TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Settlers6 Archive

View 1 posts and 160 comments by Settlers6 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)
14

QuestionsSettlers6/r/MensRights11/11/15 02:54 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Hey, new interest is always appreciated in my view. I'd recommend looking at the FAQ on this sub, I think most users agree with what's written there. I believe it has the answers to your questions.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:11 PM
3

"I am talking about political oppression" Like 99% of men, who also couldn't vote until 100 years ago? being looked down upon Like 80-95% of men who were farmers or coal miners or any other menial job, that were looked down upon by the wealthy men and women? Women were considered incapable, sure, but also innocent and pure and a goal to attain for men. Whereas men were considered capable/competent, but expendable. How would you even objectively measure "being looked down upon"? For most of your …
/r/MensRights04/11/18 08:17 PM
-2

I don't think you should have been called those things. But I do disagree that women were opressed historically. As in, throughout most of human history. 99% of women had a shit life by today's standards, but so did 99% of men.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 03:48 PM
3

Is it? Even if it is, it walks the line so thinly that our opponents can fairly reasonably use something like that to say "look at the retards on r/mensrights for taking something obviously meant as a joke seriously". But I think these comments of ours have provided some context.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 08:23 PM
6

Well, that part is pretty obviously a joke. It's the message of the comic that I think we should object to.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 05:28 PM
10

I'm not new, but I'm also curious for the sources :P
/r/MensRights02/07/18 04:38 PM
2

Yeah, I would assume so, but maybe he actually had a point.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 06:45 AM
2

To those taking this seriously: try to read the intent of a comment/post. It's making a tongue-in-cheek comment on how life is (supposedly) easier for women compared to men. I don't think it meant to say that it's easier for transwomen, though that would be the logical outcome of a man turning woman. I don't think Anon thought that being a transwoman was the easier setting, just that being a woman was. Which isn't a very outlandish claim.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 09:04 PM
1

Close to 100% of people have both feet while jews are like 2% of America but a lot more than 2% of the people involved in industries such as this one You are misunderstanding my point. I'm well aware there are more people that have 2 feet, but that number is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Let's take blond hair color as a trait if you want. Does having a blond hair color influence what views you have about an issue like gender? No. There is no proof that there is. Does being ethnically Jewis…
/r/MensRights24/06/18 08:34 PM
7

They are probably just salty he's a Republican That's even more crazy, because he's not a Republican.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:13 PM
2

First of all, the post meant to (partially) debunk the common, mainstream idea that men are privileged compared to women. I don't think it meant to say that men are discriminated per se. It's a counter to feminist claims along the lines of "women are oppressed because [insert something women chose themselves or something men suffer equally from]" Dont men voluntarily join the military, and women are a tiny minority of the most “deadly” branches (army, marines)? This is only because most of the m…
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:11 PM
1

Did I say all jews were responsible? Nice try trying to frame the question that way You said that "people with big noses" were responsible. That's a clear reference to "Jews". So you implied that either "Jews" as a whole are responsible, or Jews are different to people of other ethnic backgrounds in such a way that leads them to write anti-male articles. Let's assume you are right in the respect that a disproportionate amount of the people that write garbage articles for Buzzfeed are Jews. How i…
/r/MensRights24/06/18 05:36 PM
4

I see these references to jews all the time and I'm never sure if someone is serious, or if it's some overused, edgy 4chan joke. If you're serious, how are the Jews responsible for this?
/r/MensRights24/06/18 01:23 PM
18

Based on what is he a piece of shit human?
/r/MensRights24/06/18 01:20 PM
1

Men's and Women's rights can and must coexist in our society Read my comment again. I mention twice that it can. This is not. That is the difference between Feminism and Misandry. "When someone calls themselves a feminist and do something good, then feminism did that. If someone calls themselves a feminist and does something bad, it's not feminism." With that logic, all movements are exempt from critique. Many misandrists will hide under the banner of feminism but that does not make feminists mi…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 08:12 AM
0

Of course, but saying that being both communist AND capitalist somehow means you are actually in the middle, doesn't make sense to me. It just means you are neither, it means you are something else. Same goes for men's rights and feminism (if we're talking broadly): being a feminist is impossible to allign with being pro-men's rights, as feminism is an advocacy group that strives towards giving women more rights and freedoms, sometimes at the cost of the freedoms and rights of men. So you can be…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 06:15 AM
14

since male toplessness is socially acceptable Not in an office environment though: I can't imagine going to work in a low V-neck, but women are allowed to. I also think there is something to be said for nuance, when it comes to the difference in arousal men and women experience when noticing a chest of the oppossite sex: based on general life experience and also the fact that men are much more visual when it comes to sexual arousal, I'd say that men are much more aroused by a female chest than w…
/r/MensRights28/04/18 05:22 PM
5

Hold on, it's good that you want to be better to your kid, but don't take mcmur's generalisation personally. I don't like it when a true statement about men in general is applied to me, where it is not true. So you don't have to take that from someone else. I don't want to see a world where we are all apologizing for what gender we were born. As a white female I can see why you say that. I try my best to acknowledge it I think mcmur's phrase would be more accurate if he said: "If looking only at…
/r/MensRights24/03/18 07:36 AM
1

