TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LogicalClarity Archive

View 0 posts and 187 comments by LogicalClarity 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)
59

A world in which most women have the opportunity to "marry up" is, by logical necessity, a world where most men earn significantly more than most women. A world in which there is no income gap is a world in which most women can, at best, marry laterally. I suppose a world in which men greatly outnumber women could be one in which most women can marry up. Other than that, there is no way to have both of: 1. Equal or greater incomes for women in general 2. Abundant wealthier men to marry.
/r/MensRights29/07/26 01:23 AM
3

There is no way to select someone who will never divorce you. People change over time, and their incentives change over time too. No amount of vetting or intelligence can protect someone from divorce. Instead, given the current social and legal climate, the only smart move is to expect the divorce and plan for it with a pre-nup. These have more legal teeth in some places than in others, and you will want to consult with a lawyer to write one that will hold itself together when the time comes. Al…
/r/MensRights26/07/26 11:33 PM
73

It IS sex discrimination. That's a simple objective fact. But it is perfectly legal sex discrimination. So it is not "unlawful sex discrimination."
/r/MensRights19/07/26 06:50 PM
2

It sounds like your position is: the mere existence of other people, especially people younger than me, benefits me economically. Therefore, I should want people to have children, even if I don't want children myself (and, perhaps, I should even pay taxes or do other things to support them in their efforts, due to the reciprocal benefit). Sounds reasonable. Though WackyConundrum is specifically talking about anti-natalism as a philosophy, rather than a mere personal preference. So I am putting o…
/r/MensRights30/06/26 11:43 PM
7

Objectively speaking, it DOES take a lot of sacrifice, for a long time, to produce and raise children. This includes impact on health as well as lost money and time. Apart from an instinct to bear children, and/or loyalty to the species, there really isn't much incentive to make all that sacrifice. Children are not a retirement plan in the modern day (people are better off investing all the resources in wealth-generation instead so they can afford medical care in their old age, than expecting th…
/r/MensRights30/06/26 01:37 PM
0

Yes, as do men who create false accounts pretending to be women just so they can lie.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:02 AM
0

Go to gemini.google.com and type out your question as a complete plain-English sentence, just as if you were typing it on this forum. That's all it takes. You are now an AI power user. It's free, too.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:00 AM
25

I wasn't talking about the risk of bad feels from being rejected. Boys learn to cope with that right away. I am talking about: 1. being punished for daring to ask, because she feels insulted that you thought you were on her level. 2. being cheated on 3. catching a disease 4. unwanted pregnancy 5. the ongoing effort and expense of dating. 6. abuse 7. paternity fraud 8. false accusations (being in a relationship creates more opportunity for them) 9. Life-ruining consequences of divorce (should dat…
/r/MensRights28/06/26 10:37 PM
4

I think that there is an expectation that people in general will know what their options are. We are supposed to learn this from our parents and/or school as we grow up. An adult (of any gender) "should" be smart enough to know when to get legal help, reach out to support services, or ghost a relationship. It may be that schools and/or parents are failing at this, and people are being ushered into adulthood with very limited strategies for navigating social risks. If so, that IS a problem, becau…
/r/MensRights28/06/26 07:36 PM
86

The risks are high and the rewards are low. It's as simple as that.
/r/MensRights28/06/26 07:23 PM
12

The genital mutilation laws (girls protected, boys routinely mutilated) The belief bias (false accusations with no evidence from girls are believed and boys are punished). The grading bias in favor of girls. The college admission bias in favor of women. The hiring bias in favor of women. Legal enforcement bias (lighter sentences for women, men presumed guilty in domestic violence cases) Rape bias (women can revoke consent after the fact and bring rape charges, men can never bring rape charges fo…
/r/MensRights27/06/26 04:31 PM
22

And even those who accept the data will say that this is actually what is needed for equality, because it is actually evening-out other forms of oppression against women that just don't show up in this study (including the mythical wage gap). And anyway the old "men and women are different and so should be treated differently" argument will also be considered justification for a woman-favored hiring bias. And there is still that need for revenge for millennia of female oppression. The patriarchy…
/r/MensRights27/06/26 02:48 PM
16

Statements like this really make it clear that you are arguing in bad faith. This accusation that you leveled here is clearly not what the poster said nor implied. You are deliberately spinning what they said into something different, but easier to attack. This is called the "straw man fallacy," and it is used by people who know they don't actually have a good argument to make, and so are resorting to linguistic tricks to try to create an illusion of incorrectness in the opposing viewpoint. I do…
/r/MensRights23/06/26 02:09 AM
11

No, your counter-argument is nonsensical. A ban on gay marriage would qualify as "homophobic" because the word "homophobic" is not gender-specific. Linguistically this word means "fear of sameness" though it is used to mean "hatred of homosexuals" which would include lesbians. If such a ban impacts men and women equally, then it is not gender-discriminatory, but it is still homophobic. I think what you were attempting to get at is "a ban on abortion disproportionately impacts women because only …
/r/MensRights23/06/26 12:47 AM
16

Abortion bans apply equally: neither men nor women are allowed to abort children. Women, however, are allowed to put the children up for adoption (whether the father wants this or not) and men have no equivalent opt-out. Women are still allowed to abort, incidentally, in some states. Meaning, women have far more reproductive freedom than men do. About healthcare laws: there are also just as many laws about what kinds of male healthcare can be covered by public insurance, so that is a net neutral…
/r/MensRights23/06/26 12:02 AM
30

Fun history lesson: The original Roe v Wade decision, that protected abortion rights, was made by an ALL MALE set of supreme court justices. The men were the ones protecting the freedom of women. Conversely, the decision that reversed this in 2022 had a supreme court with 4 women on it, one of whom voted with the majority to overturn the decision. Poll data has shown that opposition to abortion rights is evenly split by gender. Half the people who think that women should not be allowed to abort.…
/r/MensRights22/06/26 11:49 PM
3

Loudly proclaim that you identify as female as you move along to the life boats with the "Women and girls." Teach your boys to do this too.
/r/MensRights22/06/26 11:37 PM
49

Feminists also like to point out lopsided context-free "facts" like "wars are overwhelmingly waged by men" and "most violent crime is perpetuated by men" in order to paint a narrative of men as morally inferior to women due to an inherently violent nature. And now here they are celebrating a prominent counter-example. Apparently, violence is bad when men do it, but good when women do it.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 04:27 PM
1

That's good. Since we are not pretending, let's also not pretend that women have some sort of inherent moral superiority over men, nor that women play no role in the waging of war, nor that violence is somehow due to a form of moral inferiority that only men have. Our species evolved to survive in a violent world. Conflicts between the tribes of our ancient ancestors arose because natural resources are finite. The need for food drives territorial disputes throughout the animal kingdom, including…
/r/MensRights19/06/26 03:02 PM
60

And when men start refusing to co-habitate in order to avoid these financial burdens, there will be even louder shouting about how "incels" are refusing to "man up" and play their part in society. Men will be portrayed as evil and selfish for wanting to keep what they have earned. Porn will be blamed, as well as video games and anything else that men do that doesn't involve giving money to women. But don't worry. They will still get your money. They will just find ways of introducing gender-spec…
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:53 PM
33

Knowing it is a trap is the first step in evading it.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:45 PM
9

I actually looked up some details about the pyramids. Posting because I think this is interesting, and someone else might too: Egyptian pyramids were not built by slave labor. It was paid labor (though for the unskilled part of the workforce, payment was in the form of food and shelter since the work was done during seasons when farming was not possible). And, women were involved (though they didn't do the heavy labor). So, it appears that women were neither held back (since they contributed) no…
/r/MensRights14/06/26 05:02 PM
1

But the implied conclusion that the wars only happened because men were the ones in power simply doesn't fit your evidence. Most power was held by men, so we would expect most wars to have had men at the top. In cases were women were in power, we saw them waging war too. So the clear evidence here is that HUMANS wage war, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights14/06/26 04:35 PM
13

It sounds like you have received a very lopsided education in history, heavily slanted by feminist propaganda. For most of human existence, the male duties of protection and hunting were extremely dangerous. Men's bodies were better suited to them, and so the women were sheltered and protected from needing to face those dangers. It was a matter of raw practical necessity more than anything. Even after we started farming and building cities, the labor necessary to do this building was back-breaki…
/r/MensRights14/06/26 04:24 PM
22

