TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LemonFrosted Archive

View 3 posts and 81 comments by LemonFrosted 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)
0

I'm sorry he hurt your women feels. wow Such human rights euphoric MRM not misogynist biotruths MRAs not hate women, women just weak most important human rights movement no misogyny here wow
/r/MensRights23/03/14 03:44 PM
-2

Oh, too bad he neglected to mention that he actively canvassed for participants with positive experiences, was still unable to find a suitable number for his wants, and subsequently implied that the women who responded negatively were lying, a level of editorialization on motivation that he applied only to female participants that expressed negative experiences. Despite his claim it's obvious from looking over what we have of that unpublished ook, as well as his subsequent writings, that his ent…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 10:46 PM
-6

You can't deal with his arguments so you resort to an ad hominem based on an empty slur. Lololololol. Look, if you can't cope with the fact that Warren Farrell is a scumbag who has repeatedly defended his stance on incest that's your damage, but he did say those things. Also he was basically driven off from academia because his research methodology was highly questionable, his citations were untrustworthy, and he was writing about how awesome incest really is and women who claim to have been tra…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 04:34 PM
-11

he seems to have moved on from feminism because he wanted to spread the emancipation to men. Nah, he was more or less chased out because he's totally all about how awesome incest is.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 07:14 AM
3

50% chance of having your life ruined is shit odds. Sure, if you buy some bad stats and believe you've only got 50/50 odds. The divorce rate has been steady, with a slight decline, since the early/mid 90s. Divorces are also most heavily concentrated among young (<25 y.o.) first-time marriages, and "serial divorcees." The actual odds of being divorced are really only in the 15% range, but those who have been divorced once are significantly more likely to divorce again. The "50% number" was invent…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:09 AM
-25

You know what else is up at the top? "Staring at a woman as long as I want is a human right and calling me a creep is oppression."
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:11 PM
-33

A somewhat hilarious comparison since there's a lot of white nationalists, oops, I meant "race realists", in the MRM.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:48 PM
0

So you're intentionally taking her (off-the-cuff, and hardly controversial) statement to mean "all history everywhere was always written by white men" and not, you know, the obvious interpretation which would be that the major volume of our modern historical construct comes from European sources and presents a European view. The sole motivation here seems to be mauling her statement into something it isn't purely so that it can be decried. "Look how dumb she is, she referred to popular history a…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:50 PM
-21

My point was just that her conception of 'since ancient times' indicates that she sees all human culture as being aprox equal to white culture. Mmmmm, no, and you're being an intentionally dense shithead for no particular reason. Ancient Rome would be, shocker, ancient. That's why we call it "ancient Rome." Given that modern America considers itself contiguous enough with Ancient Rome to use their language, government, philosophy, architecture, and art as the template for their civilization, and…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:28 AM
-1

Duh, his penis >>>> apparently pretty much everything else in his life. Dude's a sociopath. Shit, his motivation was "I didn't want my other girlfriend to find out about the pregnancy." What a scumbag.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:00 AM
-26

The fuck you talking about? Men have overwhelmingly occupied the role of historians, especially in western culture. This is not a controversial subject: history has been overwhelmingly written by men. In China that's Chinese men. In the modern anglosphere that's white men. Are you seriously getting bent the fuck out of shape because an off-the-cuff comment was not carefully crafted to present the most comprehensive and accurate picture of what % of history has been transmitted by what ethnicitie…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:50 AM
-1

Did MRMs accomplish something while I was asleep? If not their biggest achievement is still "made hundreds of false rape accusations in protest of false rape accusations." Oh, don't forget "donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to raging misandrist Paul Elam." Also "~150,000 subs by the end of 2014" is a massive projection. You have no clue what mainstream actually is if you think 150k is anything approaching mainstream. You also seem to share the group delusion that "any press is good press"…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:52 PM
1

I'm sorry, no, you're running off gut hunches that support your feelings. "Mutual violence" as a phrase is deeply misleading because it's poorly qualified. You haven't properly qualified it either, so you're just exploiting how it sounds without regard for what it actually means. This is dishonest exploitation of a faulty study. The fact that you went from "self-defence" to, apparently, punching speaks volumes. This was one of the primary flaws of the study: mutual violence often included everyt…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:38 PM
-1