I don't see how this is related to #metoo. #metoo is pretty bad, but what does women wearing revealing clothes have to do with the problem with false accusations?
/r/MensRights07/03/18 05:42 PM
1

I slightly suspected it was a troll comment, but how would anyone not on r/mensrights know that? They've probably all heard bad things about us, and then they see your comment posted on twoxchromosomes or some such place or some neckbeards subreddit, or some tumblr post, and what do you think the average person will assume? The fence sitters? Because what you say here won't necessarily stay on here. So please, don't feed them bullets. If it's an obvious joke, fine, and if there's context and the…
/r/MensRights10/02/18 04:22 PM
4

Everytime Amy Schumer talks about her vagina, I fucking lose my mind.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 01:21 PM
1

Dude, you're not helping the conversation, because while I don't think the original post is sexist towards women (since women make up such a small percentage of actual builders), you are now downplaying women's efforts in other fields.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 11:57 AM
3

While I agree with this, I think it's more Hollywood/mainstream beliefs and norms in general, rather than this particular show that's being sexist or what have you. The show's beliefs are a symptom.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 10:50 AM
1

Well, that's your decision. But does buying the shirt help men in any way? Or does it help the guy who made the video? Add to that that I don't think the guy made the video to help men, but to gain some form of succes for himself (e.g. views). And that is ASSUMING the video is legit and not scripted in any way, which these kinds of social experiments often are.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 04:02 PM
1

Guys, this is anecdotal as all hell. Please, don't let this become the "10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman" of the mens' rights movement.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 05:33 PM
5

While I do agree this is anecdotal and is shouldn't be considered evidence, I disagree that everything on this sub is anecdotal. There's plenty of studies shared here.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 05:31 PM
2

I agree with Colbert except it is both men and women So you don't agree with Colbert at all, as he heavily implies it is exclusively men who should do some introspection? He isn't saying everybody is behaving abusively. But then how do I, a man, play a part in the abuse of those women? What should I discover or change about myself that led to the situation where other people (who happen to be men) hurt some women? Without literally mentioning it, Colbert seems to be playing with the idea of 'tox…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 11:41 AM
4

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of this sentiment. I recently saw Colbert effectively saying the same thing (towards the end of that clip). Several mentions of "all men" and Ben Affleck's statement about "we need more women at the top to avoid this". Because as we all know, women don't rape, don't sexually assault or harass, or use their power in any bad way whatsoever... Ben is clearly virtue signalling, but I'm afraid that Colbert actually believes what he himself is saying about 'all men' being in som…
/r/MensRights18/11/17 07:50 AM
17

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx The scientific article itself: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current
/r/MensRights11/11/17 09:16 PM
3

Oh absolutely. I was mainly trying to point out how you can easily find most of the facts that Kingnoah rejected right out of the gate. I didn't bother with the exact specifics, just the ones that already get the point across and are very easy to find.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 08:33 PM
12

Sure, women were prohibited to join the frontlines. Sure, they were discriminated against in that regard. But who suffered the most from discrimination at that time? If you can't see that it's the group that was forced to die, watch their friends die, get mutilated and kill other human beings, then I'm not sure where your moral compass lies, but it must not be in orbit. Do you believe that women being forced by society to survive and not face most of the horrors of war is pretty close to what th…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 07:30 PM
19

Women had to work for decades to get the laws changed so they could vote, men always enjoyed that right. A quote from the first wikipedia page that pops up when I google "men vote": "Even after the passing of the Third Reform Act in 1884, only 60%[4] of male householders over the age of 21 had the vote. Following the horrors of World War I, millions of returning soldiers would still not have been entitled to vote in the long overdue general election" And that's from wikipedia. Here's what we get…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 07:20 PM
2

I agree, though harassment is a little tricky, because (as you touch on), a lot of it depends on the perception of the 'victim' of the 'perpetrator's' actions.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:43 PM
9

That's possible, but I am one of those that believes that men are biologically predisposed to be the initiative takers, the 'agressive'/assertive ones when it comes to dating/sexuality. So I don't think it's all too strange if it turned out that men do commit the (slight) majority of sexual harassment. I think that because the entire gender is more forward/agressive, you are more likely to get the outliers that cross the boundary of criminality in that regard. Add that to some other characterist…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:06 PM
18

Ehhhhhh.... I'd imagine it's just about equal, just that men aren't taken as seriously.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 03:34 PM
13

Is the sub being brigaded or something? To clarify for those that share the sentiment of "but doesn't r/mensrights judge feminists by their worst examples?": we don't. At the very least, I don't. I judge the actions in the name of the feminist movement (e.g. fighting against shared parenting, promoting the wage gap myth). And those are usually done by what most might call "extreme feminists". The average feminist, who I don't think is evil, implicitly condones these actions by being part of a mo…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 06:57 AM
14

Take a gander at their top 100, it's 90 posts about feminists and zero posts about how to help men despite their (feminists*) non-egalitarianism. Once again, one of the biggest roadblocks for equality, if not the biggest, is the feminist movement that fights against men's equal treatment or rights. So it makes sense that most posts are about them: without (current) feminism, we might already have achieved equal rights. Critiquing feminism and showing it's flawed reasoning and displaying its immo…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 06:48 AM
2

