TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

KingOfSockPuppets Archive

View 0 posts and 52 comments by KingOfSockPuppets 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)
2

I'm not saying that they're the same, I'm saying if you deal well with one you'll probably deal well with the other I guess I just don't see the relevance of this, but I've heard enough from debaters to disagree. The kinds of stress one experiences as a minority are a lot more vicious and personal in both my experience, and the experiences I've heard of others. Being able to deal (emotionally and psychologically) with someone just being aggressive in argumentation is different than dealing with …
/r/MensRights03/09/13 09:41 PM
0

I'm aware of the general agressiveness of debate, I did my time. But the kinds of stresses that minority debaters face aren't just 'oh, well, policy debaters are really assertive!', it's stressors specific to where one falls on those various axises. I don't think anyone is waiting on a 'universal proliferation of feminism'. Hostility =/= as an environment hostile to some part of you. Fuck the morons, tell them why they're wrong. And I do, and people do, and some women choose to do so through fem…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 09:00 PM
-12

Better question: why are they HURT in debate by the 'widespread acceptance' of 'the feminist ideology'? You need an impact first.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 08:48 PM
3

I just don't think the personality types that are attracted to policy debate are going to be turned off because people run some MRA arguments. Then you should pay more attention to what women who are reading feminism and applying it to debate are saying. It's not about the argument in a vaccuum; that assumes debate doesn't have its own social dynamics which is most assuredly does. Those kinds of arguments and the way they're phrased contribute to making debate a hostile space. And if feminism ha…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 08:31 PM
1

It's not just about being in the majority; minorities can hold power as well, so privilege is about when those powerful groups are the ones who sort of shape things, so to speak. It's useful in understanding how things like whites' massive overrepresentation in the media occurs (as a quick and dirty example, take a look at this list of the top 100 highest grossing movies of 2011 ). It's also a theory that describes systems rather than a totality of individual experiences; so while individual exp…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 06:15 PM
1

Well, I personally don't find it reasonable myself :P But, y'know, to each their own and what not. It's just, as a trans woman who's (shockingly) done a lot of reading on trans issues and been hanging out in trans spaces, that original comment to me feels to have left the curvature of reality in what it argues.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 04:09 AM
1

Even so, the point is simply that it's a position completely unsubstantiated by any evidence or argumentation (so far; they haven't replied). Are there even 10 studies indicate that trans women transition because they think it's 'easier' to be a woman, especially in light of the things I've already mentioned? So far, there isn't even a reason given why this should be taken to be true; and like I said, I find it a preposterous assumption. And yes, it's dangerous for both sexes, I'm aware (althoug…
/r/MensRights12/05/12 03:19 AM
1

I don't think he claimed it was the sole reason either, but it's clearly a very important one (according to them). Verbatim MtFs seem drawn in by gender privilege implies that most trans women are doing it because they want a piece of that sweet, sweet female privilege. They also, presumably, want all those negatives I listed above. Oh, and as a trans woman myself, I have A) yet to encounter a gay man who transitioned 'because it's easier to be trans' or B) ANY trans woman who did that. I'm aski…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:38 PM
1

And it's not even seizing power so much as enjoying privileges. Can you find me a study that found 100 trans women who transitioned because they wanted privilege? 50? 10? I rather doubt it. And even if that's true, then why is the suicide attempt rate at around 40%? You mention that the difference in suicide rates is indiciative that 'men have problems too'. Well, looks like trans women do too. I could type a lot more, but explain this: on what do you base your thoroughly unsupported (in evidenc…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:21 AM
2

More studies in transgendered issues. MtFs are much, much more common than FtMs. This article (and the earlier comment here about pretending to be a woman online) seems to be a strong clue why. MtFs seem drawn in by gender privilege while FtMs seem pushed away by losing it. Gay guys gain power by becoming MtFs, gay women have it easier by being butch instead of becoming FtMs. So, uh, your thesis is that by transitioning to female, gay men get power? That by joining one of the poorest, most viole…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 02:19 AM
3

The numbers between trans women and trans men are actually pretty even. I think the whole "way more trans women" myth is from back in the days of gatekeeping where they only really cared about trans women to an obsessive degree. And it's not transphobic, just absolutely preposterous in a country that treats trans women the way it does.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 01:57 AM
3

I saw an analysis through that lens, and it was actually very concerning when viewed that way. E.g., the Beast keeps her there against her will, throws her dad out into the freezing woods with no supplies, protection, or directions, threatens her, locks her up and all sorts of other nasty stuff.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 04:22 AM
1

