TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LePetitChou Archive

View 1 post and 148 comments by LePetitChou 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)
18

LePetitChou/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:17 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Listen to all of you stupid dumbasses. ...Why did you come here? I'm curious.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:10 PM
1

Ok, but you should know, that feminists had to do very little actual fighting to accomplish anything. That's easy to say when you're not the one doing the fighting. And by he way, it's the same dismissive attitude "feminazis" hold towards MRAs, as in "They have nothing to fight for. Men have everything already." Don't be that person. That person sucks. Typically, as soon as women collectively agreed they wanted something, it would be given to them. That's patently absurd. Women started campaigni…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:15 PM
1

Right, was the "bitch" part ironic too? Dude, you suck at sarcasm.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:55 PM
1

Someone has his panties alllllll in a bunch. Stop throwing tantrums. The only one who hasn't presented ANY knowledge of a SINGLE feminist is you. I've asked to to educate me; you can't. Toddle off then.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:38 AM
-1

Why do you insist like arguing in an idiotic, inflammatory way? Anyone who drops the "check your privilege" line is a tool.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:36 AM
1

Feminism only even started and became so powerful because of the single biggest inequality from which all others follow: male disposability. That's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure what you mean by male disposability. Do you mean that because men worked more dangerous occupations, feminism arose? Honest question.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:33 AM
-2

Do you actually not know about selective service? How can you continue to be so ignorant in this discussion? You've had several opportunities to educate yourself, but comment after comment reveals that you are still ignorant of the fundamental fact around which the discussion revolves. How can this be? It makes no sense. The machine you're using to type has the power to reveal the missing information to you. Why do you not use it? Was there a point in there? The selective service means nothing w…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:28 AM
0

Ah, the right to serve. Not the same as the obligation to serve. Funny you can't even tell the difference. I never said that I agreed with the fact that women had less on an obligation to serve in the military, historically. I don't. If a country sends it's men to die, it should send its women with the same impunity. Plus, feminists FOUGHT for that RIGHT to serve.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:25 AM
0

Registering to the "selective service" when the DRAFT IS NO LONGER IN PLAY is not, in any way, the same thing as what men were forced to do in the 70's, or flee the country. To state otherwise is an insult to their memory. Come on, you can do the math Check your privilege, bitch. Did you just ask me to check my privilege? When did MRA become SRS? You really are a delight.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:59 AM
1

You still haven't educated me about feminism. You've just wasted time, flapping your gums Put up or shut up. ;)
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:55 AM
-2

no, you stated that the person you were replying to was wrong with no evidence. i invited you to learn about feminist history. can you see the difference here? Haha, no. No, I really don't, sugar tits. So educate me. What am I missing? How about you name your least favorite feminist and tell me about a book she's written. I'll wait right here.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:43 AM
-4

Wait, is that how we give people the right to vote? Yes, men in the US have to sign the draft to agree to be conscripted in order to vote, We don't draft soldiers in the US anymore. We haven't drafted since Vietnam. May I ask how old you are? Women do not. It's an aspect of your female privilege that you don't even know that. Please, ShitLordXurious, present me with evidence that men are currently being drafted.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:36 AM
-2

First wave feminists wanted the vote, but didn't want to have to "pay" for it by being on the draft, as men did. Wait, is that how we give people the right to vote? I suppose we better be telling the paraplegics, senior citizens and color-blind men that they can't vote since they can't serve. Are you daft? AND feminists HAVE fought for the right to serve on the front lines. Do you think we were just allowed into the army and navy and air force on a whim? It's the same today. You're embarrassing …
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:29 AM
1

prove the person you are replying to is wrong, don't just say they are wrong. read up on feminist history. it is not what you think it is. Wait, did you just call me out for not providing proof for my statements, and then do the exact same thing? Regardless, have you read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidan? It was written in the 60's, and the subject was how housewives were empty due to the lack of meaning in the narrow lives forced upon them. It was a book that cried out for women to get RE…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:22 AM
8

Those were never feminism's goals though. Feminists never wanted women to share the same responsibilities and obligations that men faced. You're quite wrong. That was how it started. They wanted to keep their female privilege, but still have all the rights that men have, without the same obligations. Nope. That may be the way it is now, but that does not reflect its origins. It was fundamentally selfish from the very start. Sociopathic, in fact. Listen. Don't you hate it when women paint MRAs wi…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 01:55 AM
-1