Hahahaha, that's not mainstream. Big, yes, mainstream, no. It's also a great indicator of one of the MRM's biggest flaws: massively overstating its own importance. Of course that doesn't even cut to the root problems, like how the MRM isn't interested in actually doing anything that doesn't involve writing angry screeds on the internet. So really all that growth means nothing because it's just a hollow number. It's not active, it's not productive. It's, well, a dead whale. Sure, it'll bloat more…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:08 PM
4

the majority of domestic violence is mutually violent. This is one of the most poorly qualified phrases ever, mostly because every participating jurisdiction used a different benchmark, and intent was ignored. That means every instance of self-defence becomes "mutually violent" alongside the brawling couple that beats the shit out of each other.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 10:54 AM
-2

Like Karen Straughan with an even more tenuous grasp on reality. Seriously unstable. Thinks that most men in power probably aren't even "real men." And, no, she doesn't mean that in a "pussy mangina" sort of generically misogynistic/misandrist (since, really, the phrase "mangina" is both misogynistic and misandrist) "they act like women" sort of way. She actually doubts that more than half of them are even cis-men. More bad history, more bad science, and way more conspiracy theories. Co-credit t…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 10:06 AM
-1

What makes you say that about Elam The list of things that make Elam human scum are too long to list and essentially encompass everything he writes. He's egotistical and beyond fragile, incapable of taking even the slightest criticism (even from other MRAs) without flying off into histrionics. Everyone even tangentially related to anything he views as a slight against the MRM get at least one slam piece on AVfM. The journalist who merely wrote about the recently canned men's studies courses in A…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:22 AM
-4

Let me guess. You are worried about upsetting people and causing offense. You're a shitty guesser, never play the lottery. If you can't see that people like Elam are pieces of human garbage who exploit the misery of the angry and disenfranchised for their own ego and gain then you're probably also one of the people who feels like spamming Occidental College with false claims and doxxing feminist bloggers is productive activism. Pandering to women Seriously, if you think that feminism is the main…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:34 AM
-2

Nah, wouldn't work, and MRM will never break mainstream in it current or any transmutational form. It's head is too far up its own ass. Your depiction of Elam as some thruthsaying wizard of frank speech is incredibly charitable. The man is a bucket of warm dog shit. He's a hypocrite and a huckster, fleecing his readers for money and accomplishing absolutely nothing as a result. The ultimate core problem is that the MRM doesn't want acceptance. They want vindication. Anyone capable of achieving r…
/r/MensRights21/01/14 11:53 PM
-4

Well, maybe, except the MRM is led by blowhard shitheads like Elam, so it's basically a rotting whale corpse at this point, drawing attention for all the wrong reasons. Every legitimate issue will instead be taken up by more specialized groups so they don't need to worry about dragging along barnacles like A Voice for Men and The Spearhead.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 07:25 PM
1

OH, no, I didn't get lost. You and TyphonBlue aren't worth caring about. I'm intentionally not responding. I have all the data sitting in a collection of documents right here in another window. I did all the research, but I'm keeping it. Pearls before swine, and all that. (Yes, I did just call the two of you 'swine.')
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:46 PM
0

Are you just a regular idiot, or are you a fucking idiot? 1) 2-6% is 2-6% of reported rape cases, not 2-6% of the population. By definition an unreported rape can't be a false report, so in absolute terms the relative number is significantly smaller. 2) Inflating the numbers and grandstanding in an attempt at painting it as an epidemic is intellectually dishonest and poisons the well, ensuring that the issue doesn't get taken seriously at all. There's a story about this called The Boy Who Cried …
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:20 AM
0

I'm not really defending AVfM You actually are, because while what you say is theoretically true assuming we were talking about the usage of a hypothetical site, we're not. We're talking about a specific site and their usage. There's no need to couch this in hypotheticals because we have a factual example in front of us. It's really not all that hard to see that Elam usage isn't a metaphorical commentary, it's intended as a denigrating slur. They attempt to make it into a metaphor by claiming th…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:58 AM
-6

Oh, I wandered off and did other things, then I realized that you all were just going to endlessly shift goalposts. First it's violence, but now it's just violence resulting in death. I'm sure if pressed it'll be reduced further to gun-violence homicide, and limited to exclude countries like Guatemala and El Salvador.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:04 AM
1