I'm sure I'll regret this, but trans women are pretty massively marginalized. I'm not sure how you can say that there are 'no rights that women lack' when at least one group of women actually is lacking rights (employment protections, basic respect, housing, money, safety...)
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:17 AM
3

1)WTF did "transWoman" have to do with it, fuckers? The DailyMail sort of has a thing about targeting trans people with the most unflattering/aggressive reports they can possibly write. They've got an extremely transphobic history. Whether they actually hate trans people or just do it for the sensationalistic aspect, I can't say (I think it's a bit of the former mixed with a lot of the latter, personally).
/r/MensRights15/04/12 07:48 PM
1

Moving to a blind society would be nice, but unless we reach some transhumanist utopia where such questions literally become meaningless, I doubt we'll reach it. Celebrating difference seems to me to be a much more useful and productive route, personally.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 10:06 PM
1

You're welcome! I'm a trans woman and like cruising around reddit dealing facts and justice out :P Which really just means at least correcting misconceptions and whatnotery I encounter. The law and how it treats/approaches trans people tends to be pretty shitty unfortunately which is why that birth certificate thing is still around and causing mass confusion.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:32 AM
4

You'll see it more online in my experience (just the nature of the medium) but a number of LGBT allied people recently have begun discussing the problems faced by trans* people. The comic's author seems to associate it with postmodern and feminist thought as well (despite mangling the definition of cis, or perhaps that's the joke) which, at least for the latter, it is. He's also probably laughing at the ideas of privilege along every axis that some feminists discuss, and cis privilege is a relat…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:00 AM
5

a FtM is treated the same way by the law as any other man, Just a very minor caveat, the way the law treats trans people varies (in the U.S., at least) from state to state. For example, if they haven't had their birth certificate changed a trans man will likely be treated as a woman under the law in at least a few states. Ditto for trans women.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 01:44 AM
2

but that it negates ANY AND ALL born male advantages What born male advantages? Most sexual differentials appear after puberty. A trans woman who went on puberty delayers and subesequent HRT would have had a sex-typical puberty. What are the absolute intrinsic advantages men have over women at the moment of birth? As for being scientific, HRT decreases muscle mass (Futterweit, 98, Endocrine Therapy of ranssexualism and potential long term complication, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 2) If ther…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 09:29 PM
2

Regarding Miss Universe, read the other thread in the comments to my original comment. Can you point it out? I see a lot of defense of biological sex as a reason to exclude because we need some sort of a line, but no arguments as to why hormones will uniquely make a trans woman prettier than a cis woman. How can you be sure HRT negates any strength advantage of being born male? Well, because that's one of the biological effects it has. It also makes skin smoother, changes scent, makes breasts gr…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:40 PM
2

Like what? It seems being biologically male, in a Miss Universe competition specifically, would be a big disadvantage, and in general sports HRT negates any strength advantage that's present. So what advantages are there that a trans woman would have that would significantly skew competition?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:18 PM
3

So what's the 'enhanced performance' one gains with estrogen? It can't be strength because you lose muscle mass when taking estrogen.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:09 PM
2

Well remember, there's trans men too. So, in that context does that mean following this So long as we have events that are divided into 'male' and 'female' categories (sports, competitions, records) then it's perfectly reasonable to bar a transgendered person from participating in the other category. means that it's A-OK for Buck Angel to compete in women's sports? After all, he was born a woman which means it's ok to ban him from Men's sports. For fairness.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 07:56 PM
5

If a transsexual woman got FFS, she'd probably be disqualified like any other woman who has had facial surgery. But since not every (or possibly most) trans women get FFS, it'd be pretty easy to write rules to let those who haven't had FFS in. It's a catch 22 for trans women currently: either A) they still have a penis, and thus aren't 'woman enough' or B) have had SRS which counts as 'major reconstructive surgery'. Last time I checked though, no beauty pagent has a genital inspection segment. A…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 04:42 PM
4

Yea, I didn't read it all the way through, just skimmed when the news piece on it had a thread the other day. In my opinion, it's just another example of how often 'science journalism' is often deeply flawed since conclusions are often misrepresented ("Your brain on testosterone means that you don't listen to anyone!") or the paper makes up its own implications for the study to further sensationalize the headline.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:20 PM
4