You mean something like this ? https://youtu.be/ty4PhRWt1hU No, that's clearly something very different. That is Conan dealing with a joke (or unfortunate situation, however you want to put it), by effectively saying "you put them out there, you don't get to zinger me for looking". He 'has' to do that, to 'defend' himself, to retort with a joke. He's overdoing his perviness: that's the joke. That's something different then him saying or tweeting out "Look at Nicole's boobs folks! Love 'em!". He,…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:03 PM
1

You're right that the title is misleading, but based on OP's comments in this thread, he agree with the sentiment uttered by u/PurpleSweetz; that it's about hypocrisy. For that matter, that's how most in this thread seem to feel.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 04:56 PM
2

Comedians joking about comedians is a different thing than comedians joking about other 'regular' celebrities. Female comedians place themselves in the same 'arena' as male celebrities, so it is generally considered accepted, especially if they know each other somewhat. Ellen can maybe be considered a comedian nowadays, but she is a host of a daytime tv show in the first place. Could Conan O'brien, or Jimmy Kimmel get away with (unironically) making the joke Ellen made? Highly doubtful. Pls post…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 04:52 PM
0

OK
/r/MensRights27/10/17 08:03 PM
0

Well after a certain point there is no point in arguing with someone that is projecting their own fallacious arguments onto you. And where, exactly, did I do that? Oh, wait, I remember. I didn't and I proved it. And then you shut down the discussion. I think that's about accurate.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 08:58 PM
0

"If you can't beat them, insult them!"
/r/MensRights26/10/17 01:49 PM
0

No you didn't. ...he said, while immediately after, quoting the part of my comment that cited me doing exactly that. You were making it seem that the slide was not reflecting reality even though it was. It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects a part of reality. But I never denied that men are more aggressive, which is what you very clearly accused me of. Don't move the goalpost. If this were a "lie-by-omission" then it would not have included the part that says some studies have shown women comm…
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:51 AM
2

Please point to the part where I accused you of denying this. I already did in my previous comment. You summarised my 2nd comment in this comment chain as follows: So it isn't true that men tend to be more aggressive and quicker to solve disputes with violence? Isn't that sentence very clearly implying that I denied that "men tend to be more aggressive and quicker to solve disputes with violence?" Am I having a stroke and misunderstanding how the English language works? I doubt it. 2nd piece of …
/r/MensRights25/10/17 10:19 PM
48

u/Proteus_Marius' comment seems to be a joke, not a replacement for an actual argument (as the 'tumblerina' ad hominem's often are). Let's dissect this frog: he/she starts off with "that slide is pure failure", allowing the reader to believe that he/she will now commence debunking of the assertions the slide makes. However, he/she actually starts to critique the formatting of the slide. Hilarity ensues.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 09:09 PM
0

So it isn't true that men tend to be more aggressive and quicker to solve disputes with violence? I would respond to your comment, but the above quote alone already proves you didn't read my earlier comment where my later comment builds upon. So read that one, find out that I don't deny that men are more agressive, and then we'll talk.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 09:06 PM
1

I wouldn't say that calling out what is effectively brainwashing*, unintentional though it may be, "nitpicking". But I suppose opinions differ. *or perpetuating a false narrative, whatever you wanna call it
/r/MensRights25/10/17 08:39 PM
120

It may very well be, but leaving out important facts changes the perception of reality that the audience gets from those stats. For example, while men are the majority of violent criminal offenders, they are also the vast majority of the victims of those crimes. Leaving that out paints the picture that men are the perpetrators, and a lot of people will assume that women are still often the victims, due to their, well, let's call it 'internalized feminist propaganda'. Still, this slide is progres…
/r/MensRights25/10/17 08:22 PM
2

Now, at this point, someone will say something about the supposed "double-standard", that only rape against men is portrayed as funny, and that never happens with women. This is bullshit. Dozens of sex comedies (like the American Pie series) feature sexual assault towards women as funny. Guys would install webcams in girls' rooms or try to trick them into having sex or get them drunk or whatever. There are plenty of tropes involving men trying to rape women in funny ways. Yeah, but the joke is a…
/r/MensRights24/10/17 04:40 PM
1

Well, possibly, but also the fact that due to scholarships and an education system that is tailored to women, women attend and graduate university at a higher rate than men. So it makes sense there would then be more millionaires among those women: if you increase the group size, you increase the outliers.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 04:09 PM
2

it wasn't just the topic by MensAdvocate, multiple posters in multiple topics about the subject (including this very one, look at SpikeGiraffe's comment) are calling victims of sexual assault prostitutes. Not in that context. SpikeGiraffe is simply wrong in the fact that the women had consensual relations with Weinstein. Some may have, some clearly didn't, we have proof of that. So Spike is wrong there. BUT he isn't wrong, in my opinion, that when we assume that women had sex with Weinstein to g…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 09:23 AM
3

Well, it does specify between the ages of 18 and 44. In the older category, men might still come out ahead. But that doesn't take away that the stat is useful in showing how women are, in a more current generation, advantaged compared to men.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 07:34 AM
2

