they don't both overgeneralize an entire sex. Not all men are rapists and not all women just want a wedding rather than a marriage. If you consider "all men are rapists" to be an anti-male sentiment, surely you also consider the assumption that "all women just want a wedding" to be anti-female since bo…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:00 PM
2

Using that logic you could also reasonably conclude that parents are also not a necessity; the fact that orphanages are capable of raising children is proof enough of that. Yes, you're absolutely right. I wasn't arguing that parents couldn't provide certain benefits, just that they aren't a necessity. I'll continue to bold that word, because that was my focus. Before continuing please present a clear cut argument for why you believe that is so. I already have. It's not a claim, it's a fact, base…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:19 PM
1

I'd like to link you to something I posted elsewhere in this thread to reaffirm that you do not have to worry about your gay brother raising kids improperly. There have been conclusive results on the matter, based in developmental psychology, that were presented in the Prop 8 case to prove that having heterosexual parents does not increase the likelihood of a child growing up well-adjusted compared to having homosexual parents.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 09:23 PM
2

That's nothing short of misandry. A father's role in raising children is extremely important and the fact that children who lack fathers do worse in life is proof enough of that. I said that beyond conception fathers are "not an absolute necessity". Here's the definition of 'necessity' from google: ne·ces·si·ty /nəˈsesətē/ Noun The fact of being required or indispensable: "the necessity for law and order". Unavoidability: "the necessity of growing old". Synonyms need - want - requirement The ver…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 07:34 PM
0

I was wrong. Apparently there have been conclusive studies done on hetero vs. homo parenting. Here are some excerpts from the Prop 8 Trial that I admittedly swiped from a post by u/soulcakeduck: The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 04:02 AM
2

Well if your interest is only in calling me a parasite now rather than reading anything I say I guess that means we're done. I wish I knew as much about my own intentions as you do!
/r/MensRights03/06/13 12:39 AM
3

Well put... If you consider r/MensRights and "the wider society" one and the same. Maybe that is what you're saying. In which case yeah, I'd say they're victims of the insult implied in "children need fathers" that asserts their inferiority. If pointing out that implied insult situates me as a white knight, I'll gladly take the title. The "inferior to you" part is indirect, and occurs when you stand up for their rights. Obviously, if they need you to do it for them, they must be in an inferior p…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 12:12 AM
1

Fathers are a necessary part of any child's life. I'm not sure how you could equate their contribution to child rearing to eating an apple. The same applies to mothers. Fathers are necessary in producing a biological child, but beyond that they are not an absolute necessity, sorry. The mere fact that children have been raised by lesbian moms is proof that a father is not NEEDED past conception. That in no way means they're useless or can't make positive contributions, merely that they're not a N…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:20 PM
4

I aim to please. Sorry, though. I actually read your accepting sentence as more sarcastic than it actually was.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:03 PM
1

Of course it does. It implies fathers are useless in a familial context. Saying someone doesn't need something does not imply that thing is useless. I don't need an apple right now. Doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy having one or it wouldn't be beneficial to my health. I'm actually very glad that MHRM doesn't censor. I'm pro freedom of speech like no other. I was merely cautioning people to look out for their wording, since implying that a father figure is an absolute necessity implies certain conno…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:01 PM
2

Because all lesbians hate men, yes? Things like this are really not doing much in the way of dissuading MR's allegations of discrimination against women.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:16 PM
3

You stand up for those inferior to yourself That's me implying other people are inferior, not you right? You've given absolutely no proof that I've even insinuated that other people are inferior to me.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:08 PM
0

Why is it an issue that this boy in one instance wanted a sex change anyway? Even if that was a result specifically of his parents' genders, that you're implying there's something wrong with that which should be avoided is contributing to a much larger issue.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:58 PM
0

In terms of statistics from resources that don't have a clear bias, this provides nothing new. Even most of the sources this page cites are from articles specifically aimed at reinforcing the importance of fatherhood in particular. And it only uses quotes from those articles, not statistics. I'm not invested enough to go through each article and find those statistics or determine the extent of their bias.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:50 PM
3

I don't think someone who's implied that single and lesbian mothers are inferior is at all in a position to lecture me on choosing my words. My statement that "the widespread distaste for MR" is my observation of cultural attitudes and doesn't at all mean I subscribe to it, though I have so say the amount of resistance I'm facing is making me reconsider my position.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:47 PM
1

