TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Li17 Archive

View 0 posts and 65 comments by Li17 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)
1

I like that it say "according to science news"
/r/MensRights11/11/09 05:13 AM
2

The goal of feminism is not equality. It's advocacy for women's issues. But that's the whole point. That's the modern use of it yes, but that is different than the technical definition of femism and masculism. Yes, it boils down to semantics in the end, but it is still worth knowing how the terms have been bastardized in modern times.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 06:31 AM
1

Yeah, but the point is that the main theory and goal behind both is the same, just viewed from the other angle.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 05:04 AM
1

Its worth noting that we all theoretically classify as feminists. Men's Rights and Femiism are (at least in theory) the same. Both are seeking equality between genders (again, at least in theory), it's just Masculists are viewing it from the Man's side and Feminists from the Woman's. But someone who is (actually) true to the cause would be just as enthusiastic about changing gender inequalities for either genders, not just their own. Now, bring this up in discussion with a lot of people who call…
/r/MensRights19/09/09 12:13 AM
0

But the point is, what is legalized in the U.S. (and thus relevant to this discussion) has very debatable medical benefits and downsides. You can argue the human rights issue all you want, but in the face of the actual facts, it is a very weak argument. And the facts are inconclusive. Thus all you have to stand on is the"it's sexual abuse" argument, and that is incredibly weak, as it can easily be counter with "I had it done, no it isn't". All it leads too is bickering between people with more e…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 01:12 PM
-2

No, it isn't, but the segment of it that pertains to Men's Rights is. What is allowed under U.S. law is very different then much of the "mutilation" or see and hear about. Yes, botched circumcisions have a much more severe outcome than some other medical procedure, but it's just that, a medical procedure. You can bring up as many examples of female mutialtion, and male mutilation anywhere in the world and various cultures view of it, but all that matters for the circumcision debate as it pertain…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 05:11 AM
1

when it's put in the simplistic context of a crass joke, then yes, that is feminist-bashing. Fair enough.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 05:02 AM
-3

That doesn't answer the question, people can die or have any other sort of issue with any medical procedure. The benefits and health issues (assuming the doctor doesn't screw up, which is what this mainly is) and almost completely null, you can find studies and evidence supporting both sides. This is such a minor issue with Men's Rights, there are so many more issue that actually do need attention, debating circumcision is just a waste of time.
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:41 PM
4

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights, or Feminism (Feminism calls for social justice, and the two are not mutually exclusive.) More than that, Men's Rights and Femiism are (at least in theory) the same. Both are seeking equality between genders (again, at least in theory), it's just Masculists are viewing it from the Man's side and Feminists from the Woman's. But someone who is (actually) true to the cause would be just as enthusiastic about changing gender inequalities for either genders, n…
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:36 PM
4

This is hardly feminist bashing. True feminism is seeking equality between genders, not female superiority. The term feminist is used incorrectly by so many people both on this subreddit and even "feminist" ones (I can get more in depth of this but I am a bit pressed for time at the moment). This is relevant because an issue many Masculists will run into is radical feminists (or sexists, which is a more appropriate term). Having accurate facts and figures to rebuke their (false) claims is import…
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:31 PM
2

I remember that thing about the 5 year old, but I never fully bought that it was real, regardless it is still a good point. However, handicapped people aren't allowed to compete with others most the time. That's why events such as the Special Olympics exist. And if you consider intersex as it's own class, then as you said, the issue is that there aren't enough people to make an intersex class viable. As for Aron Ralston (the guy who cut off his arm), it isn't exactly fair to challenge the other …
/r/MensRights13/09/09 03:31 PM
1

I understand that, but as far as how her body is formed, does she physically create the same level of hormones as a man?
/r/MensRights13/09/09 03:48 AM
1

Oh, huh, I wasn't aware of that. But that still had the same issue (kinda) just in reverse. Going by the wrestling analogy, she would be lower than the lowest of the weight classes, right? I'm curious because my impression was that she was in between genders as far as organs and hormone production goes. Am I wrong in this?
/r/MensRights13/09/09 03:35 AM
5

