TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MonsterGirls4ever Archive

View 0 posts and 182 comments by MonsterGirls4ever 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)
17

I'm gonna break down the most unhinged parts: "hookups where one person appears nervous and tense but doesn't say no or resist" well, glad to know that EVERYONE who actually hooked up with me, a socially awkward, introverted male prone to anxiety is apparently a rapist. No matter how eager I was, apparently my anxiety has veto power over my consent, WHO KNEW? "Sex with someone who says no and resists but who secretly really wants it" You know, I'm not going anywhere NEAR a person who plays those…
/r/MensRights26/07/26 11:30 AM
6

I'm getting the distinct impression that many people feel rather than think. And I do have an Internet friend who's a machiavellian psycho manipulator who's quite clear that feelings are easier to exploit than thinkings. To work around thinkings, you have to deliver the goods. Easy if you have the goods and deal honestly, hard if you're trying to get something for nothing. To work around feelings, you have to find the right emotional pressure points and leverage. Being friend, even Internet frie…
/r/MensRights26/07/26 07:46 AM
13

The thing about logic, you feed a logical function the exact same data, and you're liable to get the same results. The thing about unspoken assumptions is, they're often unexamined, and yet you can reverse engineer them if you work at it. The thing about madness is, more often than not there's a surprisingly consistent and reliable method to it.
/r/MensRights26/07/26 05:19 AM
66

"It's an illusion at best and a conspiratorial work of fiction at worst." I'd say it's actually projection. See, "patriarchy" relies on men having an in-group bias towards other men and is a LOT easier to maintain if women can have an out-group bias towards men. Too bad that the exact opposite is proven by experiments. But I guess it makes sense why it was so easily believed, as it is an easy sell to a projecting mind.
/r/MensRights26/07/26 12:21 AM
9

Honestly, considering that today's standard for "misogyny" seems to be "noticing ANY pattern that's unflattering to women", NOT EVEN claiming the pattern is inherent to being a woman, LET ALONE suggesting harsh measures to redress the pattern, just noticing it even exists, for example simply noticing that you don't see mass protests by men wanting rape laws that protect ONLY female victim from ONLY male rapists repealed so that we instead get rape laws that protect ONLY male victims from ONLY fe…
/r/MensRights20/07/26 07:17 AM
4

You kinda did. Unless the fact you dropped in apropos of nothing and slung a bunch of abuse and insuts doesn't count by technicality that you replied to someone who replied to u/Miserable-Vanilla286 who was actually the one who started the convo you responded to disquilifies you on a VERY PEDANTIC technicality. When the person who will remind you that a "gas mask" is a medical device so you can BREATHE IN gas, usually used for amaesthesia or reoxigenation, and the filter masks are actually calle…
/r/MensRights18/07/26 11:37 AM
1

"The obvious reason is that" institutional capture to avoid recording female perpetrators is fully admitted to in the open, in law (gendered rape laws in the lawbooks), policy and police training (Duluth Model), and even on gov't comissions and orders from above (instructions by gov't officials to show more leniency to female criminals, from downcharging to lesser sentences to excuses making for why their crimes are understandable). When the crooked merchant isn't even using sleight of hand to s…
/r/MensRights11/07/26 05:51 AM
4

But yea, when several of these SYSTEMS are fully complicit with what you're doing? That's MY personal criteria to call something SYSTEMic.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 09:17 PM
12

Women systematically rape men and underage boys. Don't believe me? A decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Kansas, y'know, the Justice SYSTEM, has handed down a decision that is now jurisprudence, AKA LAW AKA part of the legal SYSTEM, that if a woman impregnates herself by raping a man or an underage boy, that man or boy owes her money for it, i.e. the Legal and Justice SYSTEMS will REWARD women for raping men. Feels pretty SYSTEMic to me don'tcha think?
/r/MensRights10/07/26 09:15 PM
5

I'll be honest, I find kicks to the groin funny in pretty much the same way I find gunshots hilarious. HILARIOUS to see Indy "cheat" and just pull a gun on the Arab Swordsman. Not funny to see some guy minding his own business or even being milly a jerk shot up/kicked there for it. Hilarious to see idiots take themselves out of the gene pool (nunchucks and people who have NO CLUE what the fu they are doing tends to end with a self-inflicted chuck to the ballsack.). This kid is squarely in "mindi…
/r/MensRights08/07/26 07:28 PM
1

"one thing I never understood was why feminism is constantly described as "gender equality."" Bayesians statistics and the "wonders" of setting a prior to 1. Let me put it this way: If your flight computer detects your plane rolling left instead of flying level, it will try to counteract it with a roll to the right. If your flight computer is glitched and ALWAYS detects your plane as rolling left REGARDLESS of how it's actually flying, it will ALWAYS add a roll to the right to correct for that l…
/r/MensRights05/07/26 07:08 AM
3

"who are potentially put off by that word," You keep thinking that changing the brand will change our view on the idea. Here is the problem I have with you all: If you start assuming that men run society for the benefit of other men over women... ANY law, any policy, any social messaging, ANYTHING in said society that advantages women over men is counter evidence to your worldview. Now, for any sane and intellectually honest person, enough counterevidence will make you bin your pet theory. That'…
/r/MensRights05/07/26 06:36 AM
2

"Do you agree that transgender women i.e. people who were born male but now identify as women, as well as male born non binary people, ought to enjoy the same rights as men?" Nah. They should enjoy the same rights as WOMEN since that's who they are now. Also, because seeing people upset at "men" getting advantages under gendered laws that advantage women without EVER admitting the laws are gendered in favor of women is both entertaining and revealing. Transwomen did more to expose this shit than…
/r/MensRights27/06/26 05:00 AM
9

"given it makes Russia look horrible." I don't know how else to say it. But mistreating men does not "look horrible" in the West. Hell, to way, waaayyyy too many people in the west, it looks good.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:12 AM
2

Any "fact" where I can se a thumb on the scale supporting it is, in my book, automatically disputed. Not just disputable, DISPUTED. And when it comes to f on m violence, the definitions used for "rape" are gendered and THAT is the most obvious and undisputable fact.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:02 AM
2

"Does it happen as much?" Hell, if you trust self reported perpetration surveys, women hitting men is AT LEAST TWICE as common as the reverse. And even if you don't, you're left with the obvious fact that women feel comfortable admitting being violent to men TWICE AS OFTEN as the reverse.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 06:04 PM
3

"Pretty much what the title asks. And if some men have it easier then others, which men?" I think high Machiavellian high Psychopathy are managing the best. Very good at scheming, no qualms about lying, cheating, stealing and otherwise getting people hurt. The rest of the dark tetrad may manage okey but Narcs usually make stupid mistakes leading to their downfall. Honestly, in a hostile environment where your compassion is weaponized by other people to hurt you or to lure you into a trap, those …
/r/MensRights06/06/26 03:26 PM
3

"Not just in regards to laws and such" Or, as you might call it, the legal SYSTEM.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 03:22 PM
6

"How do you feel about the "respect women" concept?" Buzzword until you can define "respect". Seriously, people LOVE their emotionally loaded but ill defined buzzwords.
/r/MensRights02/06/26 05:45 AM
1

"but if we look at it isn't it actually kinda brilliant way to solve draft dogers and ensure enough conscripts without reallying on too much force." Just like legalizing rape would be a brilliant way to solve women saying "no" to sex. I can be a psycho too and present "people saying "no" to having their body used against their will, but GENDER FLIP IT" as a problem to be solved if I want to! 😛 "Like would you rather want policeman to drag you forcfully on frontline or you came yourself willingly…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 02:09 AM
1

