TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Peritract Archive

View 1 post and 137 comments by Peritract 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)
2

There are absolutely loads of people who use language I don't like. Most of them don't hate women. However, people who use language in the particular way you use it, do hate women. I'm not an anti-semite if I use words you don't like. I am if I say "fucking kikes" a lot. I'm not an anti-semite, in that instance, because I used words that you disapprove of. I'm an anti-semite because I used anti-semitic words, betraying my underlying attitudes. Your disapproval of them has no bearing on that stat…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/15 08:17 PM
1

Yes. Because there are better words, and failing to find them is a clear sign.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/15 07:10 PM
-1

Yet, only TRP is seen as misogynistic. Manipulative. If TRP is manipulative, then so is Seddit, so is every other dating site ever imagined. TRP game is not so different from PUA game. No, Seddit and other similar subreddits are also filled with misogynists.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/15 11:42 PM
3

That isn't an answer.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:30 AM
3

Why? People call each other "creeps" all the time too.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 01:34 AM
3

So is the sobriquet of "bitch friend".
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:44 AM
7

giving me a look of disgust for a harmless look If your look was harmless, so was hers.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 11:05 PM
–

I disagree with Maxtopia's general stance, but I would argue that many videogames are more childish than works in other mediums - it is a young medium, and traditionally aimed at children. It will get more mature.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 09:29 AM
2

Not really, though "queer" is sometimes used as an identifier that rejects the more separated categories, and can be used as a political statement. More information on political lesbianism.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 03:44 PM
1

Read this. It is just an overview, but allow me to highlight the relevant passage: In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. Honestly, I understand the desire to think that everything, even in an emerging and highly complex field, is completely settled, and that you personally know everything. However, the truth is that you don't, and neither does anyone el…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:53 PM
0

There is currently no evidence that proves determinism, or even strongly suggests it. Various scientists hypothesize that determinism is a fact, but the scientific view is that there is not enough data. "Science" does not mean "what I read on a blog" or "what some guy in a labcoat told me", it is a process of hypothesizing and testing. No "scientific view" is formed from baseless conjecture.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:36 PM
–

That is not the "scientific view". I am not sure that you know what science is.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:09 PM
2

You lit the fire - it cold be argued that you have a duty to demonstrate that you were not just spreading gossip.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 05:23 PM
2

Is there a source for your second point?
/r/MensRights29/11/11 01:23 PM
3

It appears to be three very short pieces, on different topics. The sex of her child, the insularity of Hackney, and car seats. The topics are unconnected.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:55 PM
1

The same applies to Boudicca.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:38 AM
2

I apologize for the rebuke, it is just that I have seen an awful lot of invective directed against this subreddit because of its perceived tendency to concern troll. I do not think that this subreddit is guilty of it anymore than any other, but I do think that it is a negative across the board. Posts like this make 2XC more likely to troll here in retaliation. Such crossposting, from either community, makes it difficult for the two groups to have rational discussions.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 12:23 AM
6

As a general rule, such crossposting is not ideal - it harms discussion in both subreddits, enacts mass-downvoting, and loses the attacking subreddit the moral high-ground. I have spent a reasonable amount of time calling these out in 2XC, and now such posts are downvoted and ignored, rather than sending trolls here there and everywhere. It would be nice if the same could happen here.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 12:12 AM
3

They do deserve to be called out. By someone already there. When you bring an entire subreddit to bear, it distorts discussion, and skews the natural state of the target subreddit. Put it this way: were you to be having a discussion, and r/feminisms levaraged their readership solely to downvote you, and spam this subreddit, you would be annoyed. That they occasionally do so is no reason to do the same.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:42 PM
8

No - I have always found them rather disturbing. r/mensrights has a reputation for downvote brigades and directed trolling. It is not a fair reputation - other subreddits (r/twoxchromosomes, for example, or r/vegan) do exactly the same thing. But confirmation bias means that people notice it more from here. This subreddit has a terrible reputation, and it is undeserved. This kind of post makes it seem more deserving. To clarify, I do call it out on other subreddits too.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:11 PM
–

If you want to show other people, take a screenshot. This kind of crosspost harms the reputation of this subreddit, something it really doesn't need.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 07:15 PM
1

Karma is also not a thing posting humans want to discard.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 11:04 PM
1

Many discussions last for days.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:20 PM
1

