TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MrArtless Archive

View 4 posts and 93 comments by MrArtless on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

No where did I see 4.5b... where was that in the article?
/r/MensRights21/05/14 07:59 AM
3

seriously I'm offended this question was even asked.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 07:33 AM
1

That isn't the point. The point is facebook has the option and uses it against anti-female speech but not anti-male. It's unfair.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 10:08 AM
2

that means girls too :(
/r/MensRights05/04/14 08:48 AM
8

rape is non consensual sex. Therefore "consent technicalities" are everything there is in "rape rape"
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:38 AM
1

How weird. I was actually just about to come submit an example of this. I find it so annoying that we're "derailing" discussion by being including other people who are also affected by that problem. http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/2203ro/welcome_once_again_to_reddits_most_popular_game/cgirlvx?context=4
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:56 AM
4

The opposite is true as well. Whenever people talk about it, people sarcastically reply "what about teh menz!!! lol MRA detected!"
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:30 AM
5

I remember Marilyn Vos Savant wrote an article in her segment "Ask Marilyn" (she has one of the highest IQs in the world) where she acknowledged and expanded on exactly that notion.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:03 AM
2

They're totally incomparable actually. It's only speech which not only incites lawless action but has the intention to btw. So just saying "we need to burn this place to the ground" wouldn't get you an incitement conviction unless you actually wanted someone to do it.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 12:27 PM
1

Hmm yeah I guess you're right about it not existing. In no way does that suggest that it isn't added now simply by accident. I'm sure somebody on the vast team of individuals writing the dictionary, who are you know responsible for making sure words go in it, have heard of the term misandry before in their lives.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 12:36 AM
2

misandry is not a new word. It used to be recognized by Chrome. Either they switched to a new dictionary that doesn't recognize it or, more likely, the dictionary's publisher removed the word. Why do you suppose they did that?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 05:24 PM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry#Origin The word misandry can be traced back to at least 1871, when it was used in The Spectator magazine.[3] It appeared in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) in 1952. Misandry is formed from the Greek misos (μῖσος, "hatred") and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, gen. ἀνδρός; "man").[4] No it isn't. It's young compared to misogyny that's true but it's hardly a ground breaking concept. It has been taken OUT of standard use deliberately since the 1950's.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 05:06 PM
1

You're probably right about the outsourcing. It kills the point by just adding to dictionary though. I don't need them to correct it for me, I just don't like how it's now mainstream that those words literally no longer have a definition. It would be one thing if the definition said "a controversial term referring to the potential existence of hatred or oppression against men, many do not believe this exists." That would be bad and biased enough but at least they would acknowledge the concept is…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:44 PM
2

Yeah you're right. It's sad because this happens to a lot of girls as well as boys, more girls if you count China. I'm just appalled someone told her this was okay. You know if it had been a father saying how he didn't want a daughter, Abby would have told him he deserved to have his genitals mutilated and that she would be calling social services to protect her from a lifetime of neglect and abuse.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:51 PM
2

Wow dude go back to TRP. He grabbed a 7 year old by the arm in the middle of the night, took off her pants, took off his, and fucked/molested her. No where did it say it was consensual. No where did they say it was under the guise of playing together. He knew what he was doing from watching the porn and she did not. This is not the same thing as playing doctor. This was rape in the old sense of the word. Just because it didn't say she physically resisted is meaningless because she didn't know wh…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:25 PM
12

No she is a monster. Who the fuck actually expects to only get pregnant with 4 girls? There is a 1/16 chance of that happening. What a moron. So irresponsible... now the baby may have to grow up without ever knowing his mother just because she is a misandrist.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:12 PM
10

you have a point but you're also missing the point. Yes, the title is stupid because there are many shows dedicated to women stripping or behaving sexually for male audiences. However none of them are respected like Ellen is. Her show is considered to be good, smart, mainstream television. The Man Show is sleazy. Consider it like this. President Obama would get in no trouble for expressing an appreciation for the Ellen show in fact it might make him more popular. If he said the same for the man …
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:01 PM
3