Is anyone we disagree with automatically a feminist? Personally, I don't believe so, but those people do share a similar mindset. So they are most likely influenced by feminist narratives, which isn't all that hard to happen in our society. But there is an interesting dichotomy in the way men vs women are responded to when it comes to accusations of sexual assault, both in real life but also in this very forum. First of all, I doubt that. I saw you comment in 1 small thread where somebody did st…
/r/MensRights11/10/17 07:25 PM
5

Absolutely agree, great point.
/r/MensRights11/10/17 09:05 AM
2

I tried to refute the analogy to this article, but I couldn't find anything wrong with it. So unless someone much smarter than me finds something wrong with it, we'll have to assume that the ruling of Lavinia's case can't be proven to be sexism. We can simply never know: the only way to prove sexism here, is to have another case with (almost) the exact same factors, judged by this particular judge, except the defendant must be a man and must be proven guilty. I doubt we can find that case. Howev…
/r/MensRights26/09/17 08:02 AM
22

Yeah, if you do that, you are no different than the feminist saying "You should educate yourself, I'm not here to teach you!": it's not an effective way of getting people on your side. It's also a little dick-y.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 06:53 PM
12

Though I still dislike the use of "pwned" or something similar in this context, I agree that the man completely, correctly dismantled her assertions, while being polite to boot. It was great to see.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 08:10 PM
7

The primary reason is most likely stardom: the pay in Hollywood for the same actors/actresses in the same movie for the same amount of screentime differs enormously because the bigger star (the one more likely to pull audiences) gets paid more. So all that "Jennifer Lawrence gets paid less than Bradley Cooper = sexism" is as far as we can tell, nonsense.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 08:33 AM
3

Same with Deliverance. When the author brought that movie up, I thought he/she would use it as an example of male rape being taken seriously as a crime/immoral offense. Because it was a dark scene. Or at least, I interpreted it as such, there was no levity about it when I watched it.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:21 PM
3

a great subreddit for seeing men's side of the story, but still undeniably a safe space) I definitely agree with certain things you say, but I have to call out this common false equivalency. While r/mensrights may have some characteristics of a safe space (e.g. many people of the same opinion in one place, few dissidents), that doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to being an actual safe space like almost all feminism subs are. The moderation behaviour of the most significant feminist subs and r…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 08:19 AM
27

And you have the evidence to suggest that 20% of women DON'T face sexual assault in their lifetime? I suggest Google-ing burden of proof: he doesn't need to have evidence to suggest that 20% of women don't face sexual assault in their lifetime. The one making the (positive) assertion needs to support it. Until then, we'll act as if your assertion is not true. Because you've never raped anyone (for arguments sake) it's never happened? Like of all the stats to dispute that's the one you pick? Nobo…
/r/MensRights24/01/17 05:28 PM
8

The womens march is just a bunch of women getting together and espousing their political views. "The Nuremberg rally is just a bunch of germans getting together and espousing their political views." And with that I'm not trying to say that feminists=Nazis. I am saying that just because an event is simply people using their right to express their political views, doesn't mean we can't make fun of them or call bullshit on it. You're acting like the woman's march is a forbidden topic of sorts to cr…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:48 PM
1

Could you explain to me what gender specific issues Western women suffer from that men do not (or suffer significantly less from)? Because while I do support full gender equality (ergo, including women's equality), I have yet to see a significant issue that Western women specifically face.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:43 PM
14

When I saw this, I immediately thought of Uncharted 4. SPOILERS follow, you are warned. You start off with 2 villains, a rich white guy (Rafe) and a black, strong, independent woman (Nadine). Seriously, she is the leader of a mercenary band and highly skilled in martial arts and kicks the asses of our main character(s) several times. Whereas Rafe is your regular rich, white douchebag with no real skills or nuance. Nothing wrong so far, but around the end, Nadine is shown to be a 'sympathetic vil…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 02:16 PM
2

Oh, I definitely agree, but my description example was meant to be a honest representation of menslib's intentions, not the actual results they achieve, i.e. succeeding in helping men.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 11:52 PM
4

Time and again we as moderators have seen that Reddit is the last place to try and have a reasoned discussion about Feminism Again, your definition of 'reasoned'. Some people use bad words? Some people use fallacies and cannot use reason? Welcome to the Internet. However, I do not believe that a discussion on feminism cannot be done on Reddit. We are doing it right here, on r/mensrights. Or FeMRAdebates. Not all the time. I can already see some comments here that add nothing of value to the disc…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 11:32 PM
8

Seriously, when is this "all leftists believe the same thing" meme going to run its course? Where did I say that exactly? Top quality strawman, though. I almost fell for it myself. MRAs have made great pains to point out that they aren't associated with TRP or MGTOW, but pretty much every time I comment here somebody does exactly what you just did. It's really, really boring. Oh, a subtle justification for an unfair generalisation? You don't see those often. Well, except for KaonPlus when talkin…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 11:32 PM
1

Talk about what all you like. It's not what I was talking about so ... you are just changing the argument. No, I'm not, I was accusing you of changing my examples to talk about things that are much closer to forcing (e.g. eating, breathing). I stated my original examples to give... well, examples of when things aren't forced, or when there is a difference in degree of 'force' exerted on a choice, since your logic dictated that every choice is forced. Which is clearly silly and I have given argum…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 08:54 PM
9