"It just falls back to my earlier statement on instead of pointing fingers to the lowest link of a power chain, we should put our anger to the system. The actual oppressor." And I AM pointing fingers at the system. I am what you may call a "systems thinker". If I drop something from a height, it drops. If something fragile drops, it breaks. If I drop something heavy on something fragile, it breaks. See, "the system" is not some arbitrary decisions made by some arbitrary authority. It's cause and…
/r/MensRights31/05/26 05:01 AM
2

"Those stats would raise the number for the amount of men who drove their partner to commit as well." At a 4 additional men to one additional woman ratio, give or take. Enough to go from a rough 2-to one split to men being the overwhelming numbers of DV homicides. "women actually attempt suicide at a higher rate than men," How is this data collected? Is it self-reported, in which case IT'S DOCUMENTED FACT that men underreport a LOT more than women do? Are we taking polyattempts or lack thereof (…
/r/MensRights29/05/26 10:30 AM
2

One of these days, try to find an estimation of the proportion of suicide that are estimated to be caused by DV. Plug this proportion into both male and female suicide rates to find what these numbers indicate. Now, if we consider "abused to the point suicide is the only way out" as being killed by your partner? Suddenly female perpetrated killings raise. Then you can add suicides directly tied to PROVEN false allegations and nurers PROVABLY tied to false allegation like Emmet till.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 08:38 AM
2

" but I don’t think that the LIE that statistically men are physically safer" There, FTFY.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 08:33 AM
1

"A lot of men probably do become exhausted when their entire identity gets reduced to “provider,” “protector” or “utility” without feeling emotionally valued in return bro." So men do become exhausted when their entire identity get reduced to "be used for free". I sure hope you're not about to say it's CYNICAL to call it EXPLOITATIVE when people will push the identity that you only exist to be used and to get nothing in return, saying I shouldn't do it NOT because my assessment is false, but bec…
/r/MensRights28/05/26 02:30 PM
1

If you confuse Stockholm Syndrome for strength... The old generations are going to feel stronger and the new ones wimps.
/r/MensRights27/05/26 09:50 PM
9

"So... Women are now putting foreskin cells on their faces." "Now"? Fibrobast cells have been a major ingredient in wring\kle creams since 4ever. And the trade of foreskins has also been a thing. That stuff isn't new, y'all simply just found out aboot it.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 09:59 PM
1

There is one but it's what we call a "parody by imitation". It parodies how someone acts by having someone WITHOUT the same social regard act the same way.
/r/MensRights25/05/26 11:33 AM
4

And also, as one of my online friends pointed out to me, the typical "boorish male stereotype" (hypersexuality, low emotional connection, high recklessness, sex disconnected from emotional intimacy) and the DOCUMENTED shift in behaviour for many male CSA victims (hypersexuality, low emotional connection, high recklessness, sex disconnectde from emotional intimacy) isn't even an overlap, it's a Venn Circle.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 05:16 AM
5

As per a widdom and morris study, which specifically took a sample of known and DOCUMENTED (arrest records and convictions) cases of victims of CSA, 16% of male victims and 64% of female victims will disclose. That's out of a sample SELECTED FOR 100% victims both ways. So here and there, we know women report 4 times as often as men. Though the very stringent selection criteria (only proven cases, as attested by a judicial decision) could very well inflate the reporting rate, which I would assume…
/r/MensRights24/05/26 05:12 AM
5

I mean I believe him. With the caveat that with a definition SO BROAD (teasing) as to include any friendly "I notice your quirkiness and I'm all for it" interaction... Yea, EVERYONE has been "harassed (crime with a specific legal definition) or teased by men" (and by women, with THAT broad spectrum a definition). One word primes the emotions to feel the worst, one broadens the field enough to catch EVERYONE in the blast's smear zone. EVERYONE but we're only pointing out the men who were dirtied.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 05:03 AM
5

"Harassed or EVEN TEASED" 1) woah, massive massive definition creep there buddy. Harassment has a pretty specific legal definition, but "teasing", that's open season on shoving anything and everything. 2) Every man has been harassed or teased by a woman. Not every man I met, every man. Just today I was at an event and the table had a flyer for some real estate service way above my income bracket, and the woman used to advertize it wore a sexy short dress. Just today my online buddies (one of the…
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:56 AM
2

Math exams are harder to rig. In anonymized multicorrection experiments (where only how un/charitable the teacher is feeling to this copy can bias the results), you need 13 professors to grade the copy before adding more professors will not stabilize the geading anymore, while some topics need 240+ teacher before the average will not hop all over the place by adding more teachers.
/r/MensRights22/05/26 11:41 PM
1

"How hard was that?" Very hard apparently, since you seem unwilling/unable to address the facts that... *checks notes* https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms Women will actively oppose rape laws that apply to female rapists, on a scale and with an energy that simply has no male equivalent. Why is this point, that men will ACTIVELY HUNT male rapists while women will ACTIVELY SHIELD female rapists, one you seem eith…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 10:14 PM
26

Protests against gender neutral rape laws anyone? :P I'll never unnotice that women straight up going into the streets and protesting to nip in the bud the very DEBATE of holding female rapists accountable seems to have 0 male equivalent.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 10:08 PM
6

"you couldn't possibly know that that joke helped lead to X guy committing X crime." Actually, you're giving the idea too much credit. I know for sure than when I point and laugh at how much of a cowardly, fucked up person my egg donor was, it 1) exposes this shit and 2) helps me laugh instead of crying at the horrible shit I've been through. When I joke "I'm NOT a motherfucker. What makes you think I was the one doing the fucking?", I'm NOT justufying what she did to me. I'm making a dark joke …
/r/MensRights21/05/26 10:06 PM
2

Nah, you got "TL;DR, too lazy" "Oh, here is someone using the only toom avaimable on a keyboard to put emphasis on the important part. Must be emotions, dismiss.". Because if you had bothered to read it, you'd have seen I literally answered your question in clear and explicit terms. But really. You're so emotionally invested in your thesis you cannot afford to address my actual point that calls it into question. You have to answer questions nobody asked, you have to throw around nonsequiturs... …
/r/MensRights21/05/26 09:45 PM
1

Pray tell, when I have parts that are CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT, what tool can I use to put emphasis there? "Funniest thing is you still havent answered the question so thanks for proving my point I guess." Your question: "do you want me to judge women's lack of action by men's standardd?" My answer: "No. I want you to judge women's action on their merit. Especially when they have no male equivalent" You: "Imma ignore your answer and pretend you didn't answer." But yeah. Sadly, I don't have the power …
/r/MensRights21/05/26 09:40 PM
61

"but why is so much effort put into defending yourself rather than the victims of this?" When an illegal/immoral act is committed against you, you are, by definition, a VICTIM of said illegal/immoral act. LYING about someone is at the very least immoral, and in some cases illegal. I am defending myself AND the victim of this lie... Because myself AND the victim of this lie ARE THE SAME PERSON.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:08 AM
13

"You just described why relationships fail when one person feels entitled to more than they give." Women feel entitled to men opposing the less than half a percent among them who rape. Which wouldn't be a problem per se, but DOES qualify as "more than they give" when you can find ACTIVE protests by women's group against even HAVING LAWS that hold female rapists accountable. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms S…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 06:59 AM
12

