TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Munchausen-By-Proxy Archive

View 2 posts and 65 comments by Munchausen-By-Proxy 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)
6

That /r/legaladvice thread is amazing. Especially this reply by /u/toasty99, which is basically a thinly veiled threat not to challenge sexism because they'll harass you if you do.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 03:13 AM
22

/u/Awkwardmoment22 They are not prioritized because of gender, they are because the threat level is much higher for women than men if they stay in Syria. Women can't even walk down streets unaccompanied in Syria without being harassed by males TIL refugee status is for victims of sexual harassment, not those under threat of being fucking killed. If you investigate virtually any ISIS massacre, you'll find the majority of those killed (often overwhelmingly) are men, but that doesn't matter apparen…
/r/MensRights26/12/17 07:52 AM
3

/r/FeMRADebates is pretty good.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:36 AM
0

Yep. Very sad to see people getting tricked by feminist propaganda thanks to idiots like /u/thwml.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 09:29 AM
-6

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't graduate high school. Yulia is insinuating that the guy in this case is an abuser, based on her own experience of abusive men regularly getting custody. I was making a sarcastic jibe, suggesting that this was more a reflection of her shitty lawyering than a lesson that should be deployed in defense of female child killers.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 10:32 AM
-10

Edit: Hilarious comment withdrawn because /u/thwml is a retard.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 07:11 AM
5

What is the sound your mother makes when she feeds you?
/r/MensRights08/05/17 10:39 PM
6

I just told you that I'm in favor of it when appropriate, You just claimed to be in favour of it, when in actuality you prefer an assumption of the opposite. This is the same as NOW's position, the assumption in favour of the primary carer, which is the position I am arguing against.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:53 PM
5

You've completely glossed over the fact that an assumption in favour of the primary care giver makes it arbitrarily more difficult for the non-primary caregiver to get equal custody. Nobody who is actually in favour of shared parenting would throw arbitrary blocks up to prevent it from happening. Bear in mind that there is also no good reason to support such a presumption from the perspective of child welfare. The majority of evidence points to shared parenting being the correct solution in a ma…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:38 PM
1

That's their actual fucking position that you are lying about. He's lying about the position he quoted, word for word, before you did, with no contradictory commentary? If you would, please support the first assertion that joint custody takes precedent over the child's safety in that particular bill? That's a lie, ya liar. Correct! It's a lie told by the feminist you linked to.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:07 PM
1

I think this post made it to /r/all, so it's getting attention from people who've been polarized by recent political events and will now whip themselves into a frenzy if they see something that might be construed as a conservative opinion.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:01 PM
6

You can't read a simple reddit thread. You linked to one person saying something in a different subreddit, then accused someone here of saying it. Tell me, why do you hate black people? "Assumed shared parenting" isn't "shared parenting". Hence the use of the word assumed. That is true, however people who are in favour of shared parenting would not also be in favour of an assumption for the opposite of shared parenting, i.e. a primary caregiver assumption as argued for by NOW. I'm done here. Was…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 08:42 PM
7

There are two three issues here. 1) You said that someone here claimed NOW were saying that joint custody takes precedence over the child's safety. Nobody here said that, rather someone you linked to, who identifies as a feminist said that. Then you used this as a basis to attack the MRM, because you're an easily confused idiot whose keyboard is sticky from years of dripping saliva. 2) NOW are in favour of a primary caregiver assumption. That is the same as being against shared parenting, for re…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 08:22 PM
8

You linked to a feminist saying that, all he said was that NOW, the largest feminist organization is against shared custody, which they are. So you're accusing a feminist of lying about what NOW believes in order to discredit the MRM. Yeah, I'm sure your IQ is intimidating.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 07:27 PM
7

Ignores NOW's own website in favour of faith in a debunked Reddit comment, accuses other people of operating based on feels. Religious nutcase.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:57 PM
6

It's even worse than that, Valerie Solanas identified as a feminist, was widely praised by other feminists, exclusively targeted men, and her manifesto is still considered an important piece of feminist literature. Elliot Rodger didn't identify as an MRA, has been condemned by basically everyone, killed more men than women, and nobody is interested in reading his manifesto.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:43 PM
6

The truth is that Elliot Rodger wrote a 140 page manifesto and didn't mention the MRM, feminism, or any of the usual talking points at all. He was a loser who was unhappy he couldn't get a girlfriend, that's basically it. What's more, he killed more men than women, and still feminists turned it into an anti-MRM talking piece. Result? A bunch of gullible left-wingers fell for it, who probably had more political overlap with Rodgers than we did, considering he subscribed to The Young Turks.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:37 PM
7