I don't recall us stating that we unilaterally support every action taken by any feminist anywhere, and I certainly don't recall us stating that feminism as it exists in 2016 is beyond reproach. Yet you ban people when they say or conclude that on menslib. I should know, because you banned me for exactly that. Twice. Though I'm sure you'll think of something else to call it ("hate speech", "detracting" etc.) You don't want to talk about the significant failings of feminism, fine. Then at least d…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 08:19 PM
1

You can pretend like not breathing is a choice, not eatting is a choice, or going to prison is a choice. However... nobody... nobody makes those choices. Nobody. And nobody makes them because they are invalid. You talk about eating and breathing, but I remember that I orignally talked about WHAT you eat, where you go to school, what your job should be etc. Those are choices. And I've explained why they are choices. Even eating at all or not is a choice: the good greatly outweighs the bad to eat,…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 05:22 PM
36

Paging menslib. Could menslib take a look at this, and tell me again how great feminism is for men? Or is this once again one of those thousands of cases that 'are not representative of feminism'? We should work together, right, to fix men's issues? You start.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 11:02 AM
1

It's a choice between A) A chance at having a good life, and B) Statistically ruining your life. We are talking about abortion right? Then the choice is "Take a relatively safe medical procedure with no long term effects" or "Have a child". Where does 'having a chance at a good life' come from? There are limitations and pressures that affect that decision, as there are limitations and pressures that affect all decisions. Sure, it's a hard decision, but that doesn't mean anyone was forced. The wo…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 09:34 AM
1

Yes except if you're unaware of the STD, then this is not legally the case. Well, no, but that's where the analogy stops being valid: let's say a woman had an STD and didn't know, and decided to have sex with a man. There will be no point at which the man will need to pay for the woman's treatment. So like I said, the analogy doesn't hold up when expanding it, I just tried to make a concise point with it. In the case of pregnancy, it is noticeable if the woman gives any degree of attention to he…
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:25 PM
1

Eh, I feel it's the task of the woman to tell the man if she is pregnant before a certain time, or she will lose the right to the man's child support. I mean, should a man, after having a one night stand, keep calling the woman to ask if she's pregnant? When you have an STD, you are the one that has to call your partners not the other way around. Same if you notice you are impregnated.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:51 PM
1

You can say that but I see no distinction worth bothering with. No difference between someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to do something, and you having to make a difficult decision which was a possible consequence of an earlier choice you voluntarily made? If that is equally unethical, would you say that the government has to be responsible that you get a job, and that the government sends someone to cook for you because you are being forced to cook or you will starve? If you re…
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:15 PM
1

Except we're not talking about the woman's body when we talk about the man's right to opt out: we are talking about the man's right to not pay for a child he already said he didn't want. We are talking about a financial abortion, which would be the fair option.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 09:15 AM
1

Yes, we are forced to provide for ourselves, or you starve. Is that really a choice to you? By your definition you can call it forced, but it is not the same as being forced with a gun to your head, or with the punishment of jail being present if you make a particular choice. It's completely different: in the cases I mentioned and abortion, you get to weigh the good and the bad, and the choice isn't 'impossible' or forced on you arbitrarily by a person with bad intentions, like a criminal (e.g. …
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:35 AM
1

If you think 'in essence forcing' is ethically or morally any better than actually forcing then I simply have to disagree with your ethics. Are you saying that someone having a gun to my head and telling me what to do, is just as unethical as 'society' making me go to interviews to get a job, because otherwise I'll have no house and starve? I don't think it is. If you do, we really can't discuss this, because our view on life is too far apart. Do you really feel like you are forced into everythi…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 11:02 PM
5

You are in essence forcing abortions in that case if the woman cannot financially deal with it. "In essence forcing" someone is not the same as actually forcing someone. How about the men being 'forced' into hard, long-hours, mind-numbing and/or dangerous labor, in order to pay child support for the child they didn't want, because they couldn't afford to pay for it with their current income? Can that be called fair? I thought that in r/mensrights we believed that by default, women have agency wh…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:12 PM
6

If a guy engages in consensual sex and doesn't use adequate protection, with the full knowledge (as anyone having sex should have) that any future medical procedures will all be occuring within the body of the woman, then he loses some of the moral ground to protest fully about a child being conceived. I don't see how the man should have thought it through better, but apparently not the woman: the man is not responsible for the woman (and the woman is also not responsible for the man). The woman…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:25 PM
11

You just want to make another decision to override or correct your previous bad decision (having unprotected sex) and then want to blame her for not letting you do that. Women do get an 'out' (abortion) when they've made a bad decision, so why aren't men allowed an 'out'? And nobody is saying we blame women, they are saying that we blame the government. At what point does financial responsibility on your part begin to exist? When the man agrees he will let the woman birth the child? I'd argue, a…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:50 PM
6

You guys are delusional. Honestly this is why you aren't taken seriously. You are basing your view on a movement/subreddit consisting of 130,000 subscribers on 1 or 2 people, maybe 30 if we are including upvotes for certain comments? Sounds like a recipe for misjudgement.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:10 PM
2