Your claim that women aren't marrying because men aren't nurturing, empathic, or kind enough is certainly a "feel good" narrative, but it really doesn't fit the facts (nor any of our lived experiences). We all survived high school and college, and we all saw the exact same thing: the men who truly emphasized kindness and empathy as their primary virtues all got ignored and/or bullied for it. The women flocked to the "bad boys" who had the muscle and charisma. Thus, the actions of most women (not…
/r/MensRights14/06/26 04:17 PM
0

This factoid that you have repeatedly posted is simply not true. There have been many women in positions of power, throughout history, who have waged war.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 12:27 AM
18

Men have always gone to war. That doesn't make it right. They get things done. That doesn't justify enslaving them. Sometimes things are bigger than yourself. Yes, like building a society that respects self-determinacy, inspires its people to choose military service by governing well, and makes allies with other countries so it never needs to resort to force to defend itself.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 04:22 AM
9

Love is a temporary emotional state that makes you kind of crazy. It blinds you to the other person's faults and convinces you that the other person is the most wonderful person in the world (even though they are not). It motivates you to make irrational levels of self-sacrifice and long-term commitments, only to fade away after a couple of years, leaving you financially bound to someone who might be outright incompatible with you. It's mother nature's bait-and-switch. The feeling promises lifel…
/r/MensRights09/06/26 12:35 AM
5

Thank you for posting this, I had no idea. I read a bit about this and there is even more financial incentive for this: qualifying for medicaid. If the divorce leaves the wife with very few assets, suddenly she qualifies, even if the man has plenty of assets. It can be a divorce in name only; the couple can continue to live together as if married, but now they don't stand to lose their house and savings under the crushing weight of medical debt. It's really messed up how hostile our culture is t…
/r/MensRights07/06/26 04:23 AM
9

The predictable outcome here is: fewer men choosing to move in with their girlfriends, and further reduction in the birth rate, as men simply respond to the incentives being created.
/r/MensRights07/06/26 04:05 AM
16

I suppose it is natural to want equality in every way that benefits, and not want it in any way that obligates. I mean, the incentives to take this position are clear. The argument is quite hypocritical, of course. "We are equals when we choose to be, and essentially different and therefore deserving of different treatment when we choose to be." If it wasn't for the "women are wonderful" effect, this hypocrisy would be obvious to everyone and flatly rejected.
/r/MensRights07/06/26 04:00 AM
1

Nope, you are still playing word games. "Voluntary" military service is when someone freely applies for the job because that's how they want to earn a living (in the presence of other options). What you are talking about is still forced labor (which is to say, slavery). There is simply no escaping this fact: when you force people to work against their will, that's slavery. Your statement "you don't exist in one, you are a part of it," is more fancy word games. This sentiment doesn't change the f…
/r/MensRights06/06/26 10:05 PM
2

An "exchange" is something that someone enters into voluntarily. When people are being forced to go where they don't want to go and do things they don't want to do, that's slavery. You are just playing word games in an attempt to whitewash it. All the benefits and opportunities for living in a country (infrastructure, jobs, government services, etc.) are paid-for by tax money. That is what props them up. That is what people must "exchange" in order for receiving them. This includes protection, s…
/r/MensRights06/06/26 07:42 PM
2

Oppose injustice regardless of who the victim is. Oppose injustice against women, and oppose injustice against men. That's how you can be both. That might not make you both a "mens rights activist" and a "feminist" at the same time, depending on who you ask. But it will certainly make you an egalitarian, which is clearly what you are aiming for. Your high calling might require you to abandon familiar labels and affiliation with highly politicized groups. It might bring you under harsh criticism …
/r/MensRights06/06/26 04:38 PM
10

The second best option is a combination of: 1. Make allies with your neighbors, so they freely join you in your fight. 2. Treat your people well, so they consider the country worth fighting for, and freely volunteer. Any government that cannot make friends with its neighbors and cannot inspire its people to want to defend it, does not deserve to be a government. If they must resort to force, then they are tyrants, no more deserving to be a government than whatever other government is fighting th…
/r/MensRights06/06/26 04:28 PM
51

I hope you have or can find friends to hang out with, to stave off loneliness if you suffer from it. A woman who only wants you for your money is not going to bring fulfillment. Our culture hypes up the having-of a girlfriend as one of life's greatest experiences, and it's just not. You aren't missing nearly as much as you might suspect. You don't need a woman's affection to justify your existence. There are other things to live for, like intellectual, spiritual, and physical self-actualization.…
/r/MensRights03/06/26 04:32 AM
-4

You directly stated "Don’t leave it to women to tell the story, they lie all the time." Maybe you meant that some women lie all the time, not all women. Maybe what you were really getting it is that their lies are believed. But that statement, even in the context of your post, reads like a "broad brush" statement that ALL women lie all the time. And it isn't true. It might just be a problem of how the statement is worded.
/r/MensRights02/06/26 03:02 AM
15

I just read that this bill gives the 12 days off to all employees. It doesn't discriminate by gender. So the emphasis on women seems to be more of a marketing tactic than a gendered privilege.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 11:57 PM
21

I think there is a bit more to it than that. Women as a group benefit from male competition for female attention. Even men whom they would never choose can motivate their current boyfriends to try harder, which means more sacrifice and benefits. They also naturally expect that men who are not attractive should be aspiring to make themselves attractive, for the same reasons. And, to be clear, there isn't anything wrong with this (morally speaking). It's how our species evolved. Men are supposed t…
/r/MensRights27/05/26 12:44 AM
1

I don't know about Australia but if it is anything like the USA, the job of school teacher is too dangerous for men. Any false accusation from any student, without any evidence, can leave him without a job and a permanently tarnished reputation (and possibly legal consequences as well). And that doesn't even begin to cover hiring bias or the automatic suspicion of any man who works with young children as having malicious intent.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:55 AM
1

Never sleep next to someone who could profit from your death.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:11 AM
2

If depression sets in go ahead and seek help. Depression can harm your health and even be fatal, and medicine that takes the edge off can save your life AND it's temporary. You stop taking it once you stop suffering the hormone withdrawal. As painful as the experience is, ultimately you can emerge from it more emotionally independent, which paves the way for greater objectivity in assessing future dating prospects or reaping the benefits of staying single and focusing entirely on self-actualizat…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 01:02 AM
9

A 30% figure is unfair to men if it means that some male applicants are turned down just because they are men, and women get hired instead of them even if those men fit the job description better. The correct way to hire is to not discriminate by gender at all, and pick the best candidates. Putting gender quotas on hiring introduces discrimination, which is wrong regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 12:44 AM
70

Where is the evidence that women are being pushed out of engineering, as opposed to choosing not to enter the field? It's not systematic exclusion if they are avoiding it by choice.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:54 AM
8

I have seen posts in mensrights that straight-up complain about women and generalize them in the process. This does not surprise me because there aren't many forums that would accept complaints about women in any form. MGTOW and related forums all got banned, so, where will frustrated men go to vent? The fact that our culture is far more willing to tolerate misandry than misogyny is a point of concern, of course. But this tolerance is not a gendered issue (both men and women alike tolerate compl…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 12:11 AM
1

It doesn't bother you. Ok. Do you think that means that it doesn't bother anyone? Or that it shouldn't bother anyone? The issue is one of bodily autonomy. The goal is to protect each man's right to choose, once he is old enough to choose. That would include someone like you who wants to be circumcised. He still could be, once he is old enough. But those who don't want their penises cut should have that option. Do you agree that men should have autonomy over their own bodies?
/r/MensRights17/05/26 03:24 AM
19

I, for one, am opposed to these sites regardless of gender target. These sites are abused to say false and hurtful things about innocent people. If the motivation is to make dating safer, this is not the way.
/r/MensRights16/05/26 10:25 PM
22

These expectations need to be worked out before marriage. As I understand, most modern families involve two working parents. The idea that one does all the income-generation and the other does none is largely a thing of the past. This dissolves any notion of either person being entitled to a free pass on domestic labor. In situations where one parent is capable of earning enough so that the other doesn't need to generate income, it makes sense to have a conversation before marriage about what th…
/r/MensRights16/05/26 12:09 AM
4

I believe there are more great American women. It just takes effort to find them (not just the effort of being a great American man, but of meeting women, learning about them and their upbringing, and passing on the ones that are attractive but full of red flags). It's not easy to do, nor is it cheap, but if you are considering something like marriage or parenthood then you can't afford to skimp on the effort here.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 09:26 PM
24

