TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RagingAlien Archive

View 2 posts and 176 comments by RagingAlien 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

Isn't that what people were complaining about previously?
/r/MensRights19/02/22 09:32 PM
-5

Have you ever met a real woman? Or are you a feminist? I am speaking in hypotheticals, because that is part of the premises that 'patriarchy' result in. I do believe the law is BS in that regard, maybe I should have been clearer. Still, interesting to know more of the history behind that law and the change. Thanks for the info.
/r/MensRights09/11/21 04:01 PM
-50

This sounds suspiciously like the 'patriarchy hurts men too' theory. And it isn't wrong. Violence Against Women Act literally defines DV as something only men do to only women. Could you not say this is due to the conception that men are naturally stronger and more imposing than women, and therefore are incapable of actually being victims of things like DV? Because there is no way a woman will actually be able to be violent against a man, or because there is no way a man will be so weak as to be…
/r/MensRights09/11/21 03:51 PM
9

Isn't this the exact same as the title of this post in this sub? OR many things in Askreddit, or wherever? People will often post things which are essentially "look at me I have a default good opinion" when looking for attention and acknowledgment.
/r/MensRights10/05/21 01:10 AM
0

There’s also no “positive masculinity” to counterbalance the proposition either. Have you read any of the three links I posted? They go over that. You wouldn’t keep calling someone a fag if they took offense, so why argue in favor of a term people find offensive? I feel when a term has apparently been horribly misunderstood by part of the population, it might be worth trying to show them what the term means instead of trying to find another way of saying the same thing.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 03:31 AM
0

it has nothing to do with masculinity Isn't it exactly what the thing's about, though? That being masculine is to be strong, to be without emotions, to be an unshakeable rock in a stormy sea? it’s also a stereotype perpetuated by women into men. That... doesn't necessarily mean it isn't toxic masculinity? It's a societal thing, not necessarily applied only by men onto other men. Just like how feminists complain about body image issues that are also perpetuated by other women. “Toxic masculinity”…
/r/MensRights14/11/20 03:12 AM
-1

It stems from the belief that men should be strong, and that sadness is a weakness. I haven't paid much attention to this thread so far (in part because I had no goddamn clue who Rush Limbaugh was) but isn't what you described here just... toxic masculinity?
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:42 AM
0

This sorta tweet is no different than people in here going "but what about the abuse men suffer" when the topic of domestic violence towards women comes up.
/r/MensRights02/07/20 03:27 AM
-9

Tell that to all the people in this sub that constantly defended Kavanaugh.
/r/MensRights02/07/20 03:24 AM
-18

Isn't this sarcasm? It's also clearly taken completely out of context for no reason as she's replying to two other people there.
/r/MensRights30/06/20 12:15 AM
1

Yeah but why the hell are you going to discuss stuff like this with the massive group of transphobes in GenderCritical? If they don't think trans women are women, why the hell would they care about what men think?
/r/MensRights15/06/20 03:55 AM
1

Everyone is protesting racism when the same statistics they are using to prove racism demonstrate 10 times as much misandry as racism. But of course, the primary issue is racism, and not misandry... Yes, men are primarily targeted. But even between women, IIRC, the statistics show that black women are 1.4x more likely to be targeted than white women. Trying to coopt the movement about black people to be about men in general feels a bit like you're being self-centered here.
/r/MensRights05/06/20 05:59 PM
1

Would you be against the draft if another Hitleresque psycho repeated history? What about an attack on your home country? Yes, I would still be against the draft. If people feel it is worth the risk to their lives to protect their country, they can volunteer to do so (as was done in WW2, from what I remember of history).
/r/MensRights05/06/20 05:31 PM
2

I can't seem to find a single place supporting that statistic. Have you got any sources on it?
/r/MensRights05/06/20 05:03 PM
1

Women being included in selective service? Not the guy you're responding to, but in this issue I'd rather not have anyone included in selective service. Also, equality of opportunity, while definitely the final objective, is extremely hard to make viable right now due to unconscious biases. Just look at the amount of people that think women are less likely to do well in STEM compared to men, and think about how that affects employment. Same happens when thinking about teaching children - men are…
/r/MensRights05/06/20 04:49 PM
1

Oh, alright, let's go through this point by point. Yeah but rioters aren't targeting police are they? First off, I'm talking more about the protests than the riots, even if they happen to be connected by a cause (and how I'm pretty sure just the peaceful protests wouldn't really make much of a difference by themselves). Second, there are definitely some of the rioters targeting police, even if they aren't a majority. Then again, with how heavily armed police has been in the videos I've seen, try…
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:49 AM
1

You do know that the police officer in question is facing jail time for murder or manslaughter right? This is how I know you're full of shit, the officers not stopping him is something I can understand but this to me screams you're full of shit. If you can't understand how the fact it took literally a public protest fuelled by outrage to get this one guy arrested means that many, many other policemen get away with literal murder without seeing any consequence... And how that means it's a systemi…
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:24 AM
1

So when does it end? When reforms are applied and we can be certain that any further killings by police will be met with due consequences to the killers and those involved. When we can be certain other policemen won't just sit idly by while a man is choked while held to the ground next to them. I wonder, though, with the points you're bringing forward, if you're the type of person that complains about protesters blocking the street during peaceful protests because they're "impeding the innocent …
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:11 AM
2

Well, alright, "died due to being choked by a policeman", is that better?
/r/MensRights03/06/20 12:57 AM
1