Here's the study the original article was reporting on. tl;dr: study concludes that (elevated?) testosterone tends to make one value one's own opinion more than others
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:11 PM
1

Why? Well, for one there's the question of inevitablity. Even so, I don't see any inherent problems with ideas of femininity or masculinity. The ideas in and of themselves don't (to me, anyways) seem to be loaded with problematic baggage beyond perhaps re-creating the binary, I think policing of the borders matters more. Of course it happens. But is it justified? Certain behaviors occur in many cultures -- murder, to take an extreme example -- but that certainly doesn't make them right. Well I s…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 04:22 AM
1

I wasn't really disagreeing with you. The article was definitely ridiculous, but that's a pretty common problem in scientific journalism as I understand it (results/conclusions not represented correctly)
/r/MensRights19/03/12 03:51 AM
2

Is it o.k to define masculinity or femininity? To some degree, yes. Even if we didn't do it explicitly, virtually every society that I'm aware of associates certain things with the feminine and certain ones with the masculine. The problem though seems to arise not from this categorization, but how we police the borders. Who is allowed to express what, in what space, and how. So problematic definitions (if we assume that the definitions presented are largely agreeable) are mostly so when they are…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 01:51 AM
2

Hormones aren't super well understood, I don't think. They do play the role as a catalyst, for example (e.g., prompting changes in muscle, breast growth, beard growth, scent, skin, etc), but they are involved in ongoing processes. The study here from what little I've skimmed over is, predictably, significantly less sensational than the news piece on it. For one, the abstract discusses how oxycotcin increases cooperative behavior, but it is unknown if there is an opposing agent (and the study's o…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 11:25 PM
3

I have never understood this, but I don't feel free to ask in feminist spaces. How is the idea that gender is a social construction reconciled with the acceptance that transexuals feel they are "born" men or women with bodies that don't match? It's reconcilable to some degree once you've drawn the appropriate distinctions. In this case, the key ones to keep in mind are gender identity and gender expression. No one wins when one says 'gender is all biological!' (dresses are tied to biology?) or '…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 02:41 AM
2

Haha, that would explain it then. I was like "Showing the split between the economic subject and capitalism doesn't really seem like Foucault's style..."
/r/MensRights13/03/12 07:58 AM
1

I'm not sure how influential Foucault's art was (I wasn't aware he was involved in art) but mostly his theory; especially Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality. Not all post modernists are artists (although a lot of them do like the movies it seems).
/r/MensRights13/03/12 07:46 AM
1

It'd be better if they didn't completely mangle cisprivilege by using it absolutely wrong. For those who aren't aware 'cis' is the opposite of 'trans' so cisprivilege is having various privileges by being cis. The joke doesn't even make sense in context (unless the subtler argument is that feminists aren't even supposed to be aware of what they're saying).
/r/MensRights12/03/12 10:05 PM
1

Foucault, at the very least, has been extremely influential in informing a lot of sociology and related disciplines. Post modernism gets a bad rap, but I doubt most who criticize it have even tried to read an author like Foucault who, while part of the post modern tradition, isn't one to dish out 'complete gobbledegook'.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 10:03 PM
1

I haven't read the book so I can't offer any opinion on it, but the pedant in me points out that the statement "Although a government study found that men’s health was much worse than women’s health or the health of any minority group, headlines around the country read: ‘Minorities Face Large Health Care Gap.’ They did not say: ‘Men Face Large Health Care Gap." is somewhat poorly constructed since 'minority group' would, I presume, include people of color and as one can be both a man and a racia…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 06:46 AM
3

Human slavery, whether for sex or labor, is one of the most appalling crimes there is. There's so much wrong with this I just don't even know where to start.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 05:15 AM
1

I think portions of the original list are pretty problematic (especially number three which sounds like domestic violence, and fuck everything about that. It's not okay for a girl to routinely punch a man, or really ever), and portions of it aren't. Some parts of the response though aren't stellar either ("Realize hollywood isn't real" is extremely condescending). Neither list is very good, they're highly combative.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 05:01 AM
1

Rather than getting into a definitional debate here, unless that's what you want, what I'll say is this: one can reject that women are more oppressed than men (or even hold the inverse) while still agreeing that they face particular forms of oppression and working against those forms of oppression. In which case, feminsim, as a vastly diverse field of thought, is almost certainly still valuable. This applies in the other direction as well (and probably helps explain some of the shift towards thi…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 08:51 PM
1