Conscripting women to do anything really drives home the point that conscription is slavery. That's why we only conscript men. When men are the only victims, our blinders go right up and we think it's somehow ok now.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 09:20 PM
1

Who is passing judgment here? I didn't say it was a poly to get money, I just said that it could have been. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I carefully avoided doing precisely that. If you enjoy looking up trial documents, knock yourself out. I have other things to do, and I was quite upfront about that in my post.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 07:54 PM
6

The infatuation issue is a big one. People (young people in particular) still believe that being "in love" is the one and only reason anyone should get married, and the best guarantee of the success of the marriage. And, as much as it breaks our hearts to own up to this: that is one of the most popular lies in our culture. The cold reality is: the state of being in love is a temporary state of overwhelming hormone imbalance. It deludes our thinking such that the other person seems like the most …
/r/MensRights10/05/26 07:32 PM
8

Hi, you must be new here. Some of the core issues that consistently arise in mens rights discussions include harmfully unfair treatment of men in the context of divorce, spousal abuse, and child custody. A common belief among men is that the lopsidedness is so bad that marriage fails a risk-to-benefit analysis, hence the advice not to do it. It is true that good things are being missed-out-on should one choose to remain single, but such a decision never happens in a vacuum. There are always sets…
/r/MensRights10/05/26 07:21 PM
11

A lot of men and women believe being born a man obligates you to serve in the military. They say it's a duty to protect your country, in return for the protection you get from living there. The people who think this way outnumber the people who don't. A proper duty is one that a person accepts voluntarily. Everything else is a forced obligation. Any moral debt one may incur by living in a country and receiving benefits can be repaid by diligent and honest payment of taxes. This is all women need…
/r/MensRights05/05/26 03:50 PM
2

Seeing as how "women" is a very large group of people, it is natural that many of them will disagree with each other. So the mixed messages are largely due to that alone. Be that as it may, it isn't hard to recognize the incentives most women face, and the natural resultant behaviors. Many women don't like being approached by unattractive men. It is an unpleasant experience for them and natural that they wouldn't want it. So they will reject that. Women in general benefit from the institution of…
/r/MensRights25/04/26 12:11 AM
17

Not only are they complaining, they are taking something simple and beautiful and calling it evil. The motivations they claim players have come only from the feminists' own minds. From what I have seen of the ads for this game, the girl is not sexualized in any way. That's all the feminists' doing. Fatherhood is a good thing, and it should be celebrated. Right here, we see it being demonized. And we see exactly who is doing this demonization: feminists. We need a cultural push-back against this …
/r/MensRights23/04/26 01:27 AM
7

As usual, the automatic response among the masses is: If a woman does it, it's because men are evil. If a man does it, it's because men are evil.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 12:32 AM
1

No second chances, then? No opportunity to regain one's honor and social standing through meaningful service? No justice for those who were wrongly convicted? One way of judging a civilization is by how they treat their criminals. Rehabilitation is one of the highest forms of justice. Apparently you, and many others on this site, have not grasped this.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 12:26 AM
-1

I agree, conscription is slavery and wrong. I think that making it easier for more people to volunteer is a good step in at least avoiding the incentive to conscript. It's not enough but it is better than nothing and a step in the right direction. I also believe that volunteer military service absolutely should be an option for criminals, as a way of serving their sentence, paying their debt to society, and being rehabilitated. As horrible as war is, we DO need to be good at it. We need a strong…
/r/MensRights12/04/26 11:04 PM
30

When a woman has sex under the influence of alcohol, she was raped. When a man has sex under the influence of alcohol, that's fine. Also, women can retroactively withdraw consent, but men cannot. Also, if a woman is pressured into sex that she doesn't really want, that's rape. But if a man is outright forced to have sex while protesting, that's not rape. Some of the above double standards have been codified into law, and some have not (but enforcement treats them as though they have). None of th…
/r/MensRights12/04/26 10:50 PM
19

Bad people acquire and abuse political power to compel good people to murder each other. In ridiculous numbers.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 12:26 AM
26

I wonder how many women are in a position to select job candidates and use information from AWDTSG to eliminate undesirables. The site is in a position to cause great harm to innocent men.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 12:16 AM
9

emo-ctrl seems to be referring to one of the policy changes that happens after a service member exceeds ten years of service, and has an ex-spouse who was married for at least ten years that overlap with the ten years of military service. The process of paying alimony from the military pay (including retirement pay) changes. Specifically, the military sends the check directly to the ex-spouse. The amount doesn't change. The money just lands directly in the ex's bank account, instead of landing i…
/r/MensRights08/04/26 03:09 AM
1

You are playing word games. Slavery is forcing people to do what you want them to do, instead of what they want to do. Conscription is an obvious synonym. The issue is not just that "they don't like it." They are being forced to walk away from their jobs, and their families, and go murder people until murdered. Conscription absolutely qualifies as slavery regardless of how common it is. Every country practices it because most people are born with the stone-age mental template that I described be…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:37 PM
4

You seem to be in the group of people I was talking about. And you are missing my fundamental point. Conscription is slavery, and slavery is wrong, regardless of how much a government "needs" it. If a government finds itself under attack, and the majority of its people say "screw you, I won't go fight!" then that was clearly a bad government. The refusal of their people to fight is clear demonstration that this government does not deserve to govern. That government deserves to lose. A government…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 04:14 AM
6

Your duty to your nation is to pay taxes. Fighting for it only becomes a duty after you have voluntarily joined the military. Or at least, that's how it should be. Evil governments can and will conscript men and then grossly underpay them. And they will even want to underpay volunteer forces. So paying the right wage absolutely matters, but is only half the equation, the other half being governing well so people actually consider it a country worth fighting for. So long as people (men and women)…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:34 AM
7

I think it was ok back when we lived as hunter-gatherors with nothing but stone-age technology. At that time, violence was a daily (or at least weekly) activity. The pack needed all men to be good at it, and needed to protect the women from it, to survive. That's where our basic template view on this comes from. In the modern day, countries are enormous compared to packs, and there is an abundance of ways to be productive other than fighting. People can specialize like never before. Men can opti…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 02:54 AM
3

There are a few more harsh realities at work here too: babies are expensive to raise, and our country needs to raise them well enough to be able to earn a living. It puts us between a rock and a hard place. If we leave all single moms without financial aid, then a whole lot of babies grow up to be bums, criminals, or otherwise drags on society rather than productive participants, and high numbers of such people harm us all. So it isn't just a matter of expecting people to suffer the consequences…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 01:05 AM
2

Well for one I don't know if the video actually contains facts, or contains a biased and one-sided version of the facts. There were comments about a way to donate, which means there is a direct financial incentive to pilfer the facts to make compassion money. And plenty of postings on this forum are just shameless clickbait obviously intended to get youtube video views to (again) make money. None of that is a guarantee that the video contains lies (or just one-sided narratives that omit troubles…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 12:49 AM
29

Many people in various parts of the world have tried to do something about it, including engaging their legal systems and/or protesting in order to get conscription banned. They always lose, though, because there are a whole lot of men who believe that every male person born into a country absolutely does owe that country their lives. Their thoughts on the subject are as clear as they are shallow: The country is in danger and the only way to keep it safe is to force men to fight. Anyone who does…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 12:25 AM
1

No, I cannot. Information like that can be used for doxing and cancel-culture is alive and well. Feminists, in particular, have shown no inhibitions about cancelling (or trying to cancel) people for speaking simple and reasonable truths. I have a career to protect, so I can only act as a voice of sanity in forums that grant me anonymity.
/r/MensRights30/03/26 05:38 PM
1

Yes, something happened to me. Specifically: I studied philosophy in college including formal logic. I developed critical thinking skills and honed them through debate and exercises of in-depth analysis. Also, and relevantly, I was not made to endure years of one-sided feminist propaganda. I can recognize a false equivalence fallacy a mile away. And I am going to call that out.
/r/MensRights30/03/26 02:33 AM
8

When someone asks if you are gay in order to shame you, you could consider an ambiguous response to both keep the issue focused and reveal their hypocrisy. Something as simple as: "So what if I was? I just want to know if there are any such gyms." It implies that you don't have any problem with homosexuality and shines a spotlight right on their issues with it, makes it clear that this has no relevance to your question, and is simply a refusal to take their bait. Maybe some of them will press wi…
/r/MensRights30/03/26 02:24 AM
25

