TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PkmnGymLeader Archive

View 1 posts and 158 comments by PkmnGymLeader 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)
167

DiscriminationPkmnGymLeader/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:24 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I hate to break it to you, but those people don't really represent men's rights. Maybe they do to you, but not to the outside world where representation really matters. To the majority of people, the most prominent men's rights activists are 4chan dwelling incels. You might not like it, but that's how it is. "Oh, but those people don't specifically call themselves men's rights activists! So it's different." It's actually not. They may not specifically say "men's rights activism" all the time, bu…
/r/MensRights23/07/22 03:54 AM
1

There are none, because we don’t have representatives. If we did, you can bet there would be some just like her. You could really use this argument to denounce any movement. The occasional Black Lives Matter activist is a nutcase, but that doesn’t mean BLM is full of nutcases. Some gun rights activists are total freaks, but that doesn’t mean everyone who owns a gun is a freak. You can’t generalize like this, even if someone supposedly speaks for the group. Because they almost never do, as these …
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:58 AM
1

Some random woman who I didn’t even know existed 2 minutes ago doesn’t exactly strike me as the leader of the feminist movement. Just saying.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:49 AM
1

No idea who that is, but if she’s some radical feminist, there are plenty of radicals in this very subreddit. Just scroll through the comments of some post and you’re guaranteed to find some dumbass talking about women like they’re lesser beings.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:47 AM
1

Irrelevant. The point of the analogy is that both cause problems, but neither solution involves gutting the source.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:39 AM
0

That's literally how incels define it. You're an incel. 😂 Okay, I think I'm done in this thread. You didn't even respond to my other points. 🤣
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:42 PM
1

Homosexuality is a poor analogy. We’re constantly told that conversation therapy and various psychological treatment does not work because homosexual attraction is innate. It's a perfect analogy for that very reason. We can't just eliminate homosexuality, because maintaining it is too important for the lives that it impacts. Destroying the root of the problem (homosexuality) causes more problems than it fixes. We need to find a better solution to fix the problem. Feminism is not innate. It is an…
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:34 PM
1

She says it's a problem with feminism. I've said this already. This is a feminist finally acknowledging the flaws of feminism, and you're not even capable of seeing it.
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:23 PM
1

Are you for real? Reread what she said. She starts to say that feminism is coloured her mind to think badly of men (ALL men), and she sort of sees why men don’t approach her. Exactly, meaning that she's opening up to the flaws of feminism. But having made a start, does she suggest that she should temper her ideology slightly? No! Does she say she should be more discerning in her “feminist feed”, or at least read it a bit less? No! Does she suggest that feminism should reflect on things and chang…
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:22 PM
1

It's almost never used for its literal definition. I am technically an involuntary celibate, but I do not identify as an incel. An incel is more about how you define yourself. Over time it's come to be associated with misogyny as more and more men who identify as incels end up being misogynistic.
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:19 PM
1

The struggle for men's human rights is not an ideology in the same way. However, of course I treat all movements in the same kind of way. It really is the same, but I get that people here don't really like to acknowledge that. Same with the feminist subs. Both groups are "not like the others" in the most meme-able way possible. If Men's Rights organisations, leading authors on men's human rights, and courses around the world all agree, then it would only be right to define the MRM by them. If so…
/r/MensRights21/07/22 04:11 AM
0

She could start by not writing "articles" which are ads dressed up as analysis of dating dynamics, in which she constantly contradicts her own points and spins each one around to justify being a feminist despite acknowledging that it's working against her own interests. So, just don't discuss the downsides of feminism? She's not the one contradicting herself here, you are. Tell feminists to stop worshiping the movement, get mad when they stop. How does that make sense? You and I should be encour…
/r/MensRights21/07/22 02:52 AM
0

What is she supposed to do? She’s one person and feminism consists of millions of people, all who have minds of their own and are not controlled by any source. Like Joe Biden said about ANTIFA, feminism isn’t an organization, it’s an idea. Individuals cannot speak for the group, and each person individually has very little power to sway the herd in any direction. This was an incredibly obvious case of a woman finding a man attractive and him not believing it because he’s a misogynistic incel who…
/r/MensRights21/07/22 12:56 AM
1

Do you identify men’s rights in the same way? If some incel is to write a book about how evil women supposedly are and label it as a men’s rights publication, is men’s rights an incel movement?
/r/MensRights21/07/22 12:15 AM
-2

Feminists strive for gender equality, at least for the most part. As I said in another thread, it depends on the feminist, since they don’t all think alike.
/r/MensRights20/07/22 11:52 PM
1

The very fact that she’s acknowledging all of that should already tell you that she’s far smarter than most of them. Most radical feminists won’t admit any of that.
/r/MensRights20/07/22 09:42 PM
0

I bring it up because it’s a valid analogy. The solution to a problem does not always involve directly eliminating the source of the problem. Would you like another analogy? This one you probably won’t understand as well, but that’s your fault because you didn’t like the first one. In computer graphics, there are a number of solutions to problems that cause their own problems. Antialiasing is a post-processing technique that smoothes those jagged edges in pictures and frames of video games. One …
/r/MensRights20/07/22 09:38 PM
-3

No, she’s saying that she shouldn’t feel offended when someone holds the door open for her, even though it unfortunately happens. Why would she even bring it up if she believed wholeheartedly that it’s sexist?
/r/MensRights20/07/22 09:30 PM
0

She’s not contradicting herself at all. You can show support for something while still acknowledging its weaknesses. That’s what she’s doing with feminism. She wants women to be recognized as human beings rather than sexual objects, but she sees how this causes problems with dating because it makes men worried about the idea of pursuing women. It’s not a contradiction with her beliefs, and she isn’t pinning the blame on men. She’s actually saying that she understands why men feel the way we do. …
/r/MensRights20/07/22 09:28 PM
-2