This is what makes me so mad about blogs like that. They're jerking each other off talking about, "they don't argue they just shout as loudly as possible to drown everyone else out while patting themselves on the back" when this is clearly a very good argument that shits all over PZ. Sometimes I want to quit MR because of how much bullying and ill will it gets me just for the label but then you guys remind me how much sense you make.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:42 PM
7

That would be Victoria actually.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 02:35 AM
1

It's not easy being a father. If it were easy, mothers would do it. Like if you agree. See how stupid that is? The like if you agree is what gets me. It's like people saw that and agreed, "yes fathers really should be getting a sex change operation. Assholes."
/r/MensRights18/02/14 07:07 AM
8

I think this is a joke making fun of that position. I choose to believe that.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 07:27 PM
4

this is so condescending. "everyone fucks up, apologize" I don't. fuck you. just cause your group are "reformed" rapists who want to seem like they've learned from their mistakes doesn't mean the rest of us are. This whole thing is basically written to suggest that every man is a creep.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 09:57 PM
2

It sounds like B was drunk when they had sex so he should probably report C for raping him. It was really fuzzy on his end. Fuck everything about C.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 04:24 AM
3

Just had this exact experience. The paranoia is real. whenever my door bell rings I think I'm getting arrested.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:10 PM
1

How about after George Zimmerman, many Black people physically assaulted White people and cited the verdict as their reasoning? Those Caucasians were discriminated against because of their skin color.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 12:06 AM
1

I realized that it would only take this one radical person to sway the whole opinion of the group to a man hating, misandric out look. Not really...
/r/MensRights13/01/14 08:18 AM
1

This made me more angry than pretty much anything I've seen on this sub. I've noticed feminists tend to use the term 'victim blaming" for any time someone makes a legitimate point that they can't answer. But they blame the victims all they want.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:44 AM
4

Even the buyers of sex recognize the harm caused by prostitution to women. A 2012 Canadian study on the buyers of sex called Buyer Beware, found that of the 20 men interviewed, 8 of the men indicated that they acknowledged that women were most harmed by their act of buying sex and another 10 of the men felt both the woman and the buyer were harmed. Result – 90% of the men who bought sex recognized the women involved in prostitution were harmed by act of prostitution. The same study revealed that…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 09:18 PM
1

Seems a rather arbitrary way to assign inalienable rights. Just because they don't have their organs yet, they aren't homo sapien. I am getting over this argument though.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:15 AM
1

doesn't matter that it isn't a fully formed human now because all fully formed humans were once undeveloped, but that is basically arguing that they enjoy personhood because of their potential to become fully formed humans.... again... (sigh) they are humans. Humans begin life without their organs and body, etc having formed. These form in the early stages of human life. Nothing poential about it. You've obviously never encountered this argument before so you can't handle it, so you just keep re…
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:09 AM
1

I'm not actually against abortion in any way, since you asked (this is your first time asking) The original question was whether or not a fetus was a human. Thank you for agreeing with me. Guess that would make you a... dumb ass too. And yes, you did say it has to receive nutrients. However the rest of what you said was not what I was saying, so (again folks) you've failed to understand, failed to represent my argument, and failed to rebut.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:55 AM
1

If you aren't going to try to respond to points I actually make I'm not going to sit here and repeatedly jam this spiked dildo up your ass. It isn't even fun any more. Eat an apple, throw the seed on the ground, and see if an apple tree grows there. It has to be planted in wet soil. Once it sprouts and turns from the seed (potential) to the sprout (apple tree) it becomes ^<sup>wait</sup> ^^<sup>for</sup> ^^^<sup>it</sup> an apple tree.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:35 AM
1