Because it's an 'anti-feminist' statement to say that women are not more oppressed then men? Well yea, but making an anti-feminist statement, or holding a particular opinion that one considers 'anti-feminist' is, I think, different than being anti-feminist , which implies that one is opposed to feminism as a movement/theoretical school which is how I was interpreting your original comment.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:14 AM
1

Believing that women are more harmed then men? I don't know, you tell me how prevalent it is in feminism. I haven't really seen a feminist yet (who wasn't excommunicated) who didn't believe it. I can understand that, but then why does it follow that one should be anti-feminist? Saying that the idea of creating a hierarchy of harms with women on top(most harmed) and men on the bottom(least harmed) has nothing to do with saying anything about 'where women's voices end up.' It's more of a commentar…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 03:53 AM
1

Feminism creates a hierarchy of harm with women on the top(most harmed) and men on the bottom(least harmed.) Why is this true of all Feminism? Is it equally prevalent in second wave and third wave authors? If you have an interest in the harms men face, dealing with an ideology that does this is one of those harms. Presuming you aren't of the opinion that women are now the dominant force in society/totally equal, where do voices for women's equality end up, especially in a way that is distinct fr…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 03:33 AM
1

I'm quite surprised you've found this. I'd wager that much of it comes from when r/mr seems less like its namesake, and appears closer to r/anti-feminism (usually most obvious in the comments). That at least is when I get the impression (as a largely infrequent r/mr browser). Like simischel, I largely identify as feminist but I tend towards third wave gender explanations of gendered oppression rather than more second wave sexual essentialism. The blatant misrepresentation thing I think is pretty…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 02:57 AM
1

Well, I can certainly agree with that sentiment. Calling it 'tranny privilege' though, is a pretty poor choice of words ;) Because, well, trans people don't really get tons of privilege, but also (I'm not sure if you're aware), tranny is usually considered by many trans people (especially trans women) the worst slur you can use against them.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 06:10 AM
1

If you can't see anything to our contentions Don't think I said that anything remotely resembling that, but whatever. It's your steamroller, I can't stop you.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:38 PM
1

I'm....not excusing them. Their ideas are reprehensible, that's why I took the time to mention that I in no way supported them to try and avoid that impression. I was mostly curious about the statement that those women and those ideas they espouse are the ones driving the feminist movement/the ones who are 'really in charge', something I'd hope I can question without being accused of 'excusing hate mongers'.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:10 PM
1

Its disgusting stuff, and it does everything the OP asks us not to do towards women, but directed at men. First off, I absolutely agree with you that it's disgusting stuff. I absolutely don't condone what these particular posts advocate. Can you explain how radfems at this particular site are the ones with all the real power in a highly diverse and fractured movement? I'm not sure I follow on that point.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 10:15 AM
2

And then understand that these radicals that you claim to not support are the real feminists, the ones in power, the ones making policy. Just out of curiosity, can I ask which feminists those are (by name)? I've read some feminism, but I'm not really aware who the major players are at the moment other than Judith Butler.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:46 AM
6

What feminists mean by 'patriarchy' will largely vary. A point often glossed over (and most certainly in the video posted) is that feminism is not some sort of monolithic movement. It is highly fractured and full of various singularities (take four waves, and break them up into countless smaller theoretical camps (e.g. radical feminists, cyborg feminists, eco feminists, and so on) and that's what happens). How vague of a term it is depends on how precise the author or camp you're referring to is…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:42 AM
2

What in the flying fuck is 'trannie privilege'?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 12:47 AM
1

If I'm reading you right, I don't think sociologists would disagree that they're linked; just different. Red and blue are linked through purple, but that doesn't mean there's no red or blue. Keep in mind, 'gender' (perhaps more accurately in many cases I think called gender expression, as talked about somewhat by girlwriteswhat) as 100% social is not a view I think many sociologists have on the topic. Some of the more radical third-wavers certainly. I personally believe that biology plays an imp…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 05:01 AM
1

Alright, a few notes: -Please cite your evidence if you're going to be making rock-hard Truth claims. Transsexuality is not so well studied that it can be claimed with any degree of 'truth' that in utero hormonal development is the be-all end-all cause (particularly once the problem of epigenetics is introduced. Yes, this is not posed as a genetic question but 'second stage' trans people, who develop their tran feelings around puberty seem to be somewhat inconsistent with the 'in utero hormones …
/r/MensRights25/12/11 07:36 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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