"You repeatedly connected men’s support/protection of women to women’s views of men." No. I'm actually pointing out what I see as a massive DISconnection there. I see people who keep showing up for and backing up, manu militari if needs be, getting nothing but hostility and scorn coming from the people who they keep backing up. And as someone who actually, y'know, feels GRATEFUL when someone provides me backup in escaping danger, or support, or anything, that mindset just feels 100% alien. So if…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 06:50 AM
9

"Yeah sound more scared about being judged by your actions." Indeed. You're really, REALLY scared when I decided to judge men and women by their ACTIONS. That's why, when I bring up HOSTILE ACTIONS that women have taken against men that men simply OBJECTIVELY have NOT matched... You broadened the scope from "lack of equivalent male hostile action to a pretty strong hostile action in the part of women" to "do men even protest bro?" You asked me if you should "judge women's LACK of action" when th…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 06:38 AM
12

"I just don’t see why that means women should automatically have a positive view of men as a whole." I'm grateful that when I asked you to clarify WHICH SPECIFIC relationship I dropped on my post, you decided to ignore the question I actually asked in favor of addressing a point I never made. You basically confirmed my initial theory there, you are not acting in good faith and are trying to avoid any point I raise.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 06:27 AM
21

"Or should I judge women's lack of action by men's standards?" No. I'm asking you to judge WOMEN's ACTUAL actions, THAT HAVE 0 MALE EQUIVALENT no less on their merit.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 01:39 AM
21

"A direct inversion is "not really comparable"? What the Hell IS, then?" A direct inversion THAT ONLY HAPPENS IN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT LAND is not really comparable to REL LIFE events. The fact is, only one side is actively fighting against the idea of holding their rapist acountable and actively fighting against the idea of doing justice to the other side's victims. That is NOT REALLY an inversion.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 01:38 AM
16

I'm not sure which relationship you're refering to. Even if you limit it based on what I said, there's reference to Parasocial relationship between real humans and fictional characters. Actual relationhip between me and the people who pulled me from a nightmare scenario. Actual dangerous relationship between me and a violent relative. Actual helpful relationship between said relative and the people who back her up. Or do you just want to avoid addressing the fact that the supportive relationship…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 01:34 AM
49

That's not really comparable. Until you an find me mass male protests against rape laws that apply to male rapists and female victims because "rape laws should ONLY protect MEN from WOMEN" the way there were mass female protests in India and Israel against the parliementary debates of gender neutral rape laws that WOULD apply to female rapists and male victims because "rape laws should ONLY protect WOMEN from MEN", the comparison is not really fair now is it?
/r/MensRights21/05/26 12:20 AM
35

Gee, I wonder why they should have a positive view of people who are literally willing to take their punches AND who will hold down any man who refuses to get punched AND shelter them in case anyone hits them, whether it's hitting them first or hitting them back. Maybe it's me having played too many RTSes and too much Fire Emblem, but I can't help but get attached at these (fictional) people who will fight my (fictional) battles for me. Even if my (fictional) battles are a LOT less petty than "m…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 12:14 AM
7

"Many men are naturally more open to casual social acknowledgement because society rarely treats them as physically vulnerable in ordinary public interactions" Funny, here I, a man, was being closed off to casual social acknowledgement because people rarely think that I bleed if they prick me, rarely think that I laugh if they tickle me, rarely think that I die if they poison me, i.e. because society rarely treats me as physically vulnerable. I've taken crutches to the balls. I've had to dodge a…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 09:57 PM
32

"Back when the third wave of feminism (also known as feminazism) came about, one of the first things that they did was invent an idea that there was a mass conspiracy to keep women oppressed and men in power. " Actually it was already the case for the first wave. The problem with believing that men setup society for the benefit of other men, is that EVERY SINGLE AREA where women get a better deal than men is inherently counter evidence. Trying to fit ANY male disadvantage in a framework supposed…
/r/MensRights17/05/26 09:27 AM
5

Still doesn't change the fact the popular myth tying it to T is looking like it's getting debunked. If you're right, and honestly it looks like you are on that part, you might want to look elsewhere for the mechanics leading to that result.
/r/MensRights16/05/26 12:19 AM
1

"Every failed interaction becomes proof society is broken." No. The fact it is SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE to publicly protest AGAINST making rape illegal is proof society is broken. The fact that it is LEGAL PRECEDENT to force an underage victim of rape to pay his RAPIST (Hermssman v seyer) is proof society is broken. "Every criticism becomes gaslighting." No. Criticising arguments NOBODY IS MAKING while ignoring the ACTUAL arguments made though? Downplaying the issue or blaming someone else to avoid f…
/r/MensRights15/05/26 10:13 AM
14

"that women raping/killing men/boys isn't "SYSTEMic."" I mean, the legal SYSTEM will give lesser punishment under the law to the crime that can be committed without a penis vs the one that needs a penis, the justice SYSTEM will give lesser sentence on top of that and will set a precedent that future justice SYSTEM decisions are based on that a woman who impregnates herself by raping an underage boy deserves a monthly salary, so in that sense, it is quite PROVABLY SYSTEMic. :P
/r/MensRights14/05/26 08:50 AM
7

""Who set the system up?" – the meme question. If you unironically ask it as a "Gotcha 👊😼" you fell from the cradle. Easy answer." That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, it wasn't a big deal. And if it was, it wasn't my fault. <---- You are here And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserve it. --- The Narcissist's prayer That would be my answer. It's telling that "who set the system up" ALWAYS follows from someone DENYING the facts that the system is,…
/r/MensRights14/05/26 08:19 AM
3

"The argument about "Who set the system up" is so stupid when you actually look at the objective facts" You don't even need to. "The system being rigged against men didn't happen. Oh, if it did, it's rigged worse against women. Oh, if it's rigged worse against men, well men can take it, they've got the resources to handle it! But if they don't, who set up the system and who maintains it? NOT ME, I am COMPLETELY BLAME FREE even though I LIE THROUGH MY TEETH to cape for that system. Okay, maybe me…
/r/MensRights14/05/26 08:02 AM
20

“Go to therapy.” Nah. If I want some gaslighting, I'll get a gaslamp from ebay. Seriously, been there, done that, never again. “Build a life.” That's some vague fluffy sounding "advice" that provides exactly 0 step or insight. “Take responsibility.” another vague fluffy stuff. "Take responsibility"... For WHAT EXACTLY? Because that latter part, the WHAT we're supposed to take responsibility for, people sure can say we didn't take responsibility for the right thing but somehow can't tell us WHAT …
/r/MensRights14/05/26 07:56 AM
4

Teacher on kid isn't "emotional manipulation", it's "abuse of a position of power and authority".
/r/MensRights12/05/26 12:04 AM
1

"If you're ashamed to stand by your colours, you better seek for another flag."
/r/MensRights01/05/26 07:17 PM
-4

Considering my ENTIRE POST was ALL about cases of women raping men... INCLUDING ONE WHO GOT A SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT (for those unfamiliar with legalese and jurisprudence, it means it's now LAW because a court ruled this way) that underage male victims of statutory rape still have to pay child support? How would I make AN ENTIRE POST about it if I wasn't aware? A fever dream maybe?
/r/MensRights26/04/26 05:39 PM
-2

Keep it in your pants only works as long as you aren't raised by an incestuous egg donor who sometimes ride you while you're asleep a d dazed by anxiety meds (no points 4 guessing who caused the anxiety despite the shrink's assurances it was impossible) or if you're not having a staring context with Mossberg and his Sons, or if an adult in a position of authority like Colleen Hermesmann isn't abusing it against an undrrage boy like Shane Seyer (actual Supreme Court of Kansas PRECEDENT SETTING ru…
/r/MensRights26/04/26 04:04 PM
5