Perhaps that's a sign that feminism has lost sight if its original goals, which was gender equality?
/r/MensRights04/10/14 01:49 AM
4

Not only is this inherently sexist, but it's oddly heteronormative. That's a big no-no on the left. I guess we women can't be expected to stop anything...
/r/MensRights04/10/14 01:21 AM
9

Eh, they could still say she was too intoxicated to know what was going to happen. What you'd need is a series of pictures of you inside her while she's giving a thumbs up to the camera and holding a copy of that day's newspaper.
/r/TheRedPill18/09/14 03:27 PM
6

My mom knew I was going to be a defect before I was born but she continued to suck down a cigarette every fifteen minutes and wanted to add to her already growing brood from her previous marriage. I think this was the problem much more so than your mother's age at the time of pregnancy. People seem to forget that many congenital disorders directly correlated with advanced maternal age can be detected via ultrasound and/or amniocentesis. In other words: few pro-choice people are doomed to have a …
/r/TheRedPill12/09/14 06:01 PM
17

You're the hero we need, but don't deserve. Thank you.
/r/TheRedPill28/08/14 02:10 PM
1

Best way is to upload it to Imgur, then link it. Kind of a hassle.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 11:26 PM
1

...Is that a question? Heh.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 07:47 PM
1

That's OK. I'm sorry you got down voted into oblivion before you got a chance to correct it.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 05:07 PM
1

Well if one person is being a dick to one other person then that is not a civil rights issue? Two points: You are woefully naive if you think harassment can't qualify as a hate crime This girl wasn't simply "being a dick." I'm not sure what abuse you've been through, but if that woman's response registers as within the realm of normal behavior to you, then you need to seek treatment. I mean it.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 08:00 PM
1

Yeah, because that's why the American prison system is filled with Christians. This girl needs lithium and a team of psychologists.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 06:42 PM
3

How is this not a men's rights issue? I'm baffled by your response. When one individual is killed in a hate crime, is that not a civil rights issue?
/r/MensRights16/08/14 06:41 PM
1

a real man should put a stop to this kind of abuse long before he has to film it (Emphasis mine, obviously.). This kind of thinking is part of the problem. Who are you or I to say what constitutes "real" manhood? That's some 1950's BS. Don't tell me you wouldn't get pissed if you overheard someone saying "a real woman always [inset something you don't do]."
/r/MensRights16/08/14 06:34 PM
1

Yeah. There be dragons.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 02:44 PM
12

The short dialogue suggested that the guy may come from a dysfunctional home. I'm guessing his definition of "love" is pathological. Not that that excuses anything. She should rot in prison. (Not that she will.)
/r/MensRights16/08/14 05:00 AM
6

Holy shit, that guy's in danger. This needs to be sent to the cops. By the way, can someone just...you know...maybe tie that chick to the back of a truck and drag her to a psych ward? Right after she spend 20 years in jail? Talk about fucking issues.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 04:58 AM
-5

You, the one denying reality in order to preserve your belief in absolute equality I said nothing about my beliefs. Keep on ramblin', ramblin man.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:07 AM
-1

SO CLEVER! Who's so clever? Is it ugdr6424? I THINK SO! Such a good boy. Now, it's time for you to get off the internet.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 10:21 PM
1

Now make a list of all the women who were serial killers/rapists: (When you're done, stop making shitty lists. They prove nothing.)
/r/MensRights03/11/13 10:02 PM
7

I'm not going to say that women don't serve society.... they do, but in a female way (choosing, raising, and motivating men) Christ almighty. You're like a white supremacist at a Republican convention. Listen, you're acting like an imbecile. You're an embarrassment. Go home.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:59 PM
0

Sure, right after we make a list of all world leaders and scientific geniuses men have given birth to. Or, we can stop asking useless questions. Stop being a part of the problem.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:54 PM
1

Haha, OK cowboy.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:43 PM
1

OK, well, have fun policing the internet, Grandma.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:38 PM
1

I wouldn't have said anything if you two weren't being douches to each other. Fantastic, so you decided to join the club? By the way, we weren't being "douches to each other." This is the sarcastic back-and-forth one gets on an internet forum. This is not the support group you're looking for.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:19 PM
1

No, Valley Girl refers to both the cadence and vowel pronunciation that was typical of teens in the Valley, i.e. San Fernando Valley. No point in splitting hairs here. Dialect patterns are an integral part of what makes a regional accent a regional accent.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:15 PM
2