I believe in patriarchy. I just don’t misunderstand it like a good number of feminists and 99% of people here.
/r/MensRights20/07/22 09:09 PM
-8

That depends a large amount on what kind of feminist she is. They don't all share the same opinions.
/r/MensRights20/07/22 05:11 PM
-7

I think she's fully admitting that feminism causes problems with dating. That's literally the whole point of the article. She just isn't suggesting that we abolish feminism to fix those problems, and I agree. Sometimes, even when something causes a problem, the best solution is not the get rid of it. In some cases it's too valuable to give up, and a better solution is to find something that counteracts the side effects without damaging the original intent. A good example of this is homosexuality…
/r/MensRights20/07/22 04:40 PM
-19

It’s reasonable to want gender equality and relationships at the same time. I don’t see the problem with that. This article made some pretty good points.
/r/MensRights20/07/22 02:34 PM
5

It’s quite the opposite, actually. Radical feminists don’t want you to be feminine. They want you to be masculine so that they can continue to barrage you with their stereotypes. The last thing they want is a bunch of men letting go of what they see as toxic masculinity. That’s why so many of them dislike transgender women. The idea that a man can just wake up one day and decide to be a woman is threatening to them. Their idea that men are just dumb brutes loses a lot of its validity when someon…
/r/MensRights19/07/22 05:35 PM
12

You’re already pandering to them when you’re willing to do anything they want at the sound of a phrase. It’s used to force men to ignore their feelings and never complain about anything.
/r/MensRights19/07/22 04:03 PM
-8

You don’t know her. He does. I think you and everyone else telling him to leave need to acknowledge the fact that it’s his choice and that he’s in the best situation to decide anyway.
/r/MensRights19/07/22 03:56 PM
1

It's pretty easy to address to be honest. I know feminists who aren't like this, so your point of "all feminists defend the hate" is a fat lie. Just like I say to the "I hate men" crowd, stop generalizing.
/r/MensRights17/07/22 02:15 AM
0

In the UK, feminists campaigned for women to be exempted from jail by law. In the US, feminists campaigned for laws that would arrest men specifically in the case of mutual DV. Montana's law requires police to consider arresting only the larger partner. In the US, people behind on child support can be arrested in a sort of debtor's prison (thanks feminists), but the decision to do so is not mandatory -- women are almost entirely exempted from this. Those are stupid radical feminists with batshit…
/r/MensRights17/07/22 02:13 AM
-1

I never insulted you. I implied that you're being hypocritical, if that's what you mean, but that's only because you are. We can't claim to be different from incels only to harass feminists for being man haters.
/r/MensRights17/07/22 01:54 AM
1

Alright, name three male issues that feminists haven't done damage to. "Men had already been viewed as incompetent caregivers long before feminism began. They had been viewed as aggressive and more easily jailed for crimes before feminism. Women were given priority in life-or-death scenarios before feminism. Men had been circumcised for thousands of years, well before feminism. All of the issues that are complained about here, while entirely valid, have not been created by feminism." Already don…
/r/MensRights17/07/22 01:30 AM
-1

Don't forget inventing domestic terrorism, bombing the hell out of London and inventing the IED and letter bomb. And also don't forget the man hating. From the first recognized feminist document, the Declaration of Sentiments signed in 1848 at Seneca Falls NY. https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/declaration-of-sentiments.htm The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute …
/r/MensRights17/07/22 01:16 AM
-1

Feminists have helped with a variety of things. The first wave of feminism was very much focused on ensuring that women would have the right to vote, and a combination of their activism and free-thinking men allowed it to happen. Feminists have fought for women's reproductive rights. They've fought for equal pay in the workplace and equal job opportunities for women. Even recently and in regard to men's issues, it was feminists who got a series of rape laws in the U.S. changed so that they inclu…
/r/MensRights17/07/22 12:31 AM
11

“Women are, on average, intellectually superior to men.” And that right there is where I stopped reading. What a trash article.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 09:54 PM
17

I think that would fall under the justification category. They’re proud misandrists because they think it’s an appropriate response to misogyny.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 08:18 PM
-7

If you’ve ever actually met a feminist in person and gotten to know them, you would know that this talking point is entirely valid. There’s no reason to believe that every feminist is some man hating parasite just as there’s no reason to believe that every mens rights activist is some toxic incel.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 08:04 PM
20

This is what I was thinking. I do support the idea of monthly vacations, since I think people work to much right now. And those monthly vacations would be perfect for women going through menstruation. However, there’s no reason to restrict it to just them. Give everyone monthly vacation days.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 03:49 PM
8

Given that I was permanently banned from r/twoXchromosomes just for saying that you shouldn’t hate people based on gender, I can say with confidence that they don’t support mens rights or equality. I can’t say for r/feminism though. I have yet to comment or be banned from there.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 10:33 PM
1

What I just said is not about agreement or disagreement. It’s a fact. You can look it up if you don’t believe me. Being transgender is not a mental illness, and treating it as such only leads to real mental illness.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 11:46 PM
1

I won’t try to force you to believe anything, as I don’t believe in policing people’s thoughts. However, what you mean when you talk about believing something makes me think it’s more than just a thought of yours. It sounds like you would let those thoughts affect how you interact with transgender people, which is what I consider unacceptable. Think whatever you like, but if you call a transgender man a woman you can expect justified backlash from most people.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:57 PM
1