That is what harms discussion.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:09 PM
–

Try not to crosspost to comménts you disagréé with - it harms discussion.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:26 PM
5

Don't call downvote brigades. It harms the general level of discussion, and contributes to the already very negative perception of this subreddit. If you wish to discuss it, post a screenshot.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 01:27 AM
1

Half of the sidebar for this subreddit concerns feminists coming and not understanding, or rehashing old ground. Wouldn't you like them to be somewhere else?
/r/MensRights11/02/11 05:52 PM
1

Thank you. That had been confusing me.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 03:45 PM
2

It is rather daunting. But they do all seem to approach it from a position already, even if that position is equality. I was thinking more of no position whatsoever being taken - if a debate ends with everyone suddenly racist, that's fine.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 03:39 PM
2

We were thinking more along the lines of debate/argument, than just screaming. r/mensrights, r/feminisms, and all of the other subreddits which take up a position, spend far longer than they would like explaining to newcomers/trolls what they are, and why they think the way they do. They also spend time arguing from entrenched positions, rather than discussing what they would like to be. So if, next time someone posts a question/argument you have no wish to clutter your subreddit with, you could…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 03:12 PM
0

Don't do this. Calling other subreddits is cheating.
/r/MensRights13/01/11 01:39 PM
-2

The very definition of gender involves social construction...you can change what is or is not a characteristic of gender, but you can't change gender to not mean something that is socially constructed without conflating sex and gender. The modern, academic definition of "gender". Its initial meaning is broadly synonymous with "sex". Don't politicize language, and if you must, do not be hypocritical about it.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:35 AM
–

Well, I think you'd be good at it. You were a great mod for the time I thought you were one, no complaints here.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 01:29 AM
1

I always thought you were. How odd...
/r/MensRights16/12/10 01:19 AM
2

He does at some points. But by the time I got there, most of his posts were horribly trollish.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 01:12 AM
1

And then what?
/r/MensRights13/12/10 03:09 PM
1

Is it a novelty account?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 11:46 PM
2

I would like to see evidence of that claim.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 11:21 PM
1

Evidence?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 11:20 PM
2

I might suggest going and picking on the guys around here still claiming that men are statistically significantly more intelligent than women. I would've, but I saw that you had that covered. Sorry, I was not intending to be condescending, but I think it is important to note that statistics are not proof of discrimination - the number of CEOs is not decided by discrimination. Were there to be a law which said so, that would be discrimination. As there is not, the fact that the President of the U…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 11:18 PM
2

If child custody wasn't legalized discrimination against men, then 50% of fathers would have full custody of their children. 5 times as many women have custody as men do [1] source. I hesitate over pointing this out, because I broadly agree with you. However, I would do it to someone arguing the opposite, so I feel I should. Statistics do not necessarily demonstrate discrimination - to rely on them to do so is misguided. That leads to quotas. Rather, we should ensure an equal playing field, and …
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:30 PM
1

Thank you. I appreciate it.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:24 PM
2

Yes. Insane, fixed smile.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:22 PM
-1

A statistic is not evidence of anything. The assumption that women are better parents is a result of societal prejudice. The assumption that men are better drivers is a result of societal prejudice. Both of those are unfair. The statistic that more men than women are CEOs is not a result of anything, necessarily. We do not have enough data to determine the cause. If it was the assumption that women make poor CEOs, you might have a point. As it is, you misunderstand statistics. Statistics are qui…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:20 PM
1

Why is sesquipedalian a long word?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 06:04 PM
1

It can be defined - it is defined as all of those things at once, under the banner of feminism. It is perfectly possible to dislike the entirety of a disparate movement. A group which does not contradict its immoral radicals must be content to be judged by the actions of those radicals. There are also differences of degree: your version of feminism is, I believe, something of a minority view - the majority may still be deplorable.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 12:40 PM
1

This discussion began on the back of an anecdote you told - people calling you "sweetheart" at work. That would make it people you personally talk to. And thus not a societal problem.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 12:36 PM
1

I'm not a member, and that does not seem to be the attitude of most of this subreddit's subscribers.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 12:33 PM
1

I think the "run-on" refers to the word "necessary", rather than the sentence as a whole.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 05:18 PM
7