No, no, you don't understand. He banged one American for, like, a few months. He knows all of our accents now. He's Canada's go-to man for American Linguistics.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:05 PM
-1

Dear Canada, I'm super glad you've met one southern American who relocated to Vancouver. Sincerely, American P.S. That girl was from West Virginia, not Georgia. P.P.S. There is more than one flavor of Southern accent.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:18 PM
1

"So, Patrick Bateman, what would you like for Christmas?"
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:09 PM
1

On one hand, I love her perspective. I love that she prides herself on being active, and praises self-reliance. On the other hand, there's something about the way she gossips that really grosses me out. I'm not a wife or a mom, btw. I have no horse in this race.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:59 PM
2

No, she has a southern American accent.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:55 PM
6

It's not Californian Valley Girl. It's Southeastern, i.e. the Carolinas, Georgia, Virginia, etc,
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:53 PM
0

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples: “You can’t get laid!” No. Again, that's not what I said. It could be his preference to not sleep with actual women. He could be a RealDoll enthusiast.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 07:33 PM
-1

Aww, poor babies. Women are like terrorist attacks, aren't they. And, by the way, I call bullshit on code tan. I never said he was physically unattractive. I said he needs to start fucking actual women, at least before engaging in this type of sexual psychoanalysis. Hell, maybe he prefers fucking other people/things. I have no problem with that.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 07:22 PM
1

My response would be to ask if the man was the one who proposed that the relationship be casual. I was that woman. The answer is no.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 05:31 PM
2

A girl is about 7% more likely to cheat on you for each partner she has. So let's say x = 8. "Today, in our Numbers Pulled Out Of Thin Air segment, we'll discuss disloyal harlots. How many licks does it take to get to the core of a slut? About 4,650 or about 7% with each lick."
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 05:28 PM
0

High quality women are able to get commitment. Men lock them down by marrying them and/or committing to them because they value what she brings to their life. These women have a very low turnover rate because men keep them in LTR’s. You're fallaciously assuming all women, at all points in their sexually-active lives, want to be in committed relationships. Men make this same subjective judgment based on a woman’s sexual past. Everytime she slept with a man who didn’t end up committing, that was a…
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 05:16 PM
-2

Sure, perhaps he shouldn't have to pay a penny, but "decides to have a child, there's not a goddamn thing he can do." sounds like advocating forced abortions. Wow, that's not even close to what I was implying. I don't even know what to say.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 06:27 PM
1

Damn, Sam. I'm sorry that you've suffered so much. You have a remarkably strong understanding of your hurdles, though, and that alone will help you move past the assault(s). Plasticity is present even in the limbic system! New associations can be made. You can do it. Best of luck.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 06:54 AM
-4

Yes! I hate the fact that a literal sperm donor, someone who signed a contract regulating the exchange of their diploid goodies, may be held accountable for financially supporting the child for the next 18 years if the mother changes her mind. The courts will consider it the offspring's right, regardless of the original agreement. So much for doing a friend a favor, eh? Perhaps sperm should cost tens of thousands of dollars per spoonful, given current family law practices in the US.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 02:10 AM
-2

We aren't discussing cases when someone accidentally gets pregnant. That's why adoption and abortion are so popular. (I joke, I joke.) But seriously, if I got pregnant, I'd be a bitch to unilaterally decide the sperm donor's going to be a daddy and an atm with or without his consent, IMO. And, rare as it is, some pregnancies are the result of deception. Not many, but one is too many. That's one man's life totally altered, possibly destroyed.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:57 AM
-6

If you leave your SSI card on the bus, and I take it and open a credit account in your name, that's identity theft. If you drop your wallet, and I take it and spend your money, that's theft. If you throw your bank statements in the trash, and I paw through them and bankrupt you, that's theft. So yes, taking sperm and using it to make a child against the person's wishes is theft. EDIT: If you're going to go through my comment history and downvote me, at least remember which comment you're replyin…
/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:39 AM
-12

It's theft and extortion, then. I think extortion is a felony, yes?
/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:09 AM
-10

I think the point is that many men had no intention of being fathers, and took great pains to avoid being parents. If someone ( girlfriend, hook-up OR wife) violates that trust or disregards the man's ambivalence and decides to have a child, there's not a goddamn thing he can do. Sounds pretty rape-y to me, actually.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:07 AM
1