It sucks for her yeah, but think of it from the other racers point of view. She has an unfair advantage, something none of them an get regardless of how much they train, being part guy(I could phrase that a bit better, couldn't I?). Let's move sports for a second. Imagine wrestling, where there are weight classes. These stop and start next to each other, with no room in between (i.e. 150lbs and 151lbs). Now, lets say the top weight class is 200-250lbs (I have no idea what it actually is). Would …
/r/MensRights13/09/09 12:22 AM
10

But you can find both sides of it on /r/MensRights. If you are looking for a reason to criticize this subreddit, then you can find plenty of examples of people being idiots, but if you legitimately support Men's Rights, then there is also plenty of fair discussion to be had. But a discussion in which no one makes any sexist statements but is discussing, say, family court, then the only people who will take notice are the ones who care about the issues. Stupid sexist statements turn heads and dra…
/r/MensRights11/09/09 01:48 PM
1

But the surrogate only shows an example of when a women cannot dissolve her parental rights, and it is one of the few cases where she can't. When she herself is carrying the baby, she can, even if the male wants to keep it.
/r/MensRights09/09/09 10:57 PM
1

A women can through an abortion. Granted, it is not an easy decision for most, but it is in her power (assuming she is carrying the child). Now the example of the surrogate is a good one because it explains what men can face 100% of the time. They have no control over what they are responsible for. Men have no option to end the pregnancy (and thus any obligations they would have to the child) just like the couple has no ability to do anything to the surrogate. The issue is that women have the (p…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 10:15 PM
1

Short answer, "No, and neither can the woman." But the women can before the child is born (albeit by not having the child, but it is still a choice she has the power to make), and the question being asked is, why can't the father?
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:46 PM
6

Yeah. Sadly, the MensRights subreddit has enough misogyny that people assume that's all there is here. And you can hardly blame them, good discussion is harder to find, and draws less attention. People will notice someone calling all women lying whores, but people having a reasonable conversation about family court goes unnoticed. Oh, and feel free to quote me all you like. I am constantly trying to point out the misuse of the word feminism (because so few people on this subreddit understand it)…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 12:37 AM
10

Key word there is "modern". Feminism brought about changes such as equal voting rights and property rights, all under the theory that men and women are equal in every respect. This is a good thing that masculists should support (think of it as a math problem, if you are trying to make A=B, then you should fully support trying to make B=A). Now, in recent time the term has been horribly bastardized in many respects. Firstly, it is incorrectly used by people to describe themselves and their belief…
/r/MensRights06/09/09 11:05 PM
1

This is a great video, except for one thing, it uses the word feminism incorrectly. Feminists and feminism are not the same as those who have perpetuated man hating ideas. Feminism the the belief for equality of women to men in social, economic etc. areas. This is the same as what masculists are aiming for, simply from the other perspective. A lot of people and ideas that are called feminists are not feminist. The video used a good term to describe them: Vile repulsive man-hate cult. In what is …
/r/MensRights05/09/09 03:03 AM
9

Oh, it's pretty obvious how this relates to men's rights. Hell, even without the particular subject matter the fact that the whole article glamorizes women's affairs and praises the fact they can hide them so well is topic enough for discussion.
/r/MensRights04/09/09 04:14 AM
2

Alternatively: "Men started the industrial revolution, it's only fair they should get the jobs that come from it"
/r/MensRights04/09/09 04:12 AM
6

This seems to be praising women on their ability to be more secretive then men about their affairs. Men have more "trophy affairs" than women. They will often want to brag about it, or be so taken up by the sexual thrill of the affair that their behaviour is a giveaway.' Women, on the other hand, are much more cool and rational, even when they're in the grip of passion. The whole article is like this, it is praising the fact that women can hide their affairs better. Somehow, I think they missed …
/r/MensRights04/09/09 04:09 AM
1

See, this is a good example of what is wrong with the rape charges that are leveled towards women. A large part of them are only these really high profile ones that are just completely insane; a lot of things that would classify as rape if the genders are reversed are never reported/never would be prosecuted.
/r/MensRights04/09/09 01:30 AM
3