Yes, many transgender people attempt suicide. They do it because of people like you who are constantly screaming in their ears about how they aren’t what they claim to be. You force them into a state of mental illness with your demands. The vast majority of psychologists support transgender people because it’s well known in the psychological community that lack of acceptance leads to mental illness. Not supporting transgender people because they have high rates of suicide is like picking at scab…
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:55 PM
1

Transgender people who live in an accepting environment have no higher rates of mental illness than non transgender people, so it can be concluded that being rejected by friends and family for who you are is what causes some to become depressed, not being transgender itself.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:47 PM
1

Therapy for transgender people has been a total failure and always will be a failure. Telling them to reject their feelings leads to a multitude of mental health issues, including a high risk for suicide. Meanwhile, no therapy at all generally leads to mentally healthy individuals. Being transgender doesn’t make someone mentally ill, and it’s not a mental illness of it’s own because it causes no negative side effects if accepted by society.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:44 PM
1

Nobody is really asking you to believe it. People just want you to respect it by calling people by their preferred pronouns and acknowledge them as their preferred gender, which people here aren’t doing.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:30 PM
1

What’s delusional about it? What harm does someone not identifying with their birth genitalia do to you? What’s delusional is when people will go out of their way to harass others and demand that they identify themselves differently all because they think it’s weird. Not understanding something doesn’t give you the right to shut it down.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:02 PM
-1

“They can be what they want to be, but they can’t be what they want to be because I think my opinions are facts!” Gender has little to do with biology. It’s a uniquely human social construct derived from biological sex. A person’s gender does not have to align with their birth sex. I know someone who was born male and identified as a man until about 2 years ago when she transitioned to a woman. Now she is a woman, and you would look pretty stupid calling her a man just because she was born with …
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:58 PM
-3

Yes they are, and trans women are women. Let people be who they want to be for fucks sake. Someone being trans does no harm to you, and telling them that they aren’t what they want to be is damaging to their mental well being.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:43 PM
2

Whether someone is suffering from a mental illness or not, it’s a bad idea to insist that they’re a man or a woman when that’s not what they identify with. That’s what causes mental illness in a lot of previously healthy trans people.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:42 PM
-6

Trans men are men.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 08:34 PM
24

That’s such a disgusting way of phrasing it. The fact that they have the choice at all makes it far less difficult than it is for those who are forced to stay behind.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 08:03 PM
1

We can agree that it’s used metaphorically, yes? In that case, it’s use to describe women has the same meaning. It doesn’t matter whether or not they have an actual dick, what matters is what the phrase actually means when used in a sentence. This does not mean that it isn’t body shaming males with small dicks. It is body shaming males with small dicks, but beyond that it’s just a really toxic form of masculinity that undoubtedly bleeds into the female portion of the community as well. It’s not …
/r/MensRights13/07/22 07:04 AM
1

It’s used for women too sometimes. I’ve heard people describe women as having big dick energy. It’s a bit like saying someone’s got massive balls or balls of steel. Also used for women on occasion. Saying that it’s used for women doesn’t mean it isn’t body shaming males though. It’s used metaphorically for everyone, but it’s still derived from is male genitalia and the idea that a small dick is a sign of weakness. I already said this in my original comment.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:57 AM
-1

I just explained why it’s implied. Do people on here really get this furious when someone points out that women might be bothered by something, in addition to the already obvious fact that men are bothered by it? I’m not denying that it’s a problem that affects men. I just wanted to bring up a possible reason why women might find it offensive as well to add to the discussion. It seems kind of hypocritical for men who are constantly complaining about general issues being labeled as only women’s i…
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:43 AM
-2

I don’t see how. If big dick=strong and small dick=weak, then no dick must equal total wimp. Seems like sound logic to me.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:33 AM
3

What’s disgusting about it? I would say it’s more like 15% is disgusting and the rest is good.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 12:19 AM
-17

I think everyone knows that it’s a metaphor and isn’t meant to be taken literally, but it’s still indirectly shaming the idea of having a small penis because that’s where it’s derived from. Isn’t it also sexist towards both genders? It’s sexist towards men with smaller dicks, but you could also say it’s sexist towards women because it implies that having no dick at all is the weakest and most pathetic display of strength. I think both genders can be reasonably bothered by this insult. Why am I g…
/r/MensRights12/07/22 10:30 PM
356

“bOdY sHaMiNg InCeL!”
/r/MensRights12/07/22 10:27 PM
3

It's hard for me to defend it as a concept. It's based on a study done almost a century ago on wolves. The study itself is flawed and can't even be used to say that wild wolves have an alpha-beta social structure, let alone dogs or humans. I do think humanity has evolved to have some sense of a leader, but that leader doesn't have to be the biggest or strongest. It doesn't even have to be a man. Leadership traits are nothing like the typical traits associated with alphas.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 02:57 AM
8

Yeah, it’s pretty stupid. I already hate memes, but those “chad vs virgin” memes are particularly obnoxious when they’re basically just promoting the bullshit alpha-beta concept that we as a society should’ve dumped decades ago.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 12:08 AM
2

Same. I don’t even need books or a car or a companion. Just give me a little shack somewhere and some basic survival equipment, and nobody would ever see me again.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 11:47 PM
4

True, probably more like 80%, with a good 20% of those also being morbidly obese.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 02:18 PM
1

They specifically identify as femcels. Grouping all feminists with femcels is like grouping all MRAs with incels.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 02:17 PM
5

I’m calling it, there’s a very high chance that at least 50% of these women are overweight. 😂
/r/MensRights08/07/22 02:16 PM
5

That’s true, and you can even see from the initial tweet that they identify as femcels. This is just the bottom 1% of the world’s women.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 02:15 PM
6