"You don’t ever stop and think “damn I’m so wrong”." The fact 10 years ago, I stopped spouting the same BS you're now spouting implies that 10 years ago, I stopped and thought "damn I'm so wrong". One counter example disproves a broad claim. "You know I’m starting to think this turns you on. Just seeing how long you can blatantly be so obtuse and wrong and women still reply to you." HAHAHAno. Where you get the idea that dealing with idiots and liars is somehpw my kink is beyond me. If you want t…
/r/MensRights23/04/26 02:38 AM
3

That didn't happen And if it did, it wasn't not that bad And if it was, it wasn't a big deal And if it wasn't it wasn't my fault <--- YOU ARE HERE And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. The narcissist's prayer. You will relly go thu the ENTIRE PRAYER before you can admit you or one of your ideological buddies has made so much as a SINGLE CLAIM that turned out to have been verifiably FACTUALLY WRONG, won't you?
/r/MensRights23/04/26 02:13 AM
5

And you call me illiterate. Alright, Let me explain it to you like you're five. See, little timmy, you claim that if you get paid to do something, you are forced to do it. Timmy, have you ever been to a grocery store and handed the nice man a couple coins so you get candy? You gave paid the nice man money so he would give you candy. Which means you FORCED the nice man to give you candy at cashpoint. Making you a robber.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 01:09 AM
4

"Show me where I said something that wasn’t true?" you literally said nothing substantial NOR demonstrable. You ostensibly asked me "how dense am I fr" which, on it's face, is a question so I can't disprove a question. You said you were "praying for whatever women in my life" and only whichever god or goddess you're praying to in private or whomever happened to witness you can dis/prove that I'm afraid, and that you "hope they know this is how I feel." which only Professor Charles Xavier can dis…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 08:08 PM
5

"And men wonder why women genuinely don’t want anything to do with them." So the reason why women genuinely don't want anything to do with them is that men can take an argument, follow it to a logical conclusion the person making the OG claim doesn't like and/or bring counter arguments, and politely but firmly request the originator to square that circle for them no matter how many deflections they make, and that ability is repulsive to women somehow?
/r/MensRights22/04/26 06:43 PM
6

Your willingness to call me dense but unwillingness to explain the problem and to poison the well by calling me dangerous is duly noted. Everyone in my immediate circles already know I feel the inexplicable urge to follow a premise to it's logical conclusion, apply a premis symmetrically, and ask people who make arguments that lack internal consistency to square their logic circle OR state their unstated premise for me. And people who CAN square their circle, OR are willing to admit to an unspok…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 06:32 PM
6

"Having sex with someone for money is coercion!! I am horrified that you don't understand that." Now that I've proved I can be as dramatic as you are, can we have a rational argument please? "No one is using your hormones to coerce you into having sex because they do not have control over your hormones." Thank you for addressing YET ANOTHER ARGUMENT NO ONE HERE HAS EVER MADE. Your eagerness to address arguments you pull out of your hat is noted and dismissed. Now, can you address the hormonal fl…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 06:27 PM
8

"Wow, you just admitted that no one will have sex with you unless you pay them. That’s sad." Obvious personal attack is obvious. "I think you consider sex to be a necessity?" clearly putting words in my mouth despite me SPECIFICALLY STATING that I was applying YOUR logic. "So women are using sex to coerce men into giving them money?" According to YOUR LOGIC of, and I QUOTE, "The reason this is coercion is because sex influences a person’s decision", yes UNLESS you, the SELF-PROCLAIMED TRANSSEXUA…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:39 PM
8

"reproductive rights are a person’s right to reproductive healthcare" so reproductive rights to you stop at the hospital door, and eveyrthing that happens in a COURTHOUSE need not apply? Because when you bring up "rights", my first thought is "the kind of stuff you find in the civil and penal code, as well as the entire body of jurisprudence", but yours is "anything that happens in a medical settings". Got it. So if your discussion of "reproductive rights" is all about what happens in the hospit…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:33 PM
5

"We disagree on… what rape actually is?" I call out that EVERY ARGUMENT you make for why money for sex is coercive applies EVEN MORE STRONGLY to sex for money. You consider money to be the ultimate arbiter of power. And I DISAGREE with your notion. And you, as a SELF ADMITTED TRANSSEXUAL, surely you UNDERSTAND the impact of hormones on the brain and body. Well, sex impacts the endocrine system. Money, AFAICT, doesn't.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:22 PM
10

"If one person pays another person for sex, then the person paying has coerced the person who received money." NOPE! Other way around. Women can get money any numbers of other ways, up to and including raping an underage boy they have autority over and shaking him down for child support. I can really only get sex by giving financialy. Women have options to get money other than sex, I don't have options other than money to get sex so if you want to play the coercion angle? Then they're not the on…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:17 PM
5

"The average woman makes less money than the average man: https://www.equalpaytoday.org/gender-pay-gap-statistics/ " https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/ and yet spend... Just under six time as much money as men, implying that either men spend little i.e. are low maintenance, that they spend men's money somehow, or a combination of both. I don't feel like dealing with the rest of your gish gallop, cause that's two in a row I shot down. It took me 10 times as long to …
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:13 PM
12

"Men’s reproductive rights aren’t challenged in the same way." https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html
/r/MensRights22/04/26 04:55 PM
10

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ray-krone/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/robert-miller/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/frank-lee-smith/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/earl-washington/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/dennis-williams/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/nicholas-yarris/ Well, considering rape of women is taken seriously enough that we're willing to go to ANY LENGTHS up to and including HANGING THE CLOSEST CONVE…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 04:48 PM
10

Seriously, when teachers abusing their authority to molest kids get lesser sentences than women having consensual sex with adult men BUT GETTING PAID FOR IT (sentenciung guidelines for prostitutes 3-6 months. Usual sentence in those rare case female teacher pedos see jail time 30 days), i.e. when molesting underage kids is considered 1/3rd as bad a crime as having consensual sex with adult men in exchange for cash, I call it a slap on the wrist.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 04:09 PM
8

Funny, I'm pretty sure in the US and "many other countries", rape laws are written specifically with female victims in mind and either downgrade to a lesser offense or don't even acknowledge male rape victims. Pretty sure no woman has ever faced a firing squad for refusing to pick up a gun and kill other women she's never met. If that's what it means to "not have the right to your own body" then where can I sign up tp surrender the rights to my own body, effective immediately? Cause if having th…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 04:05 PM
18

"Women are apprehensive of men because they’re the oppressed minority." The ONLY oppressed minority that literally outnumber the majority AND who can actually get away with a slap on the wrist for raping their oppressors while their oppresors face the last chair they'll ever sit in uf they're caught raping the oppressed. Do you need the /s tag to understand me, or is your IQ above room temperature (in CELSIUS)?
/r/MensRights22/04/26 03:57 PM
1

Well, we'll see soon enough. Like I said, open to being proven wrong. I just feel this celebration is premature.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:04 PM
21

I'm open to be pleasantly surprised mind you. But we'll see if it actually will look into male issues or if it's what I predict: A feminist commission wearing the skinsuit of a commission about men's issues.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:57 AM
1

But yeah. Call a feminist out on getting something factually wrong (which is the start of the chain, i.e. the "that didn't happen" part). You'll get the dismissal, downplaying and the "women have it worse" arguments (the "not that bad"/"not a big deal" part of the chain) Then there's the "Well, who did that, hhhmmmmm? OTHER MEN!" argument (the "not my fault" part of the chain. That's when I say "I don't see "OTHER MEN" making a factually incorrect statement here. I only see YOU doing it. I don't…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 01:14 PM
3