Seems fair.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 03:09 PM
1

For example, if a woman says, "All men are dogs who are only good for their money." I'm sure you wouldn't laugh and dismiss it as one bitch among a million good women. I wouldn't. I would move away from the idiot, and return to normal society, as I would were the reverse said. Or I would correct them. Normal people do not act like that. Thus it is not inequality, you just need better acquaintances.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 09:42 AM
1

It's not a few males. It's most males, and a lot of women too. It really, really isn't. You happening to know dreadful people does not make gender inequality a widespread thing.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 09:39 AM
2

Feminism, as most people have said time and time again, has a contested definition. Yours is "gender equality". As that is not a movement, we will expand that to "The movement advocating gender equality". But others have equally valid definitions. "The movement advocating rights for women". "The movement advocating equal rights for women." "The movement advocating rights for white women". "The movement advocating rights for people who are genetically female." All of those interpretations are equ…
/r/MensRights10/12/10 09:24 AM
3

I believe that equality would be made up of rights, the specific rights the OP asked for, as was ever so slightly implied in the initial post. What are those areas?
/r/MensRights09/12/10 06:54 PM
1

Yes, that is the idea behind it - you give one group a privilege to counteract the fact that they used not to have it, and hope that this privilege will eventually not be needed. That is, though, a special privilege.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 09:24 PM
2

They think it is. If you posit that they have failed to view this critically enough, then it behooves you to demonstrate their cognitive lapse. Why are they wrong?
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:40 PM
1

One of the many different dictionary definitions for feminism.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:22 PM
3

That would be the expression of the desire though - that can be suppressed. But the desire itself would be hard to remove without massive ethical concerns being raised.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:20 PM
3

I disagree - paedophilia is not necessarily a mental illness. Hopefully it is, but not necessarily. Their organized movements, NAMBLA, for example, would argue that it is just the way they are, and as valid as anyone else's sexuality. I would argue that, even if this is so, it is still wrong. But it has not been demonstrated to be an illness so far.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:17 PM
2

Feminism has a contested definition. They use the word to mean one thing, you use it to mean another. It is important that you are aware of this, before you demand others use your definition. It is deeply hyporcritical.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:13 PM
2

How do they?
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:12 PM
2

No, he's getting downvoted because he is condescending. His argument is no less reasonable than yours. Do try not to make his error.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:10 PM
-3

feminism is about equality in a historically male dominated society That is only one definition. Many people would disagree with it. No where in traditional feminist thought does that include "special privileges" for women over men Affirmative action?
/r/MensRights02/12/10 06:09 PM
0

That is irrelevant. I am not stating that sexism does not occur, just that your metric for determining its eradication is based upon a deeply flawed misunderstanding of all the central concepts. It should also be noted that the reasons for this are unknown, your interpretation is simply your opinion - not fact. Source it, then claim it.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 10:34 PM
1

I believe this addresses your point.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 02:43 AM
4

Men are still make up the majority in government. Men are the majority of those in power in business. Those are facts, but they are also broadly meaningless. Equality is not achieved when you have equal numbers of every gender and race in all positions and levels of society. That would be equality of outcome, which is moronic. What should be fought for is equality of opportunity. No one should reach any position, or be denied it, based on the colour of their skin, or their sex. But no one should…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 02:38 AM
3

I honestly do not know where to begin addressing your inaccuracies. So I won't. But you are welcome to talk to me once you can think rationally, and are more informed on the subject. Might I suggest that you start with school textbooks for history, and work your way up?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:37 PM
2

people in greece thought that the earth was the center of the universe That does not make them stupid, just ill-informed. See, the problem you have here, is that you lambast white men, who you claim have always been in power, and at the same time call all non-whites subhuman savages. Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Even Genghis Khan: these were not simplistic savages, they were all very intelligent, as witnessed by the breadth of their ideas and achievements. Alexander was educated by the greates…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:08 PM
2

The foundation of the USA is incredibly recent. A very short entry into history. animals who fight eachother I am not sure, but I think you just said that all nations except the USA are subhuman. "Long ago" is not the same as uncivilized. By the standards of most ancient societies, we are far more uncivilized than they are by ours. Would you argue, then, that war upon racial grounds was the sole prerogative of white men? Are you aware of the history of, again, literally any country ever?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 11:28 PM
2

Are you familiar with the idea that history started before the USA existed? And that European is not the same as white? Have you heard of Egypt, China, the Mongol Hordes, almost everyone else in history?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 11:21 PM
2