These statements are not equivalent after the gender-swap. They are not equally true. It is not true that being in the wrong place at the wrong time is all it takes for a man to rape a woman. For example: out in public, in plain view of a crowd, an attempt at rape would be instantly reported, recorded, physically thwarted. Where as when a man is in the wrong place at the wrong time (out in public in plain view of a crowd), a woman can falsely accuse him and be cheered on for it. Unlike false acc…
/r/MensRights28/03/26 04:11 AM
24

I don't know the facts and so can't make a judgment from where I sit. But I do know that the story sounds entirely plausible, given the modern dating and legal climate. A woman can falsely accuse for any silly reason, and be believed, and ruin an innocent man's life. That's the reality we face. My first takeaway is: don't use Tinder, nor any online hookup app. Random hookups are far too dangerous for men. If you want sex and you want to minimize risks like these, then you must abandon hookup cul…
/r/MensRights27/03/26 12:10 AM
5

Personally, I don't care if some women that I would never date nor even want as friends think I am unattractive or an incel. It's better that way. Maybe they won't try to romance-con me out of my money. Sane, respectful, non-feminist women don't take this attitude, and so I am more willing to give their opinions consideration.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 11:29 PM
2

Human instinct pits us against each other. Resources are scarce and so living things must compete in order to acquire them. We evolved to survive in a competitive world, so we compete. "The rich" are just humans who got a leg up in the competition, one way or another. If you literally took all the money away from all rich people today, and gave it all to the poor. It would be a matter of weeks before a new set of super-rich people emerges. This disparity is a natural consequences of how humans o…
/r/MensRights05/03/26 04:26 PM
3

Another strangely obvious question to ask. Every country in the world enslaves its men and forces them to go die. So, "world governments throughout history" are the ones responsible for that form of oppression. And, just because your agenda here is equally obvious, I will point out that this includes governments throughout history that were led by women, and had men and women as advisers and/or influencers. The religions that teach that God made us with parts he doesn't want us to have? Those we…
/r/MensRights05/03/26 04:20 PM
29

"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." That quote is attributed to Albert Einstein. And it neatly captures the reasons why you were circumcised when helpless. Stupidity in the form of outdated religious superstitions, and a thoughtless acceptance of this as normal. Fear of medical conditions that are unlikely to happen and have other treatments when they do happen (or other irrational fears like you might get made-fun of and be unable to cope). Greed in the form of a gen…
/r/MensRights05/03/26 05:14 AM
12

I have seen feminist propaganda demonizing men with my own two eyes. I saw it in the infamous Gillette commercial. I saw it in uncountable online posts where women outright say that men are evil and blame all men for the evil actions of a few. I learned it at school when I was taught that men naturally desire to oppress women because they are evil. It's all around. So, at least in my case, feminists are the ones who told me that men are evil. And I am replying that this is a false and harmful ge…
/r/MensRights05/03/26 05:00 AM
7

You are asking to know the cause of social oppression of men? Well, ok... All oppression (regardless of gender target) has the same cause: a desire to gain advantage at the expense of another. Slavery, for example, is a terrible form of oppression that doesn't discriminate by gender, and the cause is a desire to have someone else do one's work. This really should be obvious. Though stupidity and superstition can also be causes, where there is no advantage gained. For example: the fact that men a…
/r/MensRights05/03/26 04:56 AM
7

Some women are critical thinkers who don't automatically label anything they dislike as creepy. But some women are not. And the women who are not will label anything an unattractive man does as creepy, but be much more forgiving of behaviors from an attractive man. And the same women who complain about creepy men will also complain about not being approached by men, because the level of respect and politeness in the approach has no bearing. When unattractive men approach, it's creepy. When not e…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 12:02 AM
14

"Diary of a Mad Black Woman" was a romantic comedy, which is to say, a work of pure fiction which doesn't even claim to have been "based" on a true story. Most of the key events in this story are unrealistic, including and especially the legal treatment of Helen (the titular character) during divorce proceedings. Prenups only have a "dark side" if one partner is seeking advantage over the other. If the letter and spirit of the prenup's terms are rooted in fairness, then there is no "dark side." …
/r/MensRights02/03/26 04:28 AM
0

The "Red Pill", like other online phenomenon, has been usurped by special interests. It started out as a reflection on mating behaviors based on evolutionary psychology. But it VERY quickly became a product sold to men for money: a set of behaviors intended to exploit female psychology in order to get sex. For other usurpers, it became a "science-backed" way to make harmful generalizations (which is to say, logical fallacies) about women and portray then in a negative light. For still others it …
/r/MensRights02/03/26 12:19 AM
26

As we all well know, modern marriages are not forever. That is a romantic idea from bygone days. The law on the issue is clear: marriages are temporary contracts that are freely ended by either party, and that's it. When people don't like something, they tend to take whatever position makes it look the most-bad, regardless of their true motivations for disliking it. "It shows distrust" is not the reason that women (or men, in some cases) dislike pre-nups. That's just what sounds good. The obviou…
/r/MensRights02/03/26 12:10 AM
3

Short answer: https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-lower-sex-drive-8671216 But it sounds like you have more than a high sex drive going on. You said that you dated "pretty ones." I am inferring too much from too little context here but it sounds like you might be selecting for the wrong traits. If you are looking for loyalty and devotion, then filtering out any woman who doesn't live up to high beauty standards is going to be self-defeating. That's the wrong trait to focus on. Good looks (for b…
/r/MensRights01/03/26 04:36 PM
20

I would have no problem supporting a woman for president, so long as she wasn't a feminist (or otherwise an obvious misandrist). Though she would still need to align with my political views, of course. I think many people on this forum feel the same way. But given the very high prominence of extreme feminism among the democratic left, in particular, the general assumption is that any woman candidate would be a feminist of the extreme man-hating variety, and so would be a harmful president. Will …
/r/MensRights26/02/26 05:01 AM
2

Infant circumcision is oppression. Mandatory draft registration is oppression. Systemic bias against men in divorce court is oppression. Systemic bias against men when falsely accused is oppression. Systemic bias against abused men who reach out for help is oppression. Systemic bias against boys in schools (boys get lower grades than girls for equivalent quality work) is oppression. Significantly less financial aid available to men seeking a college education, than women, is oppression. Biased l…
/r/MensRights22/02/26 08:02 PM
7

Indeed. Young people are not driven to produce and raise a child, they are driven to have sex. This is mother nature's bait-and-switch. Some people also have a desire to raise children, but when they first become young and fertile the sex drive is dominant. Love is just a pre-programmed addiction driven by our hormones, and can be triggered by orgasm (among other things). It feels like it is showing us how wonderful the other person is, and that the other person will always stay that wonderful, …
/r/MensRights22/02/26 06:04 PM
1

I don't think flirtation or hinting for a date are automatically creepy, whether done by men or women. I think that such behavior is dangerous for men to do, since it can result in false accusations as per the present article, but such reactions are unwarranted and harmful. Showing interest is a natural and ok thing to do. If you made it clear that you weren't interested and she kept at it, that would stray into harassment territory. But ordinary sane humans (of both genders) should understand t…
/r/MensRights22/02/26 05:50 PM
4

When we talk about the Loneliness Epidemic, are we talking about: 1. men unable to establish romantic relationships? 2. men unable to establish friendships? I think there is some fuzziness around this distinction and it matters. For the most part, romance does not cure loneliness. In fact, it can make loneliness worse because you fixate on one person who might dominate your attention and drive your friends out of your life. What DOES cure loneliness is friendship. So long as the friendship is no…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 06:52 PM
3

Your love for her threatens to rob you of your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with love but it takes effort to think clearly when you are under its influence. Is she in love with you? Or with your money? If she is in love with you, she should be happy to sign the pre-nup. It is just asking her to give up something she does not love (your money) to gain something she does (you). It doesn't make her give up any of her money should you divorce, it just prevents her from keeping yours in additi…
/r/MensRights20/02/26 08:57 PM
26

Speaking the truth is always dangerous. A quick review of history makes that outright obvious.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 04:25 AM
114

Pre-marriage negotiations are the true "language of love." It is during this period that you really lay your expectations on the table, and discover what the other person's expectations are. The uncomfortable conversations are absolutely the most important. The accusations from her and her family are easily countered. If they care about you, they will be willing to have a civil discussion about them. For example, "if you really loved me you wouldn't want a pre-nup" can be matched with "if you re…
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:32 AM
0