To be honest, this is probably not the best time to bring up the second amendment. With the latest series of shootings, it’s more controversial than ever.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:10 PM
0

I just don’t like direct comparisons between the two like this post is doing. They are not comparable issues in severity. By acting like circumcision is as bad as illegal abortions, you undermine the importance of a woman’s right to choose. And while we can work on multiple issues at once, I for one will be putting circumcision on the back burner until we can get nationwide abortion rights back.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:41 PM
1

I don’t care if it’s bound to pleasure. It’s clearly not the sole creator of it, since men without it can still find pleasure. There is no major dysfunction caused by circumcision. For that reason, circumcision is not a major issue. The fact that you haven’t mentioned anything about abortion is irrelevant. I have, and you disagreeing with me creates an implied stance on the issue. I never said circumcision isn’t a problem. I never said it was good or that I support it. All you are saying by disa…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:24 PM
0

How many men is “some men” who can’t ejaculate? What percent of men is this? It sounds like it’s not very many at all, because not being able to ejaculate basically means infertility. As for the bulbocavernous reflex, it’s clearly not needed for sexual pleasure or ejaculation, so I don’t see why it matters. It certainly doesn’t matter as much as abortion. Instead of telling me to take a course on male reproductive anatomy, how about you instead try to understand what I’m saying here. Male circum…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:10 PM
0

What harm does being dry do? The penis isn’t the primary generator of lubricant during sex anyway. Men who are circumcised can orgasm and ejaculate just as easily as men who aren’t. There have already been studies on this and there is no clear link between circumcision and sexual dysfunction. Saying that circumcised men can’t ejaculate or have an orgasm is like saying that uncircumcised men spread STDs more easily. It’s a mere myth with little to no scientific credibility.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 09:50 PM
-5

I’m not justifying male genital mutilation. I’m pointing out that the comparison to abortion is not a fair one to make. One is a typically harmless surgery that has no significant impact on a person’s life or well being. The other is a life changing decision that’s been ripped away from women. I don’t think baby boys should be circumcised because I see it as a violation of body autonomy, but not every violation of one’s rights is equally harmful.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 09:22 PM
-9

No, it's not a double standard. Democrats aren't as outspoken against circumcision because it's not as important of an issue. OP is using circumcision to distract from the much bigger issue of women's reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 06:32 PM
-11

I think we need to stop pretending that circumcision is as important of an issue as abortion. I’m sorry, but getting a bit of skin cut off the end of your penis isn’t nearly as bad as being forced to carry a baby that you don’t want for 9 months and being forced to give painful birth to it. I’m opposed to circumcision, but this comparison has to stop.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 06:02 PM
10

Man does something normally unacceptable because of hormones: “He needs to get that under control! It’s so irresponsible of him!” Woman does something normally unacceptable because of hormones: “Its fine, she can’t help it. Just leave her alone and stop being so controlling!” Gotta love those double standards.
/r/MensRights03/07/22 07:23 PM
13

I don’t actually agree with this idea, but it does bring up an important double standard. Women are frequently given passes on things because of basic biological differences. Some countries are now giving them monthly vacations to deal with their periods. Most physical labor jobs require them to do far less work because of weaker muscles. All of this is pretty easily accepted by society. Yet, an idea like this would probably be totally rejected despite being based on similar logic.
/r/MensRights02/07/22 12:55 AM
2

Not at any stage, but that’s not what Roe was about. It was just about constitutionally protecting abortion as a woman’s right. The constitution protects people’s right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean people can carry whatever gun they want in whatever fashion they like. Restrictions are tolerated in both cases.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 06:27 AM
0

Democrats have tried. They've proposed minimum wage increases, taxes on the rich to reduce inequality, social programs to assist people who are barely getting by, and so much more. Republicans just kept blocking everything with the filibuster. Just because they didn't stop it doesn't mean they didn't try.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:59 AM
2

That's actually not true. Countries that enforce strict gun laws see dramatically lower violent crime rates than countries without strict gun laws. The same is seen at the state level. You might be referring to data in regards to states as a whole rather than per capita statistics. A lot of people see that New York has more gun deaths than Alabama and conclude that its stricter gun laws don't work, but if you account for population then New York's deaths are lower. Edit: Of course, with the Supr…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:52 AM
2

I'm referring to spare miliary equipment bought by police organizations as part of their budgets. Usually it is cities, that's true. There are still ways to improve police in rural areas though. Taxing the extremely wealthy and using that money is one way to do it. Ironically, enforcing gun laws would reduce gun crime and make police operations more focused so that they could better deal with the few instances of gun violence left.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:44 AM
2

I just don't see any evidence that Democrats and Republicans are conspiring together to take advantage of the American people. I do see some who are acting selfishly on both sides, but they seem to genuinely hate each other's guts.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:41 AM
2

How very elitist of you. You must live where budgets allow for that. Police are literally funded with miliary equipment. All they have to do is trade that ridiculously overpowered gear in for more officers and mandatory training. This is a good bit of what the police reform movement is all about. I agree, but that doesn't mean I wish to impose my will on everyone else in this country. The thing about abortion is that it's not imposing anything on anyone. All it does is give people the right to c…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:35 AM
2

I would massively disagree with you. Perhaps you're living in too much of a single-sided bubble locally, but across the whole country? At best you might argue 55-45 but I mean so massive its literally overwhelming, and since we happen to be a 2 party country (mostly), it would have to be completely bipartison with BOTH SIDES agreeing to the change. Right now it's over 60% for both gun control and abortion. I would say that's enough, and even the government says so with most laws effectively requ…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:28 AM
2