Ugg, this reminds me of a fight I got into with a feminist. There was a comment about how most of the bad teachers the person had were female. Of course all the feminists got up in arms about this, even after I pointed out that it was simple statistics. More female teachers > more of every type of teacher you have will be female > more bad female teachers. But no, once they decided to make an issue out of it... sigh.
/r/MensRights01/09/09 04:06 PM
1

rabbitspade put it well in another post. Rephrase everything like this: So as the evening progressed, he began to continually top up my wine glass. And strangely enough, he started pressuring me into having sex with him. He wasn't physically pushy, but was manipulative and quite insistent. [...] Anyway, he got his way in the end. I wasn't wet, but he climbed on top and pushed into me, insistent that he get his rocks off. Suddenly it seems a lot more like rape, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights01/09/09 03:57 PM
0

But anyone will tell you, electing not to get a procedure done, for any reason, because you are worried about malpractice is foolish. People die in car accidents every few minutes (or some such statistic) but that doesn't stop people from driving. Death because of circumcision can be almost exclusively attributed to a mistake made by the doctor, not an inherent problem with the procedure. And avoiding it because you fear the doctor will make a mistake is not rational. Now, you do have a point, i…
/r/MensRights01/09/09 05:37 AM
1

Hmm, would there be any interest in the counterpoint to this (i.e. stuff said about guys).
/r/MensRights01/09/09 04:02 AM
0

A. how would you know? But that's just my point, as far as the child who is circumcised is concerned, they are no worse off. B. keeping it wouldn't have negatively effected it either Again, that's the whole point, in the long run it doesn't really matter if you do it or not, the child will come out loving their penis the way it is, and not be hating their parents for what they did. The Men's Rights subreddit has so many more important issues it should be paying attention to that it amazes me how…
/r/MensRights01/09/09 02:52 AM
1

Oh please, this holds no water in the circumcision debate. People have died during almost every medical procedure, and do you know why? Because doctors screw up. An estimated 98,000 people die each year because of medical errors, and while the death of the child is tragic, it is hardly evidence for why circumcision is a bad thing. You're not being fair to the child and his family. His death tragic, yes, and preventable, yes, but in the end he did not die because he was circumcised, he died becau…
/r/MensRights31/08/09 10:50 PM
2

You know, while all this makes sense, if in ten or twenty years you ask the kid if he resents his parents for circumcising him, he will most likely say no. I was circumcised and while I understand the argument against it, I wouldn't change what happened. It has not negatively effected my penis (as far as I know), it still works fine, and I love it. It is an identity issue, and that's what people who are against circumcision seem to fail to understand. Sure, there is some basis for not doing it (…
/r/MensRights31/08/09 10:46 PM
2

Though I understand why this is an issue in men's rights and I really do respect your point of view, I just think there are more pressing matters at hand that men need deal with. Exactly, you can find just as much hard evidence (meaning not the "human rights" arguments) arguing for circumcision as there is against it, but the general consensus seems to be that it is mostly cosmetic. There are so many other issues that something as inconsequential as circumcision done in a proper medical setting …
/r/MensRights31/08/09 10:44 PM
1

2) Why is this a gender issue at all? It sort of isn't, but the Men's Rights FAQ gives a decent explanation of why it is at least relevant. But in the specifics of this case, her being a woman is more or less irrelevant. The article makes a good point of: Which brings us to a central problem with embezzlement cases in general -- and this one in particular. The old joke goes, if you owe the bank $10,000, they've got you. But if you owe the bank $10 million, you've got them. Apparently, the more y…
/r/MensRights31/08/09 04:10 AM
3

Tell me someone screen capped or copy and pasted that, because she apparently deleted her account, and I would like to see your victory in all its glory.
/r/MensRights29/08/09 11:45 PM
2

My purpose with the appendix analogy was the fact that it was a bad analogy, because there is a sound medical reason, but you need to explain it to understand why you would remove it. We would not let parents decide that children need cosmetic surgery, because that is a clear violation of rights. Parents are supposed to make decisions for the well being of the children, not for personal desires. But parents can give consent to let their underage child get surgery such as nose jobs, breast enhanc…
/r/MensRights26/08/09 06:29 PM
2

But if you say removal of "just a little bit" of a person is wrong, how do you justify needed amputations, or appendicitis which has you removing an entire organ. Of course, it's because there are medical reasons for this, but still, you need to discuss the why in order to understand and justify their removal. The problem is that people are not really discussing the why and jumping straight to the fact that you are messing with someone's penis. The problem with circumcision is that the "dubious …
/r/MensRights26/08/09 05:42 PM
3