He supported all of MRAs viewpoints No he didn't, you lying piece of shit. His manifesto is available online, and despite being around 140 pages he didn't mention feminism, domestic abuse, divorce, or the other usual MRA talking points a single time.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:20 PM
8

TL;DR: Agree that feminism is awesome or I won't respect you! You people really are garbage. You talk about common sense, but you defend a fucking cult. zero data Opinions can't always be backed up by empirical data. My opinion is that the majority of US Republicans are assholes, but there is no defined empirical measure for "asshole" so no data is available. Now are you going to make an account and go trolling /r/esist, /r/marchagainsttrump, etc., where people hold similar opinions? I somehow d…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:15 PM
10

But that's still nothing to do with being a snowflake, and actually sounds more like the attitude of a loser.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:57 PM
8

Nothing about freedom of speech means that people have to listen. It means that people who want to listen should be able to, but that's all. What you're thinking of is more along the lines of "open debate", which is something Netflix does not help when it chooses only to publish one side of the story.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:53 PM
8

Boycotts regularly accomplish things. The fear of a boycott is probably why Netflix is refusing to show this documentary in the first place.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:49 PM
13

Netflix now identifies as a woman, obviously.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:33 PM
15

I think we'd have a better community (and a better planet) if we removed people who think that saying "Fuck Netflix" is misogynist.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:18 PM
23

Someone insults a multi-billion dollar corporation for refusing to show a documentary (incidentally, a documentary made by a woman) and that makes them misogynist? This is your brain on feminism.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:13 PM
9

Why not campaign against travel bans, oppression against women in middle eastern countries, or get involved in activism that the documentary highlights? These things are not mutually exclusive. You can do all of those things while also choosing not to give money to propaganda platforms. your insulating yourself from companies that oppose your opinions I'd be insulating them from my wallet, as is my right because it's my money. What the fuck are you smoking, Smokey?
/r/MensRights07/05/17 03:04 PM
12

How is he being a snowflake? Is he claiming to have PTSD because of Netflix? As usual, feminists repeat words but never understand them.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 02:52 PM
1

Some of them are Nazis, because Nazis like free speech (when it's convenient for them, of course). Similarly, human traffickers like open borders and pedophiles like the uncensored internet. That doesn't mean I have to support people who are against free speech, open borders, and the uncensored internet. I'd also like to reiterate that these "protestors" are mindless thugs who do not distinguish between Nazi and non-Nazi, as the video I linked demonstrates very well. Actual anti-fascists and Naz…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 12:27 PM
1

She went to a protest to protest against something she believes that bad for the world. She went to protest a free speech march. If she thinks free speech is bad for the world, there's a word for her, and it's not anti-fascist. If you are in support of neo-nazis punching people protesting them I'm in support of people defending their right to free speech. She's a violent thug of the sort who attacked bystanders (male and female) a couple of months ago. These people have an extremely broad defini…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 11:55 AM
3

See how you're having to pivot from "she wasn't a threat" to "she totally was a threat and it's a good thing"? That means I won. Free speech continues to mean something. For some reason I think it is okay to be violent against these types of people. Then you'll get punched in the face, and I'll be laughing at you when the video gets posted on Reddit.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 11:47 AM
1

Literally? Of course not. It's a movie quote, an exaggeration, but an exaggerated declaration of intent is still a declaration of intent. It's not a coincidence she ended up in the middle of a violent riot hours later.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 11:40 AM
2

Correct, and neither is a feminist saying "kill all men", because neither of those things is an action that the speaker is likely to carry out imminently, and therefore they cannot be used to justify an immediate violent response.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 11:34 AM
7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words Free speech doesn't apply when you're presenting yourself as an imminent threat. You don't understand the ideas you're trying to parody.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/17 10:58 AM
6

Look at my source, it includes several distinct subcategories of rape in it's methodology. Maybe you should look at your source, you stupid piece of shit.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 11:41 PM
54

How can anything be a non-zero percentage of a category that excludes that thing? This alone should tip you off that you've read incorrectly. See Table 2.2. There were 1,581,000 men who were victims of completed or attempted rape, and 5,451,000 men who were "made to penetrate" someone else. Page 24 gives some perpetrator statistics. 93% of the 1,581,000 reported male perpetrators, 79.2% of the 5,451,000 reported female perpetrators.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 11:37 PM
2