The apple seed is a lot like a human egg. It is the potential to be an apple tree, but unless it is acted upon it will not become one. It has to be planted and then sprout. Then it goes through the life of an apple tree starting from the beginning, so yes it is one. So unless you're trying to say that there is no difference in anatomy/physiology between an undeveloped human and a developed human, (in which case you are retarded) then change your argument. It's actually retarded of you to think t…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 08:34 PM
1

(sigh) reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Guess what. That undeveloped mass of cells was you when you were in your first stages of life. That exact mass of cells continued along its development into a baby, and then that baby continued on to be what you are now. At no point did it change from one thing into another. That was all the same individual. Try a test. Take an apple. Eat it to the core. That apple had the potential to be an apple core. If you eat it, it becomes an apple core…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:57 PM
1

No, you misrepresented both of my arguments, which is also why the article didn't address them. I claimed that a fetus will grow into a person. A person is someone like you and me, memories, a life, etc. They are the "consciousness" if you will. A human being is an organic organism belonging to the species homo sapien with automatically dividing cells that has life. It is not because the fetus becomes a human, it is because the fetus IS a human. It's just a human in the earliest stage of human l…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:13 PM
1

I didn't find it very helpful. If you'd like, you can give me what you thought were specific strong points and I'll give it my best go at refuting them. To start, a sperm is a potential, as are eggs. They will not be people unless acted upon. A fetus will grow up into a person unless acted upon. If you say say that the fetus is not a person because it does not have limbs/organs/ is a parasite, that only means in the first 9 months of life a human being does not have organs and is parasitic. Peop…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 05:37 PM
2

the skin cells on your cheek won't form a person if you leave them alone. The skin cells on your cheek aren't growing, dividing, and replicating into a person. The skin cells on your cheek don't have a pulse, or fingers, and they don't respond independently to stimuli. I fail to see how that's remotely relevant.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 03:56 PM
2

certainly is not human It's not a dog. It's not a chimpanzee. It's alive, that much is inarguable. It's species is homo-sapien. Seems to be a human to me. Pretty sure the fetus belongs to the fetus, just as a child isn't the property of his parents to be traded in a divorce.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 02:43 PM
2

"A fetus is not a child" What is it then?
/r/MensRights21/11/13 12:03 PM
1

I'd care more if you had made better arguments ;)
/r/MensRights18/11/13 12:25 AM
2

Can you believe how condescending he was in reply to me? I can only hope you'll think about your words and immediate responses in the future from a more enlightened point of view.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 10:59 AM
8

If that's the case they should be uncomfortable with a woman changing their son's diaper.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 09:42 AM
3

This is absolutely fantastic.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 05:06 AM
3

Thank you! I should add that if I hadn't called him out, someone else would have. These threads are almost always shut down early.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:28 AM
10

I'll go and change it for you. I wrote the post quickly and emotionally and didn't pay as much attention to detail as I could have. It basically came from a place of having seen those kinds of blog posts on here and I was really just referring to them, as I was sure many people who browse this sub were familiar with them.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 06:34 PM
4

uhh... read further in the thread dude that's exactly what I said.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:53 PM
11

There has been a trend in some feminist circles, not all of them but some, to chastise gender roles when concerned with things like "women should stay in the kitchen" which is repulsive no doubt, but then when it comes to things like, "women are better at raising children and should therefore gain custody in divorce" they are silent, or even supportive. I find the latter case equally repulsive. As I said this is not all feminists, perhaps not even a majority, but it is a decent enough amount to …
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:24 PM
12

Apparently, "I kind of hate women" doesn't mean much to you. This is the same as when radical feminists say (or imply usually) "I kind of hate men" I view the threat from people like him to our integrity, our goals, and our reputation to be real just like the threat of radical feminism is to all of those things. Here we have a case of needing to unite against a common threat, and it is one in the same as the misandrist threat posed by radical feminists. It is hate no matter who spreads it.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:59 PM
21