Firstly, the judiciary is appointed by an elected official. They're not just some random people off the street. We do have indirect control over the Supreme Court Justices. Secondly, I wouldn't prefer it, but if it's the only realistic way then I'll take it. Abortion rights in an unorthodox fashion is better than no abortion rights at all.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:18 AM
3

Historical precedent, yes, but modern precedent? That's the question that we need to be asking ourselves. Times change, and sometimes old precedent ceases to exist. I could just as easily say that Roe v. Wade was rooted in an individual's right to control their own body and its functions. It's called body autonomy. Roe v. Wade may have not been written by representatives, but it still operated as the will of the American people. Most Americans support abortion rights.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:15 AM
1

You just contradicted yourself. Let me rephrase that. I don't care what the constitution says, unless it actually makes sense and can be defended logically. What exactly do you mean by that? Amendments aren't just amendments, once they're ratified they are literally part of the Constitution. I mean that defending something's status as an amendment with its status as an amendment is a logical fallacy. It needs to have a logical case to be worth defending. And the point of our Constitution is that…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:11 AM
1

I see this idea as quite conspiratorial. It sounds like QAnon stuff, which I don't believe in.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:57 AM
2

You could say the same about the second amendment. It was literally just conjured up. There were reasons for it of course, but so was the case for Roe v. Wade. The court didn't declare it false because of lacking precedent. It had clear precedent. Even the ones who voted against it admitted that it did a few years ago while being sworn in. Right now we have a corrupt Supreme Court where one of the members was actually involved in the January 6 insurrection. Corruption is the reason they declared…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:56 AM
2

Laws represent common ethics of the people. It's about democracy even if not explicitly stated.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:52 AM
0

I don't care what the constitution says. It wasn't written by God, and even if it was it wouldn't have divine power over the United States. We have a separation of Church and state and freedom of religion. Constitutional amendments need to have defendable arguments other than "it's an amendment." Right now the argument for gun control is a lot stronger than the argument against abortion.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:51 AM
1

When one party actively works to overthrow elections, suppress voters, take away people's rights, and enable murderers by not doing anything to solve problems, all while the other party fights for the exact opposite and just has the occasional scandal that doesn't usually even amount to anything, I know which side I'm taking. To each their own I guess.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:47 AM
0

Okay, so why haven't we done it? Enough Americans would support the measure. I'll answer that for you: Republicans. Corrupt Republicans rely on the small 30% who oppose Roe v. Wade to stay in power and just suppress enough of the other voters to make it work. I don't care if a Supreme Court case is not the official American way to get people the rights that they deserve. Formalities like this are not important when one side is actively sabotaging the entire system.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:21 AM
1

That's provided by a constitutional amendment, but at the price of being draftable to die on foreign wars (for men only). So you admit that voting rights are provided to you? Then I guess what you said about rights explicitly being something that can't be taken away isn't true then. Not at all, you don't seem to know a single thing about the political system or the SC. You're literally basing your entire argument on this very petty idea that a right and an entitlement are two totally different t…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:17 AM
2

It's a legal concept. Exactly, and democratic law is dictated by the people. So how is it you think that way about abortion? I don't. It's not a natural right. We decided it was. Some few of us at best. Around 70%, actually. It was some few who decided it wasn't. Literally 5 people decided that Roe v. Wade be overturned. Five. American citizens per se have no ability to create a right. Yes we do. We democratically elect people with the expectation that they will do what we want. We want abortion…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:12 AM
2

How many trolls voted? Reddit polls are worse than useless. How many trolls actually come to this sub? There's you, and who else? I rarely see others. You're just making excuses.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:07 AM
3

If they're not constitutionally protected, they should be. I don't see how this is a relevant point to make. Saying that we should take away the constitutional defense for abortion, not because it's a good idea that would benefit the American people, but because some old document from over 200 years ago says to do it, is asinine.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:06 AM
1

So the right to vote isn't provided for you? No wonder conservatives want to close polling locations early and limit ballot boxes. The government isn't supposed to do that I guess. We're really getting into semantics here. The government was previously prohibited from intervening in a woman's abortion process, so by your own definition, it was her right. Perhaps not an entitlement, but nobody was demanding entitlement to an abortion by your definition.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 03:03 AM
2

A person's right is not some divine concept. Rights are not set in stone by nature. WE define human rights. It's been decided by the majority of Americans that women have the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court ruled against the will of the American people on this. That's not right.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:58 AM
2

There was even a poll done IN THIS SUBREDDIT a few days ago with hundreds of participants, and around 2/3 of people here supported it. When even 2/3 of mens rights activists say abortion is okay, it's hard to imagine that the average American (who tends to be far more progressive) would oppose it.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:52 AM
1

And a 'right' is not an entitlement. A right is quite literally something that you as a human being are entitled to. What universe are you visiting from?
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:50 AM
0

Abortion is not now and never was a right. It actually was. Roe v. Wade made it so whether you liked it or not. Other than that Obamacare guarantees free reproductive health care for women only, women can get free mammograms and pap smears in every state. A vast amount is spent on women's reproductive health care and not a penny on mens. Healthcare in this country is shit across the board, and yet we pay a vast amount for it across the board anyway. Don't try to pretend like any typical American…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:48 AM
2

That’s about how you prosecute a crime, not about what’s legal and what’s not.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:31 AM
2

Them versus us is exactly what it’s not. Just because radical feminists are against this decision doesn’t mean we need to support it. I see a lot of that attitude here, but it’s not helpful for our cause. I support abortion, and you’re not going to change my mind by telling me that only the baddies support it.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:21 AM
3