The statement "children don't need a father" certainly does not imply inferiority. It just counters an absolute statement. Who's implied to be inferior in that statement? Saying that a certain role isn't a requirement in raising a child doesn't mean that role or any others are less capable or important, just that they're not absolutely necessary. And same sex adoptions are already highly regulated. I really don't think there's need to heighten security. So what if they're offended? Just as I sai…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:43 PM
4

I never made anyone sound inferior to myself or anyone else. The statement "children need fathers" is what implies inferiority (those without that which they need are lacking). I'm just pointing that out. Your statement that I "stand up for those inferior to [my]self" also implies that the people I'm talking about are inferior. Please tell me where I've said anything that does the same. Whether or not I have credentials in the experience of being a single or lesbian mother doesn't mean I have no…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:26 AM
2

I can't say for certain how other people would take it, but the connotations in saying children NEED a father are that single mothers and lesbian mothers are incapable of raising children. So I doubt they'd be attracted by that statement.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:04 AM
2

I don't personally feel inferior, but the implication is there and some people may feel that way.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:58 AM
2

I'm not sure why you're being confrontational where I was pointing out an issue in a certain statement that could be detrimental to the entire group. Next time I'll be sure not to offer a perspective that's rarely heard in this sub.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:47 AM
1

Yup! And I've sympathized with MR issues despite many of them being very heterocentric and me having little stake in them. A lot more people might take an interest if they had a reason to care about these issues, but you're certainly not going to gain traction by making other people feel inferior.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:27 AM
-2

Whatever the tactic is, I'd consider it a part of their own enterprise, even if that is just exposing the insensitive flaws in cultural attitudes.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:21 AM
3

And it was once "normal" to dislike and/or enslave black people. If normal is just about how most people think or act I don't want to be a part of it anyway.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:17 AM
-1

That page doesn't say how they got that statistic. There's a good chance it's either very biased or not taking into account a number of other cultural factors. Just like we're skeptical of certain statistics presented by feminists, we should be skeptical of statistics from other groups with known agendas.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:13 AM
-1

You go for it. Doesn't change the fact that you're speculating rather than stating a fact.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:07 AM
4

You're too hung up on what constitutes "normal", I think. What is normal anyway, and why does it matter if homosexuality is labelled as such?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:06 AM
-4

And it looks like gay people are doing the same.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:05 AM
-6

I'm here because I see issues specific to men that are commonly ignored. Yes there are differences between the genders, but no, there's no definitive proof that every child will turn out better with a father than without. To say that a child requires a father in order to turn out 'right' is to insult a vast number of parents and their children.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:52 AM
-2

That does not constitute a direct result. You have no way of knowing what would have been different or the same had her father been present. You're merely speculating, attributing certain behaviors to a certain circumstance, when a number of issues could have been involved.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:49 AM
0

Did you see on that same page that normative is contrasted with positivist (the latter based in fact, the former, not necessarily)? I wonder how your thoughts on normativity will change along with LGBT issues becoming normative and homophobia becoming taboo. I'm still not sure what parts of society today you consider dysfunctional.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:47 AM
-2

Yeah, the history of human civilization has really given the gays a fair chance at parenting before, hasn't it? So reasonable of you to preemptively decide they'll fail.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:40 AM
-1

I never said it was.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:34 AM
-1

Hey, I'm only arguing about the need. And the fact of the matter is that a child does not require a father to grow up properly. To say that they do is to isolate and repel an entire group of potential allies to the MR cause.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:33 AM
-4

Of course likelihoods mean something, but nothing definitive. I also think a lot of the likelihoods you're expressing are not supported by substantial evidence.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:30 AM
-1

Homosexuality is common in animals as well. There have also been cases studied of two male penguins, for example, raising a child by delegating the duties usually attributed to females. Just because something is normative doesn't mean it's the only thing that works and everything else doesn't. So what dysfunctions today do you decide are bad and how do you decide that?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:29 AM
2

I come from a very small town... I know plenty of teenage mothers. That doesn't mean each one's situation is a direct result of their parent's or parents' gender.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:22 AM
-6

All you're telling me is it would have been different. This means nothing finite in terms of your ultimate success.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:21 AM
-3

And...?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:20 AM
-1

I've only skimmed them, but from what I can tell, these are telling me that there are common cognitive and anatomical differences between men and women, yes. But they aren't telling me that, say, a woman can provide a child with certain moral or psychological insight that a man can't. I just wanted to know if there's anything one can give that the other DEFINITELY can't, so studies that discuss likelihoods mean nothing to me. Maybe I'll go over these in more detail later and find more. I dunno.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:18 AM
-1