Also, female circumcision is circumcision in name only. It IS genital mutilation. The male equivalent would be cutting the penis off entirely. Or cutting off parts of it, or removing a testicle, or any other mutilation of the genitals. And I'm not sure why I'm being down modded either. I made a similar comment (mostly copy pasted from this one) in an article on a similar topic in /r/lgbt and was modded up. I think people in the MensRights section can't see past the fact that it is being done to …
/r/MensRights26/08/09 04:17 PM
0

First of all, define which type of female "circumcision" you are talking about. It varies from removal of the clitoral, to removal of the clitoris itself, to removal of the labia minora, and even to connecting the labia minora to the labia mafora, closing the vaginal entrance (generally until marriage, at which point there is significant tearing, bleeding, and infection). None of these are practiced in the United States, but they are elsewhere. So yes, assholes like me do insist on making some d…
/r/MensRights26/08/09 03:38 PM
-2

But this is where you have to consent that the two sexes are not equal, from a biology point of view. When talking about male vs female circumcision you are talking about two different organs (well, technically they are the same nerve cluster formed differently). It would be like comparing operation on the spleen with operation on the liver, they require different considerations and have different pros and cons. The sex of the victim is secondary to the fact that there is no exact counter proced…
/r/MensRights26/08/09 04:42 AM
1

Oh please, this women is not a feminist. True feminists believe in "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Not lets play a fun game where we find every mention of "feminism" and deconstruct it: Despite my feminist instincts, I found the idea strangely attractive. So much so that instead of thinking about whether feminists should believe in marriage, the question I had to ask myself was: is it possible to have a feminist wedding? And I b…
/r/MensRights26/08/09 03:16 AM
0

Oh please, stop with the hyperbole, calling circumcision barbaric is sensationalist, but false. From a medical perspective there are, and have been, reasons for circumcision other than HIV prevention. Improper cleaning of the foreskin can lead to urinary tract infections (interesting tidbit, during Vietnam, men who were not circumcised experienced something called "jungle rot" because their penis spent so much time submerged in wet swaps that the area under the foreskin get infected). Also, the …
/r/MensRights26/08/09 02:58 AM
0

Whoa, slow down. Male circumcision is no where near as bad as female "circumcision". Female circumcision can involve three things (soucre:wikipedia). Total or partial removal of the clitoris Removal of the clitoris and labia minora Sewing the labia minora over the labia majora closing the vaginal entrance. Now maybe it's just me, but all those sound and seem much worse than male circumcision (especially the third, which can cause injury and infection later in life). Also, speaking as someone who…
/r/MensRights26/08/09 02:48 AM
3

This is the advice I gave her, I hopes she listens: I'm not an expert on the brain, but if you have a faint memories surfacing, it means you were probably conscious while you were having sex. Now that it is several days out, it is harder to remember it, but the fact that you have some memories imply that you were conscious at least part of the time. Now the issue comes up as the whether you were drifting in and out of consciousness or were conscious the whole time. If you were conscious the whol…
/r/MensRights25/08/09 11:52 PM
11

Yes, he was an asshole. But a criminal who should be locked away for 8 to 10 years to protect society? I didn't think so. Exactly, I think that is the issue in a lot of sketchy rape charges. Both people have impaired judgment and regret it in the morning, but the women has the power to get back at the guy she regrets sleeping with, and try to save her own dignity, by claiming she was raped. That is the danger of false rape accusations, what feels like getting back at someone for a mistake on bot…
/r/MensRights25/08/09 11:37 PM
1

This was originally posted (or at least the general counterpoint list) in the comments section of the article when it was submitted to reddit, wasn't it? Is it a good or bad thing I know that?
/r/MensRights24/08/09 07:28 PM
1

Not repeal, but it is enough to make a case for amending rape laws so both parties remain anonymous until there is a conviction.
/r/MensRights24/08/09 06:16 PM
1

But the issue isn't that he gets revealed as an adulterer, it's that he does and his accuser does not.
/r/MensRights24/08/09 06:08 PM
2