It was 69% in favor, so only 1% were undecided or chose not to answer. The point is, this was not a popular ruling. The majority of Americans consider abortion to be a reproductive right, yet it was taken away. Making it on a state-by-state basis has a few issues. As already mentioned, it’s a major ethics topic. It’s not something that’s casually just shrugged off at the federal level and left to the states to figure out. The second issue is that conservatives are already discussing plans to ban…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 01:32 AM
1

A CNN poll was done earlier this year that found only 30% of Americans wanted to see Roe overturned. This statistic has been sited frequently since this ruling because there hasn’t been any data to contradict it. In fact, other polls show similar results. It’s usually 60-75% in favor of abortion with restrictions.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 01:22 AM
2

Reproductive rights are the rights of individuals to have control over their reproductive functions. This is a very general definition though, and as I explained already, what counts as control over reproductive functions varies from person to person. What matters in this case is majority opinion. That 30% who thinks abortion should be illegal have valid opinions, but they’re in the minority and can’t fairly dictate the country’s abortion laws.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 01:06 AM
1

They could also outlaw abortion federally. That’s the concern with going down that route. Roe v. Wade was good because it protected a woman’s right to choose, which 70% of Americans support, without the possibility of a corrupt government taking it their own way against the will of the people. Now that door is open.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 01:01 AM
2

Rights are defined by what people believe should be expected for every person. Naturally, that varies from person to person. But we live in a democracy, where the majority opinion rules. When 70% of Americans supported Roe v. Wade and considered abortion to be a woman’s reproductive right, that’s what stands. Abortion is a woman’s right.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 12:56 AM
1

Actually, 70% of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. This ruling was not a display of democracy at all.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 12:52 AM
-2

How is it that we still have federal protection for basically everyone owning a gun, but we still can’t have federal protection for women’s reproductive rights? I get what you’re saying, but this is too important to leave up to the states. You don’t let states make decisions about serious ethical dilemmas. State power should be limited to preferences for minor laws and regulations, like whether or not we can turn right on red, or how high we set sales tax, or how old you need to be to drive.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 12:35 AM
20

The toxic ones are always emotional, which is ironic given that overly strong emotions is a stereotype of women and a reason why people have historically thought them to be incapable of important positions. Nobody reinforces gender stereotypes like toxic feminists.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:28 AM
1

What the fuck did you actually just say? That was the most confusing and seemingly unrelated wall of text that I think I’ve ever read. Are we even talking about the same thing here? Have we both just completely misunderstood each other this entire time? The analogy of being a man was used because this is r/MensRights, and I thought it would be very relatable for that reason. I think it might’ve been a mistake though, since you seem to be comparing things that weren’t meant to be compared. My poi…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 12:36 AM
1

I am a man. Let’s say hypothetically speaking, that I’ve dealt with a lot of sexism throughout my life. I haven’t, but for the sake of the analogy let’s say I have. This unearned hate has made me extremely depressed, and I’ve attempted suicide multiple times. By your logic, being a man is what is destroying my mental health and making me unstable. Being a man is not a healthy mental state, according to you.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 09:03 PM
1

They have high suicide rates because people don’t always accept them. Some of them go years hiding their true identities because they know that their families will disown them for it. They go for long periods of time pretending to be someone they’re not. These long periods of dissociation often lead to depression and even suicide.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:19 PM
1

I would hardly say people are indoctrinated at school. They're just taught what various sexual identities mean and that people should be accepted for who they are, which is a pretty easy statement to agree with. I would actually say that a good sex education is an important factor in ensuring that young people make an informed decision regarding their sexuality. Just shoving LGBTQ information under the rug and letting kids find out about it on social media is probably the easiest way to accident…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:51 AM
-1

Transgender activists aren't pushy like that. Their whole philosophy hinges on the idea of personal freedom in a person's sexual identity. It's not like a gang where once you're in it becomes nearly impossible to get out.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:26 AM
0

I will say, I don’t support 3 year olds transitioning. That’s way too young for them to really know what they want to be. I think 10-12 is a good age range to start allowing them to make decisions about their sexuality. That’s when puberty usually starts, which naturally ends up being when people discover things about themselves that might not follow traditional gender standards. Even then I think parental consent for the transition process should be required until the age of 18, as is the case …
/r/MensRights27/06/22 07:33 PM
0

Most of the time when someone falsely believes themself to be trans, they figure it out eventually. Certainly before any major surgeries at least. I believe that someone’s sexual identity is theirs to discover. It’s not our job to find it for them. Maybe someone is going down a path that they’ll later turn away from, but it’s not our job to decide that it’s the wrong path or to take action against it.
/r/MensRights27/06/22 03:16 PM
-2

Psychiatric help for transgender people has proven to be very ineffective. Most psychologists support transgender people because it’s seen as a perfectly healthy mental state. Nothing negative comes from it, and they would live healthy, normal lives if society would simply accept them for who they are. Therapy to try and change their identity usually leads to a lot of real personality disorders.
/r/MensRights27/06/22 01:25 PM
1

The caps bit could’ve been just a general statement. Saying “I” as in anyone from their own perspective.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 11:14 PM
1

Okay, so where’s his proposal of a 9mm gun ban? Where is the legislation? It’s totally different from Republicans actively plotting to ban abortion nationwide. They’ve already confirmed that they’re going to try it. And when the Supreme Court consists of mostly Republican appointed members and when the wife of one was confirmed to have been involved in the January 6 insurrection, it’s clear that it’s corrupt and acts for political gain. They only abolished Roe to pave the way for their buddies i…
/r/MensRights26/06/22 10:10 PM
-5