Like a conductor? One in every train, at least, and let assault be grounds for an emergency stop.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 11:19 PM
1

Why don't you go read some history. Then come back, and realize that Europe is full of disparate races, and only parts of it have come close to ruling the world, at minor points. Then we can have a discussion grounded in facts, or at least intelligible rhetoric. Wouldn't that be nice?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 10:11 PM
5

The article does not say that the men did anything other than take seats on an uncrowded carriage. Yes, the carriages were segregated to lessen groping. That is broadly irrelevant. These men, who had broken a rule, were attacked and humiliated. That is what the article is about. If it was about perverts being served swift justice, the title would have said so. You are obviously ignorant.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 10:02 PM
2

Prosecute the constant gropers and fondlers. Sentence them stupidly severely, the first few you charge. Deterrent.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 09:49 PM
–

I should mention here that I do not consider myself an MRA. But I do read here, as well as r/feminisms and such, and I think that, some of the time, they have a point. This one seems so specifically antagonistic, so incredibly angry and emotional, as does a lot of second-wave feminism This is, it must be stated, an unfair public perception. It is very easy to typify r/mensrights as a rape-apologist, misogynist haven, but this is not really fair. If you read what they post, it is commonly reasona…
/r/MensRights26/11/10 01:16 PM
1

"feminism" can be defined in different ways. One of them sees it as about equality. Were this view to be espoused by the same people who see a pro-rape culture, or highlight the slut/stud thing, then it would be espoused by people who are very alert to the connotations and etymological history of words. "feminism" comes, ultimately, from the latin "femina", meaning woman, and thus, by connotation, meaning, and implicit privilege, it is biased towards one gender. It is not snappy, but it is worth…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:30 AM
1

Most lead movie characters are male. That is a statistic, not a privilege. And I would quite like to see a source for it. I think it likely to be correct, but by how much? There are large genres aimed exclusively at women.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:26 AM
1

The thing is, they aren't really damsel in distress films. They represent marriage as the fundamental goal, yes, but for both sexes. The heroines of disney films, and, to a lesser extent, the stories they are based on (Have you read Rapunzel? Every single man in it is a moron, and Rapunzel does all the rescuing.), tend to actually be reasonably progressive.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:22 AM
–

Four actually raped him. 10 in all assisted, threatened.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:59 AM
-1

Fools. Chivlary's strength is beyond you. It has only one weakness... water.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:13 AM
1

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:07 AM
1

It does seem a little unlikely - there is literally only one move - kicking the groin, yet there is full dvd, and a dummy. It might be a sppof.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 04:37 AM
1

Everyone - laws tend to be created when there is a need for them. This need can be expressed by the public, by elected officials, or by experts on any subject. So far, this is still subject to bias. That is why they are discussed, that is why they are fought over, vetoed, and amended. In the end, you reach a fairer law than you would have otherwise. Yes, this system has its flaws - every system does. Sometimes oppressive legislation happens. But it can always be fixed, and the trend of history h…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:01 PM
2

You could be read as being patronizing. There are ways and ways of correcting spelling. Might that explain the downvotes?
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:51 AM
3

What about the sentence: When white people bring up racialized issues, or the way race plays into sociological or political issues, black people are allowed to say they're "being racist," which is a way of dismissing their concerns. Neither attitude is fair most of the time. Would it not be better to consider issues on their merits rather than knee-jerk reactionism?
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:43 AM
3

Explain why statistically a college-educated black woman with insurance will have higher infant mortality rates than a white high school dropout without insurance? Are you claiming that doctors deliberately kill black children?
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:41 AM
4

The counterpart to "the race card" would be "racism". Now you have your counterpart, continue.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:40 AM
3

who should decide what is and isn't oppression? The impartial. That is what the law is for.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:34 AM
1

And the same in r/feminisms. Or r/anarchism at the moment - the ones identifying as feminist there seem to be the ones making the most vicious personal attacks, and ignoring other viewpoints.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 07:46 PM
2

That is downvoted though - clearly there is action, if not as much as you would like.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:45 PM
1

The way I have always seen it, both subreddits, r/mensrights, and r/feminisms are mostly populated by reasonable people. Both, however, have a subset of unreasonable people. In r/mensrights, they swear, and call all women whores - they are noticeble as trolls, and commonly downvoted. In r/feminisms, they are more likely to use flawed logic and veiled sexism. Less noticeable as unreasonable, less downvoted. But both have roughly equal numbers of people who cannot be rational or civil.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:44 PM
1