The Narcissist's Prayer is not quite a formal fallacy, but it's the argument I see the most.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 12:29 PM
6

No need to imagine unwanted anal rape. Some people JUST PLAIN AREN'T TOUCHERS!!! Some people just plain don't want you to PUT YOUR GRABBY PAWS ALL OVER THEM.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 05:44 AM
3

You realize that MoGals are stuff like tall, horny, beefy, udderly large chested minotaur ladies (geddit? They're bovines so they've got cute horns!), malleable semi amorphous self-propelled piles of viscuous shapeshifting goop, literal cold blooded snakes who can literally coil around you for restraining purposes, or huge silky-sweet Arachnes who can easily get you a little tied up in their webs... Plus, Arachnes tend to have extra eyes that don't feel like eyes, so even autists like me can loo…
/r/MensRights07/04/26 06:32 AM
6

NOPE! I'm definitely a sub, and let me tell you, the B in BDSM does NOT stand for Clucter B.
/r/MensRights07/04/26 04:56 AM
30

"How wrong/illegal would this be if done by a man?" Felony aggravated assault/second degree murder (if the fall killed him). We're talking LAYING A POTENTIALLY DEADLY BOOBY TRAP. That's already deadly force AND premeditated, no "spur of the moment" defense. And before any of y'all argue I'm exaggerating? I've had an ACCIDENTAL fall exiting the shower. Couldn't walk for a day afterwards.
/r/MensRights06/04/26 09:32 PM
11

" I had a friend in Russia get drugged and raped by a women and she just got fined for sexual acts against a helpless person which is only a small fine. Compared to if a man did that he would have went to prison after getting the shit beat out of him by cops." ????????????????????????????????? She actually got punished instead of getting a payout??? Holy shit... Russia's built different man!
/r/MensRights06/04/26 01:10 AM
1

In my personal experience... Rapists and chomos whose main tactics is grooming and emotional manipulation. But like I said, personal experience, there. Just my own personal sex life as an Aspie.
/r/MensRights06/04/26 01:08 AM
7

In most contexts, probably. Honestly, when I got told by online frens that I "deserved better [than the insane abuse I've been through]" it threw me in for a loop. Not because I disagreed with them. But because it was the first time anyone told me that I deserved better than growing up under the "care" of a Mickey slipping, incestuous rapist abusive egg donor cunt with everyone around me circling the wagons around her. Hell, just getting anyone to agree with the idea was like pulling teeth, but …
/r/MensRights06/04/26 01:06 AM
1

On the one hand, a handful of organization. On the other hand, a widespread belief that achieved cross cultural saturation even among countries and groups that otherwise hate each other. Seriously, you can go to atheists, christians or muslims, say "women have it worse!" and get instant approval. Russia and Ukraine, Iraq and Iran, Israel and Palestines, India and Pakistan, all agree on one thing: "women have it worse". Le Front National and le Parti Communiste Français agree on one thing: "women…
/r/MensRights25/03/26 01:38 PM
1

"What you ignore however is we also have laws that specifically discriminate against males." .......................... Where, pray tell, where exactly are you getting this idea that I'm ignoring the fact we have these laws from? Because clearly you're not understanding the sequence of events I mentioned if that's what you get out of it. So which part of the sequence of events gives you trouble?
/r/MensRights25/03/26 01:12 PM
1

"By definition feminism is the belief in and advocacy for full social, economic, and political equality between men and women." you forgot the part that assumes male privilege/advantage and refuses to let any amount of contradictory evidence update the initial assumption.
/r/MensRights25/03/26 12:48 PM
2

You're all assuming way too much cohesion and coordination and centralization and too many complications you don't need to assume. Seriously, it's a simple Avidyia (delusion) in action phenomenon. If you believe men are advantaged AND you refuse to allow any contradictory evidence to convince you otherwise AND you value some degree of equality/fairness/justice/however you want to call it You have created a psychological ratchet where "progress" can only go one way and never stop. It's not a cohe…
/r/MensRights25/03/26 12:45 PM
2

"Except feminist organizations have continually fought for and won policies that disadvantage males. Advantaging one sex over the other obviously isn’t equality." .......... Yes, that is exactly what I said. Please tell me which part of the following sequence of events gives you trouble: Start with an unquestionable, data impervious assumption that men always have the advantage. That is, you START FROM the premise men always are advantage and will allow NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE to sway you away. Th…
/r/MensRights25/03/26 12:39 PM
8

It's not organized. It doesn't need to be, and being organized would make it easier to target. What it truly is, is the UNQUESTIONABLE assumption that men are always and forever privileged over women. If you start with that locked in prior, if you start literally incapable of seeing male disadvantage and female privilege, what you end up with is an "equality ratchet" of sorts.
/r/MensRights25/03/26 08:07 AM
-3

"Classical feminism is simply placing women on an equal level of opportunity and access to men." It's amazing just how Danny Duchamp hit the nail dead on it's head. It's amazing how many people have completely and utterly LOCKED IN the prior that women are short-changed compared to men, and how impervious to contradictory evidence this paradigm becomes. "Today's feminism goes well beyond that." Except it hasn't "gone beyond" anything. If you assume that women are disadvantaged compared to men, e…
/r/MensRights25/03/26 07:49 AM
1

"Advocacy for the equality of the sexes starting from the locked in prior that men are always privileged/advantaged over women." And locking in a prior (AKA starting with being so sure of something, you can't be convinced otherwise) does weird shit to your brain... Starting with needing to pull impressive mental gymnastics to dismiss contradictory evidence, and ending with effectively self-lobotomizing away your ability to remember contradictory evidence, and your ability to even process it.
/r/MensRights25/03/26 07:41 AM
2

Pragmatically speaking, justice is meant to be impartial but it is rendered by humans who are... Not quite impartial. So it's sad but not unexpected for outcomes to reflect that. Ideologically speaking, of course people who are partial in favour of women see nothing wrong with a justice that reflect their "values".
/r/MensRights24/03/26 11:13 PM
5

"Let's Imagine this. A man got raped by a woman. She gets pregnant. She decides to keep the child. Child is born. That man has become a father without his will, without his consent. Guess what? He's still obligated to pay the child support BY LAW in almost all the countries across the world." There are two things wrong with what you said. First, it's gone to trial before so no need to "imagine". Second, it's happened to underage boys with adult women taking advantage of a position of authority.
/r/MensRights22/03/26 12:43 AM
8

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his (or her in this case) mind and won't chanhe the subject." You're dealing with people who can't change their minds on the topic of men being suposedly privileged (so ANYTHING that ever disadvantages men has to either be invented, somehow a result of advantaging men, or only a "disadvantage" in so far as an unreasonable demandgetting denied), and who won't change the subject.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 04:00 PM
1

I mean, it may not be the most intense wirkout ever, but it does work these arm muscles.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 08:28 PM
4

Patriarchy Well, "the purpose of a system is what it does". If the purpose of a system is to privilege men over women, you'd expect men to, y'know, get privileged over women. Yet, women enjoy explicit legal advantages (i.e. the literal definition of privilege) under the law, though in some places and times, there may be restrictions baked in. Nope. Rape Culture Well, you realize the rape of men and boys is normalized to the point a precedent has been set that female rapists of underage boys shou…
/r/MensRights16/03/26 04:18 AM
1