Whether or not a healthy balance child REQUIRES input from both genders isn't something you can know for sure, so to make moral judgements based on that which condemn other people as selfish is what's really shameful. Your "proof" is not evidence of anything. Homosexuality is less common so it would never be the norm in any culture. That doesn't mean their parenting skills are inferior.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:10 AM
-5

So if your brother was female she wouldn't have made similar (though different) mistakes you would learn from? You DEFINITELY would not have achieved the same level of success. Okay, sure. Let's talk in certainty about potentials that we can never know.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:07 AM
-5

It seems you're being just as ignorant if not more than I am, if that's how we're going to label each other. You're making a lot of assumptions about what's normal, what's right or wrong, and what connotes success.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:05 AM
1

How do you decide that the nuclear family wasn't a matter of cultural influence? You're assuming homosexuality isn't also a biological instinct. In what cultures has a family with same sex parents ever been "the norm"? I think you're making a false correlation between those specific family dynamics and cultural dysfunction (though I'm not sure how you're measuring dysfunction either).
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:03 AM
-5

And had your character developed any other way you wouldn't possibly have been successful?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:57 AM
2

And I have yet to see proof that children raised by male/female parents are inherently better people or have inherently better circumstances than those raised by same-sex parents. 20,000 years of evolution and human progress have rested on men and women breeding and passing along their genetic line. That doesn't mean it's rested exclusively on their male/female parental dynamics. Your assumptions that same sex parents don't have the capability to properly raise children will only repel potential…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:56 AM
1

This doesn't mean that female children brought up by single fathers wouldn't also be more likely to be single mothers. Your example doesn't signify the importance of the parent's gender but rather the importance of their circumstances.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:48 AM
-1

Kids in public schools socialize with both genders. Why is an older role model necessary to discern how different gender roles pan out? People generally come across males and females throughout their lives and so they can learn how gender roles work from that. Of course, in instances where a child is brought up specifically segregated from the opposite sex, things would be different. I wouldn't say doing that to a child is a good thing.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:47 AM
-1

Yes, each provides a different half in producing a child, but there's a logical leap in assuming you NEED both to raise one. I'm curious as to where these studies are from and what the circumstances were (when were they done, what questions were asked, etc.).
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:42 AM
-4

Not once did I say fathers were "irrelevant". I merely said they weren't an absolute necessity in raising a happy, healthy child. You've given statistics on children raised by single parents vs ones raised with two. I don't know enough about single parenthood to argue with you on that. But there haven't been sufficient studies that show any differences in children raised by hetero vs. homo parents, so you can't say definitively that one set of parents will raise children better than the other. I…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:38 AM
-2

Enlighten me, then, on the certain differences between ALL men and ALL women. I mean the qualities one has that the other cannot possibly have.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:17 AM
-2

I was merely stating that in terms of definitive differences between men and women, there's only anatomy. What each could potentially provide a child in terms of support, morality, and financial stability is the same.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:03 AM
-6

I really think mothers are just as capable of teaching their kids those qualities and I don't even know how you could do a qualitative study to find proof that that's not the case. Either way, you're delegating the experience of a child raised with a father as inherently better than experience of one raised without. Not only is that presumptuous but it still doesn't signify a NEED for a father.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:57 AM
-3

Well children certainly don't "need" friends or books to survive. That's a fact, my friend. And just because dad's "typically" offer "economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers" doesn't mean they all do. Sure, kids raised by single parents might suffer certain detriments. But if you're saying fathers offer so much that a mother can't, I guess kids raised by two dads have it pretty damn good.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:45 AM
3

On that note, I completely agree with you!
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:40 AM
0

On top of that, I can certainly pass on my genes by inseminating a woman and raising the child with my husband. I wouldn't call that a genetic dead-end. Whether or not I do, though, the world is overpopulated and there are a ton of kids in orphanages just waiting for a parent or two to raise them. My situation sounds exactly optimal for society, actually.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:39 AM
1

So having a mother and a father is definitively the optimal arrangement for raising a child? A person raised by a mother and father will end up an inherently better and more healthy person that one raised by two dads or two moms? That's a pretty bold statement to make without any proof.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:37 AM
1

You say there's a definite correlation to having the other gender in the household because you know of a MALE who was raised by 2 FEMALES and ended up into rape porn... so by that implication having been raised by only females taught him not to respect women? You have no proof that that's a definite correlation and you're making some pretty big generalizations in all directions here. You're right that we'll never know how those children would have turned out with a father figure. Maybe they woul…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:35 AM
2