What exactly about her do you object to? Her affiliation with AVfM? Her ideas? Which ones? More or less everything once you take it into account. Her ideas are generally the kind of pseudo-intellectual snake oil that cults thrive off of, structures formed to confirm existing bias rather than explain phenomena. Good example would be the shoddy framework of her victimization video from a couple days ago. Like most pseudo-intellectual snake oil it has enough veracity to sound right, but at the end …
/r/MensRights15/01/14 05:17 AM
-17

Except for all the parts where it's not. Which would be all of it.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 11:44 PM
-12

Why bother? Like I said, Typhon's assertion "relies entirely on the assumption that all data has been doctored by a vast conspiracy." The data on abuse, violence against women, violent crimes, &c. is all out there, and it's not at all hard to find. So, tell me, what data do you need to convince you? What sources do you consider to be reputable? The CDC? The WHO? The UN? Health Canada? Real Men's Rights Advocacy groups like ManKind (you know, the ones that actually help men by running help lines,…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 11:43 PM
-23

Hahahaha, no it doesn't. It makes no sense and has no foundation in any sort of fact. It's an assertion that relies entirely on the assumption that all data has been doctored by a vast conspiracy. To assert that men experience more violence than women is disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt. It's the kind of rhetoric that only undermines the MRM and discredits it in the eyes of every humanitarian organization on the planet.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 11:20 PM
0

Honestly the primary disagreement seems to have nothing to do with statistics or penalties, and everything to do with the legal definition of rape. Many around here seem convinced that the number of false rape accusations is "50x more common" because they're including a large number of legitimate accusations that they feel weren't rape. In fact combing through our posting history the fairly obvious conclusion seems to be that you are, in fact, a rapist who says it wasn't rape. Now this, of cours…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 08:48 PM
0

Is it? What is the number? 2-6%. So you're another one who doesn't believe this ever happens eh? It happens, but it's not an epidemic. Also the law already has structures in place to deal with it. It's called "perjury" and it's a crime. Being victimized is a terrible thing, and support networks for male victims is lacking in our society because of an ingrained culture of machismo that tells men to suck it up and deal with it. That should be addressed. But this revisionist narrative trying to inf…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 07:39 PM
-22

Hey, men, I've never been prison raped, falsely accused of committing rape, passed over due to 'fairness' laws, restricted from interacting with children, or drafted for frontline combat. By her standards I'm proof that MRM is a waste of time! For serious, what the fuck is this waste of time? "It doesn't happen to me, so it's not a problem!"
/r/MensRights14/01/14 06:58 PM
6

Oh, I totally welcome a men's studies initiative. I just don't consider male identity or masculinity to be entrenched in toxic misogyny. You seem to consider them to be one and the same, as though the natural state of man is to hate women. Sadly the MRM has become a race to the bottom, embracing every huckster and fraud like Elam and TyphonBlue because apparently being really, really angry all the time is more important than a rational, proactive approach to the challenges facing modern masculin…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 06:49 PM
0

Either compare convictions on both or estimates on both. It's still a fucking tiny number. How the hell did MRM get so hung up on this myth of a "false rape claim epidemic"?
/r/MensRights14/01/14 06:42 PM
12

Why does it even matter? What good does it do? Why do you care? How does it advance men's rights at all? At this point you're just arguing that you have the right to call people whores. The fact that it means so much to you is kinda pathetic. You might as well scream "you're not my real dad!" before slamming your bedroom door and turning Papa Roach up really loud. Defending the "right" to call people "whore" because you think they're a whore is a childish tantrum. It's taking something ultimatel…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 08:35 AM
9

I linked the article specifically because I didn't want to sit here and quote the whole thing. It all leads up to that one line, anyway, it's the "punchline" of the article. He spends several paragraphs setting up various kinds of whore just so that he can call Rebecca Watson a "stupid, lying whore." So it's not just some off-handed comment, he spends paragraph after paragraph outlining his ideas about whores so that you know just how much of a whore he thinks Rebecca Watson is. It's also not ex…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 08:22 AM
14

Calling out bigots who aim to threaten those rights has everything to do with men's rights. And how does that relate to the words "bitch" and "whore"? Those thoughts aren't contiguous. There's absolutely nothing about calling out bias that requires name-calling. When did AVfM ever claim to be an unbiased news site, or academic publication? Oh, they haven't, that would be beyond laughable, but they're still acting surprised, like out of hand dismissal of their trash-talking is suppression of thei…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 06:01 AM
21