"Since you believe this do you also, believe that within male advocacy groups, male movements, manosphere spaces, and other male spaces, there are a few—just a tiny few—men who engage in women-bashing and misogyny?" Rephrase that question with objectively verifiable criteria instead of vague, emotionally loaded language. Give me an objectively measurable criteria for "woman bashing" and "misogyny". because these are two terms that have become **INCREDIBLY** flexible in application. Because let's…
/r/MensRights14/03/26 02:49 AM
1

"The women who are willing to simply say "the law should protect make rape victims" and leave it at that are outnumbered by the women actively opposing the idea AFAICT" is the statement I made. I didn't say "all". I said "one side is clearly being outnumbered by the other AFAICT". Let me put it simply: a SINGLE protest against the law protecting make rape victims can get triple digit numbers and go up from there. ALL the women you brought up COMBINED? Don't even break double digit. Can you under…
/r/MensRights14/03/26 01:18 AM
1

Again, I've seen more women protest (as in, IN THE STREETS during mass demonstrations) against gender neutral rape laws than I've seen women so much as pay lip service the idea. And that's before we add lobbying and straight up insults, shaming, and all around running their mouths being all around abusive to anyone so much as floating the idea around. Do you want me to pretend this isn't what i'm seeing? Because I'm not going to lie to make you happy. Or do you have a convenient way to prove tha…
/r/MensRights14/03/26 12:44 AM
1

People start to reject the label as toxic... Not realizing the premise (male in-group bias) is long debunked. You can change "toxic" label, you can reject a "toxic" label, but so long as you don't abandon your actually toxic ideas borne out of a bunch of debunked hogwash claim that "feels about right" even when it has NEGATIVE predictive value (i.e. the EXACT OPPOSITE of it's predictions comes 2 pass more often not) then it is nothing but a shell game you're being oddly happy about. Swapping the…
/r/MensRights13/03/26 08:03 PM
1

I don't do drama. What I do is: Sensory overload due to neuodivergence. Pointless fluff pieces trigger it. Being upset at being accused of "wanting others to jump through a series of increasingly complicated hoops", yes, hoopS, PLURAL, for one SINGULAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARDS REQUEST for a link or a name letting me bypass the pointles fluff pieces for the meat of the topic. Being upset at being gaslit that I had several direct link to a study instead of several links to several fluff pieces based o…
/r/MensRights13/03/26 12:40 AM
0

Someone who spent 4 HOURS yelling at me for not being willing to subject myself to one of 3, sensory overloading, ads filled, useless fluff pieces, and all around being an abusive jerk, instead of 30 seconds to send me a direct link, or even a searchable name for a study both him AND OP had. I'll read and break down all the red flags in a biased study for fun, but a fluff piece by a failed writer that spends 3 pages to say nothing, which is INCREDIBLY PAINFUL... That's where I draw the line. But…
/r/MensRights13/03/26 12:14 AM
1

What part of "I'm not willing to inflict self-harm on myself through exposure to pretentiously plushy purple prose fluff pieces by "journalists"" is giving you trouble?
/r/MensRights12/03/26 08:24 PM
2

I think gradient scale answers to all-or-nothing binary questions are a much bigger red flag. So is deliberately fishing for reactance.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:37 PM
4

It may go without question, but it could use specifics. :P All-or-nothing binary question ("A wife should always obey her husband") with a gradient answer scale ([strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]) is already a huge dirty trick. A thumb on a scale. A horseshoe hidden in a boxing glove. Plus the timing that is so perfect to generate maximum psychological reactance (yeah, go do a survey set for publication on IWD after people get utterly sick of onl…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:20 PM
3

On the other hand, studies tuned for maximal psychological reactance (IWD timing) and manipulative questions design (all-or-nothing binary questions with gradient scale answers) ARE a pretty big issue. :P
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:12 PM
1

You're welcome.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:04 PM
1

And I'm not going to play games myself. Imma openly point out the manipulativeness inherent in 1) fishing for maximal reactance (IWD release timing? Ya kiddin' me?) and providing a gradient answer scale ([strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]) to an all-or-nothing binary question ("A wife should ALWAYS obey her husband"). That's two red flags before I so much as EVEN OPENED THE FILE.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:03 PM
1

Having found it thanks to grok and what little scraps the OP provided without having to inflict fluff pieces to myself... Let's see... All-or-nothing binary question ("A wife should always obey her husband") with a gradient answer scale ([strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]). That's not bias, that's a deliberate thumb on a scale.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:01 PM
1

Or I could point out they asked an all-or-nothing binary question ("A wife should always obey her husband") and provided a gradient scale answer ([strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]) which is a huge red flag for cooked books/numbers.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:58 PM
1

("A wife should always obey her husband" [strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]) Binary, all-or-nothing question with a gradient answer sale. That's one huge red flag. Combined with the other red flag of timing the survey to release it on IWD to induce maximal reactance, we're already dealing with two massive red flags of cooked numbers. That study belons in the bin.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:57 PM
1

In other word, they set out to maximize psychological reactance/trolling by timing it just right, used an all-or-nothing binary question ("A wife should ALWAYS obey her husband") with a gradiant answer scale ([strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree]) to manufacture the conclusion they wanted... And they DIDN'T EVEN manage to manufacture a full third. There. Fixed that for you. And that's just the surface level bullshit I could find.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:53 PM
-5

You realize I DO NOT WANT TO PAY the self-harm tax of opening a stupid ad-filled fluff piece, right?
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:49 PM
0

After finally managing to get enough scraps from the comment section, I at least have a name for that study. "International Women's Day 2026 Global Survey" or variant names like Ipsos / King's College London International Women's Day 2026 study. Already we're starting with a big problem: timing a study for that specific day already invites trolling contrarian responses by timing alone. And another big problem is all-or-nothing binary questions with a gradient answer scale. That's two MASSIVE red…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:45 PM
5

Oh well, after finally managing to get enough scraps from the comment section, I at least have a name for that study. "International Women's Day 2026 Global Survey" or variant names like Ipsos / King's College London International Women's Day 2026 study. Already we're starting with a big problem: timing a study for that specific day already invites trolling contrarian responses. And another big problem is all-or-nothing binary questions with a gradient answer scale. That's two MASSIVE red flags …
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:43 PM
3

[strongly agree | somewhat agree | neither | somewhat disagree | strongly disagree] Wow. A binary, all-or-nothing question (ALWAYS) with a gradient answer. Already a huge red flag. :P
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:28 PM
-6

Well, since neither OP NOR his flying monkey are keen on giving me so much as a NAME for this study, let alone a link, that does NOT require me to inflict the sensory self harm of one 3 differnent pretentiously plushy purple prose articles, and you seem to know which it is... Can I have that link, or even just a name please? Thank you in advance.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 05:17 PM
0

I comprehend your point. You want me to inflict myself one of three fluff pieces to know which fucking study y'all are talking about. When I say "sorry, not in the mood to deal with ad-filled fluff pieces to know which study OP and YOU clearly know about, mind telling me? Just ONE NAME even?", you invent a fuckload of motives out of hard-fucking vaccuum to pin on me.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 04:59 PM
0

I don't need help reading. You, on the other hand, CLEARLY need help engaging honestly. All I ask for is a SEARCHABLE REFERENCE for that stufy I supposedly "know". A searchable ref that does NOT require me a detour to one of three rags which I swore off because I couldn't stomach their pretentiously plushy purple prose. If you make finding which study OP is referring to conditional on inflicting one of these three rags to myself, then it ain't happening. Or you could drop an actual link, or even…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 04:45 PM
-2