OF FUCKING COURSE IT'S ABOUT WIDER POLITICAL ACTION. Police needs a reform. The government needs to stop ignoring cases like this. The military should never be called upon the public of its own country. People need to be aware that all of this happens instead of keeping it away from sight. Did you really think the protests were about just that one single case, and then everyone would be happy that it happened until a few more months pass and something like it happens again?
/r/MensRights03/06/20 12:56 AM
1

All these posts are is just people admitting they don't give a shit about innocent people caught up in the chaos and violence. This is why you will never see me throwing my weight behind an angry mob cops unless I'm 100% convinced it's going to end well and people within the mob the cops are going to be sensible. More often than not it's a bunch of self-righteous moralising idiots who think they're playing a game and they don't give a shit until they finally face consequences for their actions a…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 04:59 PM
2

“ It just so happens that black people are indiscriminately killed more than white people” ? Because population density matters - If a higher % of the black population is killed than that of the white population, there is a higher rate of death of black people. As such, they're killed more. Nowhere in debate is faith used to prove ANYTHING. You may want to google the term "bad faith", because it does not seem as though you understand what it means.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 04:51 PM
1

You have to look at the population numbers in each race. Of course more whites get killed by cops because they make up 72.4% out of 328.2 million people. Thats 237,616,800 white people in America compared to 41,353,200 African Americans at 12.6% of the population. That's 196,263,600 more white people in the United States. By statista stat sheet this year alone only 11 more white people have been killed by cops. Hell take even the year with the biggest disparity (2017) and only 234 more whites we…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 04:46 PM
0

In raw numbers, sure. Consider per capita, however, and the perspective shifts significantly. Arguing raw numbers in scenarios like this is always bad faith, because larger populations will always be represented more.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 04:40 PM
0

You know what black and latino people also have a higher rate of than white people? Gang involvement. Crime commitment. Poverty. It's not about race, it's just a statistics game. If you're poor you're more likely to be involved in some sort of blue-collar crime. Isn't it curious that those populations are that prevalent in poor communities, though? Wouldn't it be expected that, if so much of the US population is white, the same % would be seen divided amongst the various classes? Isn't it weird …
/r/MensRights02/06/20 03:20 PM
4

I'm not sure, it could be that the other policemen that were around when Floyd was choked to death didn't do anything to stop it and haven't been reprimanded. It could be about the other deaths (that we know of) in which the police hasn't been convicted. It could be that a protest about this has happened every few years and every time nothing actually changes, it could be the gratuitous violence that has been seen against peaceful protesters, news media, and the like. There's a lot of stuff goin…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 03:13 PM
0

Have you read the article I posted, or not? Because statistics like that don't happen just due to "too many variables". Not that consistently, and not that obviously. Black people are clearly the target of more violence and are inherently viewed as being more "suspect" than white people. Latino people also have a higher rate of deaths than white people. Even amongst women, who are far less likely to be targeted, black women are killed more often. This is indicative of systemic racism, which affe…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 12:50 PM
4

The value of live in itself does not depend on your race or ethnicity and it certainly doesn't depend on how hate groups are freely allowed to commit crimes. Of course it doesn't depend on those factors. It just so happens that black people are indiscriminately killed more than white people, and saying "black lives matter" isn't saying that other lives don't or shouldn't matter, but that black lives should at the very least matter as much as white lives, and yet apparently they don't. Saying "al…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 12:32 PM
2

there are still issues related to police brutality but statistically u arent gonna get shot by a cop bc ur black. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men Yeah, about that.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 12:30 PM
3

Despite the massive scale of the protests, I've seen fairly little posted here about it. Men are as affected by police brutality as any other demographic, if not more (I don't really have stats to back me up on this so I can't be certain, but I'm sure other users do - any help in that regard is appreciated). Let's do our part in the protests. Even if you can't leave your house due to the virus, donating helps!
/r/MensRights02/06/20 12:10 PM
4

Yeah, I see that too. But considering how much of this subreddit seems to care more about rights for men than for anyone else, I wouldn't be surprised that even if it was clear it would still be upvoted as a sign of discrimination.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 12:20 AM
26

That's a very important typo.
/r/MensRights25/03/20 10:32 AM
5

Did you... Did you read the actual post? Those pictures are not of the guy making the post. They're examples from Reddit.
/r/MensRights22/03/20 03:59 PM
0

Jesus christ what level of transphobia is this? How is this that highly upvoted? If he identifies as a man and wants to look like one, to begin with, how the hell would he be "belittling" men?
/r/MensRights22/03/20 03:58 PM
5

I was thinking, this actually sounds about as inoffensive towards trans people as I've ever seen a children's book be. This page doesn't even have anything regarding gender norms or anything of the sort, implying that certain tasks are "male" or "female" or anything of the sort. Many of the other comments here are much more worrying in that regard than anything that book probably has.
/r/MensRights11/03/20 06:56 PM
1

I know a few have distanced themselves from the movement in part because of TERFs becoming more common or at least more open. The rest still identify as feminists though.
/r/MensRights30/08/19 02:53 AM
0

Yes, many times, in multiple scenarios and many different jobs, including as co-workers.
/r/MensRights30/08/19 02:42 AM
5

I've been commenting on this sub for a few years now. Most of the time I only comment when I have an issue with something people are saying as I believe the sub has a tendency to get aggressive towards points of view that aren't their own. Points I agree with are often already said, and I'll just upvote them and move on. To be clear as well, I'd do the same thing with /r/Feminism (hell, I'm subscribed there as well, and see some of the same issues pop up every so often too) but I was banned from…
/r/MensRights28/06/19 09:40 PM
27