It is not battery because he consented to the contact that brought about the harm (sex). I didn't say battery, I said assault. Those are two different terms. Assault is not the realization of physical harm, it's the threat of harm. I am not saying this isn't wrong but you live in a country of laws and you have to live accordingly. Yeah, ok. What is the point of this statement? It's too general to be of any use. We live in a society of laws, so... what? Are you referring to specific laws justifyi…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 08:53 PM
1

It's true that the situation is complicated emotionally by the fact that he's been raising the children. Legally, as well, and that' s hopefully going to change. But to everyone saying this guy has a moral obligation to pay child support because it's his sperm (that was used without his consent, after he clearly took measures to avoid impregnating this woman), I think that's ludicrous. These are often the same sort of people who would might volunteer with me at Planned Parenthood, who would risk…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:57 PM
1

Consent to what? Be specific. This guy used a condom for a reason, and she knew it. If he would have consented to having a child with her, she would never have had to get IVF with stolen sperm. You are coming to a conclusion that is comfortable for you, not the conclusion based on facts. This guy was assaulted. This guy was violated, sexually and financially. He was abused. That happens to men, too.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:08 PM
2

I think you're tired. Try sleeping on it. Maybe get a tutor? Rape has everything to do with it. Consent was not given.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:43 AM
3

I am just going to assume you have never actually been to any of those places. You assumed wrong. Also, for those who lack the passport, it's called an education. Get one.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:28 AM
3

I take that as an affirmation of pure ignorance. Might want to work on that.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:00 AM
5

Having a child is not a foreseeable type of harm from walking down the street Like hell it isn't. Talk to someone in Uganda, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia. Fuck, talk to someone from Detroit. I hope you're young. I hope this isn't pure ignorance I'm reading from an adult.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:32 AM
6

I (hypothetically) took the risk by walking down a street at night. He took the risk by... what? Not incinerating the condoms? Having humans relations in an age where sex DOES NOT conflate to a willingness to reproduce? My argument isn't specious. Its an illustration of how this man was victimized, and how uncomfortable we are with giving real reproductive responsibility to women. I'm as pro choice as it gets... for both genders. Maybe she should have thought about how she couldn't afford twins …
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:12 AM
10

Now just because the odds came up against him (on account of a crazy woman) doesn't mean he gets to walk away. Having a child is a foreseeable risk of his actions So if I walk down a street at night, and I get raped, does that mean I'm a mommy? I mean, why should the children suffer? And people get raped all the time. I took the risk, even if I thought it was a small one.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:26 AM
8

I don't want to punish the children, but this guy owes them nothing. Not one cent. The mother, on the other hand? She should have to work the rest of her life to pay for them, and not get the privilege of raising them.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:06 AM
16

Bullshit. I'm not obligated to raise a child, or even carry a fetus to term, if I decide the circumstances aren't right for me. But some insane bitch steals his sperm, and it's "tough luck" for him? No. Take every cent the mother owns, put her in jail, and give the children and the money to a willing family member to raise.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:54 AM
1

Nice! Hoisted with my own petard. Wait... No, I used the correct spelling for both "your/re"s. I'm lost.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 01:18 AM
0

The AROGANCE of that. If you're going to capitalize an entire word for emphasis, you might want to check your spelling.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:21 PM
1

If you start caring about your grades senior year, then your grades won't matter at all, ironically enough. Because the chances you'll have of getting into a decent accredited college will be minimal. Let's face facts. Your grades start mattering in late elementary school, if they can get you into a gifted program or a prestigious Middle school. The middle school grades count because they will be the foundation for your freshman year courses. And every grade in high school counts.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:17 PM
1

Nope. Where did you get this idea?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:39 PM
2

you talk as if getting an abortion or putting a child up for adoption isn't a big deal to people. No, the point is that two wrongs don't make a right. If someone stole your wallet, and you knew who it was and tried to prosecute him/her, and he/she said, "I need it to feed my children! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?", you would be outraged. And it wouldn't hold up in court. If a woman conceives and does not A) abort 2) adopt out 3) sign some sort of law-bending document freeing the man from responsibil…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:36 PM
3

The best defense is a good offense. Nothing distracts people from your neglectful parenting like a pedophile (i.e. dude) "stealing" your kid.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 05:14 AM
3