"you just want others to jump through increasingly difficult hoops and eventually you'll just decide you were right all along." A SINGLE REFERENCE "Study so and so, and such year.", because I'd rather search the thing than deal with pretentious plushy purple prose. If that SINGLE REQUEST Is what passes for "increasingly diffucult loopS", PLURAL! Then it's not media literacy that's in the sewer. It's grade one literacy. Edit: Oh, and by the way, I can't "decide I was right all along" considering …
/r/MensRights12/03/26 02:34 PM
-1

"Linked a bunch of media articles where the sources are buried under tons of fluffy writing." There, FTFY. forgive me for not being in the mood for trudging through pretentiously fluffy purple prose by failed, lying hack writers to find a source for a study. That's even assuming the source is even there. But yeah, the exact opposite of convenient.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 12:13 PM
-2

"You know which study I mean" actually, I don't. Some people keep the Teevo turned off, you know? :P Some people don't follow lamestream media like a hawk. :P Of course, "obey" is such a vague, emotionally loaded word. Is it "expecting obedience" if that ONE TIME that, say, the cat is very sick, I go "GRAB YOUR COAT AND START THE CAR RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE DRIVING US TO THE VET! NO ARGUMENTS, NO BACKTALK!"? But yeah. I am loathe to employ/take seriously emotionally loaded but ill defined language. Th…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 09:41 AM
1

... What are you, a Pokémon? Can you say anything other than your name? Because I have asked to clarify which part you had difficulty following. All I get was a "Pika-Pikaaaa!" style response. So whatever you say, Wutachu! Because you literally give me nothing to work with.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 09:08 AM
1

Hijacking remote controlled devices to inflict nonconsensual sexual toucn or inflict bodily harm on them. Which part here confses you? If I fly a drone in a collision course with you, causing at best bruises and scrapes, have I assaulted you? If I hack your drone to make it happen, is it not the same? If I hack your toys and use them to touch you WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, have I not touched you without your consent? Have you been living under a rock for the last 10 or so years, completely missing th…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 06:13 AM
-1

They are already online connected, remote controlled items like some drones, and connected vibrating toys. Any time now, there will be a serious case of online assault or online sexual assault on the basis of unauthorized access (hacking) to one such devices, that's gonna set some interesting precedent.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 06:14 AM
-7

I mean, technically, considering the raise of online connected toys... You could argue that online sexual violence is already a possibility, should one such toy get hacked. And the first such case brought to trial will be a template for all future case of connected devices hack, including, potentially, medical or semi medical implants... Meaning it's very possible the first case of online sexual assault being tried will decide the immediate future of biomedical ethics.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 06:12 AM
6

"Why a different treatment for two genders??" see the answer to the next question. "Do feminists protest?" Yes. How else do you think they secure discriminatory laws?
/r/MensRights11/03/26 03:55 AM
4

With Zoom Trials, voice modulators and pronoun suppression would be plausible.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 01:30 AM
12

With that title, I expected a male rape victim of a woman to be jailed for making the mistake of reporting it. I am pleasantly surprised. :P
/r/MensRights10/03/26 01:27 AM
20

You'd think lying to get innocent men in legal and social trouble would qualify as evil. WITHOUT scare quotes. Not "evil" with scare quotes.
/r/MensRights08/03/26 07:41 PM
1

While the werewoman turns into a woman on full moon nights. (I might have stumbled onto contentvlike that online. Just saying.)
/r/MensRights06/03/26 06:25 PM
1

We actually still use it. Wifman eventually became Woman while we dropped the were, effectively stealing the childhood from human males. Like I said, it's very sadly accurate considering it's like pulling teeth to get people to recognize males can, in fact, be children when they're underage.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:57 PM
1

Soviet Snipers have entered the chat. Some of them at least. :P
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:55 PM
1

Yup, wifwolf. :P
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:55 PM
3

Oh yeah, and about "gunman", would technically mean "adult gunner", as opposed to a child one, and a "manhunt" would be an "adult hunt". I understand the joke push and all, but I'll promose the serious answer of reminding people of the origin of words and how they shift over time instead. If only because I find it fascinating AND instructive/insightful.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 01:53 PM
5

I mean, if we really want to go by etymology, "man" used to be the gender neutral for adult, with were being the male and wif being the female. So the wereman was the adult male human, and the wifman the adult female human. And "girl" used to mean "child" while "boy" was "servant". So going by the shift in language, males lost their childhood and their right to it and were assumed to be servants starting from a young age, while childhood, and the right to it, became female coded. Sounds about ri…
/r/MensRights06/03/26 01:50 PM
6

If you start with the premise of "male power + men favour other men", despite the sheer amount of evidence DEBUNKING the "men favour other men" half of that premise that's easy to access? You ARE a radical. If the movement will cast you out for the heresy of "not believing men favour other men", then "men favour other men" is a foundational belief of your movement. If the foundational belief of your movement is enough to make you a radical, your movement IS a radical movement. Note which part I …
/r/MensRights27/02/26 02:35 PM
16

I think we should modify the statement to "don't start fights. Feel free to finish them."
/r/MensRights27/02/26 01:51 PM
1

"Advocacy for the political and social equality of the sexes... Starting from the UNQUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTION that women always were and always will be disadvantaged compared to men." Slightly modified from Danny Duchamp's. Note the "prior locking" which is a **HUGE** problem in Bayesian reasoning. You could literally kill 90% of men and lock the last 10% in breeding pens, and feminists would **STILL** believe these remaining 10% of men are somehow privileged. Maybe cause they don't have to work a…
/r/MensRights11/02/26 01:36 AM
4

Someone's comment has been removed, but called me out on my "assumption" that they only called out men and claimed to call out both men and women, and also called me a bad name that might have gotten them removed. Considering you literally missed the point I made AND PROVED IT IN THE PROCESS, let me make it crystal clear: The problem with normalizing female perpetrated abuse is, it makes female perpetrated abuse seem normal. The problem when female perpetrated abuse seems normal, is that it make…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 02:58 PM
0

His/her remedy seems to be either Magic Mushrooms or LSD, hence said remedy likely is the reason s/he sees it happen. Meaning s/he should LAY OFF his/her remedy actually. :P
/r/MensRights08/02/26 02:48 PM
10

For some strange reason, these jokes only seem to be directed one way. Can we at least START with the OBVIOUS FACT that these jokes are only made one way, and see where that leads us?
/r/MensRights08/02/26 07:29 AM
8

You calling them a "minority" would hold a lot more weight if my first encounter with one who was NOT like that happened *BEFORE MY 32ND BIRTHDAY*. Which it didn't. You could argue toxic people cluster. There's evidence to suggest that. You could argue toxic people excell at sniffing out people who have no baseline for what healthy interaction looks like. There's also evidence to support that. You could argue someone is putting their thumb on the scales of antisocial media algorithms. There's AL…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 07:22 AM
6

Two wrongs don't make a right, but a wrong asserted without evidence is a call to redress it with an actual factually verified wrong instead of a call to dismiss it without evidence.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 07:12 AM
9

How much LSD must I ingest before I see the people who say these things about women?
/r/MensRights08/02/26 07:11 AM
5

You're no Italian Plumber. So you should lay of the Magic Mushrooms.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 07:08 AM
27