14 September 2006: The article was created by a copy-paste of Violence against women with the word "women" in the original changed to "men". Problem is that "violence against women" is a term [...] with specific [...] use within at least some segments of the world, a fact reflected in everything from legislation like the Violence Against Women Act to book titles to people and groups who identify themselves as part of a "movement to end violence against women", all of which suggest that there is …
/r/MensRights28/06/19 08:07 PM
3

Second sunday of august where I'm from, so I was getting quite confused by the father's day posts.
/r/MensRights16/06/19 08:08 PM
1

I am taking no more words out of your mouth than you took off the girl in the OP. At no point does it indicate whether or not she identifies as a feminist at all, much less whether she thinks men are oppressors.
/r/MensRights01/06/19 02:52 AM
3

If I thought the person buying them was my oppressor, probably. So because she might (possibly, because we know nothing about this girl's thought process) think that men systematically oppress women, she's not allowed to have a man buy drinks for her when he offers to do so? Do people that talk here and support men's rights (and seem to be completely critical of anything resembling feminism) actually refuse to date, fuck, or act in any potentially romantic way with anyone who identifies as a fem…
/r/MensRights01/06/19 02:46 AM
12

Well, there might be a difference between "expecting free stuff" and being told someone's buying you drinks but it turns out you're paying for them?
/r/MensRights01/06/19 02:36 AM
18

Would you say no to free drinks?
/r/MensRights01/06/19 01:48 AM
-4

And what exactly does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights25/03/19 01:08 AM
0

Have you ever heard how men talk about women and female bodies? Try spending some time around most human beings and you'll see just about everyone does that.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:03 PM
1

What do you mean?
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:52 PM
6

you think it's better to be with someone you are not happy with than be alone I think you missed my point - a "dealbreaker" should be something or a group of things that makes it so you'd be less happy with the person than without. The way you put it, a dealbreaker is "anything less than absolutely perfect".
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:38 AM
5

Height also doesn't "fit his argument" because it also can't be changed, even artifically - go for muscle mass or bank account size instead, that's closer to what he's talking about.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:29 AM
0

perfectly acceptable for women to apply physical preferences but totally unacceptable for men. I don't know where you live or who you talk to, but most people I've met would think that completely disregarding someone as a potential romantic interest solely because of physical characteristics is pretty shallow.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:23 AM
2

This is just going to devolve into a "yes they do, no they don't" discussion if neither of us puts out arguments or examples, and even then it's going to come down to anectodal evidence. The most I can say is that, through talking to a lot of people, most people are judged due to their preferences by a group of people that disagree with them.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:22 AM
4

So your advice is to give up on dealbreakers if they are not common? That's terrible advice. A dealbreaker shouldn't be because "this will make me less happy that I otherwise could be" but more of a "this will make me less happy than if I wasn't having to be around this person to begin with", and if too much of the population has dealbreakers, then you should probably take a good, long look at why you think the way you do unless you're ok with remaining single for most, if not all, of your life.…
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:19 AM
1

There's a difference though between marrying someone expecting them to keep the body for a couple decades or so until it slowly changes due to natural aging vs them randomly getting fat in a year. Oh, I agree with you, and since the original instigator of this conversation isn't here anymore this is getting kinda pointless.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 06:09 AM
1

I mean yeah but I wouldn't consider expected aging as the same sort of thing. Well, that was kinda the point of this thread. And is exercise/proper nutrition really going to significantly slow that down? I don't have any sources on me, but AFAIK it's widely understood through most of medicine that it does slow down the effects aging has on your body.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:58 AM
-2

Is it? Most people would consider a girl like that also pretty shallow, especially if they treat their "preferences" like this guys is doing.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:56 AM
6

And from I gather when talking to girls, they also suffer from this. Almost like people just tend to judge anything regardless of who's saying it.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:55 AM
3

Bones aching, skin wrinkling, and hair graying from not working out/exercising? It's not that not exercising causes it, it's that it's gonna happen eventually due to aging, but exercise, proper nutrition, avoiding stress and so on will slow down the effects of age on your body.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:51 AM
8

That won't keep you fit and young-looking though. It'll just keep you thin. Your muscles will still atrophy, your skin will form wrinkles, your hair will go gray, your bones will start aching, etc.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:45 AM
2

I honestly dont know what you are referring to here. I think he's referring to women who want tall, athletic, rich guys, for example. He's saying that you then shouldn't criticse them either.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:39 AM
7

You can't live comfortably because you KNOW there are people that have ultimatums for who they marry? I didn't say that I could not, I'm saying that people would live more comfortably without ultimatums for their choice of spouse.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:37 AM
10

I don't get to "define" it, I only get to state my opinion, but I think accepted behaviours are those that are more likely to result in people living comfortably with one another in human society.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:34 AM
4

You're allowed to have dealbreakers, of course, and especially when looking for a spouse, but I don't think having them, especially not commonly met ones, is going to lead anyone to a happy life unless they get extremely lucky.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:32 AM
9

I don't care much for this particular guy's ultimatums (because I'm certain they'll just result in him being unmarried for the rest of his life if he doesn't change) but he's not the only one reading this, and I'm hoping other people don't think ultimatums like that are accepted behaviours.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:30 AM
5

Correction. If you are willing to make the time. If something is important to you, you will make the time to do it. Where do you live/what do you do that you don't have to spend 40h a week working to survive? That's not even considering commuting times. Are you expected to give up all social life to maintain your body in shape? You don't have to ignore everything else in your life to maintain a healthy and sexy body. It's easier to make excuses than make time to take care of yourself. When your …
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:29 AM
5