Where did I change my opinion? Well, first you said that "It doesn't make sense to divide that issue down gendered lines", when talking about ugly women also not getting compliments. Then I explained why it does make sense to divide that issue down gendered lines and you responded to that rebuttal with "I agree". So I'm guessing there is some misunderstanding here, but that is what you said.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 10:21 PM
2

Haha, that was a quick change of opinion. Not that I mind.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 09:37 AM
13

I'm sure it's very similar feeling to women who are not considered conventionally attractive and aren't lauded with compliments either. It doesn't make sense to divide that issue down gendered lines It does. The average woman gets much more compliments than an average man and not just in the area of physical attractiveness. When they wear a new piece of clothing, or change their hair, the average woman receives much more compliments than the average man. Yes, ugly women don't get a lot of compli…
/r/MensRights23/12/16 05:27 PM
13

And nazis are pro-Jew because I can find 9 or 10 examples of nazis that helped Jews. /s We are talking about feminism the movement: the general movement. Not small groups. Yes, there were/are some feminists that fight for men's issues (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers). However, she has been 'cast out' of the movement by her feminist peers. How is gay marriage 'men's rights'? Women can be gay too, you know. I think this exemplifies most of the times feminism 'fought' for men's rights: it's a byproduc…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 10:03 AM
27

Although this message carries a positive message, domestic violence statistically is the leading cause of injury to women in America. Source? So feminism of the right kind is much needed in their society. I suspect this is a subtle 'no true scotsman' fallacy. What is 'the right kind' of feminism? Would that be the feminists that you approve of? Unfortunately, feminism is a large movement, and the movement as a whole (not just extremists) is detrimental to men's rights. You can't decide who are o…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:03 AM
1

In what ways they are different and to what extend it has downstream effects, is, I think, what is being debated. That's pretty much it.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 09:28 AM
7

I come from a psychobiologist background, and yes, the brains are definitely different. The brain-to-body mass ratio of men is higher on average than that of women: if a man and woman share the same body mass, the man's brain will be bigger, generally speaking. We don't yet know what that means or affects. Anyway, wikipedia has a lot of examples of differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences Your article was mostly talking about how it is hard to tell if a brain is…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 08:14 AM
8

women seem quite happy to get the snot goblins away for a weekend so she can go get laid and pretend she's still 20 at a bar You mean that generalised comment? Well gee, what a horrible misogynist. He must really hate women and think they are less than him, based on this personal anecdote about a specific class of women, exaggerated for comedic purpose. /s Yes, it's a generalisation, but this culture of oversensitivity is also what r/mensrights is against.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 05:03 PM
2

Kind of how radical/bad minority feminists are, would you say? Except two things. First, TRP'ers usually don't call themselves MRAs, they often distance themselves from the label of MRA. If we take the most famous entities of TRP, such as the website Return of Kings and Roosh V., we find that they both reject the label MRA. Hell, even the Huffington Post reports that and the Huffington Post has a strong feminist bias (which you will also see in that article, by denying the claim that Return of K…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 08:47 AM
3

The largest, most comprehensive study on the matter of the wage gap: http://commons.wikimannia.org/images/Gender_Wage_Gap_Final_Report_2009.pdf
/r/MensRights02/12/16 10:25 AM
1

Lol, you are basing your view of a subreddit on one thread, which also happens to have an unusually high amount of upvotes and therefore visibility? It might have made it to r/all already, causing all sorts of people from outside the sub to enter the discussion. Seems like poor decision forming to base your view of this sub on this one thread.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 09:24 AM
11

Most women and most feminists are reasonable, just as most men and most male activists are reasonable. The vocal minority is not what you should you be fighting and not the level you should sink to. Every large group has a 'bad' minority. The difference is: MRAs don't have a POWERFUL, bad minority. Feminism does. The largest feminist organisation of the USA, NOW, asserts the wage gap myth, has supported the Duluth model and much, much more. The organisation is sexist against men. The president o…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 09:14 AM
2

I appreciate the politeness and self-awareness in your comment. To clarify myself, I was not offended. I might be, if someone told me IRL that I was mansplaining something, but this was not such a case. What caused me to respond in the first place, was incorrect reasoning, to justify the use of a word that generalises a gender to a certain extent. But we've mulled over that enough and I think we've come to a conclusion on the matter already. I was simply in disagreement, but I think text on a sc…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 02:56 PM
1

I never said those words were okay.[...]I personally don't understand why it's wrong to have a sexist name to call out a sexist behavior, You contradict yourself. With the first bit, by saying "I never said those words are okay", you imply that you consider those words wrong. You say this to counter my implication that suggested that you thought they were okay to use. Okay, fair, maybe I misconstrued the meaning of your earlier comment. However, one sentence later you say "I personally don't und…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 02:13 PM
3

A lot of comments her seem to think the reality of some sexist men over explaining simple concepts or talking over women is an invention by angry females. I don't think anyone, exceptions aside, is denying that some men can be sexist. However, that does not justify the implementation of a word like "mansplaining", which makes an implication about all men or male behaviour.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 08:39 AM
8