Oh, I'm sure it would make things easier the same way having a heterosexual influence for a hetero child would make things easier for them. But if that's what we go by in terms of what is required to raise a child, then all children should be raised with close role models of all genders/sexualities to cover all bases. A child probably won't discover their sexuality until they're at least a pre-teen, so whether they'll need a hetero or homo role model would be tough to discern until then. Family …
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:29 AM
-2

We're not speaking of it from a biological standpoint though. The fact of the matter is that both male and female parents are required to produce a child. That doesn't mean that child can't be raised by 2 men or 2 women and something will be inherently wrong in how they're raised. I'm not sure where you're getting the statistic that >98% of people are straight, but last I checked the estimate was that 10-15% of people are homosexual which, given the cultural close-mindedness toward sexuality tha…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:22 AM
-1

Do women and men just naturally behave differently or is that behavior a direct result of how they're viewed culturally? You can't really know for sure so both statements are equally relevant. I'm not saying tv is a particularly good role model but it can tell you PLENTY about how gender roles work in society.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:15 AM
-7

Of course you wouldn't have. You would have turned out differently because you would have had different experiences growing up. That doesn't necessarily mean you would have turned out better or worse than you are now. I'm not denying the positive influence he must have had on you. Just saying if your older brother had instead been an older sister you wouldn't have been incapable of functioning in society or ceased to exist.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:12 AM
-1

Given that the population is constructed almost 50/50 in terms of gender, I don't think it's a stretch to assume children will come across older people of the same sex who they can infer the social intricacies of gender roles from. All I mean is that children don't NEED parents of both genders. The main thing I learned from my father is the importance of using ice in mixing a drink. Here I am, a fully functioning, healthy adult. And there is my straight male friend from 2 lesbian moms. Another f…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:28 AM
-5

So by that logic, you'd also say that children require homosexual role models, since heterosexual parents can't teach them how to properly interact with people of the same gender. As a gay kid, my hetero parents had no input on my relationships with other men and they certainly didn't teach buttsex in school so I was on my own to figure that out too. I certainly managed without any influence.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:21 AM
-2

Sure, but it would be a pretty big generalization to say that those role models are never enough so a male parent is a necessity. As someone who had a more-or-less non-existant relationship with his father, I'm curious as to what vital influences I missed out on that negatively impacted where I've ended up today.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:13 AM
-6

I see your point mainly in that society treats men and women differently, so we learn a lot about how we will fit into society by looking at older people of the same gender. That still doesn't mean a child requires a male and female parent. They can observe same-gendered teachers, parents of their friends, and even characters on tv, as biased as they're usually constructed.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:03 AM
-2

I was using "sexuality class" as a broad term for health class, sex. ed... whatever class teaches students about bodily functions including sex. And I just mean that in the sense that for a child specifically learning about their anatomy, the gender of their parents is unimportant since they can get that information in school (that is, any school that teaches this subject.)
/r/MensRights02/06/13 12:58 AM
-9

That really provides zero evidence to your point. People can learn from the mistakes of those around them regardless of gender. In fact, what he said worked specifically against your point since he reaffirmed that his growth was not particularly influenced by a male role model.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:34 PM
8

Being gay doesn't mean his child won't have 2 parents. There haven't been sufficient studies done on whether children raised by gay parents have significantly varying experiences from those raised by straight parents (for better or worse). All we can say on the matter now is speculative, so it pains me to see people in this thread speaking in such absolutes on the necessity of both genders being involved in order to raise a happy, healthy child.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:31 PM
-2

That's fair. Still, I don't think the issue of anatomy is enough reason to state that children absolutely require the influence of both male and female adults. Particularly in the information age, two lesbian parents are very capable of educating themselves on the male anatomy enough to help out their son (and vice-versa for gay parents with daughters). Where health issues are concerned ("mommy, my penis has a weird rash on it"), there are doctors.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:22 PM
-11

Why though? What does a male role model bring to the table that a female one couldn't possibly bring as well? The best I can think of is actual experience with the male anatomy, but sexuality classes in school can address that. I know I never needed guidance from my dad about anything my mom couldn't help me with herself, and I turned out just fine.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 10:34 PM
-1

I still wouldn't say "need", like a father's guidance is as necessary to a child's survival as food and water. But yeah, no child should be forcibly separated from their parents unless said parents have proven to be significantly detrimental to the child's well-being.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 10:12 PM
-2