From his comment history on the first page What are guys thinking when they stare at women's boobs? Usually "I bet she's a real bitch, deep down inside. Nice enough tits, but I can already feel her sense of entitlement because of them". I kind of hate women. Yes, he actually said that. You wouldn't tolerate racists in a movement to end racial oppression. I don't see why we tolerate women haters in a group to end gender oppression. What does it have to do with me? He is giving me a bad name. He i…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:04 PM
29

There it is folks. The mysogany we're always accused of. Of course, I'm a proud, heterosexual male, but that doesn't compute in your mind. (My name is MrArtless for a reason) Disagree with you? I must be a sniveling bitch with my skirt on backwards. Why are you still here? You don't belong in a rights group.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 03:39 PM
56

You are what's wrong with the MR movement and you give us all a bad name. Get out of our rights group Thanks to feminism, we now live in a world where it's often difficult to tell a person's gender. Yeah bro that's because traditional gender roles are voluntary. Nothing wrong with people choosing NOT to follow them, men or women. There was a time that you could tell a person was male or female based on MORE than just secondary sexual characteristics- you could tell it by how they walked, talked,…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 03:23 PM
4

exactly the comment I posted in the blog. I didn't read "heel, bitch" anywhere even in her strawman arguments.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:30 AM
1

im pretty sure he did win.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:50 AM
1

right but that's still better than most feminist propoganda.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 03:13 PM
1

I couldn't find anything either way, just blogs saying she had it verified.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 10:48 AM
1

I knew that one, but what about Jennifer?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 10:44 AM
2

They didn't say she had it they just said the highest scores ever recorded on a test.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 10:29 AM
1

Did they make it up or just skew it? I know Marilyn Vos Savant had the highest test score, do you know who they mean for number 2? ------EDIT------- found it. Jennifer rose Ocasio IQ 235. Couldn't find a reliable source but found many saying it was verified, so she probably also took a test like Marilyn. If that were true, then the statement isn't false. Sorry.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 10:16 AM
0

I hardly think this was an attack against men. She didn't claim that 2 highest IQ's ever were women, or even thtat women were smarter than men in general. Just the 2 highest ever recorded happened to be women, which maybe made her feel good about herself? You picked a fight over something stupid. If it had been a graphic saying that men are stupid women are usually smarter or some shit I'd give you props but this? Nah.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:07 AM
-1

Update: The student was schizophrenic and wasn't trying to peep.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 08:38 AM
-6

you either, you made perfectly reasonable points.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 10:28 PM
-5

I have read other email alerts. When they apprehend someone, they say that. This email means they contacted him and realized there was no threat. Logically you can realize this when the information available was not enough to catch someone. Also, I have been preoccupied before, walked into a women's restroom, and not realized it for a while.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 09:54 PM
-4

He probably walked into the girls bathroom, saw a stall without realizing it was the girls bathroom, walked in, saw it had a girl, realized his mistake, left.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:54 PM
0

Probaly because most of the time people were talking about the man, because most of the time men were in charge/the one doing something (back when feminism was right about patriarchy)
/r/MensRights07/08/13 07:32 AM
8

I think the creepy part is that he tried to emotionally blackmail her by saying he would send his mom to a nursing home if she didn't respond. Of all the non creepy things posted to that sub, this is the one you come up with?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 07:27 AM
1

Annnnnd she blocked me
/r/MensRights07/07/13 10:02 AM
1

What if there was one of a white woman that had all the stupid cliche feminist things to say? Would be called misogyny in of itself.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 10:51 PM
9

He's not that great, he's been chased off Reddit a couple times for being a douche. -------Source---------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBeEHXl9u8M
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:09 PM
-6

While that comment is ridiculous, she still didn't say heterosexual relationships were bad. She just implied that every man has at some point committed rape/sexual assault. It's bullshit, but still not what he was suggesting.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:53 AM
3

Have you never heard "Feminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice"? Well then that's all the evidence I needed! good work!
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:51 AM
22

Actually yes. The study I read said that both genders give students of their gender slightly better grades by like 2-4 percent.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:54 AM
1