By the definition of feminism, if you're anti-feminism then you're also anti-women. Here's the thing with 'definitions', they change. If I say, "someone drew a swastika on the wall", who do you think drew that? You will probably conclude that it was a (neo-)Nazi. And I don't blame you. I would think the same thing. But the swastika was originally a religious symbol in hinduism (for simplicity's sake). Then why did you think Nazi, when that was not its original meaning? Because Nazi's took it ove…
/r/MensRights30/11/16 10:38 PM
12

Why does men's rights have to be anti-feminism? Isn't that the exact thing everyone here hates about feminists? No, what everyone hates about feminism is that they are anti-MEN in certain ways, whereas the men's rights movement is anti-FEMINISM, but not anti-WOMEN. That's an important difference.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 09:35 PM
13

I believe it is called "cuntfusing".
/r/MensRights30/11/16 09:30 PM
20

I think mansplaining might be a real thing. Explaining done by a man is a real thing. But why make it gendered? Women explain things to men all the time, at times also using a patronizing tone. Anecdotally, I've experience more women explaining something in a patronizing way than I have men. Even if there would be statistics that show men do it more often in a patronizing way (which there aren't), it's still hard to argue for making it gendered. To put it in an analogy: we know that black people…
/r/MensRights30/11/16 09:28 PM
0

It read like it's a response to a generalisation and if so, he/she is not generalizing. Maybe someone said "men work and take care of the house and the kids at the same time" and she responds "women also work and take care of kids and the house at the same time". Which is true: she's not saying all women, but there are women who do. So I don't see what's wrong with this comment, until we see the comment it meant to respond to.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 07:29 AM
1

Of course. The guardian article I read said that they "made sure men were also taken care of". But if they did, or how they did I could not find.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 02:50 PM
0

But was banning men altogether the only possible solution? I doubt it. I mean, do we have prove that they had another solution, but didn't use it, because "fuck men"? It seems more likely that they did not have an alternative. Unless you have something to prove me wrong of course. There was also talk about women being more responsible with sharing and thus the stuff didn't get tot the black market so often but I don't know if that was ever an official reason. That's the question I suppose, was t…
/r/MensRights22/11/16 02:09 PM
4

I'm just curious, but is it sexist, or is there some valid reason that we're not seeing right now? I mean, what is the UN's reason for doing it this way, in their own words? Could someone play devil's advocate? EDIT: Downvoting for asking questions that oppose the narrative reminds me of feminist tactics. In relation to the question I asked, I tried to look it up, and the only reason I could find was that women (and children) often get pushed to the side by some men when standing in line to get …
/r/MensRights22/11/16 12:00 PM
5

I don't think this movie will finish feminism off, but it might be the beginning of the end, if the movie gets enough (mainstream) attention. It will still take several years though, probably 10+ before feminism is reduced to an insignificant version of itself. Especially since it uses third world issues to sustain and rationalize its presence in the Western world and those third world issues aren't going anywhere fast.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 10:45 PM
1

This is more like that game where you get to punch that woman's face to a bruised ball of blood. It is clearly sexist. It's not. Beating a specific woman (e.g. your ex, Anita Sarkeesian) in a videogame is meant as an outlet or as a joke for those that hate that specific woman, but not all women. It might still be pretty vile, but it's not sexism. Same here: they didn't make a "Kill men, because they are men!" simulator. They made a "Kill your ex!" simulator (more or less). Why is there not a fem…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 10:49 AM
22

It's fictional. I don't think it's a problem. Let's not become like feminism that becomes outraged that you can kill hookers in GTA.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 09:38 AM
1

I suspect, however, that much criticism of it by MRAs (and others) is based on its outcomes (real or likely) rather than ideology. And with that, I agree.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 10:38 AM
1

They are anti-men, because they believe that masculinity is a barrier to human betterment. I'd say they are anti-(traditional) masculinity (which they view as socially constructed), but not anti-man. To hijack Voidrith's 'gay' analogy and bring in some more nuance, in many religious circles a gay person is not hated, but acting out their gay behaviour is (e.g. sleeping with another man). Those people are, in a technical sense, not anti-gay person, but anti-gay behaviour. Imo, the same goes for m…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:28 AM
2

It's another thing for someone to hold a belief that they believe is righteous but actually does harm. You immediately go towards extremes, but the point is that it's not that black-and-white in this case: some men HAVE been helped by the menslib approach. The question is, is that a fair/moral approach and also, will that approach help most men (or "the average man"), and not just some exceptions? I believe their approach is not the most helpful/moral one. That doesn't mean they are bad people, …
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:22 AM
3

And I too give it a thumbs down. That is different than demonizing them or being hateful towards them, though. Characterizing them as "anti-men" is unfair, and we don't like it either when we are characterized as "anti-woman" (yes, I am aware there are more subtle differences between our two groups and that it is not a 1:1 comparison).
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:16 AM
2

Can you be 'pro-men' if your intent is to help, but the result is harm? Absolutely. Would you describe "Ozymandias" from Watchmen as anti-human, because he has harmed some humans, in the hope of helping all humans? I disagree with his methods, but his character is clearly not anti-human.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 07:22 AM
3

My question really boils down to this: of what use is it to claim to be about furthering the cause of men when the central notion is essentially identical to the model that got us into this mess in the first place? Mind you, I'm not saying menslib is 'good'. I was simply commenting on their intent: they like men and want to see them be happy and suffer less. Since they are not evil, I don't think they deserve hate. They are simply wrong in their methods. What I responded to was Honestly? Most of…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 07:20 AM
15