Oh, I'm sure that's why that happened...
/r/MensRights21/07/12 05:10 AM
5

Careful with this argument. Comparing the plight of people today with those of a century ago, or the plight of people in a 1st world country compared to an oppressed religious nation has no bearing whatsoever on gender neutral rights. Thank you for making this point. It's akin to saying India has the best standard of living, because look at how much worse it used to be.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:25 PM
2

The only real problem I have is that men are far less likely to be stigmatized for being fat. ... really? Doesn't that seem a tad superficial? Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you're cool with dudes, and open-minded about the challenges men face. But there are deeper problems than fat-stigma at work here. Maybe it's the fact that SOME idiots (male and female) view women as sexual objects, which makes female bodies open to more criticism?
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:21 PM
3

I get that. I hate that they'd be held liable for a decision I freely made. It implies that women can't be held responsible for their actions, or can't be expected to make life changing decisions properly. Bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:59 PM
3

Yeah, and it totally sucks. Coming from a woman who, at 27, is patted on the cheek and told that she'll "change her mind."
/r/MensRights31/05/12 01:15 PM
2

I am also curious to see what kind of "disability" she has, since it is not mentioned and she was clearly left to be a single parent; it is probably safe to assume the disability is not all that severe. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, if the woman wasn't totally incapable of managing her own affairs (a.k.a being able to feed herself, even if she doesn't properly bathe or pay her bills), her child wouldn't automatically be taken by the state. They have to wait until there is evidence of…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:25 PM
3

Yes, all babies are miracles, isn't God amazing, life is precious, etc. I hate when pro-lifers get on their high-horse about abortion when we literally have kids starving in the streets. Or, in this case, rolling into buckets of hot water. Life is tough. Let's get over it and address real problems with practical solutions.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:18 PM
1

In theory, yes. But let's break down your suggested alternatives in light of this specific case: 1) Adoption: This would require the woman to carry the child to term. Is she mentally capable of making doctor's appointments, avoiding drugs and alcohol? I mean, forget about taking pre-natal vitamins, drinking decaf coffee, forgoing honey, etc. A woman this disabled, with very little family support, may be incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term in a responsible way. If you can't do it right, don…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:10 PM
15

The societal problem was allowing a "special-needs" woman to raise a child at all. The best way her family could have helped out would have been to get that pregnancy aborted.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 11:35 PM
1

Ooops! Sorry. I'll shut this down, move it somewhere. Just a little ranting.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 10:45 AM
0

Oh, yes indeed. All because I used the words "lame" and "emasculated." I was being an "ableist" and subjugating women. What a shit show. You know the world's going to hell when a feminist gets banned from SRSDiscussion for saying "emasculated."
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:18 AM
2

Just so you know... I'm a woman. And a feminist. AND a Men's Right's supporter. And I think both of the women described in the column are full of shit.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:13 PM
2

Then why are you bothering to keep it exactly the way it is? Maybe a different group of assholes could manage things a little more efficiently? EDIT: European-style democracies are the only places where feminism and social egalitarianism are making serious headway, as you've implied. So maybe that makes white men inferior? Maybe they should be taking a cue from their Middle Eastern, Central African and South Asian brethren?
/r/MensRights10/03/12 01:18 PM
6

European males built civilization into what it is... By your definition, they built a society that would eventually turn on them and throw them under the bus. Sounds like they did a pretty shitty job.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:31 AM
13

Hey, don't let that stop you. Everything that's worth saying has already been said a million times over. But if you can phrase it in just the right way, you can change the world. Or, at least, someone's mind.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:50 PM
18

Only a white liberal would want to destroy themselves with social egalitarianism. Say what? What does that even mean?
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:43 PM
18

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this sub. Just thought you should know... feel free to jump in the pool more often.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:39 PM
63

To a few of you, it ain't fucking 1800, take your horse and buggy politics back to where it belongs, at a Klan rally or in a museum Amen to that.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:36 PM
1

For an example, please see the following: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qh8x8/this_subreddit_needs_to_shake_off_its_antiwomen/c3yaxmm?context=3
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:49 PM
1

I need to make a comment. People need to stop editing posts without labeling them as edits. This is extremely dishonest, and ruins any chance of a proper discussion.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:48 PM
1

We're done. Seriously. You cannot debate honestly.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:43 PM
1