What school was this in? I'm just curious. sharpens pitchfork
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:53 AM
4

Comments like this only hurt the MR cause. Show me some evidence
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:51 AM
0

She said it was a man
/r/MensRights11/09/12 09:28 AM
2

you know what that was actually a very well thought out argument. I concede.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 12:53 AM
3

It says Hugh verbally expresses his desire to have sex with Elizabeth. From that I'd say that counts as consent to oral sex.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:49 PM
1

Either way, it was distastefully handled. To me, it reads that he is getting paid more because men are inherently better at doing construction type jobs than women because they are stronger, which is untrue. While statistically men are likely to be stronger than women, there are women who are stronger than men. So if he was paid more simply because he was a man and presumed to be stronger, that would be sexist unless the women was actually incapable of doing the same job. To illustrate the autho…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 12:25 AM
0

But it doesn't say that. Are we reading the same caption? It says "I'm the guy, I get paid more"
/r/MensRights11/07/12 12:11 AM
0

It implies that men should get paid more for being men instead of for doing a better job. It also implies that the gap between the strength of men and women is as dramatic as 80 pounds to 2 pounds, which is legitimately insulting. Instead it could have said, "I'm the man. I'm paid more when I work harder." Or something
/r/MensRights11/07/12 12:00 AM
1

I think that must mean 38% of men or every 38 minutes or seconds or something...
/r/MensRights10/07/12 12:27 AM
0

What I want to read? I'm reading what was printed. I'm an MRA that doesn't mean we have to blindly try and justify everything that's blatantly sexist in men's favor.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 10:57 PM
1

The picture doesn't say, "I'm carrying a heavier object, I get paid more". It specifically brings gender into it which is totally uncalled for.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 01:56 AM
6

And a man could have that book. I find it offensive that he implies that men would never read erotic texts and therefore the male equivalent of this would be some pin-up magazine. As far as I understand pornographic magazines exist for both men and women and neither would be acceptable out in the open at an office, but either gender could have 50 Shades of Grey
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:13 AM
1

Serious answer: No. Are you?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 07:19 AM
3

What does this have to do with male privilege? Are all these soldiers men?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:40 AM
-3

None of us were ever taught that a girl could beat you within an inch of your life and if you hit back you'd get in trouble. Not even you.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 06:13 PM
1

Why are you looking for a fight? Vehicular assault sounds way worse than domestic assault (and more clichely male). Domestic assaults aren't usually potentially lethal. It's like if a wife shot at a man and missed, and I called it an attempted murder, and you said, "DON'T YOU SEE! THIS ISN'T JUST SOME RUN OF THE MILL POTENTIAL HOMICIDE!!!!! THIS IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! I think all of us in /r/MR have made our point, woman are just as capable of violence as men. If we want to actually change someth…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 02:04 PM
5

technically he did neither as he didn't actually say anything untrue, just implied it.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 11:11 AM
1

How does this raise awareness about domestic violence? People are aware that people assault each other. All this does is seem like we're grasping for every example of violence perpetrated by a woman against a man. If she gets off free, you have an issue. As it is, you just have an example of a woman who committed vehicular assault and will probably be imprisoned.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:01 AM
-6

Why is this a Men's Rights issue? This is why people say this subreddit is misogynistic. I'm sure guys have done the same thing. Yes, no charges have been announced. They probably will be. If that was the issue, it should be reflected in the title.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 07:45 PM
-4

She clearly supports heroin legalization then
/r/MensRights08/03/12 10:09 AM
3

I would say they go way too far and if I was Shell or Emily I would be extremely offended, all it seems they did was express an opinion. Whether or not the comments are representative of UniLad readers is another question entirely.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 11:18 PM
2

Actually they said "if you were drunk it's rape" 2 very different things, although I don't know that I agree with either. At least they aren't suggesting it's rape if she had 1 drink.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 02:50 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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