For acute depression you may need medication. A therapist can't prescribe what you need, so you may need to see a psychiatrist. There are strange social stigmas against this; ignore them because they don't serve your interests. It is fine to want a wife and kids. But if your circumstances put those goals out of reach, your best bet is to find something else to live for. Many people do, and you can too, but if your serotonin levels are too low then literally nothing will work. Understand that med…
/r/MensRights19/02/26 01:49 AM
5

Circumcision is child abuse because you are cutting off perfectly healthy parts of the child's body and causing lifelong reduced sensitivity (and risking other problems up to and including death). You are justifying circumcision. Therefore you are justifying child abuse. It is "sexual assault" because the assault is against the sexual organs. Whether or not the intent is sexual has no bearing. So you are also justifying sexual assault of an infant. The cherry on top here is that you actually bel…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 07:50 PM
3

This law seems motivated by naive expectations that it will make marriages last longer, just like in the good old days. It won't. It will just give even more reasons to falsely accuse one's spouse in order to get the divorce. This will make things worse. People need a way of getting themselves out of a bad situation that doesn't involve being impoverished nor the option to impoverish someone else. The obvious right answer is to eliminate the "joint property ownership" aspect of marriage. Both me…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 01:16 AM
8

I second the statement that it is not and never was a "movement." There was never any real organization. The acronym stuck and various people stood up some forums, and that's all it ever was. Many of the forum moderators insisted that it was not at all about "hating women," and the focus was on taking ownership of one's own life and pursuing goals and relationships other than romance. Seeking fulfillment by other means. I am sure they meant it too. But these forums were also very attractive to m…
/r/MensRights10/02/26 01:57 AM
27

You don't need love to get these benefits. You can stimulate Oxytocin by: Petting a dog (or any animal you like, doesn't even have to be yours. Hang out at a dog park.) Various meditation techniques (not the empty-mind kind, but active visualization kind including gratitude meditation (count your blessings), and loving-kindness meditation (visualize others and wishing goodwill to them). Self-massage. Rub your temples and such. Yep, it works, as long as you are actually creating a relaxing enviro…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 05:07 AM
5

Please send me a link too.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 11:19 PM
6

So what if it is rare? How often it happens has nothing to do with whether or not it causes harm and should be illegal. Incidentally, there are many ways to impose unconsented sex on a man or boy that don't involve physical overpowering. What kind of monster justifies rape? (Hint: you).
/r/MensRights22/01/26 11:44 PM
80

"Now that we are married, you owe me physical affection." is selfish and unjustified, much like "now that I am leaving you, you owe me most of your money and an ongoing salary from now on."
/r/MensRights19/01/26 11:41 PM
25

All popular movements suffer from this problem. Their popularity makes them attractive to extremists, and those extremists make a lot of noise and try to steer the entire group towards their extreme ideas (and especially to create the impression that everyone in the group already agrees with their extremism). So, I agree this happens in men's rights spaces. And also in feminist spaces as you say. And in every kind of political space. Extremism is a very harmful phenomenon that poisons every kind…
/r/MensRights18/01/26 04:16 PM
9

Precisely. If 2/3 of all crime is committed by men, that does not mean that 2/3 of men commit crime. Nor does it mean that simply reducing the population of men will reduce the amounts of crime. Neither conclusion is supported by the evidence. But recognizing this requires that one have a basic understanding of statistics. This understanding is not intuitive; one must learn it through education. It's the only way. And without it, ridiculous (and completely false) conclusions will seem perfectly …
/r/MensRights01/01/26 07:26 PM
1

There is also this: sometimes false accusers can't cope with the feelings of guilt, and they confess that they made it all up. If such a confession would suddenly land them in jail, many of them might find the feelings of guilt much more tolerable. I guess it's a question of whether we think that holding false accusers accountable would reduce the incidence of false accusation enough to compensate for the number of false accusers who will now never confess.
/r/MensRights01/01/26 03:42 AM
4

You can have "a person who you can count on beyond the bounds of normal friendship" and "start a family unit that values you beyond that of other people" without getting married. Marriage is a legal contract that gives the state a lot of power over what happens to your assets when you separate. That specific piece is what fails the risk-to-benefit ratio. It is becoming popular for couples to live together and have kids together unmarried. They just leave the state out of their relationship. It a…
/r/MensRights01/01/26 02:50 AM
3

What you said makes sense logically, but doesn't play out that way in the real world. And that is the problem. In many countries, the law defines "rape" in such a way that women cannot do it to men under any circumstances. Even if the man is passed-out but erect, or drugged against his will, or coerced, or even overpowered by a strong woman, it's still not rape. Such laws are unjustly discriminatory by gender, and we have feminism to blame for them.
/r/MensRights01/01/26 12:38 AM
40

So what? It's ok to cope. Life is full of disappointment so learning how to cope is an important emotional skill. In the case of romance, most modern men are finding the available options to be very disappointing. Putting some effort into it doesn't significantly change this landscape. So, many men cope with these disappointing options by learning how to self-actualize in other ways. Going without romance might be very hard on extroverts, since they have trouble coping with solitude. Fortunately…
/r/MensRights01/01/26 12:33 AM
7

Agreed, living in fear of "every negative outcome" would be ridiculous. One would be utterly paralyzed. So you need to do the risk-to-benefit analysis. In the case of marriage, the risk of divorce is very high. Basically a coin-flip. That's huge! And the consequences are life-destroying. You can wind up homeless, no access to your kids, broke, and living as an indentured servant to the woman who abandoned you (possibly for the rest of your life). What are the benefits? Sex (no marriage required)…
/r/MensRights01/01/26 12:06 AM
6

The way it is commonly stated is "the child's right to parental support is absolute, regardless of the consent status of the parents." That makes it sound nicer because of the "protect the children" feel. But the implementation is completely lopsided. In most parts of the world, women can just abort to opt out of payment, or they can put the child up for adoption to opt out. Men, however, have no such options. So what this really means is: female victims can opt out of payment, male victims cann…
/r/MensRights18/12/25 12:43 AM
4

This would be fair, but it is doomed. You are going up against some deep human mental wiring. Humans see pregnancy as something that a man "does to" a woman. Women are naturally perceived as passive recipients of action and men as active doers. Men and women alike will hear this proposal and think: men will take action against women (get the pregnant), and then abandon those women to suffer the consequences alone. And that's not fair! This isn't accurate, of course. Sex is a team event, requirin…
/r/MensRights17/12/25 11:58 PM
8

The "default state of belief" for both men and women is that men should go fight in the military any time the government wants them to. It is rooted in our pack instincts and befits the world in which we evolved (all men had to fight and hunt most of the time in order for the pack to survive, and women had to be protected from that since they were weaker and necessary to breed, so this arrangement was just a "given"). In the modern day, these instincts no longer suit the landscape, and emerging …
/r/MensRights06/12/25 12:07 AM
3

Freedom is a two-way street, slavery is wrong in any form. If you want sex without the other person having a choice (or even much of one), then what you want is a sexbot. Authentic relationships with other people are founded on mutual respect. So you are lonely and frustrated, we can all identify with that. The nature of your desire is for "easy access" and you are just imagining scenarios where that might happen. I suppose that's a natural enough emotional reaction to your state. The mind will …
/r/MensRights23/11/25 05:36 PM
1

Instinctual bias is a major driving reason. Men and women alike are wired to see women as weaker and in need of protection, and to see men as strong and morally obligated to do the protecting, regardless of details. It's in our DNA, so a few decades of cultural enlightenment aren't going to change that. This instinct is simply being exploited by governments who use it as an excuse to assert power over their people. They can more easily force men to work and go die, than women, since these biases…
/r/MensRights14/11/25 10:17 PM
4

The first hit I found on the Internet said 20% of men. I have no idea how they came up with that number because I didn't bother to check. The very same article said only 2.9% of women would leave. What bothers me about this is the conversation there, and here, seems to be framed as "this is why men are morally superior to women" or "this is why women are morally superior to men" and neither is accurate. Even if we take things at face value here without questioning methods, it appears that likeli…
/r/MensRights14/11/25 10:08 PM
7

It's not just "these girls." The phenomenon of "love" is intrinsically shallow. Our instincts (male and female) make us feel attracted to others based on very surface-level characteristics. Sometimes our conscious minds invent better-sounding reasons for being attracted, but it's mostly a game of self-deception. The attractive ones are only interested in each other. Neither men or women who know they look good have much interest in dating below their level. The unattractive ones wind up mating w…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 11:18 PM
3

Interesting analogy, since "labia trimming" would still qualify as female genital mutilation, and hence is still illegal. So, by your analogy, male genital mutilation (of the foreskin) should be illegal as well.
/r/MensRights10/09/25 12:58 AM
3