I clicked and it opened. I must have an application you don't. But I have no idea what it would be. I'm using Opera, rather than another browser, if that might explain it.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 02:08 PM
11

imagine learning for the first time that [3] the House of Representatives moved unanimously to brand men as brutish, violent cowards. and that the [4] Senate did so as well Looking at the links, I think you are editorializing slightly.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 06:56 PM
2

Rape is more loaded - all of the other crimes can be seen as justified, in some circumstance. Rape is the only one which is intrinsically wrong. So, accusing someone of rape is worse than accusing them of theft.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 11:58 AM
1

I think she also lacks a large enough chest cavity to breathe.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 12:32 AM
1

The article cites no evidence, and all of their research is based on seemingly unfounded speculation, about a time we have no data for whatsoever.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 12:28 AM
1

I read somewhere that she would not be able to stand up, were she real - the proportions are not viable with out gravity. Also, no. She is aimed at little girls - she is their ideal woman.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 12:24 AM
1

I was on feminisms at one point, and came across this article which is very interesting, though you have undoubtedly seen it before. But anyway, clicking quasi-randomly on links around it eventually leads you to this comment by a different person on a different article, but is a somewhat horrific example of Knowledge = anti-feminist It made me sad to read.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:32 PM
1

Further down the thread, someone suggests testing for genetic defects, and having it as an unacknowledged side-effect, unless requested. That would seem to be similar, and both would seem to work.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:13 PM
2

I have discovered the gap in all the Something Something else ???? Profit It is the following: break racial barriers and shit My life is complete.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:06 PM
2

She makes points, they lack validity.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:05 PM
1

This bit: Father Nature Really annoyed me. When they wrote that, they screwed with thousands of years of mythology for nonsensical reasons. It is deeply dishonest. The other stuff too, of course, but I am protective of mythology.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:04 PM
1

She may wish to feel trusted though.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 10:49 PM
1

Would optional, but confidential do? So it is not mandated, but the mother would not be told or allowed to find out in any way if you had?
/r/MensRights09/11/10 10:43 PM
3

You are right - the silent majority of feminists would disagree with this position. But they are silent, and do not raise public outcry against the radicals. So they must be content to be consider affiliated with them, since they do not disown them.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 10:27 PM
1

I'm 23 years old and have been dating my boyfriend for just over two years. I love him, and I love spending time with him. He's everything I've always wanted in a long-term partner: caring, intelligent, thoughtful and hardworking. But lately, I can't seem to shake this "antsy" feeling.... I've been thinking maybe it would be good for us to take a break so I could clear my head and figure out what I really want. Is that a disastrous idea? That is the full question, I feel it might be helpful. The…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 01:40 AM
14

They don't dislike female sexuality. They dislike the excessive shallowness she demonstrates. She has found someone she wants in the long term, but wants something different now - he is just a tool to her.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 03:29 PM
1

Women's magazines are often filled with half-naked men.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 01:59 AM
4

"Some atheists have said some things, irrespective of atheism, and so atheism is privileged."
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:52 PM
1

Your attitude is optimal. Sorry, I thought you might be working the other angle.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 10:59 PM
1

Many pro-Men's Rights people insult anti-Men's Rights people. Might be better phrased as People on any one side of any issue insult those on the opposing sides Otherwise, you buy in to the idea that Mensrights is a haven for trolls, and that it never works the other way. Yes, there are abusive trolls in Mensrights, but there are in Feminisms, and Askreddit, and IAMA.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 02:51 PM
1

Politeness, I guess - people get offended if you refer to them as "it". That's all my preference is based on. Yes, sorry - I always found latin vey easy to learn, which has possibly coloured my perception of it. Cicero uses a variable word order to affect the tone of the sentence - alliteration can be used freely, for example.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 05:52 PM
1

I think you assumed rather a lot there. The participants describe many things about themselves, not just their political leanings. The quality of their relationships, for example - a very subjective measurement.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 05:39 AM
1