Joe Biden simply mentioning the power of a bullet is not the same as Congress members making actual legislation for an abortion ban. One is a statement of fact, while the other is action taken in response to Roe v. Wade being gone.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 10:06 PM
-9

This is not a “what if” question. They’re already talking about a nationwide ban. Don’t play dumb.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 09:59 PM
-10

Then why are their Republican allies in Congress already talking about a nationwide ban on abortion? They only left it up to the states because the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to ban it. If they did, they would’ve done it.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 09:56 PM
14

These platforms don’t allow freedom of speech, and it’s their right to do that. We just don’t like the double standards. If hate speech against any other group isn’t allowed, it shouldn’t be allowed against men either.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 03:47 AM
1

Hey, at least we had a discussion. One person in the other sub simply blocked me after saying I was trying to argue (when the more appropriate term would’ve been “debate”), and the other just accused me of mansplaining mansplaining. I will say though, if what I did was mansplaining then firstly, it’s not unique to men, and secondly, it’s very easy to accidentally do.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 01:38 PM
1

Of course it’s her choice, but she was asking for advice. If it was a clear deal breaker for her, she wouldn’t even be asking. Since she didn’t give details, is reasonable to assume that she can enjoy sex without pussy licking, since that’s how most people are. If that was her only form of stimulation, she would’ve probably said it somewhere. None of this is mansplaining. It’s all implied information. You could argue that I shouldn’t assume things, but she didn’t exactly give me or anyone else m…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 01:21 PM
1

I was under the assumption that it wasn’t her only way to get stimulation. That’s again, very natural. Most people aren’t limited to a single form of sexual arousal. And if it was, she could try using a vibrator. My whole point was that I didn’t think she should dump her boyfriend that she claimed to love very much all because he’s unwilling to do one of many sexual acts. It most likely doesn’t have to ruin sex, and the relationship as a whole is more important anyway. I suggested that she try t…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:48 PM
1

I assumed that she would find regular sex (penis->vagina) enjoyable. Is that so unreasonable? I’m pretty sure there’s something physically wrong with you if you don’t find that pleasurable when you’re horny. You might want to see a doctor if that’s the case. And no, that advice is also not mansplaining. Anyone in their right mind would recommend you see a doctor if you’re having sexual dysfunction.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:26 PM
1

It’s really not.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:20 PM
13

You lost all credibility when complimenting r/fourthwavewomen. Of all of the feminist subs that I’ve seen, that one is the absolute worst.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:40 AM
4

The one I was giving the advice to was the one who made the post, and she wasn’t the one to criticize me. It was just a few of the people commenting. I won’t be giving any advice to them, that’s for sure.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 12:39 AM
28

Yep. Whenever there’s a wild story of a women cutting off a man’s genitalia, the article always implies that the man did something to provoke it. Even if he did, most things don’t warrant cutting off someone’s penis.
/r/MensRights24/06/22 02:43 PM
34

Rampant misogyny? There’s literally almost never a hate post here. Most posts are just examples of ways that men have experienced sexism, often backing it up with data and never getting too emotional. Compare this to most feminist subs where people frequently make angry, hateful posts about how “disgusting” men are, and the difference is night and day. In addition, those subs are heavily moderated to the point where even making a comment here could get you permanently banned from those. Meanwhil…
/r/MensRights22/06/22 11:53 PM
2

It might actually be. You would be surprised at how conservative some really radical feminists can be. They often dislike transgender women and don’t consider them to be real women. I think they find the concept threatening. The idea that a “stupid, violent man” can just wake up one day and decide to be a civilized woman is terrifying to them. It breaks their sense of superiority.
/r/MensRights20/06/22 11:04 PM
2

That one’s especially stupid. Everyone knows men pay more for car insurance. It’s common knowledge at this point, and basically accepted by society for some reason.
/r/MensRights19/06/22 04:54 AM
23

This is what I like about this subreddit. Lots of facts and data to back up claims and counter arguments. Meanwhile, most feminist subs: “I hate men because they’re all rapists and murderers and stupid!” And if you suggest anything otherwise or ask for statistics you get banned for “trolling” or “gaslighting”. 🙄
/r/MensRights19/06/22 04:52 AM
2

Now I'm confused. Before you implied that being a man is somehow a bad thing, but now you seem to say it's a positive transition.
/r/MensRights17/06/22 04:59 AM
5

The majority of adult males are men. You treat it like it’s a choice, but it’s really not. A male baby who grows into a boy and matures into an adult is assumed to be a man unless explicitly stated otherwise. For the vast majority of us, it just happens. I see no reason to shame people for that. Also, as another person stated, men who decide to be women (transgender) aren’t exactly treated very nicely by radical feminists anyway. They’re the kind of feminists to say trans women aren’t real women…
/r/MensRights17/06/22 12:01 AM
1

Well, not all women. Not even most women. But for some, absolutely. And unfortunately those individuals speak louder than the rest and have a great influence on cultural expectations regarding a man’s attractiveness. Edit: Gotta love the hypocrisy in this sub. “Women shouldn’t say all men are bad! It’s mean and unfair! Also, all women are bad!” 🤦‍♂️
/r/MensRights16/06/22 07:17 PM
109

I’m confused. You’re being called misogynist for keeping a door open at work? Isn’t that just standard procedure? Usually men are called creepy for doing the exact opposite of this.
/r/MensRights16/06/22 02:08 AM
1

That’s sort of what it’s turned into, at least for radical feminists. The original idea was that some forms of masculinity are toxic for both women subjected to it, and for men who are pressured into it. It’s unfortunately become a buzzword that basically means anything masculine whatsoever, like masculinity itself is inherently toxic. Still, the original meaning does hold value.
/r/MensRights16/06/22 12:33 AM
1