He's concern trolling and defending a call-out against a specific user who I'm confident does not fit the criteria. He also was unable to provide any examples of this supposedly rife phenomenon from other users. Can you? There is a big gap between being an echo chamber and decrying false accusations of misogyny against users reddit feminists have taken a disliking to. If you want to support that behaviour, go participate in the sub in the screenshot. A movement cannot gain credibility by legitim…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 06:51 AM
7

I don't see where they said that. Where they said what? "We are butthurt"? No shit they didn't say that. What I do see, is them commenting on the frequently abysmal tone of our community. Can you find any thread on /r/mensrights which dances around the fact that women can be raped? Can you find any post by /u/5th_Law_of_Robotics where he does that? You, like them, are inventing a non-existent phenomenon to discredit the MRM. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 09:26 PM
1

It's not totally unrelated, but it is a pretty pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" moment. I get the sense you were proud of knowing what Munchausen Syndrome is, more than anything. Yes, women might do bad things if you defend yourself. No, that doesn't mean that men are bad people just "looking for an excuse" if they defend themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:29 PM
3

Women are more likely to use proxies to get what they want. Yes. Are you completely unfamiliar with violence by proxy? Or the way in which a sociopath might use any marks you leave to gain sympathy and attention? Nothing to do with MSBP, in which a third party is presented as the primary victim. So you've noticed that psychology exists and that I have a psychology-related username. Well done, great argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:07 PM
2

It doesn't seem very moral to make a gendered claim and then complain that your opponents are talking about gender. If you want to start a campaign called End Violence Against People With 50% Or Less Upper Body Strength Than Their Opponents, go ahead, but you'll quickly discover that nobody really cares about men who attack bigger men.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 05:12 PM
3

Simply observing that you're defending a virtue when it was never under attack. Presenting running away as a reasonable expectation does conflict with my suggestion that it isn't a reasonable expectation. Your username is a reference to the exact kind of thing that makes hitting a woman dangerous I'm just dying to hear your convoluted explanation for this. You have no excuse to offer advice that dangerous. I'm not offering advice. I'm saying what people's rights ought to be, not what they often …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 05:00 PM
2

Weak dodge. The people you're talking about aren't the ones making this a gender issue, "men shouldn't hit women" is not an uncommon statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:46 PM
4

instead of trying to show off on the internet Personal attack. Do you have a functioning sense of shame Personal attack. with your username, I'd expect you to be a bit more streetwise Personal attack. Guess I hit a nerve.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:43 PM
3

escape the situation. The onus shouldn't be on the victim to escape the situation, that's just giving free reign to bullies and abusers. The limit for responding to violent women should be the same for responding to violent men: don't kick someone when they're down. Short of that, you should be able to defend your right to be somewhere, particularly if that place is your home.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:34 PM
2

But they never go discussing it as broad ethical issue do they? Woman: You can't hit me, I'm a woman! Man: I don't care that you're a woman. Woman: Why are you making this all about gender?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:29 PM
5

I don't hear men irl going on about how they need to defend themselves against women Can you seriously not think of any other reason why that might be? or women asserting that they have a right to hit men There's a whole movement full of women who believe just that. They support the Duluth model, campaign to close women's prisons, and classify all female violence as PTSD-induced reactions to male violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:20 PM
3

Large proportion of men are CEOs (like extremely large proportion) You have that backwards. Most CEOs are men, most men are not CEOs. Around here, this is called the apex fallacy. More men are homeless or in prison than are CEOs, but only one side of this coin is seen as a gender issue. Through fiction/mythology: Men are always the heros, women are the helpless creatures who can't do anything themselves. What does that have to do with the value of their lives? Children are considered helpless, b…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 10:27 PM
3

In short: Through social enforcement, e.g. boys don't cry (nobody cares about your emotions). Through fiction/mythology, e.g. the damsel in distress trope (men should risk themselves for women). Through news media, e.g. reporting "women and children" killed, or focusing almost exclusively on female victims (see Boko Haram kidnappings). Through policy, e.g. conscription for pointless wars (or, more recently, lack of funding for men's health, shelters, and services).
/r/MensRights09/01/17 09:36 PM
2

You should know that there are many forms of democracy and the US is not a direct democracy, but rather a democratic republic. The genders are quite evenly distributed geographically, unlike Democrats and Republicans, so that argument doesn't work very well. If 50%+1 of every electoral district wanted something, it would happen. Also, that is to completely ignore all of societal norms and conditioning. Nobody is ignoring them, you're actually conforming to them yourself when you insist that wome…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:59 PM
3

wow your anecdotal evidence completely changed my mind! if only more people would spam me with their unsourced anecdotes sooner! You haven't heard of the white feather campaign? Contrary to your unsourced assertions, women do a very good job of enforcing negative social norms on men, and have done so since the dawn of time. Patriarchy theory is bullshit for this reason.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:47 PM
3