Not allowing a dissenting voice is more evidence of feminism's fraud You know that just because you put words in order doesn't make them true. Feminism has been routinely bombarded with criticism from mainstream journalism, academia, and pop culture since its inception. Feminism is, itself, a dissenting opinion. Also your magnet video fails rigour, since it doesn't account for the just-world fallacy that contributes to all kinds of victim-blaming, including self-blame. The belief that people "ge…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:14 AM
12

So your defence for AVFM is "they don't call women whores, they just toss the word whore around as an insult when it suits their purposes"? You realize that's not really an improvement, right? But, you know what, rather than dancing around the semantics of that article how about we go straight to this line: Speaking of stupid, lying whores, let’s discuss Rebecca Watson’s latest article at Skepchick.org It really shouldn't be hard to see how association with this guy's site discredits someone's a…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 04:33 AM
25

Shall I point out the obvious? Well, you seem to have missed the obvious, which is that association with AVFM (and, by extension, association with you) has discredited these men's participation in academia. I mean, I know you're going to find some way to rationalize this away as some orchestrated conspiracy because, frankly, you're an insane and disturbed person with a tenuous grasp on reality, but at the end of the day it's this very same attitude of entitled "why can't I call bitches bitches?"…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 04:16 AM
15

Would you propose that MRM sites should ban usage of these words? Why would they be using them in the first place? What use or value is there, and why are they even talking about something where they'd feel compelled to use one of those words? What does that remotely have to do with men's rights? I would actually prefer if MRM sites focused more on, you know, men's rights and the challenges facing modern masculinity (toxic ideals, narrow role definitions, judicial biases, the slow death of fathe…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 03:54 AM
29

All the time. Paul Elam calls Rebecca Watson a whore more than 30 times Paul Elam calls Lisa Hickey a cunt Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Whore Whore Whore Whore Every single one of these links, the word in question is used in the body of the article, often in the title itself. Many of these are written by Paul Elam himself, so it's pretty fair to say that these are representative of AVFM's views as a whole. Don't read AVFM. It has nothing to do with Men's Rights and everything to do with Paul El…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 12:43 AM
4

You know, like back when we used to stone adulterers. Didn't really happen. Was largely symbolic, similar to selling land or a car to someone for a dollar. Of course even when groups do decide to literally stone people to death for various infractions it doesn't really matter. It's not like adultery vanished for centuries and then reappeared in 1962. Shit, UAE beheads people for drug use and you know what? They behead people every single year. Turns out that getting your head cut off isn't enoug…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/14 10:23 AM
-2

he could have actually wanted coffee and to continue the discussion. In which case he simply demonstrated a failure of tact and social awareness and the scenario still stands. You're trying to make it sound like it's impossible for this dude to have fucked up by approaching with the blanket assumption that she overreacted. She didn't send a witch hunt after the guy, she didn't publicly shame him by posting his photo and name, she didn't even let on to any physical traits that other attendees cou…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:22 PM
-3

Uh, no, you have the story wrong. I mean, for shit sakes if this community values logic and reason as much as it claims then at least get the facts right. Rebecca Watson posted a vlog shortly after the convention where she called the (unnamed) dude out for missing the whole point of her talk. See, her entire talk, and the extended discussion afterwards, basically revolved around the point of "because I'm a woman the atheism community treats me first as a potential date or sex partner, second as …
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:31 PM
2

I am very sorry the reality of this world offends your sensitivities. It's not that it offends me, it's that it's stupid and belies a very poor grasp of history, let alone the diversity of the world as it exists right now. As in, women would court men, and then propose? Well, more complicated than that, but yes. its purpose was always the same: to make sure the male knew who his child was No, this is back-reading your own agenda into history. It's also assuming that securing patriarchal lineage …
/r/MensRights13/12/13 12:00 AM
3

Going waaaaaaaaay back, marriage (which, as a concept, has been invented and re-invented many times through history) was driven by mysticism, a thread that runs strong in many marriage rituals to this day. I'm not sure if I should address the latent racism in your post or not. I mean The former developed marriage as a way to ensure the adequately distribute resources, and thrived as a consequence. The latter either died out when they came in contact with the former, or never achieved any technol…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 10:41 PM
2

Marriage was and has always been about two things: a) a transaction where a man would offered his productivity to a woman and in exchange, she would offer her sexuality and fertility and b) an arrangement that would last until either party's death to ensure a proper environment for their children. False. What era, region, and social strata do you want to talk about? Actually it doesn't really matter because this sort of direct labour-for-sex arrangement only crops up a few times in history, typi…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:29 PM
4