Sigi 1. Listen. We. Are. Not. Arguing. That. Point. I never said that "cultures never destroy women's bodies," although clearly that's wrong. Foot binding? Female infanticide? Are you kidding me? EDIT: AGAIN, for the love of Christ, STOP EDITING YOUR POSTS.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:40 PM
1

That was not the point we are discussing, Sigi 1. I never argued that men took on the most at-risk jobs. In fact, I agreed with that point. I disagreed with your point that men were ALWAYS at the bottom rungs of every society. I'm getting very frustrated, and although this started as a good debate, I don't think it can continue.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:37 PM
1

That's NOT what I said! AT ALL.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:33 PM
1

I'm giving up. You are editing posts without labeling the edits. For example: You seem to be engaging in some fallacious thinking. Either type a new response, or include the term "EDIT" before your new comment. Additionally, you are not addressing the arguments, either willfully or out of an inability to understand how debates work.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:32 PM
1

What are you asking, specifically? What are you referring to? EDIT: Please label your edits. Come on.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:28 PM
1

Re-read my posts. Slowly and carefully. Please. I'm begging you. SOME men were denied the right to vote. ALL women were denied the right to vote. SOME men could not buy land. ALL women were denied the right to buy land. EDIT: Please, also, if you want to add a comment to your post, type EDIT before it. Otherwise, I won't know what to respond to. Even of its true that could not have bought land, it does not change the fact the very bottom was dominated by men. I think there is a reading comprehen…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:24 PM
1

No! Not at all. Can you vote? I bet you can. And it doesn't make you part of the 1%. That basic right was denied to women based on gender alone. I can vote, too. If I had money, I could buy land. If i had money 200 years ago, I could NOT have bought land. What is hard about this?
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:20 PM
1

Ok you are comitting the apex fallacy again by only looking up and comparing average women to the men in charge and bourgeois women to their peers. How? Show me an example of where I made such a mistake. Quote me. Because you keep saying this, and I don't agree. Its clear and demonstrable that men dominate all the areas of hardship. prison, cannon fodder, sucide, health, longevity, addiction, lack of funding, social protection, worst jobs, death jobs - you name it. You keep saying this, and I do…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:11 PM
1

1 to 2 - that was most men too. You're ignoring my point, which is the fact the women were universally barred from owning property or participating in matters of the state. Yes, slaves, indentured workers and peasants were, depending on the time and region, barred from these actions regardless of gender. But that does not change the fact that, no matter what class, creed or familial status, women were completely unable to do these things. No exceptions. 3 -when the ruling class first tried to ge…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 04:30 PM
1

Mras already have the bar set at when feminists want equal representation in the low paying and dirty and dangerous jobs like mines and down sewers etc. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you meant by "bar set." Could you clarify?
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:53 AM
1

I hate to be a stickler, but your lengthy earlier post only looked into recent demographic trends. So... again, can you show me why men have always been, as you say, "at the bottom"? Because, I'd like to argue that the following global anthropological trends have put women at a greater disadvantage, on the whole: Inability to own property Inability to participate in government (i.e. vote, run for office, etc.) Inability to find independent employment outside the home Inability to control reprodu…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:51 AM
1

Sorry for the late response, but I wanted to take the time to fully read and respond to your post. Men as cannon fodder, ladies first on the titanic. Fair enough. I'll give you that point, even though feminists have been fighting to get women into the armed forces. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Death row is reserved for serial killers and extremely violent criminals. Those don't tend to be wo…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:48 PM
1

You aren't reading my posts. Take a deep breath, and concetrate. You said: We only have historic record of a fraction of humanity and the people are the very bottom have always been men, and women have always been protected more than average men. And I asked: WHAT? Ok, give it to me. How have men ALWAYS been at the bottom?!? Now... let's talk about how, in the history of humanity, men have always been at the bottom. NOT in this country, in this century. Give me hard, sourced examples of men bein…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:23 PM
1

You defined a "Christian" as a follower of Christ, whom was mostly about love and self-sacrifice, who doesn't take the OT out of context. Yeah. That eliminates Calvinism, Southern Baptism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. P.S. If I wanted to troll right now I would go over to [1] /r/Atheism and claim to be an atheist who believed in God then call "No True Scotsman" on anyone who argued. An atheist has one, and only one, defining characteristic: No belief in a deity. Christians are defined by many th…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:19 PM
1