Y'all really going at this guy for his taste in women on a post exactly about this scenario? Yes, because I think the post is utterly stupid. Everyone gets judged just as much as everyone else for their preferences, but "preferences" shouldn't be ultimatum statements like this guy is making.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:24 AM
-4

At no point has he insulted you, only stated that he regards your opinions as worthless in this argument. How would you like it if someone said you are shallow for one of your dealbreakers? I'd consider why I think that's a dealbreaker again - For example, I think "treating people like they're tools" to be a big dealbreaker. Why? Because I see no reason why this person wouldn't do the same to me and I'm not comfortable with being treated that way. If you want an example of a "shallower" dealbrea…
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:18 AM
0

There is a lot you can do to mitigate negative change through diet and exercise. If you have the time to dedicate yourself to that and you want to maintain your body over doing anything else with your life. And even then it will still age and change because the best you can do is limit the impact.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:07 AM
9

I'm not talking about living society. I'm talking about finding a wife. You're talking about living with another person. If the perfect girl appeared to you but was as strict as you are being about something like, for example, your muscle mass, you wouldn't get together either. You need compromises to live with other people in this world.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:55 AM
9

Me: I agree. I want a busty wife. "My wife needs to be busty otherwise she's not gonna be my wife no matter what" is what you said. You're not saying "Yeah, I think bustier women are prettier", you're saying "anything other than busty isn't worth my consideration".
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:52 AM
5

What's the point of having preferences if you compromise them? Because that's what living in a society and with other people is like? Nothing is perfect for anyone, but a lot of it can be really good if you compromise a bit.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:48 AM
7

Yes, so complain about it in the posts that are problematic rather than the ones that don't really have the issue.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:32 PM
16

I can agree with you in general, but this post is really not doing that.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:41 PM
-5

You're acting like there's never any comments like this any time something bad happens to women or to just about anything. "They're planning on cutting down the Amazon", there's always a comment going "lol so what it's just trees"; or in a post saying "Women are showing more interest in STEM fields" there's always someone saying "They should just stay in the kitchen instead".
/r/MensRights15/12/18 12:30 AM
-1

So how do you define an "Incel" in the current usage of the term? Because I'm pretty sure almost nobody actually uses it to mean "everyone who's a virgin but not by choice".
/r/MensRights10/12/18 04:15 PM
-4

I've started visiting the sub fairly recently, but I really don't see any of this "other men as competition" thing you're talking about. It feels much more like they talk about men's issues in a different way than people here do. While here (when there's actual talk about issues) there's a lot more focus on legal issues, there they have focus more on the societal aspect.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 05:16 AM
-2

Look, what are you insinuating? That I'm practicing hegemonic masculinity? No, I'm basically telling you to think about why you do or don't do things. In the thread mentioned, the OP talks about how to avoid "feminine" postures or movements he possibly ended up causing harm to his own body.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 04:10 AM
1

I move the way I want to because I fucking want to. But have you stopped to think about why you don't want to move in certain ways that really don't cause any injury to your body?
/r/MensRights10/12/18 02:34 AM
2

Yeah, I recall your username from the gigantic link posts that appear whenever any thread like this is posted. I still don't see why "feminism is being against men" makes the fact that this subreddit is just adding fuel to the fight any less worse. So many of the posts that reach my frontpage from this subreddit are openly bashing feminism rather than talking about either Men's issues or even about how the feminist movement hurts men's rights.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 01:03 AM
-8

Have you actually read the thread? There's some good points being talked about in the comments and in the post itself, even if it's a very minor issue and the possible answer to the title is "I'm pretty sure it hasn't affected me at all"
/r/MensRights10/12/18 12:24 AM
6

So let me agree with him because this subreddit has become increasingly antifeminist rather than for Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 12:15 AM
-5

I know about the origin of the term, but the modern usage is completely different. When people talk about "Incels" they aren't talking about every single person that hasn't had sex and isn't in that situation by choice. They're talking about the community that, for example, used to make up the Incel subreddit. I fail to see how the term is possibly in a "moral grey area" to me when I think that most people in the community that think of themselves as involuntarily celibate are just people who ha…
/r/MensRights09/12/18 09:14 AM
-20

Ahh yes its okay to judge men on their sexual activity but not women. Slut shaming is evil after all "Incel" is not an insult at the "sexual activity" of men - it's an insult to their behaviour towards people in general that is apparently directly linked to that. Hell, by the definition I'm an "Incel" and I don't feel anywhere close to offended by the term because it's now about a community of overwhelmignly toxic people rather than about people who haven't had sex.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 08:47 PM
3

Especially on this subreddit that apparently cares more about "look what this dumb extremist feminist did/said" than talking about actual male issues.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 01:18 AM
1

Gender-exclusive language in legislation is a gender inequality issue. From their view, it is an attempt at fixing it, as without it nothing would change. then companies would just start putting women on their boards for their own sake. Also listed out on the bill - it is excepted it would take over 50 years for the inequality to "fix" itself alone - this is to accelerate the process. Female supremacist aren't going to do shit to benefit men. Yeah, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point things…
/r/MensRights01/10/18 11:44 PM
1

And yes, trans-woman would count as it defines female to mean someone who self identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. Do you not have gender defined in your ID in the US? Here part of the process of transitioning is requesting the state for an "official" sex change by changing what the state recognizes you as.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 03:28 PM
1

The ones listed on the bill which I linked.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 02:31 PM
-4

"I'll need to see some evidence." It's also not like the one good statement on the whole card nullifies that most of the other ones are really quite shit when talking about this particular case.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 07:02 AM
11

Stupid people will be stupid. This is no different than someone wearing a shirt saying "Vote trump" or "Vote hillary" on the front with the exact same text on the back. Unfortunately dumb extremists will exist in every group.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 06:59 AM
2