This argument applies to marriage too, since the divorce rate is near 50% and men tend to get the very short end of the stick in the divorce settlements, it makes avoiding marriage the most rational argument (by this Skittles logic). Of course the end result of this logic is that nobody should interact with anyone at all, because there is always risk that the other person might be evil, regardless of gender and regardless of the nature of the interaction. But of course that would be impossible t…
/r/MensRights09/09/25 11:58 PM
4

The problem is that the arguments you are making in this and other posts are bad arguments. You have repeatedly offered argument-by-analogy, and this is what is known as a "logical fallacy." The reasoning you are using is irrational. The truth here is simple. The penis *belongs* to the boy, and the choice as to whether or not to remove parts of it also *belongs* to the boy, and parents *should not* have the option to take that away from the boy (unless there is a real medical emergency that forc…
/r/MensRights09/09/25 11:48 PM
4

You said: "I am saying that parents have the right to make medical decisions for their own children." And that's where you are equivocating. Parents have that right, legally, when the medical treatments are necessary. As in, when the child's life is in danger or similar. Circumcision is (in the overwhelming majority of cases) a cosmetic surgery that comes without medical necessity. In that case, the child's option to choose for themselves (when they are old enough) should be protected by law. Th…
/r/MensRights09/09/25 11:40 PM
16

That resonates as true. I can accept that the idealized family with a working father and a stay at home mom was only ever a thing in the middle and/or upper classes anyway.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 12:31 AM
23

I am a fan of individual freedom. So it seems to me that a woman who wants to be a stay at home mom should be free to choose to do so, and a woman who wants to have a full time career should be free to choose to do so, and a woman who wants to do both should be free to take that load on. There IS a problem though. When it was the norm for women to be stay at home moms, there weren't as many job opportunities available to them, so some women had to accept the stay at home mom lifestyle even if it…
/r/MensRights04/09/25 11:38 PM
3

It is probably true that a lot of 13 year olds have sexual fantasies about their teachers. The hormones will do that. Most of them never realize these fantasies (thank goodness) and so grow up to be more-or-less normal adults. They remember the fantasies, of course, and think about how much they would have liked a chance to realize them when they were kids. So they take this "the kid was lucky" attitude. But it is exactly as you say; they don't know what it actually would have been like because …
/r/MensRights29/08/25 09:45 PM
7

The article suggests that the conversations men have with their barber serve as stress-relief valves and can even, in some cases, be more effective than therapy for dealing with depression or tough circumstances. It talks about formal efforts at training barbers along these lines. It also encourages men to bring their friends along so they can make getting their hair cut a group event with socialization and some laughs. So, that's fine. But the author of the article uses the phrase "this begs th…
/r/MensRights29/08/25 09:37 PM
1

We live in a world of disposable relationships, so it is easy to recommend divorce, as others here have done. In an effort to avoid repeating what has already been said, I am going to assume that you value this relationship and don't want to get divorced. In that case, here are my suggestions: See a marriage councilor. Some aren't very good. Some are. It's a toss-up. But it might prevent a divorce. Assert reasonable boundaries. This is hard to do and it will be resisted. But her (apparent) belie…
/r/MensRights29/08/25 08:30 PM
51

If girls were sent to prison when they finally admitted they lied, then they wouldn't admit they lied. Innocent men would just stay in prison even longer after being falsely accused. While I agree that such lies should be punished, the proper process would be to stop imprisoning men on accusation alone. The standard of truth needs to be higher than it is. Punishing false accusers is important too, but it isn't the most important element. Re-establishing the doctrine of "presumed innocent until p…
/r/MensRights29/08/25 06:39 PM
3

It's another reason to add to the long list of reasons why working from home is better than working from an office. All companies should make this an option (provided the nature of the work makes it logically possible).
/r/MensRights29/08/25 05:41 PM
7

A human world without laws would not exist for very long at all. The most immediate impact would be roaming gangs, looting and plundering and killing anyone who is not a member. Population would drop precipitously in a week because modern cities have zero capacity to sustain themselves. They rely on a steady stream of imported food, fuel, and other goods, none of which would happen any more without trade regulation. The surviving gangs would immediately start making rules to regulate the behavio…
/r/MensRights28/08/25 05:26 PM
-13

If what you say is true (I didn't watch the video) it sounds like the video's author is just using a ragebait title to get clicks. I suspect that many comments are made by posters who also didn't watch the video, and just assumed that all the arrests were of people staring.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 12:21 AM
12

There is zero evidence that masturbation causes erectile dysfunction. This is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant. The same goes for porn consumption. Though it is more debated in the medical community, the evidence just isn't there. And, in fact, porn has been around much, much longer than the current trends in erectile dysfunction. People blame these things because they are easy targets for moral judgment. The net effect, however, is shaming men for the coping strategies that they naturally use…
/r/MensRights22/08/25 10:42 PM
5

So, technically, the title doesn't say that the students were her students, nor that they were underage. So, technically, the title isn't misleading. But given the forum here, it is obvious that most people will just read the title, make these inferences, and stop there. So I still think this qualifies as "ragebait." A story that involves no broken laws, and therefore no legal punishments, has been presented in such a way that most readers would assume it is a story about unpunished statutory r*…
/r/MensRights22/08/25 12:14 AM
12

I think this story is rage bait. I can't find any corroborating coverage, and the events as described don't seem likely. It is entirely possible that one person would be cruel and humiliate someone like this, But among 15 other people there had to be at least one decent person who quickly realized he didn't find this funny, and would offer a shirt or something for him to cover up. It doesn't make sense that a whole crowd of people would mock someone who was purportedly the boyfriend of one of th…
/r/MensRights16/08/25 09:17 PM
2

The desire for a romantic relationship will probably never go away. It is hard wired into us. It might weaken a bit as you age and your hormones calm down. But it won't vanish completely. That doesn't mean it has to make you miserable. Just treat it the same way you would treat recovering from an addiction. Acknowledge the desire but don't let it rule you, and channel the energy into something else. Of course, you COULD try dating again. It's not like that's illegal or anything. But if you since…
/r/MensRights16/08/25 12:38 AM
47

For starters, please don't slice off parts of our penis when we are young and defenseless. Wait until we are old enough to choose that if we want it. And also, please don't enslave us and force us to go die in a war we don't support. Instead, earn our loyalty by governing well. Also please don't leave us homeless, poor, and living the rest of our lives as an indentured servant when you decide to abandon our marriage. Please don't baby trap us, or cheat on us and then lie and say the baby is ours…
/r/MensRights15/08/25 12:23 AM
2

You mean feminists? No, we should not be silent about the ways feminists cause us harm.
/r/MensRights03/08/25 10:52 PM
7

I think women can be competent leaders, so long as they aren't feminists.
/r/MensRights03/08/25 10:50 PM
-11

Are you trying to get this forum taken down? It is not reasonable to judge all women by the actions of a few.
/r/MensRights03/08/25 10:49 PM
3

Well as I said, I didn't watch it, so maybe my post was offtopic. But as to your question, why do I equate "reach them" with "educate them?" The answer is simple: it has been used that way in other places where I have seen it, including videos and written articles. Authors present themselves as helpers but really they just blame men for their problems (or blame easy scapegoats like porn) and just tell men to get over it and act according to their role. So that's why the phrase puts me on the def…
/r/MensRights03/08/25 12:20 AM
14

I didn't watch the video, it's too long. So I am judging a book by its cover with this post. Sorry about that. But the phrase "why young men are so lost and what can be done to reach them" immediately put me on the defensive. This does not sound like an authentic interest in discovering the social maladies that drive young men into bad circumstances, but instead, an effort at "educating" them about how they should feel and how evil and selfish their reactions are and how they should be doing wha…
/r/MensRights02/08/25 09:40 PM
2

Unfortunately, second marriages are even more likely to end in divorce. I found 67% on the Internet. Guys who are interested in marriage are going to hesitate due to the raw stats alone, even if they are otherwise "good men." This hesitation is, of course, strengthened by how badly men tend to be treated in divorce settlements. It's a sad situation all around. Men looking for a partner fear winding up with a liability. Until laws are changed such that marriage is safer (especially for men with m…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 09:17 PM
5