Women just never seem to get this bit: to men, Marriage IS ABSOLUTELY ABOUT SEX, if not in it's entirety. Um, no. You clearly don't know many married couples, or you only know the least happy people on earth, if you think that sex is the sole motivator towards marriage for even a minor majority of men. The only communities where "access to sex" is a significant contributing motivation are those where remaining unmarried restricts sexual activities. In orthoprax Mormon communities (and other simi…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:41 PM
3

No, because "falling down drunk" and "passed out" aren't lies. They're assumptions and extrapolations based on the story. 1) she puked, according to the storyteller, for an hour 2) the storyteller described her as "wasted." 3) she went to bed right after she stabilized from puking. Factually she was drunk enough that she puked a lot, so "falling down" is, at worst, a mild overstatement. Factually she was unconscious while he was still there. Unless you're looking to split the hair between "aslee…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 05:41 PM
2

Doesn't matter: you still have zero right to do anything sexual to her. Also I delight in the irony that TRP, despite claiming to be rooted in "logic and facts" is more than willing to go off on petty tirades because a girl hurt their feelings. If a girl "being tempting" is causing you serious boner identity issues, to the point that you're trying to justify just fucking her against her will, then you're the one being led around on a leash by their emotions. She owes you nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 05:04 PM
3

I love how you've completely left out the fact that she was drunk enough to vomit "for an hour." By the greentexter's own assessment she was "wasted and puking." People drunk enough to puke are usually pretty far down the coordination scale, and one way or another aren't really in a fit state. Someone who needs help "getting tucked in" is slipping down the alertness scale pretty quickly (no surprise if they're drunk to the point of puking). So, no TBP hasn't added any lies. At worst they're guil…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 04:59 PM
2

So how come I have to sacrifice my desires in order to protect her from herself? Because "your desires" involve another person. If you don't want to have to walk away from drunk girls for fear of getting backed into an untoward corner, stop fucking hanging out where drunk girls congregate. Here's the deal: your desires always have a 100% consenting participant: you. You always, always have the option of walking away and gratifying yourself. You do not have the right to gratify your desires at th…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 06:54 AM
7

It's not a thread about a woman who passed out. TBP just made that part up. That has to be the single least relevant detail to that thread aside from what they ate for dinner. It's a thread where TRP mocks a guy for not having sex with a woman who was falling-down drunk. Several users suggest that he made the right choice because raping a drunk woman would only lead to a "false rape accusation." TRP has repeatedly demonstrated that it is the law and the law alone that prevents them from advocati…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 06:33 AM
2

A good majority of them are later found to have put the drugs in themselves, even the stuff like rohypnol. Doesn't matter. Getting drunk doesn't equal consenting to sex, ergo sex with someone who's too drunk to consent starts off on the foot of "rape by intoxication" regardless of whether the drug was self-administered, self-overdosed, or overdosed through coercion. The same rule applies to GHB, Rohypnol, Ketamine, DXM, PCP, Xanax, and any other drug that impairs judgement or can function as an …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 06:19 AM
4

They are considered legally sound enough to make decisions on their own behalf. They are legally sound enough to reject intervention. If anything that means that no matter how drunk she is, no always means no, and yes should always be carefully scrutinized. No doctor in his right mind would respect a stumbling drunk person's consent to a dangerous procedure unless waiting for them to sober up would significantly increase the risk of death or permanent damage. Ethical tattoo artists don't let you…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/13 10:27 PM
5

Your language is distressing. could have been seen You're so concerned with appearances, what it "looks like", that you're completely missing the fact that it's exploitation. There's not really a grey area here, it's not some "weeeeeellllll maaaaaybeeeeee." Taking sexual advantage of someone drunk as a skunk is no different (and a whole lot worse) than taking financial advantage of someone while they're drunk. Yes, they won't do something they're morally opposed to, but they're also in a state w…
/r/TheRedPill28/10/13 09:09 PM
21

That's not false rape, that's just regular old rape rape, also known as rape by intoxication. Not only is it a crime it's also deeply immoral and a sign of the weakest beta game possible.
/r/TheRedPill28/10/13 05:46 PM
2