1) To answer the title question, "the left" often proposes legislation utilising gender-exclusive language because part of the issues the left deals with currently are gender inequality issues - admittedly many times solely in benefit of women, ignoring men and/or transgender. 2) On the question of California's law, going by the bill which was passed, having some number of women in the board tends to increase company productivity and stability. I agree that it should probably say "at least one m…
/r/MensRights01/10/18 06:57 AM
1

I agree this sub has been getting more and more politically divided, and a lot of it is making people from different sides, that are saying almost the same thing but for slightly different reasons, start slinging insults around. However, I think saying it's "Russian trolls" is rather naive. It's more likely just stupid people being stupid and politics getting in the way of the type of discussion this sub should have.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 06:43 AM
1

People with very obvious agendas have been attacking people here left and right simply for advocating due process because they don't toe the democratic party line of "He's a rapist and a horrible human being". At the same time, I've seen people attacking others for saying that Ford's accusation might be true and an investigation is due because of it. There are stupid people here on both sides of the issue.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 06:39 AM
0

Oh jesus christ. Because we acknowledge that women aren't perfect little Angel's that need to be placed on pedestals and believed 24/7 when they're obviously lying, that makes us incels Nah, completely ignoring a possibly true allegation that hasn't had proper investigation done as being false is just as bad as assuming the allegation is true to begin with, it makes you just as much of an asshole.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 02:03 AM
1

Tell that to every Democrat I've ever argued with since trump became president. Well, Trump does tend to use "what about" arguments relatively often. They are sometimes relevant, though. It kills diologue. I agree. So was your intention when criticising me of "whataboutism" to kill dialogue?
/r/MensRights01/10/18 01:48 AM
0

Yeah, definitely the left's favorite word, hence why it started being used to criticise soviet russia propaganda, which we all know is completely right-wing and therefore only the left would use it. /s It's just poor arguing to complain about "whataboutism". If the facts beign mentioned in the "what about..." comment are irrelevant, pointing out why they are should be enough. If they are relevant, there is no issue with that line of arguing.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 01:45 AM
0

Yeah, if you're criticizing one side for only listing one side of events, I suppose talking about the other side can be "whataboutism".
/r/MensRights01/10/18 01:31 AM
0

what does that have to do with a man getting accused of baseless uncorroborated sexual assault claims? That I want a proper investigation done on it should have a lot to do with it. Let's accuse you of gang rape and see how well you're put together. In front of a Senate court, who's going to be deciding whether I get the best promotion I could get in my life, with time to prepare arguments and responses to the possible allegations? Pretty well, I'd think.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:27 PM
0

Or it could be that the only points listed criticize the left without any regards for the admittedly shady things the right has done during this process as well (I think /u/AliquidExNihilo's comment above highlights some of those well in a fairly neutral fashion, for example)
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:17 PM
0

Or it could be that the only points listed criticize the left without any regards for the admittedly shady things the right has done during this process as well (I think /u/AliquidExNihilo's comment above highlights some of those well in a fairly neutral fashion, for example)
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:17 PM
0

for those who still insist that this isn't a mensrights issue and think he is guilty, I implore you to really think hard about what it is youre here for. If you can't stand with a person who thinks differently than you, well how deep were your convictions really. Or it could be that people simply don't believe that someone as biased and ill-tempered as Kavanaugh should be given a permanent seat in a really powerful position in the US judicial system. I believe that the accusation is worthy of an…
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:14 PM
5

The jokes, funny comments, laughing she did during the hearing was disrespectful to the process. As someone who has been following this process almost exclusively through podcasts and twitter, I haven't seen anything about this. Do you have a video or something? (not doubting you, just curious)
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:10 PM
5

I'd just like to commend you on what seems like a surprisingly neutral post explaining the issue.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:08 PM
0

Somebody tries to destroy his life and career Not really, she's trying to stop him from getting a promotion to one of the most (if not the most, I don't know enough about US politics) powerful seats in the judicial system for LIFE. It's not even a temoporary seat like Trump's, he'll sit there until he dies, renounces, or is forced out (and I don't even know if that third one is possible).
/r/MensRights30/09/18 09:54 PM
5

This really shouldn't be a case of "who does it more", which is the whole problem the article has (it says men are more to blame than women) - It's a question of stupid people doing stupid things that harm other, possibly not-so-stupid, people.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 09:54 PM
2

Wow, looking at the title, since "abandon" is between quotes I expected it to be something about mothers begin overprotective. Nope, it's straight up about mothers leaving their children alone with the father "because they want to feel free". WTF?
/r/MensRights24/09/18 09:49 PM
0

For instance, women can demand men to wear condoms. And they can check it too. While I agree with you, on the thread it's mentioned that some men do slip their condoms off mid-sex (for example when changin positions), and it can be pretty difficult to check for that, I think. So sometimes just demanding it is apparently not enough because some men are just that stupid. (EDIT: Why am I being downvoted? Honest question, can you please voice your disagreements with what I said?)
/r/MensRights24/09/18 08:36 PM
2

Doesn't imply that it's either, but straight up says it fucks over with the hormones in a woman's body which can make things go a bit out of whack. Which, from what I know from talking to women, is actually pretty accurate.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 08:34 PM
9

It's also five panels.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:19 AM
1

...and if you believe in equality — you're a feminist LOL. Isn't that kind of a thing we're for in this subreddit? Are we all feminists now?
/r/MensRights13/08/18 11:15 PM
4