Lol, I watched the video from the thumbnail first and was really confused.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 09:06 PM
3

Hey reddit, we should find this "Hal" (though that may be a fake name for the article's purpose) and at least bring this to his attention. From there it is up to him how he handles it, but he definitely has the right to know.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 09:00 PM
1

That's the problem. If the husband goes out and cheats on her, he becomes the bad and neglectful parent in the event of divorce, but she can play head games with him for years and still get sole custody with even a half decent lawyer.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 08:58 PM
1

Exactly, the issue is not that she doesn't want to have sex, it's that she isn't being honest with her husband and leading him to think it's his fault, and that he did something wrong. Also, writing this article and the book is completely out of line.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 08:54 PM
3

This is one of the major perks of being gay.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 08:52 PM
1

But in this situation, her husband probably would not get custody. Look at it from this prospective: she was never (clearly) abusive or neglectful of the children. And the husband is filing for divorce because (as a decent lawyer would spin it) "he wants sex." Generally speaking, unless you can prove that the mother was abusive or negligent, it is very hard to win custody.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 08:50 PM
5

But the whole point is that in calling themselves "feminist" they open up a giant hole in their argument. You can easily drill home the comparison between true feminism and what they are saying. But in being apathetic and accepting the new use of the term you not only miss a good opportunity, but also make it so real feminists get mixed in with the ones wrongly using the term.
/r/MensRights21/08/09 05:19 AM
1

I think the word "false" is what is causing the confusion. I mean "false" in that they are not feminists, not that their ideas or beliefs are necessarily wrong (but they might be).
/r/MensRights21/08/09 05:16 AM
2

False feminist are those who do not seek equality, but instead overshoot that goal and actively oppress men; (ganging up on a man yelling "all men are sutpid", insane definitions of sexual assault, etc. These when these people are called feminists, it is false. Equal voting rights, property rights, and pay, these are all things feminism called for. This is fine, hell, feminism is a good thing. The term has been bastardized to describe one who dislikes or goes against men, this is false. Lobbyist…
/r/MensRights21/08/09 04:30 AM
-1

I want a technical basis for this claim. The focus of MRA is feminism, not women. NO, IT ISN'T FEMINISM!! It is the bastardization of feminism. I quote myself from earlier today "I think it's worth pointing out that true feminism is simply "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." This core idea is one that any Male Rights believer should understand and fully support. There are two issues with the current view on feminism though. 1) It is…
/r/MensRights21/08/09 04:23 AM
1

Exactly. The true root of feminism is the mirror of the men's rights goals, simply for females. It hurts everyone when the term is used incorrectly, because it offers some degree of validity to those who don't deserve it, and it makes true feminist hard to pick out of the crowd of false feminist.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 07:00 PM
14

I think it's worth pointing out that true feminism is simply "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." This core idea is one that any Male Rights believer should understand and fully support. There are two issues with the current view on feminism though. 1) It is often conflated with "gender pride," and this is far from the truth. Anyone who believes in equality for both genders qualifies as both a feminist and a masculist (the term for a…
/r/MensRights20/08/09 04:34 PM
4

If your goal is anti-feminism movement, then you are approaching the Men's Rights issue from the wrong angle. This is exactly what he is talking about, if you view the whole issue as "anti feminism" then no one will take you seriously.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 04:00 PM
1

Well, I know this is semantics, but men can be raped in Idaho; but they cannot seek legal action against the person who raped them.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 03:20 PM
8

The trio admitted assault and received three-month suspended jail terms. Pawson and Edwards must carry out 150 hours of unpaid work each while Delaney was given a three-month night-time curfew and a one-year supervision order. They must each pay £95 in compensation and costs. Wow, if it had been three men beating up a women, they all would have gotten at least 3 years.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 12:03 AM
2

Hey, someone else from Utah on reddit. Now I don't feel so alone. My general rule for holding the door is if it would be closed by the time they get there, I let it close, but if it would still be closeing when they get there, I hold it.
/r/MensRights18/08/09 05:52 PM
2

God, this is like the Fundie v Atheist Facebook chats from a few days ago, only more painful because shes basing all her assertions on nothing. At least with Fundies it's all coming from the same place.
/r/MensRights18/08/09 08:52 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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