MRAs didn't cull it. It was never culled. There's a reason that the majority of Planned Parenthood locations and women's shelters are located in poorer neighbourhoods. It not only made it into the mainstream of feminist thought, it directly impacted decision making. Seriously, this isn't some dark secret or shadow history. I feel like I'm explaining that, yes, the sky is in fact blue.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:01 AM
2

Yeah, the upper class white women's movement has sure been focusing on class issues for fifty years! Focusing? No. But class issues have been a part of feminist literature since the late 1800s.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:37 AM
3

This is where a lot of MRAs go off into the corn field with wild and flailing ideas, swinging at demons only they can see. The problem within the community is maintaining an appropriate sense of scope, as well as properly identifying what's a gender issue and what's a class issue. A great example would be the whole "workplace mortality" statistic that's thrown around. The statistics are accurate, but they're accurate because the types of jobs that are higher risk are in many ways biased towards …
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:25 AM
-1

Pure, vine-ripened bullshit. People have been shit-talking feminism as some vast conspiracy since the 1800's. Your "feminists are here to ruin everything" rhetoric is not only not edgy, it's not even new. It's just recycling Bax, Wylie, Goldberg, Guilding, and Flemming with a nice dash of some Colonial era "natural order" Kipling and Hume repainted for gender conflict. You might as well be handing out tracts talking about how if women go into politics their brains will get too big and their uter…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:14 AM
2

Yes, it is rooted in class conflict theory, which is ultimately the more pertinent form of the construct, but "patriarchy" has more traction as a term. Yes, there's some language issues involved in that, and I've discussed them elsewhere. In fact you fall victim to the very same language issues because you're extrapolating based on the casual meaning of the word "patriarchy" and not actually using the critical construct. For example: Women objectifying men? That can't happen, silly! Also, it's h…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 10:24 PM
1

That exhibits all the signs of someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about drawing extended conclusions about "patriarchy" inferred entirely from a) the word's casual meaning and b) the sort of invective context they often see it used in. This is actually my principal complaint about the construct: because the word's casual meaning and jargon meaning are so different it establishes an inherently combative tone to any discussion, alienates uninitiated readers, and has led to a pr…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:57 PM
1

Black Box Gender Roles: The origins of modern, rigid gender roles for men or women, while up for debate, are irrelevant to the destruction of those roles. We know the modern realities, so we can change the modern realities. [nips patriarchy talk in the bud] Taken on good faith the rejection of the patriarchy framework is an attempt at resetting the discussion, saying "look, yeah, stuff happened, but who cares how, let's just focus on the present." The failure there is that the wholesale rejectio…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:11 PM
0

That's one of the principal reason as discussed in this thread which is currently stickied to the top of the subreddit. Black Box Gender Roles: The origins of modern, rigid gender roles for men or women, while up for debate, are irrelevant to the destruction of those roles. We know the modern realities, so we can change the modern realities. [nips patriarchy talk in the bud] No Original Sin: We seek true equality for us in the present, not retribution or reparation for our ancestors. ['50s era m…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:56 PM
-2

No, not the only reason, but there are some rising tenets of MRA that do exist almost entirely as ego protection. The two big ones would be the rejection of patriarchy as a critical concept (though I vehemently dislike the language construct created by the use of the word "patriarchy" as jargon inasmuch as it establishes an inherently combative tone to any discussion, especially when mixing initiated1 and uninitiated speakers) and the bizarre attempts at culling class issues from the discussion.…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:33 PM
-2

Chances are it will be within the framework of feminist theory, yes, because the critical framework for the MRA movement is both laughably nascent and lacking in any sort of cohesion. Rejecting feminist framework as a working model achieves nothing except ego protection. It's saying "no, I need my cause to be the most special fucking snowflake around and I don't need anyone else's help to do it." It's not only alienating, it's radicalization. Also, sadly, it's often used to create a self-fulfill…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:43 PM
5

Check out the Women's Resource Centre at the University of Calgary, MacHall, 4th floor. They have a program and a sizeable chunk of their library dedicated to male gender constructs, identity, and legal issues. They'll be able to put you in touch with the right people.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:15 PM
1