My myopia is what makes 5/8 of the "hot" posts right now be posts talking down feminism rather than talking about male issues?
/r/MensRights11/08/18 07:05 PM
3

At the same time, this subreddit seems increasingly about talking down feminism rather than pointing out issues men face.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 06:49 PM
2

And the study the magazine article you linked to mentions makes no distinction between genders - something I believe would've have appeared if there was a large enough difference between genders.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 12:49 AM
3

That is my point. It should. look at their examples - just one man. Unfortunately, magazines typically post only the interview replies that they feel are most entertaining to read or are a better fit for the story they are writing - by your metric, you could guess this is specific to white people, or even to American millenials. This is not a new trend. It is very old. Women have a major life crisis on the 30s. And men don't? The article even links to a specific study which doesn't distinguish b…
/r/MensRights27/07/18 12:45 AM
5

I read some of the article and it doesn't feel to talking specifically about women at all. For some reason you're getting an article talking about a general situation (I believe even the article is being too specific as I think people in general are seeking better work-life balance, but that's another discussion) and talking about it like it's only about women.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 09:57 PM
11

And you generalising an article talking about millenials in general as if it was talking specifically about women is what? Because it's worth about as much in terms of argument as anecdotes are.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 09:52 PM
3

Yes, because your sense of self-worth is directly tied to the necessity of doing something because someone else is doing it - from your point of view - suboptimally? Context is important here - the "help" clearly doesn't mean he's asking if she needs help or giving suggestions - it's like "Oh, to solve this puzzle do X", or "Give me the controller, this is how you beat this boss" which are just asshole things to do to anyone.
/r/MensRights25/07/18 09:48 PM
2

"Lol this guy mistook one FPS series for another, his whole argument is completely gone now". Battlefield has also not been exactly a historical simulator so far in any of their games. Especially not in a game that is not trying to be one, which is the one being discussed in this thread.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:53 PM
2

They call gamers 'Nazis' and demand that games, played by men, should be filled with female characters. They complain when games such as Tomb Raider feature women that have breasts. I'm sorry, but what the actual hell? Who are "they" here? What is the problem of trying to cater games towards women as well? What do you mean "filled with female characters"? Outside of dating sims I can think of basically no games where there are so many more female characters than male ones it feels like a worldbu…
/r/MensRights13/07/18 09:50 PM
73

Women have an amazing ability to self-gaslight to the point that if they've been at it long enough, they can cry real tears. This isn't exclusive to women. Most people can do this. If you lie to yourself often enough it becomes the truth from your point of view. It's sorta like Pavlvoian Conditioning, but you can do it to yourself.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 04:06 PM
1

Oh I dunno, let's actually check the US constitution: "Section 2 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." This is, in fact, the only mention of voting done by the People themselves in the US constitution (not including amendments) - in which case I have to ask why there even is …
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:04 AM
1

How about the Cambridge Dictionary definition? "To govern people in an unfair and cruel way and prevent them from having opportunities and freedom"
/r/MensRights15/06/18 12:11 AM
1

As for the claim that women are or were oppressed, that's your claim and so far you have made no attempt to support it. I thought the fact they did not have rights that were given to most other citizens just because of their gender is fairly strong support to say they were oppressed.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:53 PM
1

That's probably because your response was to a post not mentioning the draft at all, but I inferred you were talking about the post referring to said activity. Sorry, what I replied to was clearly talking about men being forced to go to war while women weren't. If that is not talking about the draft, it might be a problem with my knowledge of English (which is possible). So by that logic then we shouldn't expect representatives to consider children or legal residents that are not citizens, nor s…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:49 PM
1

Imply? A lot of feminists say it outright. Yeah and "a lot" of MRAs are incels or MGTOW. If we're using the extremists, we might as well ignore every group. Will I find your arguments in the Redstockings Manifesto? I don't know because outside your little quote I haven't read it. And again, I think you'll find it really hard to argue that women weren't oppressed - especially given your following argument. What women were not given was (and is) responsibility. Men's responsibility for their wives…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:44 PM
1

It used to be. In fact, the draft was one reason the right to vote was extended to all men. The argument is that they earned it. US political history astounds me more every day I learn more about it. Thanks for answering the question.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:16 PM
-4

So are you arguing that you believe women should have to sign up for the draft? Yes. I'll take the "not being able to vote" part over the "you have to sign up for the draft and possibly fight overseas in a war and die" part any day. Wouldn't you? Well, i don't know. I'd rather have the possibility of choosing the representative who best fits my own views and will therefore not enter a war which I wouldn't support myself and as such have all my rights as well as possibly avoiding the war altogeth…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:15 PM
1

I said civil service You did? Sorry, I didn't see that written anywhere in your message. In fact, I still don't. Why? If I must explain it, then: Democracy is, in general, reffered to as "a system wherein the people elect their representatives through a majority vote". This representative is expected, then, to defend the views of the majority of people from the region he is a representative of. Therefore, to be certain that the elected person best represents the interest of the people, everyone …
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:13 PM
1

I didn't say women weren't oppressed. I said everyone was oppressed in those days. So why the "even if they were oppressed" in that phrase? You clearly know that they also suffered from oppression, even if it was a different one from men. This is a terrible argument. I've encountered it before. A. It wasn't a choice for most of the boys going. B. It's a rhetorical question. No one in their right mind would go and fight a war overseas. for someone that encountered the argument before, this is a t…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:04 PM
2

Feminists claim that women were, and are oppressed by men, yes, they point fingers. I at no point said they didn't? I'm arguing here about the fact that he started the phrase with "even if", which implies they weren't really oppressed. Men oppress women for their own benefit, that's the feminist story. Is that your story too? No, I don't believe that it had so much to do with "for their own benefit" as some feminists imply. I simply think that saying women weren't oppressed (when they weren't gi…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 08:29 PM
2