It depends on the feminist. Some feminists believe that toxic masculinity is also hurtful to men, and this is actually true if you know what toxic masculinity really is.
/r/MensRights16/06/22 12:11 AM
1

It doesn't matter if most LGBTQ people don't go around talking about their sexual orientation. If they want to be sexually active at all, there's always the chance that word will get out. They shouldn't be expected to actively keep it hidden. They should know the minute that they're hired that they can be themself in that space. This has nothing to do with insecurity. Someone being bothered by harassment doesn't make them insecure. You wouldn't need to go out of your way at all to make them feel…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 03:40 AM
0

Not every business is welcoming to certain groups, especially LGBTQ. It's important to make your stance clear in some way. Passively implying that you're okay with homosexuality by just not saying anything homophobic isn't enough. Gay people don't want to play the lottery every time they apply to a job. They want to know for certain that they won't be harassed for who they are. Literally just give your stance in a small paragraph in the "about us" section of your website or something. It's not t…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 03:11 AM
0

Trust me, there are plenty of women, black people, and LGBTQ people who are qualified for whatever job you throw at them. I'm not saying you should hire based on that. Of course you should hire based on qualification. This is about making your workplace and the job advertising as inclusive as possible. Why would you bother with that? I don't know, because you want diversity on your team? Because you care about equality, or because you see the benefit of not limiting your selection to a certain t…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 02:53 AM
-1

I agree, but it does make sense to direct your business model and advertising to appeal to people who don't currently seem interested. Once they're in the door and getting interviewed, things like gender and race shouldn't play a role in your decision to hire or not. At that point it's about qualification for the job. What I'm saying is just in relation to first impressions. It's important to leave the welcome mat out for everyone, and if there are some groups that aren't coming in for job appli…
/r/MensRights15/06/22 02:30 AM
12

“just straight up nationalism disguised as calls for equality” LOL! No, it’s calls for equality being dismissed as nationalism. I’m not even going to say that wanting diversity in your business is bad, because it’s not. If you mostly have straight white men and are trying to hire new employees, it makes sense to want those spots to be filled with types of people that you don’t already have. To encourage this, you can make your business and the hiring advertisements as friendly as possible to the…
/r/MensRights14/06/22 09:46 PM
1

Most of the popular feminist figures are not very extreme. This is again the difference between being the majority and being the loudest. Some extremely radical feminist figures do take up a lot of space on the font page, that’s for sure, but most feminists don’t really align with those people. In fact, the reason they gain so much media coverage is because of their very controversial ideas or events. Don’t get me wrong, those people should absolutely be condemned by us and real feminists. But i…
/r/MensRights11/06/22 05:29 AM
0

In many cases they do. Are we going to say all MRAs are incels now, just like we say all feminists are misogynistic? You understand my point. If we fail to discern between good and bad people within a group, we become hypocrites. That isn’t good for the mens rights movement. If you actually care about gender equality and not just seething at some opposing group like barbarians in opposing tribes, I suggest you put an end to this mindset.
/r/MensRights11/06/22 04:50 AM
0

Literally like… all of 4chan? Lol You not admitting that there are SOME incels out there who shout at the top of their lungs is very similar to feminists not admitting the same about radicals. You’re just like them.
/r/MensRights11/06/22 04:42 AM
0

No, they’re just the loudest. Just like how the loudest mens rights activists are incels who hate women.
/r/MensRights11/06/22 04:17 AM
5

Facts! Even if they say that I'm not what they're referring to, it still feels really shitty to hear them talk so badly about all of the other men. How do I know they won't change their mind the second I do something they don't like?
/r/MensRights11/06/22 02:18 AM
13

They say they don’t actually mean it that way, but then they get all defiant when you suggest saying it differently to better reflect the true meaning. Refusing to change your obviously misinterpreted statement is quite telling of what you really think of it. They don’t want to change it because that’s really what they mean.
/r/MensRights11/06/22 12:00 AM
1

I think that post is exactly what OP is talking about. You can’t really pick out a handful of radical feminists and say that all feminism is bad. You also can’t pick out a handful of sexist MRAs and say that all MRAs are incels. We need to see beyond the loud minority on both sides.
/r/MensRights10/06/22 08:18 PM
21

Ah, I see. Well, I feel like if she wants anyone to take her seriously she would probably need to agree to that. Not getting one is awfully suspicious, as if she was telling the truth it would really help her case.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 09:16 PM
29

You mean someone else got her pregnant? Then that could be trickier, but there may be a way to verify that you’re not the biological father. I don’t know how it would be done exactly, but I’m sure there’s something you could use to prove it.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 09:11 PM
1

I think she’s vastly overestimating the number of women who would actually want to see this happen. Good luck creating this dystopia without waging war against 100% of men and 99% of women.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 07:42 PM
40

A fake pregnancy test seems like pretty weak evidence. How does she expect to keep that up over the coming months? I wouldn’t worry too much about that. She’s going to need more “evidence” to actually prove something.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 07:31 PM
0

Most people don’t really need a relationship. Society puts an expectation on us that we do, so I think a lot of people think that they do, but they really don’t. I’ve survived years without one, and I can survive years longer. So can pretty much everyone else. With that said, most people do want a relationship at some point in their lives. They can sometimes feel lonely without a romantic partner. I sometimes do anyway. I can still go years without one if need be, but if it isn’t needed I’ll mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 01:18 AM
18

That’s the same as asking why a gay man can’t just have relationships with women. They simply don’t like it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 01:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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