So, basically you're not going to cite anything other than editorial content? Like, you don't have any case law, or even a citation of the law itself to support your claim? I mean "It wasn't, read the Legal Subjection of Men" - yes, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine" was the prevailing system that The Women's Property Act sought to address. The idea was called feme covert, or coverture, and was a well established concept within the common law system since the High Middle Ages. T…
/r/TheRedPill27/10/13 07:01 PM
1

the way I see it, they are just an example of the fact that our brains are wired to come up with all sorts of excuses for our acts So... no one ever gets dissatisfied with their situation in life...? Like, no one has ever said "this job sucks, I don't care how much I'm paid, I'm bored and unsatisfied"? Because you're saying that dissatisfaction is an illusion manufactured after the fact, in as much as it impacts the decisions that people make. As a whole I'm utterly baffled because your percepti…
/r/TheRedPill27/10/13 08:19 AM
1

Married women's property act(what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine) This act (which do you speak of specifically? Not that it matters much, the one passed in England and Wales in 1882 (which was itself a concatenation of a number of smaller laws), in Manitoba in 1900, in Prince Edward Island in 1903, and in Saskatchewan in 1907 all read pretty similarly) doesn't indicate this at all. In fact that policy, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" was the explicit arrangement favo…
/r/TheRedPill27/10/13 08:01 AM
2

Could it be that men who would have previously been easy marks for exploitative marriages No, because such marriages are largely a myth unsupported by any broad data, and the assumptions underpinning that motivation pale in comparison to other metrics like employment outlook, financial independence, and social mobility. As young people increasingly rent as their primary habitation, maintain independent bank accounts, and delay having children the legal protections of marriage are less attractive…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 09:32 PM
1

Divorce absolutely has an impact because it brings a disruption of routine, a decrease in parental exposure, and in all but the rarest cases a scaling back of the household financial situation. The reason that scaling back is so significant is because of the earning disparity between the Economic and the Nurturing parent. That disparity can easily move a household from dual-income lower middle class to down near (if not below) the poverty line as a single income household. Keep in mind that tran…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 08:45 PM
2

No, you said "act like spoiled brats" which implies that the primary motivation is the overt exploitation of a system for undue gain. Statistics time: lack of commitment (73%) too much arguing (56%) infidelity (55%) marrying too young (46%) unrealistic expectations (45%) lack of equality in the relationship (44%) lack of preparation for marriage (41%) abuse (29%) A fundamental breakdown of communication and a loss of intimacy on the part of both partners is far and away the leading factor in div…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 06:52 PM
1

Only because poverty trumps both parental absence and exposure to violence in terms of the long term damage to children and their lifelong social mobility. Exposure to family violence, whether the children are the direct victims or not, comes out about par with parental absence in terms of the damage... once you control for economic factors. Now, ultimately you're not going to get clean data on this, since children in broken homes have typically also been exposed to an above average degree of fa…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 06:27 PM
2

Marriage rates have declined, but that's only an expression of new marriages, representing the behaviour of unmarried people. The divorce rate is, statistically, representing the decisions made by the people who got married 14 years earlier (though that's skewd upwards by middle aged divorces following children leaving home, the data isolated towards young couples comes in closer to 8 years.) Okay, why did I throw both numbers in there? Because the marriage rate overwhelmingly represents people …
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 05:32 PM
2

No, and I have no idea why you'd phrase it that way. From WW2 through to the 70s (treated as a homogenous legal period as there were few changes to the law that would overtly impact individual decision making) you see marriage rates increase when times are good, decrease when times are bad, and divorce rates behave similarly on a sort of delay. This is true with all relationships, really. As the outlook for financial independence has declined over the last ten years, young adults have delayed le…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 05:15 PM
3

While not exactly what you're looking for, Stats canada has a vast wealth of demographic information in their reports (the most recent is 2011 since the 2013 census hasn't been published yet).
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 04:47 PM
4

Did you not actually read anything? The divorce rates haven't escalated: they've plateaued. Simple logic says that not every relationship is going to work, and a % will inevitably fail. It's as true in business as it is in sports, marriage, and AA sponsors. Thus over the entire population you'd expect to see a fairly steady failure rate as a % of the total number of contracts, which is exactly what we've seen over the last decade. Keep in mind that much of the turbulence is going to be related t…
/r/TheRedPill26/10/13 04:46 PM
-1

Okay, I hadn't followed the evolving details, since io9 is the only Gawker site I willingly visit, but I was still under the impression that it was related to several Gawker sites attempting to game the system rather than a political move.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:36 PM
1

They just wanted to ask if health-steal-on-hit weapons work for weapon DPS based abilities in /r/Torchlight but the mods are banning gawker. Your other two I follow. This one... what?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 03:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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