Psychiatry has creeping medicalization though - more than the other medical branches. The furtive friar is correct - it doesn't necessarily mean that they are false diagnoses. But there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that at least a proportion are. If you look at autism, there is more evidence of over-medicalizing society. We went from: Autism is a real thing, but it is not the norm. 2.Autistic people fall on an autistic spectrum, but most people are not on it. Everyone displays autisti…
/r/MensRights31/10/10 05:09 AM
1

keep electronic media, especially video games and recreational Internet, under control (that is to say, almost completely absent). Then fill your shelves with good books. This does work. No television as a child, and now I read for fun, and far faster than anyone I have ever encountered. It is an effective technique, but only viable if you prioritize books over everything else, for whatever reason.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:58 AM
5

(female here, because apparently you differentiate how you treat people based on gender.) Stop that. It doesn't help.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:52 AM
6

Go on...
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:51 AM
1

Sometimes, but it tends to be replaced with a gendered pronoun quickly. The distinction I'm making is one based upon a difference between grammatical and natural gender - grammitcally, both "it" and "they" are neuter. But in practice, "they" is for unknown gender, "it" is for things lacking a gender. I'd go with more reasoned and logical - Latin's variable syntax allows a variety of rhetorical effects, which would be lost otherwise. Further, the case system gives the word order. But I'd agree, i…
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:33 AM
1

Because it codifies why one is used for humans, and one is not. An analytic language is neither more nor less logical than a synthetic one Not necessarily, no. But Latin has a more logical (perhaps "reasoned" would be better) grammatical structure than English - we have too many irregulars.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:00 AM
1

Yes. Privilege can be an interesting subject, but it should not be used as a rhetorical tool. "check your privilege" is often just a means used to invalidate arguments that cannot be faulted in any other way.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:27 AM
1

Yes, and latin has a more defined logical structure. Both "it" and "their" are neuter. But one of them is applied only to humans, and one is applied only to objects (obviously their are exceptions - animals for example). So I think the distinction betwen neuter and null can be useful. Though I did just make it up.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:26 AM
1

"It" is a gender-less pronoun - not neutral, just null. English ascribes gender to very few inanimate objects. "Their" is a plural or singular pronoun - but the singular one tends to be ignored. People use it all the time, but don't seem to pick up on it. It fell out of fashion for a while, but it dates back to the British regency at the very least.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 07:03 PM
8

I think the problem is less about checking privilege and more a woman and a feminist posting in the men's rights subreddit Not that you are not welcome. But if the men's rights subreddit's and the feminist subreddits' users stopped viewing each other as enemies, more discussion would occur. You should not have to qualify your post with gender and inclination - in a post-sexist world, it would be irrelevant. As would any form of privilege checking.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 06:40 PM
2

Yes, but the jacket example: if I whine about not being able to find the right jacket in exactly the right color, I should check my privilege and remember that this is a strictly first world problem and that I am lucky to be able to afford jackets let alone to get picky about them is not a good example, if you are attempting to show that "check your privilege" is a useful/valid phrase.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 06:00 PM
11

I can't work out if you are offering this as a definition which shows the absurdity of the idea, or not.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 01:22 PM
6

I applaud your verbal gymnastics.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 01:21 PM
11

We already have a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It is "their" As in "someone checked in their coat earlier". Anything else is an attempt to politicize communication, which people tend to get angry about. They should on this too.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 01:20 PM
1

rapin' yo' wife and yo' kids Now it works.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 04:42 PM
1

If you look slightly higher up,you'll see a true etymology. Or Here.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:45 PM
2

Link please?
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:43 PM
2

I love the idea that all true vowels are patriarchal.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:43 PM
2

I love the idea that this phrase riding the cock carousel then finding a beta is somehow in general circulation. I want it to be mentioned in official despatches, and sermons.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:30 PM
1

Yes, I was thinking it was an unfortunate error. EDIT: You bastard, you made me yawn.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:26 PM
1

We don't know gender is completely learned behaviour.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 02:03 AM
1

Half of the tasks lifeted are performed by most people. Admittedly they are the less weighty ones, but everyone cleans, shops, accounts, and so on. It is closer to twenty thousand, unless you want to give every single person extra money for things that they do as standard anyway.
/r/MensRights14/10/10 01:51 AM
0

De Beauvoir is not precisely current though.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 03:10 AM
0

I think it is one in ten, but for any kind of sexual assault. Other useful statistics that are mostly ignored: 6% conviction rate for reported rapes, and 3% are false reports (about average for most crimes). Those are UK statistics though.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 09:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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