Dating sites are scams. That much is clear.
/r/MensRights01/08/25 06:50 PM
7

We are mice voting on which cat will rule us.
/r/MensRights01/08/25 06:48 PM
15

I think it is ok to encourage good behavior in a group. But that is different than holding the innocent members of a group responsible for the deeds of the guilty.
/r/MensRights01/08/25 03:08 AM
2

Agree. Both genders respond to surface-level attraction unconsciously and immediately, and other elements of bonding take place after that (if they take place at all). The particulars vary but the general trends are fairly universal. The cultural narratives we construct around love are mostly propaganda. For the most part it's just appearance and pheromones at work. And it's temporary (three years duration tops). So we rope ourselves into life-long commitments while under the influence of these …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 02:49 AM
11

I agree. There is nothing wrong (and everything right) with women wanting their men to be attractive. It's totally reasonable. But it changes the nature of the question. Instead of "where are the good men?" The question is really "Where are the attractive and good men?" That is a much smaller subset of people, and competition for them is high. So there are very few of them available. The problem is when we move from "there aren't many attractive good men" to "there aren't many good men." The sec…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/25 11:52 PM
7

From what I have read (I don't have any way of proving it), it is now popular for women to wait until they are well past 30 to want to find a good man and settle down. If true, that is a key component to the problem. Men who naturally seek marriage (and have the other listed qualities of good men) are actively seeking such relationships in their 20s. So, some of them find such relationships, get married, and hence vanish from the dating scene. Since they are "good," they stay married, and so are…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/25 11:44 PM
8

I am going to assume you are sincere. And I am not going to judge you based on your job. Thank you for rejecting feminism, and thank you for caring about men's struggles. Even going that far is helpful. Consider abstaining from voting for feminist political candidates, and voting in an authentically pro-equality way when opportunities arise. Speaking out can help. Being an example of authentic equality in how you live helps. It doesn't have to be something huge or sacrificial. For most of us, th…
/r/MensRights31/07/25 03:47 AM
2

Just as a matter of definitions and clarity, I also think this doesn't qualify as "misandry." It more qualifies as "slavery." They aren't targeting men out of hatred for men (which is what "misandry" means), but because they have the means, motive, and opportunity to enslave men. It's their desire to assert power that motivates this, more than hatred. They know what kind of push-back they will get if they try to enslave the women too, and that's why they don't do it. They get far less push-back …
/r/MensRights29/07/25 11:36 PM
3

Here is another: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mblom8/false_accusation_early_warning_checklist_awareness/ There is no definitive way to prevent false accusations. It's a risk that is just part of the terrain, and now higher than ever. Even going MGTOW is not complete protection (though it DOES help reduce the number of times you are in a position to be accused at all). I will suggest the same thing I have suggested in other posts: vet well. Don't get involved with a woman who is …
/r/MensRights29/07/25 01:18 AM
9

I am personally acquainted with women who think Tea is awful. As popular as this app is, there are women in the world who see it for what it is, and avoid it. Which means: its an automatic vetting mechanism. Women who refuse to date you because of this app are not worth dating. I still approve of taking it down. But I am also pointing out that the world is like this now. Dating is different than it once was. Casual sex is really dangerous, especially legally. The need for vetting is paramount. M…
/r/MensRights29/07/25 01:05 AM
6

This piqued my interest so I asked ChatGPT about the best practices. One of the first things it said was to be wary of dating apps, tinder scams, and tourist traps. It suggested that OkCupid, specifically, might be helpful, or dating apps that are local to the country you are visiting, but that you should still be wary. It went on to suggest that you can meet authentic people by getting involved in local events. It suggested language classes, interest-based social events (dance groups, hiking me…
/r/MensRights29/07/25 12:57 AM
5

I haven't seen any posts claiming that "women are the bad gender." I saw a few borderline posts that quickly got taken down. I have rarely (but sometimes) seen someone post a generalization about women that was critical of their behavior, but usually there were one or more response posts rejecting it. I DO think that sometimes men vent frustration with women on this sub because any other sub that would be intended for that purpose has been taken down. But these seem to be rare events, and the ov…
/r/MensRights27/07/25 10:52 PM
4

I agree that "you can't consent while being drunk." I also agree that "she said she was drunk." However, that doesn't mean that she was actually drunk. The judge reviewed all the evidence and was not convinced that she was drunk. So, that means there was not enough evidence to convict. I am sure there were more details to the case than this. But you have pressed this issue repeatedly by saying "she was drunk." The evidence that she was drunk is simply not compelling, and that's that.
/r/MensRights27/07/25 07:47 PM
13

"E.M. was recorded on two cellphone videos in which she said everything was consensual; the Crown argued those videos were not evidence of consent, but Carroccia said Thursday E.M did not display any signs of intoxication and was speaking “clearly and coherently.”" https://globalnews.ca/news/11296435/world-junior-sexual-assault-trial-verdicts/ What are you trying to accomplish at this point? Convince a few reddit users that they were guilty, based on the incomplete picture that we have since we …
/r/MensRights27/07/25 05:47 PM
28

Video evidence showed that she was not drunk. But the point is moot. We don't know the full story. We only know what has been publicly released.
/r/MensRights27/07/25 04:48 PM
38

We don't know who to believe, so we must rely on the evidence. And the evidence here is lacking, so we must presume innocence. That's how it should work in a civil society, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights27/07/25 04:10 PM
117

According to this article, the NHL decision that they are ineligible is still being disputed by their union. So, the story hasn't ended just yet. Also, the NHL's statements here do not seem to be "we think they are guilty anyway" but rather "we think what they did is unacceptable, even if it was totally consensual." The article is light on the details, but it sounds like it was a group sex event, where one women engaged in sexual acts with all of the men here. So, that would mean that the NHL cl…
/r/MensRights27/07/25 03:09 PM
-1

Clearly, this is a polarizing issue. I want to point out, however, that it is ultimately a matter of personal values. Some men care about this more than others. I expect that some women do too. This sounds like an issue that both people should be well-aligned on before beginning a relationship. I do have an issue, however, with absolutizing one's own position and angrily telling others that they should take the same. Different strokes for different folks. A little respect goes a long way. The is…
/r/MensRights26/07/25 06:03 PM
6

ChatGPT said that all celebrities are under strong pressure to be feminists or publicly endorse feminist ideas, because it increases popularity and improves their chances of getting work. Apparently the pressure comes from within the industry as much as from fans. This is AI of course so it might just be making that up, but it seems to check out.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 10:55 PM
11

Other online forums that gave men a place to vent their frustrations about women have all been taken down. So men do it here. I hope that can be kept under control, lest this forum be taken down as well.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 03:26 AM
5

I meant that desiring a family is a dangerous road to walk. Due to the high risk of divorce, among other things.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 03:21 AM
7

This sounds a bit vindictive. It doesn't make sense to punish all women for the actions of a few. For the most part, humans (men and women alike) just respond to their incentives. The current state of law and culture give women incentives to marry wealthier men and then divorce them to take the wealth from them. Change the law, change the incentives, and the behavior will change naturally. For something like this Tea app, we should just use official channels to get it taken down. While MGTOW mig…
/r/MensRights25/07/25 01:59 AM
45

I think a men's Tea app would be just as bad as the existing Tea app. All the reasons that make it harmful would apply. So, it would be hypocritical of us to make such an app.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 12:03 AM
6

Before sinking a lot of money into a college degree, consider having a free chat with ChatGPT or Google Gemini about what knowledge you need to work in cybersecurity and what you can read to acquire that knowledge. You might not need a degree to be hired as a penetration tester, for example, so long as you can demonstrate that you have the knowledge. Or, as other posters have said, you could go for a few certifications, as they don't put you in lifelong debt. Cybersecurity is a good field for te…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 11:06 PM
6

I am with you on the "egalitarianism." Men and women alike should have equal rights. I support protecting rights of women as well as those of men. The application of this principle gets complex of course. There are many details to work out. In particular, men are presently suffering from a depravity of rights. For example, in many places, men who have non-consensual sex forced on them (regardless of the means) cannot file rape charges. The law forbids it. This is unequal justice. In many places,…
/r/MensRights21/07/25 01:34 AM
4

You said "no future." What would qualify as having a "future?" More specifically: what are your true hearts desires? Obviously, you are still alive, so you still have a future. And just as obviously: it is finite. You will die. You have only so many moments to exist, and then you are done. So the most important question is: what do you want to spend those moments doing? Assuming you enjoy DnD with your friends, that doesn't sound too bad. At least you aren't living in the 5th world, struggling t…
/r/MensRights21/07/25 12:31 AM
4