Since when has the right to vote been connected with the draft? Having the right to vote should be (as it is now in most of the world) connected with you being a citizen of a democratic country.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 08:25 PM
1

I honestly don't know where this idea of the military draft as the price for voting comes from. I see it repeated frighteningly often in this subreddit. Is it somewhere in an old US law or something of the sort? Because as far as I know, the right to vote should be inherent to any citizen of adult age.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 05:05 PM
3

You cannot edit titles or links in posts unless you are a Reddit admin, AFAIK.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 04:58 PM
-9

(First of all, even if women really had been oppressed in the past, that isn't a logical reason for a "correction" today.) While I agree with the sentiment, stating that they weren't oppressed is actually ridiculous. It's true that men have also faced some oppression of a different type, but even hinting that women were not oppressed is actually idiculous and, as you put it, "Revisionist History at its finest". What would you rather? A. Not have the right to vote? B. Be in a trench while machine…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 04:57 PM
-3

jesus christ this might be one of the most biased articles I've ever seen posted here that wasn't meant to be made fun of.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:43 AM
-4

delete
/r/MensRights25/04/18 09:38 PM
-2

Yes, because all that defines a person and what she should be is her appearance. That is why all men should be fit, with a perfect jawline and a fitting, or nonexistant, beard.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 09:28 PM
2

Let's not act like either men or women can completely ignore the existance oif the other gender arounda resort. Not in a sexual way either, I'm talking like men speaking loudly, doing sporty things, etc vs women constantly chatting, occupying space with bags and the like. The complaint that it ruins the vibe is quite possibly valid, but still sexist and not a reason to ban a whole gender from your establishment.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 09:23 PM
-6

What the hell? The draft is not the price for the right to vote, taxes are. And I'm pretty sure women pay taxes, too. Sure, I agree that women should be eligible for the draft, but I think seeing it as the "price" to vote is just foolish.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 09:34 PM
-1

Let's also be honest that more than half of husbands would leave their wives if they were not making any contributions to the household either.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 11:57 PM
-2

Both vilify the successful and sanctify the unsavory ("noble savage"). Both have blind 100% faith that utopia is just around the corner, and the system we have is horrible, rather than allow the possibility that while flawed, the system we have is the best we can do. Where in feminism do they "sanctify the unsavory"? A lot of feminist propaganda (which is surprisingly similar to what I sometimes see in this sub) is more about how every aspect of men can be defined by their worst individuals, but…
/r/MensRights18/04/18 11:29 PM
8

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDFTPtOHRnc
/r/MensRights12/04/18 04:04 AM
1

How is it political? I keep seeing people say this. Then, provide zero explanation of how or why it is political. I don't know why they saw this as political, but considering that other posts from both sides about abuse, be it physical or pstchological, are also scarce in the sub, I don't see any big problem with that removal. Not to mention, far, far more political posts have been allowed. Like which ones?
/r/MensRights07/04/18 09:43 PM
-24

"no explanation as to why"? The whole thread was bombed because of /r/videos rule 1: "No Politics". It's a bit of a harsh rule, but as far as I've seen (through following a few political subs from many points of view) generally followed pretty thoroughly and impartially.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 03:07 AM
1

People only do things that they think will have a larger benefit then deficit for themselves. A kid who raids the cookie jar thinks the cookie is worth the punishment they will receive, or is incapable of understanding the punishment, in which case the point stands that they think they will gain more than they will lose. But you are not really arguing, you just keep repeating your talking point, so this ain't going anywhere. You say I am only repeating my point, but the way this argument is goin…
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:59 PM
1

So you believe that Nasim Najafi Aghdam had a belief that she was inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment, and that's why she shot 3 people then killed herself? Does that make any sense to you? I believe that for an individual to take the decision to go somewhere and shoot another person they believe they are inherently deserving of the privilege of choosing who lives and who dies, yes. It makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:04 PM
1

Legally an entitlement is something the government must give you, a right is something the government is forbidden to take away from you. They are not the same thing. To begin with, where did you get this legal definition from? Second, I am (I thought it was clear) using "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment." as the definition here.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 12:17 AM
1

First, you changed 'entitlement' to 'right', focus. Wait, do you even know what entitlement means? This might be the problem in our discussion.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 09:35 PM
1

So it matters if they were men, but not if they were women? I never said anything like this. I'm saying it doesn't matter at all what the shooter's gender is. So your motivation for breathing is that you are entitled to do so? If you did not feel entitled would you stop? Well, with breathing specifically it would be tough since it's a natural body function that I don't have that much control over, but let's change it to something else that you mentioned, like watching TV. If I didn't feel it was…
/r/MensRights04/04/18 05:33 PM
1

It seems to matter that most mass shooters are men. It might matter in the big picture, but I see no relevance on this argument. This is not even an argument. There is absolutely no connection between this bizarre concept and reality. Do you breathe air because you feel entitled to it? Do you eat because you feel entitled to eat? Do you watch TV because you feel entitled to watch TV? Do you sleep because you feel entitled to sleep? Of course I do. I feel, and am, entitled to my ability to eat, b…
/r/MensRights04/04/18 03:27 PM
2

What does it matter that she's a woman? She's a person, and she made the decision to (at least attempt to) kill people. So what if it's revenge? If she was upset at something? You don't reach the decision to go somewhere and kill someone else without feeling like you're entitled to decide if they live or die.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 01:50 PM
18