You want to discourage misogyny? Start by going after everybody who normalizes female perpetrated abuse. Because when female perpetrated abuse becomes normal female behavior... When people are browbeat into accepting dysfunction and abuse as the new normal? HOW DO YOU THINK IT'S GONNA END? Newsflash for you, people aren't a fan of abuse. So when you make nonabusive women look like the exception? Don't be surprised men start to think nonabusive women might as well be mythological beasts in the sa…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 06:57 AM
4

I'd say near 100% of gender-based violence reports are false. Considering the kind of violence that is typically called gender-based violence is ANYTHING BUT gendered? That makes it inherently false to report them as gender-based.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 06:53 AM
24

Look, I'm no doctor, but if you really think that's what people say when men stab women to death... Lay off the Magic Mushrooms, you're no Italian plumber.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 01:53 AM
38

You're missing the critical bit: Woman abuses man. Man defends himself. Society: STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!
/r/MensRights06/02/26 10:57 PM
7

It's giving men an option to avoid being harassed by and dogpiled at the behest of talentless clout chasers, hence harming said clout chasers. I'm not even being snarky, all it takes to make the comment you're responding to to make perfect sense is to start from the premise of putting female abusers above their male victims.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 11:08 PM
15

On is freedom of association, the other is forbidding association. :P
/r/MensRights27/01/26 07:36 PM
2

Pretty much yeah.
/r/MensRights08/01/26 06:45 AM
6

Even if there was good quality evidence? CONDOMS ARE A THNG!!!
/r/MensRights08/01/26 12:12 AM
1

Nothing, considering I cannot access it.
/r/MensRights04/01/26 05:01 PM
1

This is a 15 minutes video. Can you give me the timestamp where they convict a woman of rape? But no, I'm not saying they will project the true reality of the Taliban Gov't. They are very interested in painting them as having a case of the soggy knees. And I'm pretty sure if the Talibans accounted for female rapists in their court system, it would be prime propaganda fodder for the US of A.
/r/MensRights04/01/26 05:00 PM
1

Send me those clips please. Send me anything you have that proves they actually take female sex predators seriously.
/r/MensRights04/01/26 06:23 AM
1

You know the bacha bazzi were basically a warlord thing, right? Just saying that talibans opposing the sexual slavery of young boys to male warlords doesn't prove they oppose women raping men and boys. All I want is any source of talibans going after female rapists. Hell, if you know the current law in afghanistan, mind giving us the current rape laws?
/r/MensRights04/01/26 12:29 AM
0

Just saying the closest thing I could find to peeps "opposing women's shelters" was peeps wanting to clean up the corruption with the current shelter system and replace it with approaches that are proven to work.
/r/MensRights04/01/26 12:28 AM
2

Ignoring the double negative there, you made a claim, so would you mind sharing said published gazettes you seem to have privileged access to? THANK YOU!
/r/MensRights03/01/26 04:49 PM
2

Does it count if it's men (AND WOMEN like Erin Pizzey AKA the OG FOUNDER OF DV SHELTERS) opposing the ideologically based, financial grift of shelters and DV interventions that swallow billions of taxpayer money every year but give no results, when a handful of nonideological programs with less than a million at most of grassroots funding actually get results like 30% recidivism reduction for those cases they intervene in? I would like to assume that the answer is "no, it doesn't count since the…
/r/MensRights03/01/26 01:22 PM
9

Do you have proof for your claim the Talibans actually kill femle rapists? Cause I'm reasonably sure their laws don't even acknowledge them as even existing.
/r/MensRights03/01/26 01:18 PM
1

Closest thing I can think of is all these articles by feminists and conservatives about why AI girlfriends give men unrealistic expectations of women, because "the girlfriend who's on your side!" or "the girlfriend that won't judge you!" AKA someone who can go a single day withou abusing or backstab you is apparently unrealistic expectations. If someone got the message that it's "unrealistic expectation" to expect women to not abuse after how much much they're told just that or after they're acc…
/r/MensRights25/12/25 02:46 AM
5

Y'know, that story is oddly normal for Florida Wo/Man, just a military vet understandably miffed that he's been punished harder for a PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME than his ex was for soliciting assault and battery and false imprisonment against him.
/r/MensRights17/12/25 12:00 PM
1

"If rape laws were gender neutral then men would falsely accuse women of rape" I thought false rape allegations were basically nonexistent? (is you need me to tell you I'm sarcastically pitting two feminist talking points against one another, you haven't been paying attention. :P )
/r/MensRights14/12/25 05:15 PM
3

"Image a world where men stopped going to female owned buisnesses , dont listen to female sales people, believe anything a man says over a woman, not getting any services from a woman and instead go to a man and much more." You mean the world I was told was the world outside my window since I was a kid? The world people still try to gaslight me into believing exist? The world people claim I want to be real whenever I claim and prove it doesn't exist in response to the above? You mean... *GASP* T…
/r/MensRights12/12/25 11:50 PM
1

The only reparations I want are to the law (reparations being the French word for "repairs") AKA "FIX THE DAMN BROKEN LAWS INSTEAD OF OFFERING BRIBE MONEY!" MonsterGirl Quest, a fucking hentai porn game, gets it, why can't you?
/r/MensRights11/12/25 03:00 AM
1

"terrible damage that people like Andrew Tate have inflicted on social media" sorry but andrew tate is a symptom not a cause. "the most handsome men in the world has no right to comment or speak about young men or just the average man in general." it's a free country, you have the right to talk aboot what you want, but realize saying "men deserve legal protections too!" is a taboo thing to say that might knock you down from your lofty heights and make you a pariah no matter how handsome you migh…
/r/MensRights11/12/25 02:56 AM
7

Aren't male children in China obligated to care for their aging parents while female aren't? I know if you gave me the choice between a 401k and a lifetime of debt, I'd pick the 401k.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 11:16 PM
1

Funny, no one mentions what *HE* was promised. These wome are worse tha demons or the Fae. At least demons and Fae KEEP THEIR END of the bargain.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 08:07 PM
28

I disagree. I think it's their unwillingness to harm women not matter what they do to men. I think it's pretty telling that this is the fact feminists and people in general deny the hardest despite all the evidence for it.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 07:45 PM
1

That didn't happen. But if it did, it's not that bad. And if it was, it's not a big deal. And if it was, it's not my fault (---> You are Here) And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it
/r/MensRights06/12/25 07:16 PM
1

"Government" *AHEM* Femicide **LAWS**. You're welcome.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 07:15 PM
1

"Women killing men for being men is rare” r/technicallythetruth , just like mob bosses killing people is rare. When women want to kill the men close to them, they usually get someone else to do the job on their behalf. Just like mob bosses order the hits but rarely perform them. While this is not technically an argument against this law, can we at least acknowledge that this is literally a two tiered justice system with men as the second class citizens? Can we stop calling MRAs "ridiculous" for …
/r/MensRights06/12/25 07:13 PM
1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCHpHUfn9x0&list=PLAxL3Xl24nbsTlarB-DtUIM19xi6noM8T&index=1 Here's the video series about the story of this crazy game mod.
/r/MensRights29/07/25 06:32 PM
1

It's specifically about resisting mind-control/brainwashing, as it is part of the Mental Omega game mod soundtrack. Play in the final mission of the Foehn: Origins mini campaign, right after your forces start getting in disarray after getting hit by the first wave from the mind control device, I know, I've played the shit of the Mental Omega RA2 mod and followed one of the best video series that more or less explained the mission timeline. Here's a playthrough of the mission in case you're wonde…
/r/MensRights29/07/25 06:29 PM
2

Anyone can be a Kaiten Pilot. Or drop Baka Bombs on target.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 03:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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