If society is teaching men to value their lives less, thereby leading them to kill themselves and other men more often, that is misandry.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:38 PM
5

Doesn't the fact that 80% of all violent crimes are carried out by men offset the whole homicide statistic? Only if you take the view that men being murdered is somehow better if it's a man doing the killing. The point is to examine the status of men and women in society, not to blame men or women. Slut shaming is bad, and says something about our society, even if it comes from another woman. The same is true of murder.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:34 PM
2

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of democracy. There are more female voters than male ones, if women wanted to fight wars they'd be doing so.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:26 PM
12

#whataboutthewomynz there's a massive amount of sexism if you try to enter the trades as a woman And there wasn't for lawyers? Doctors? Professions with more female graduates now than male? This argument would have worked 50 years ago, but the problem is now clear: women don't want those jobs. They have other, better options. Men commit significantly more murders than women What's your point? Women are more likely to slut-shame other women, that doesn't stop feminists talking about slut-shaming.…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 08:19 PM
4

often loosely affiliated What does that even mean, that two entire movements regularly shift from being affiliated one moment to unaffiliated the next? Looks like they started off meaning to write about how other sources often link the MRM to the alt-right, then decided to do so themselves.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 02:27 AM
12

What makes you think he was defending the title rather than pointing out another problem with it?
/r/MensRights17/11/16 09:11 AM
2

Where does the author say that the two aren't linked? How did it even cross your mind to respond with this question? I just said they were linked, I said the author said they were linked, and you're asking me to point to where the author said they aren't linked? At this point it is clear that no matter what I or the author say, you are going to read into this conversation whatever suits you. Have a pleasant afternoon.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 03:12 PM
4

It's almost as thought culture and traditional ethics and intrinsically linked. Of course they are linked, the question is how are they linked, and you are saying the opposite to the author. If you read not one page into this and are already concluding that the author is sexist If I said all women were whores, how many pages of my comment history would you feel the need to read in order to confirm I was actually sexist? Maybe if you suspected I was joking you might check a page or two, but someh…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 03:05 PM
5

You are the one strawmanning. You've invented an entire position for her that is not remotely reflected in her piece, all as a rather pathetic attempt to excuse her. This is very simple: At no point does she say that intellect is viewed as masculine because of traditional ethics. She does say (and it has been quoted above) that intellect is culturally (i.e. externally) viewed as masculine and that traditional ethics overstates the importance of intellect as a result. In short, she is proposing t…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 02:49 PM
3

No, she's saying that when traditional ethics relegate positive qualities like intellect and rationality to the male sphere She is saying: 1) that intellect is culturally viewed as masculine trait, 2) that traditional ethics tend to emphasize the importance of traits that are culturally viewed as masculine, and 3) that therefore traditional ethics are sexist for focusing on intellect. She is not saying that traditional ethics is the reason that intellect is considered masculine, but that traditi…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 02:40 PM
17

If she was calling gender roles sexist you would have a point, but that is not what she's doing. What she is doing is calling traditional ethics sexist because they focus on intellect. This would be rather like an MRA complaining that the prison system is sexist because it pays too much attention to violence, which is a masculine trait, and that therefore the prison system should be changed to forgive men's violence. Obviously this is bullshit: the fact that violence is viewed as a masculine tra…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 01:52 AM
9

The idea is to clearly illustrate the principle, the understanding of which can then be applied to the real numbers. As you said, the numbers he's giving are obviously false so there is no dishonesty here, just a standard educational technique which anyone who made it through high school should be familiar with.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 01:28 AM
1

The idea is to clearly illustrate the principle, the understanding of which can then be applied to the real numbers. As you said, they numbers he's giving are obviously false so there is no dishonesty here, just a standard educational technique.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 01:28 AM
14

What's the benefit in specifically counting women? Why is there a pattern of specifically counting women, but not doing so for men? The point was never that we couldn't work it out for ourselves.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 04:22 PM
0

Submitted in light of the video interview with Michele Elliott that was posted a couple of days ago, here's one quote from the article I found extremely poignant: When Michele Elliott – co-founder of the organisation Kidscape – published her book The Female Sexual Abuse Of Children: The Last Taboo in 1992, she was deluged by hate mail from feminists who saw it as an attempt to detract from the real problem: the abuse of power by men. If it was difficult for her to get the issue taken seriously, …
/r/MensRights09/05/15 09:20 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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