I think this situation is more similar to the father-daughter dance incident than you're giving credit for. They even mention in the article that "the implications are that that child will feel incredibly left out if they are the only child without a dad who is going to a seminar like that." Different because they didn't outright ban the child, yes, but I would say on those grounds the mother would have a fair argument. The best solution would be the "parent-child" event they mentioned, since no…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:30 PM
2

I'll second your argument. I have a problem with the argument that a child NEEDS a father. I feel like it does more harm to the MR cause as it's akin to the fundamentalist argument against gay marriage that a child needs a mother and a father. What about lesbian parents? I feel like they would take quite a bit of issue with the statement that their children require male parental guidance specifically. I think this is an argument that needs to be either rephrased or stepped away from entirely.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:23 PM
0

...How can he miss the target when he's just asking you a simple question? Can you not just clarify what you meant?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:44 PM
5

Just because they get all up in arms over jokes about them doesn't mean we should. By taking the same course of action you're condoning their irrational behavior.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:20 AM
-6

I'd probably find it hilarious so long as it was in good taste. Then again, I'm nigh impossible to offend.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:20 AM
0

I never said it was a good joke, but some people probably do think it's wicked clever. That's what I mean when I say humor is relative.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:18 AM
-8

It's a pretty big generalization to say that there are no men who would find that funny. People can laugh at things that would be making fun of them. Ex. African comedians making jokes about black people. Also, as a gay man I still find most gay jokes to be hilarious.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:56 PM
-15

Well humor is relative. What you may find offensive many others may get a chuckle out of. It seems pretty clear that the piece in question was at least made with jovial intent, not the intent to make men feel useless.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:08 PM
58

I guess I'll just be the one person in the thread to suggest that this might not be something to get too upset about. Let's not forget one of the most predominant criticisms of feminists is that they have no sense of humor. Do we really want to take on the same mentality of "everything that's the slightest bit sexist even in jest is inappropriate and should be removed from existence"? I feel like this is the kind of thing most MRAs view as a fundamental flaw of today's feminism. I get that it's …
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:46 PM
3

The positive: Free counseling service for men. The negative: It's riddled with anti-male sentiment.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 01:33 AM
3

Clearly the root of the problem is having to deal with women in intimate relationships. Gays: 1, Heteros: Depression
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:59 PM
0

Well I guess that explains the origin of one meme.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:38 PM
2

Sorry, I do understand the point and I actually find that most of them are pretty spot on in representing the kind of male feminist who is associating himself with feminism for all the wrong reasons. Also, some are pretty hilarious. I mainly found that the one I mentioned in another comment which refers to an open relationship is a bit off and the one that says "You've come a long way, baby" is either a poorly made meme or assumes that only women are referred to as 'baby'.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 11:29 PM
1

The one that got me was "Marriage is an archaic institution. What we need, honey, is an open relationship." So he's going against the patriarchal notion of owning a partner that is marriage and suggesting that both him and his partner allow each other to hook up with other people, but somehow that's considered misogynistic? Sounds like an equivalent relationship that rebels against the patriarchy to me.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:38 PM
-4

The irony in your post is that if "no one" refers only to females it assumes females are "no one" aka not people. Not complainin'! Jussayin'. EDIT: To confirm, I agree that this is bs. If we're saying "no one deserves to be abused" and including a multi-racial ideal of who should not be abused but not including men at all, well... that speaks volumes.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:04 AM
3

Am I the only one who noticed they have a female only Aquafit class, but not a male-only one?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:26 AM
72

Admittedly I lolled. But sexist things can still be hilarious right?!
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:12 PM
1

Wow, I'm not sure why people downvoted you at all. It's a brick wall so this sounds like the most fun way to remove it without being too unsafe.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:50 AM
2

I would have loved to have gone, but sadly didn't see the poster until it was over. I agree though! There's no reason the two groups should be against each other. It's nonsense.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:48 AM
108

Well I think that the fact that they're saying we ignore all of these issues is pretty silly anyway. Not every activist group is made to address the issues of every single person. You could also say that PETA ignores women's rights, poverty, homophobia, etc.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 07:50 PM
28

This link showed up in my Facebook feed several times. Here's the argument I made against it: This article totally has a point in that it's absolutely not okay for gay men to touch women without their consent, but it's also not okay for women to touch me without my consent. The article perpetuates gay stereotypes and also ignores the opposite side of the argument where girls who would call themselves "faghags" physically force themselves on gay men and assume that every gay guy loves shopping an…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:20 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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