The people at the very bottom of society have likely always been largely male, as it is today, homelessness, worst jobs, most victimized by violence, most disposable, least protected, most of the extremly poor. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Source?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:12 PM
2

A Christian is a follower of Christ. If you are ignoring what Christ said (which was mostly about love and self-sacrifice) in favour of taking OT stuff out of context then you aren't much of a follower of Christ. DING DING DING! And there you have it, folks... the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Let's leave it at that. You're right about one thing; this is a discussion that should be held in r/debatereligion, not r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:44 AM
1

We only have historic record of a fraction of humanity and the people are the very bottom have always been men, and women have always been protected more than average men. WHAT? Ok, give it to me. How have men ALWAYS been at the bottom?!?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:40 AM
1

Look on a macro level here on reddit, there is a mob of feminists that go around looking for blasphemy, once they find it , and they don't mind lying about the context, the person is then held up and stoned. I don't see that. This seems rather hyperbolic, although I'll admit that false rape allegations and double-standards do exist in the real world. But here's the thing, buddy; that sword cuts both ways. For almost the entirety of humanity, women have had a much harder time getting fair treatme…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:32 AM
1

That is a completely different topic to what we have been talking about. No, actually that's the entire point. The point was that Christianity is a big bag of multiple choice, with super shitty parts and some nicer ones. Christians come in an equally assorted variety, ranging from assholes to decent people. The name "The Golden Rule" like chapter numbers or chapter headings was added later, but it references specific parts of the Bible Ok, we can play that game. The Golden Rule, then, predates t…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:17 AM
3

I know skeptics like to play the game of "lets ignore the New Testament"... Uh, did you see my quote from Revelations? ..."lets pretend statements about God apply to Christians"... I'm sorry, but who was supposed to be responsible for the ripping open of pregnant women's bellies, or the stoning of rebellious children? And, as far as God striking adulterous women's children dead, why would you want to worship that kind of (literal) motherfucker? P.S. The Golden Rule is NOT in the Bible. That's a …
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:16 AM
1

How...?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:09 AM
2

Man, don't you just despise that kind of blind, virulent hatred? You know, the kind that leads to murdering and rap... Oh. Nevermind.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:00 AM
4

I have some bad news for you: Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Reference: http://bible.cc/hosea/13-16.htm) Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: The…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 03:48 AM
2

So what you are really doing here, is trying to enforce irrational, mainstream sexist double standards on us. You were on such a roll. And then this sentence happened. Dude.. where did I ever make a statement that would lead you to believe that?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 03:40 AM
7

Yeah, that's a fine point to discuss. And it's true, and totally shitty. (This coming from a feminist.) But when people bring up how Men's rights advocates would fare better if they stopped generalizing all feminists as crazy, scrounging, bloodthirsty harpies, they are making a legitimate point. Stomping your feet and saying, "But women suck" does nothing for you.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:35 PM
7

When I said "you," I should have said "one," so I apologize for that. Clearly, I have no idea how you personally choose to interact with feminists. Brush your shoulders off.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:28 PM
22

Define "true feminist movement". Which major western women's organizations are part of the "true feminist movement"? This is a good point. A lot of movements suffer from the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians will point out that homophobes and racists aren't "true" Christians. Some feminists will similarly reject that "true" feminists could hold opinions or act in ways they don't particularly like. In reality, there is no sacred dogma defining what all feminists must agree on. Feminism, and Me…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:04 PM
6

Theres nothing we can do about it. What you can do about it is act like an adult, which means discussing Men's Right's issues without making ad hominem attacks. That may mean you'll have to be the "bigger person", but the bigger person is generally the more persuasive one. Keep your focus on the ultimate goal: resolving discrepancies in the fair treatment of men and women.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:55 PM
2

Good for you, dude. As a woman, I wish it were as easy for me to get my tubes tied. I can't even get a fucking IUD without the doctor's giving me the once over and saying, "It can cause infertility. You'll change your mind." Get it done, and you'll be doing yourself, and your life partner, a great service.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 03:34 PM
5

Some feminists (ahem) do fight for men's rights. Some of us think this sort of deception should be criminally actionable.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 03:32 PM
5

It's true. We've fetishized motherhood. It hurts both genders, but men can have the entire lives ruined without having any say in the matter. EDIT: Punctuation
/r/MensRights19/02/12 03:29 PM
9