If you go into a place with the intent of killing people, you clearly feel entitled to decide who lives and who dies at some core level.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 04:34 AM
1

Okay, sure, this is a really dumb post... But what on earth does any of this have to do with Men's Rights? Other than a few keywords, this is more about race than gender.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 11:16 PM
11

What are you trying to show with that picture?
/r/MensRights08/03/18 03:39 PM
12

Why complain about this during women's day? Let them do it. Complain about the lack of men's day doodles when there is one, but not about the lack of it when it's women's day. This is just petty.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 11:18 PM
31

Really? The whole empowered black women thing was a huge pop, blues, rnb movement. Maybe it's a poor choice of a name (probably chosen for the alliteration) but there really is nothing to complain about this.
/r/MensRights17/02/18 03:03 AM
44

however this will never happen as the moment the guy isnt there to pay for it where is the money coming from to support the child? WTF? Women can work, y'know? Even if the legal system currently is against it, it's a fact.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 03:56 AM
3

I just will never get why people would want to work for such a large organization. They create such toxic cultures. Because they tend to pay relatively well (in some fields) and the name carries weight when in your curriculum (basically everywhere)
/r/MensRights10/01/18 12:27 AM
2

No, you made excuses that it was totally cool we have male strippers on T.V. Please review your history. "we have nothing against objectifying men [...] if objectifying women [...] is also not a problem." Is what I said, with some explanation on the given circumstances cut out of this quote to make it easier to read. I suggest we begin by stop making excuses as to why it's okay to have a bunch of men in their underwear on TV and laughing and oogling [...] [but not] an audience full of men hootin…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 03:33 AM
2

You sound like a feminist. Surely you can figure out which sub you belong in based on your argument that male objectification is okay AS LONG AS THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT. On the flip, we widely accept here that objectifying female strippers and prostitutes is NOT okay because "it's the norm daggummit!!!" I literally said that objectifying male strippers is okay as long as objectifying female strippers is also ok. If you're doing only one then no shit it's sexist. Time to end the entire gender war. …
/r/MensRights28/10/17 02:35 AM
6

What subreddit do you think I came out of, what do you think I'm championing, and what do you even mean by Big Red?
/r/MensRights28/10/17 02:24 AM
9

No, seriously, what was that comment about? What people are saying is that we have nothing against objectifying men (doing a job which basically requires you to be objectified) if objectifying women (when they are doing the same job) is also not a problem. Next: "This place got taken over by twoxchromosomes or whatever that safe space is." Would imply that the mods there would be deleting any comments that go against the sub's mentality, but then you say that "The mods are fucking sleeping in th…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 02:17 AM
16

What the hell are you even talking about?
/r/MensRights28/10/17 02:11 AM
2

Here is his post
/r/MensRights26/08/17 08:36 PM
12

Jesus christ that was a horrible title to use. You could've literally used the same title as here.
/r/MensRights26/08/17 03:52 PM
1

Nope, I'm 6'1. Usually I have difficulty because some muscles on back start to hurt.
/r/MensRights12/08/17 01:27 AM
2

Running: A, IIRC, 10000km run in 30 minutes or an hour Pretty sure you mean 10k or 10000m.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 10:17 PM
1

My body must be very oddly-proportioned in muscle mass then, because I can do like 20 push-ups more easily than 20 sit-ups. (yes, the push-ups are done with proper form - only hands and feet touch the ground, each push-up going until my nose almost touched the ground)
/r/MensRights11/08/17 10:15 PM
-2

Jesus christ, that's actually just sexist. People were saying it to prove that it isn't a case of "just a joke", because turning it about women makes it obviously sexist for anyone who reads it, as people pay more attention when women are offended.
/r/MensRights24/06/17 08:55 PM
4

Well, I mean, the number one killer of ANYTHING is men.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:36 PM
-14

No reason to be that rude towards the person - even if they are wrong.
/r/MensRights16/08/16 09:56 PM
4

[1] Out of /u/Tallsmarthandsome's imagination
/r/MensRights14/08/16 11:46 PM
-4

edit: so instead of refuting it in any way you simply downvote? Wow... I only saw you message right now... so that's not true. And it would've been really quite nice of the OP to actually post the source or the rest of the article somewhere in the comments (y'know, if it wasn't just that he found a sourceless image, thought it fitting to the subreddit and posted it without actually looking the source up)
/r/MensRights08/07/16 09:11 PM
23

This is mostly worthless. If one popular guy tweets something calling someone a "slut" and 1k women answer that tweet also mentioning the word "slut" while defending the person who was originally insulted, there's more women than men using the term. Context is important for things like this.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 04:24 PM
2

Well, I don't know about the US, but here in brazil, multiple times when a girl was raped news also covered it as being an "affair". IMO, if they treat both types of stories with the same wording, I have nothing against it. In fact, I'd defend AGAINST using the word "rape" - in cases of false allegation, using more severe wording like that can make the rest of the population (as in, the people who read these articles) even more aggressive against the accused than otherwise.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 09:34 PM
10

A district spokesman says the photos were passed around in text messages and posted on Twitter and an Instagram page, but have since been removed. Maybe you should actually read the article?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:25 AM
2

Quoting /u/Tilting_Gambit on a comment below: Friend, do you understand the political context of Jews in central Europe pre 1935? The reason the Nazi's specifically and Germans more generally hated them was because they held a disproportionate amount of power. The Nazi party was partly a response to this power spike within the Jewish community. Certainly their hatred of Jews was because of the power the Jews were perceived to hold; within and outside of Germany. The OP's link is EXACTLY the kind…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:32 AM
4

Why do you say that?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:27 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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