People naturally assume that you can't be happy if your sexual/romance desires are not being satisfied. They imagine that you will just pine away all the time otherwise. And it is a natural enough assumption because these desires hit us pretty hard when we are young, and punish us with depression if we don't satiate them. Well, once you are a little bit older, those desires weaken. They never go away (for nearly all of us), but at that point it is no different than living with an addiction that …
/r/MensRights20/07/25 06:40 PM
10

It seems that people think of circumcision as being equivalent to getting your hair trimmed. They think the foreskin is just an ugly functionless thing that only serves to cause hygiene problems, and that the risks of complications or death are so low they aren't even worth considering. These people are wrong, of course. But they are surrounded by others who reinforce these false beliefs in a completely matter-of-fact way, including many doctors and religious leaders, and this is ultimately what…
/r/MensRights08/07/25 11:16 PM
20

We shouldn't draft anyone at all, regardless of gender. Drafting is slavery. In a just world, the onus would be on the government to earn volunteers by governing well. Any government that must resort to force to get its people to fight when threatened, does not deserve to be fought for.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 11:27 PM
13

As a simple matter of instinct, women are seen as "things to protect" and men as "those who protect." Even in the modern age of equality, those biases are present and influence basically everyone, so the notion of both-gender conscription is dead on arrival in most of the world. My position is that conscription is wrong period, regardless of the gender or the situation. The most common response is "but what if your country is attacked???" And the answer is simple: Any government that treats its …
/r/MensRights29/06/25 03:26 PM
1

In the modern world, no one should ever be treated like a slave, and that includes being drafted. This is consistent with modern values about individual worth. There are many reasons why this is not the case, but the root cause goes right back to our hunter-gatheror instincts. When we lived in packs and tribes, it was outright obvious that all men needed to be fighters. Survival demanded it. And the women needed to be protected, and not be fighters, given their different physical attributes. We …
/r/MensRights28/06/25 04:48 PM
1

I think the strategy changes depending on your goal. One fact of life: women like it when men pay for the date. It's an instinct millions of years old and a few decades of social change will not erase it. Paying for the date will make it more satisfying for her, whether it is fair or not. If your goal is to please her, that is one technique to accomplish it. If you goal is not "please a woman" so much as "get to know a new person" with the expectation that you are meeting each other as equals, o…
/r/MensRights28/06/25 12:54 AM
2

Exactly. The world was never a safe place for any living creature, let alone humans. The only safety we ever experience is that which we create for ourselves. The best thing you can do for yourself and your brother is to learn the skills you need to survive in a dangerous world. Physical self-defense is just the start, you need mental self-defense too so you won't be tricked by hucksters. When you reach about 20 years of age your neurological development will be prime for mastering critical thin…
/r/MensRights28/06/25 12:41 AM
12

It's instinct at work. Men have been the providers for millions of years. It's a bias that we all have (though some of us can overcome it through education and discipline). Men and women alike have a deep unconscious belief that men should be laboring to provide for their children, regardless of any other detail. We also have a bias that sees men as having agency and women as lacking it. Even though we know consciously it is not true, unconsciously we see pregnancy as something that men do to wo…
/r/MensRights28/06/25 12:33 AM
5

Summary of your first point is: "Paper abortion is different from actual abortion because actual abortion removes responsibility from everyone, whereas paper abortion removes the responsibility from only one party, leaving the responsibility on the other." It seems clear, then that the phrase "Paper abortion" is ill-descriptive. It is more akin to a woman choosing to put the child up for adoption, since the child still exists but becomes someone else's responsibility. This, of course, is somethi…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 11:59 PM
3

It's not just skin though. It has a very high concentration of nerve endings which contributes to orgasm. Chopping it off reduces sensitivity and makes orgasms weaker for life. Furthermore, chopping it off brings risk of death or permanent deformity. These things happen to people and they must live with that for the rest of their lives (assuming they survive). Taking such risks needs much better justification than "makes it easier to clean and helps prevent a rare condition that has other treatm…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 11:07 PM
1

The human species is naturally gynocentric. It's just a pack-survival instinct that we needed for the millions upon millions of years that we lived as pack animals. Women are physically weaker and it takes them a long time to bear children, so men naturally and instinctively protect them and provide for them. This is the essential root of the "women are wonderful" effect which motivates men and women alike to be more likely to believe false statements if they come from attractive women or cute g…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 10:40 PM
16

Good for you. Humans are resilient and capable of overcoming injury and trauma, so they can live normal lives. That, however, does NOT make it ok to go around injuring people. "He will get over it" is no legal defense for assault. The same should go for children. Whether or not they "turn out fine" after having parts of their body chopped of is irrelevant. It is their body, and so their autonomy over it should be protected under the law. The only ethical exception is surgeries that are needed be…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 10:29 PM
17

As a child you have no rights. But you DO have protections under the law. For example, girls are protected from having their genitals mutilated, even if their parents have religious reasons for wanting to. Boys, however, have no such protection. The core issue is: SHOULD boys have such protection under the law? And the most logical answer is a resounding "yes." The medical procedure causes permanent loss of sensitivity, and brings risks of permanent deformity and even death. The benefits are mer…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 10:25 PM
21

I am going to have to disagree. If a lot of people leave, that can raise questions and prompt important discussions. Also, if there is a place that treats you better than your current place, it makes perfect sense to go there. It's just a matter of acting in your own best interest. In the context of this discussion, that would be an important consideration for men who are thinking of having children. Moving to a state that gives them better parenting opportunities is a way of doing right by thei…
/r/MensRights20/06/25 12:54 AM
1

It sounds like a complicated situation. There are probably more details than you have posted. That makes it hard for us to give good advice. Do you think you are a benefit to your kids? Are they happy to have you in their lives? Are you motivated to do right by them? Do you think that they will be worse-off under her care, without you to help? These would all be reasons why you should stay, even though that might be hard to do. On the other hand, if you honestly believe that the stresses you fac…
/r/MensRights20/06/25 12:26 AM
17

I have seen the phrase "man up" used to shame men for doing things that don't benefit women. In random online posts I have seen it used to shame men who freely choose not to approach women (regardless of the reason), or who say first dates should be 50/50, or who say that the draft is slavery (and oppose it), or who consume porn, or who don't choose to maximize their muscularity, and so on. I don't think it is always used in this way of course. But sometimes it is. And in these cases it is a dev…
/r/MensRights20/06/25 12:03 AM
8

Hey, good on you for taking this seriously and really trying to do right by your son. I totally understand your anxiety and your struggle to make the right decision. I don't know if Septic-Abortion-Ward is a real doctor or not (no way to tell online) but the advice sure sounds wise. I definitely suggest talking to different doctors. You might even want to search online to find a licensed practice that supports non-circumcision. Insurance might be an issue though. As I understand, hospitals make …
/r/MensRights18/06/25 12:12 AM
15

It's true that some hobbies/interests are very gender-specific. So if you have a few of those you are going to have a hard time finding an opposite-gendered companion that shares them. But some people are more interested in gender-neutral hobbies and so have an easier time with this than you have. I agree though with the sentiment about the falsity of the romantic fairy-tale we have all been raised on. It is extremely unlikely that you will meet someone who is "perfect" for you and will result i…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 12:03 AM
11

In theory a marriage includes mutual agreement that you will both do things that help further the other's happiness, including staying in shape. Staying healthy, in particular, is a very reasonable ask. Though prudence would suggest having earnest conversations about this before getting married, to make sure you are both on the same page. In practice, a marriage is just as much of a trap as it is a promise. It is natural (as in, biological) for us to acclimate to our mates and eventually stop fi…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 11:42 PM
2

It's just instinct at work. Men have been the providers for millions of years. A few decades of cultural shift isn't going to wipe those instincts out. Women are still attracted to providers, still get the neurochemical payoff when they are provided-for, so that's what they are driven to seek. No amount of cultural enlightenment will attract a woman to a man who doesn't spend on her. (Of course, this is not the only thing that makes a man attractive, so there is more to the conversation than thi…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 12:24 AM
3

Indeed. In the video she paints a narrative of a culture full of women ready to commit and stay committed, and of men who just don't want to do anything but be lazy bums. And declares this to be the problem. No recognition at all of the huge percentage of divorces initiated by women (and that leave the men as poverty-stricken indentured servants for the rest of their lives), of the impossible-to-meet demands (three sixes and all that), of the legal imbalances, nor any of the issues that actually…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 12:08 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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