I agree. The extreme selfishness of this is overwhelming. Women who do this should lose parental rights. Full stop.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 03:26 PM
2

I think somebody has a persecution complex. Let's break this down: Please note that for every "alleged feminist" who is genuinely fighting for feminine bodily sanctity, there are others who have no interest in that goal, but are actively promoting misandrist goals. Name me one feminist who has clearly stated no interest in fighting for feminine bodily sanctity. Of course you are going to claim that I am wrong or that I do not know what I am talking about. You'll even claim that I'm deluded (whic…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:24 PM
2

How is that a response to my question? How is that in any way relevant? Come on, guys. Let's see some of that logic.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 11:35 AM
1

Actually, I think that's how many people feel. They just wouldn't say it out loud. Because it's, you know, abhorrent.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 12:17 AM
8

One cannot force a woman to be a mother, but currently a woman can force a man to be a father. That's completely true, and it's very unfair. The solution, however, isn't to limit abortion rights. Men should be able to choose whether they parent the child once it's born.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 12:11 AM
15

Are you seriously attacking feminists for hypothetically opposing artificial wombs?
/r/MensRights23/01/12 12:08 AM
2

Ah, I see, you took a generalization and focused on a specific part that it wouldn't necessarily apply to. Don't do that. What? The only person who "took a generalization and focused on a specific part that it wouldn't necessarily apply to" was you, with your non sequitur about adoption rights.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 12:03 AM
1

Nobody is proposing "an eye for an eye." What, are we going to get in a fucking DeLorean and convince her mother to molest her and videotape it? Sterilization is actually pretty cheap. Isolation and incarceration? Not so cheap. I'd be up for a death penalty, if that weren't profoundly expensive and impractical.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 07:24 PM
1

Everybody's peace of mind. Sentences can be overturned.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 07:22 PM
2

God. Damn. She should get 4 years in the hole, permanent sterilization, and then, if she's lucky, life imprisonment. This is a sex offender of the highest level.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 02:53 PM
2

The world does not revolve around how anyone believes that things "should" be. If everyone stopped saying "should" and adopted "I will" as a replacement motto, the world would be a better place. I could not agree more.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 03:23 AM
2

No, not at all. I'm saying that for a long time (not much today, certainly), women have been abused. But we've also condoned and encouraged this abuse against other women. The anti-male backlash is a reaction to this, I think. People are trying too hard to ignore the truth that we allowed ourselves to be marginalized. EDIT: By "we," I mean females.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 03:01 AM
-1

That's fair. There is a bias against "the patriarchy." Maybe the best way to put it is this: pretend you're a kid who gets beat by one parent, while the other looks away or makes excuses for the abuse. You'd probably hate the physical abuser more, but the other parent betrayed you almost as much. (I pulled that out of my ass, so if it doesn't make sense, let me know.)
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:53 AM
1

Feminists hate on stupid girls and stupid men alike.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:49 AM
2

http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/052011/hater-prime.gif
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:46 AM
1

What is confusing you? My point was that you 1) incorrectly defined feminism, and 2) used your faulty definition to make an invalid point. A feminist is anyone who seeks to take authority from men That's complete and utter bullshit. I'm a feminist who takes men's rights very seriously, and I am not alone. You also said: This bitch is definitely a feminist because she's seeking to gain economic and sexual authority over men. So does the pope. Is he a feminist?
/r/MensRights29/12/11 03:04 AM
2

Women don't. Little girls/ brats might.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:16 AM
1

That argument is completely irrational. Example: -Men are known to rape women much more frequently than women raping men. -Therefore, men enjoy rape, whereas women hate rape. This is true even if men don't admit it. -If we find that a child has been raped, we can conclude that the attacker must be a man. You can't butcher the definition of a rapist, or feminist, and then apply said butchered definition to draw erroneous conclusions.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:03 AM
3

Nothing feminist about her.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 02:59 AM
8

He's drunk, and has never seen a vagina in person. Forgive him.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 06:18 AM
3

My first thought was that the article was poorly written. How can they disclose information as personal/subjective as the mother was determined to ignore court orders and destroy the daughter's relationship with her father but nothing specific regarding the father's behavior? Either the court was grossly in error, or this is an example of terrible journalism. I'm hoping for the latter.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 02:37 AM
8

My thoughts exactly. I cannot wrap me head around this. Are there details we're missing?
/r/MensRights24/11/11 05:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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