I'd really like to see an answer to this one. You always see anti-MRM people say that the MRM is hateful and that they hate group X or group Y, or that they are hostile towards X or Y. This is often given as a reason as to why those persons either hate the MRM or are not part of it. But hateful is subjective, and true/false is generally not. When such a person is asked to point out the proof that the MRM is (unnecesarily) "hateful" or hostile, they point to threads or comments with a handful of …
/r/MensRights09/11/16 09:40 PM
4

Honestly? Most of the strident ones are NOT pro-men. I disagree there. From what I gather from menslib, they are pro-men: that value is the same. It's just their way of honoring that value, their norms, that are different. They do it 'the feminist' way, which, among other things, means demonizing certain aspects of masculinity, which they believe are almost 100% socially manufactured (based on nothing of validity). EDIT: if you or anyone disagree, you are free to discuss it. I just don't think w…
/r/MensRights09/11/16 06:55 PM
24

You know, I'd be curious to see how those on menslib would respond to the reasons as to why a feminist like Cassie rejects the label, while still being pro women AND being pro men. That possibility often seems to elude them. I'm fairly sure that posting this there (with the aforementioned question) would result in a ban though.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:04 PM
4

Sheesh, it's hard to talk to you. When talking about movie scores, 10 is also an outlier. 5 is not the average that movies receive: it's probably clustered around 6/7. It is unusual for a movie to be (near) perfect (10), just as it is unusual for it to be (near) worthless (1). Yes, 10 may be a bit more likely than 1, but that doesn't take away that it's still not likely to be a 'valid', semi-objective score (just like '1' isn't a somewhat fair score for almost all movies). Is it so hard to accep…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:34 PM
3

I get that, but it's a too black-and-white view for my taste. And you can't conclude that based on the scores by gender: yes, the 1's are probably feminists, but the 10's are probably MRAs, as it is rare for a movie to get either score. You made a point about polarization among young women when it comes to the issues of men's treatment, which is fine, but you ONLY call one side giving (arguably) unfair scores 'activism', but not the other side. That's all I was saying.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 01:27 PM
22

The 3 10's might be 'activism' too, just from our side. Just saying, hardly anyone here has seen the movie, so I'd advise to not herald it as a great movie yet.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 01:13 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights28/10/16 06:25 PM
2

Yeah, but still, it would be easy if there was some general info layout, so we had some idea what to fill in. I mean, I've heard of her, but what is her occupation? Does she have any honors? Etc.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 12:28 PM
1

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole thing, but aren't Michelle's actions focused on education in the third world? At least, in this specific context.
/r/MensRights12/10/16 08:35 AM
7

Wut? A man doesn't have more career choices than a woman, but he makes different choices. Those choices result in him getting better pay/more carrots.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 11:01 AM
2

All very true. It's very hard to give people a 'correct'/smart sense of risk-and-reward balancing. It's important that you give the advice BEFOREHAND, and not when something has happened. If someone broke in, someone else probably shouldn't say to me "Did you forget to lock the door?". Not that they are wrong, I might have prevented it if I locked my door, it's just a poor and insensitive time to bring that up. And that's just when dealing with burglary, rape is much more sensitive and severe.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 09:31 AM
1

It's true that his wife is not suggesting withholding advice on how to look after herself. But this was only added in a later comment by OP, which Machinist didn't respond to. So he might not have read it. Technically a strawman, but not really his fault, I don't think.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 08:28 AM
3

Maybe you should read his first comment again. He says that the rapist is accountable for his action and should be punished accordingly. However, the belief of some women that they have no agency or influence is partly based in the way they are raised, according to Machinist. You made a strawman.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 01:14 PM
2

I agree, but I'm curious, what is your stance on that, now that you know what he meant?
/r/MensRights27/06/16 03:45 PM
1

Keep doing what you think is right, even if you are being name-called for doing it, is a good thing. She should, however, stop what she's doing for factual reasons that she doesn't bother to look up.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 12:58 PM
1

Where is the line between pandering and simply stating facts? I've noticed that this view of women, the view that women are just as much responsible adults as men, is very prevalent in the MRM (based mostly on this sub). So my first response to this definitely wasn't "Oh, we're pandering to women now?".
/r/MensRights20/05/16 02:46 PM
7

I'm not sure if that's a problem. It's a problem that they often misrepresent our points or stances on issues concerning men's rights or feminism, but I don't think it's a problem that we are known as anti-feminists. I'm anti-feminism, because feminism is (usually unintentionally) detrimental to men's rights/treatment. I think that's valid and I'm not going to hide that because some people misunderstand feminism and cling to an outdated or misunderstood dictionary definition, or incorrect facts.…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 08:18 PM
1

Now this is rather sexist. Women aren't really serious about suicide? They just want attention? Only men are actually suffering? Not what I said. Notice the word 'could' in my original sentence? I am giving another possibility. I use that to further debunk your assertion that women are simply to stupid to correctly commit suicide. I doubt that very much, as the average IQ of the sexes is the same. So I'm sure they know how to effectively kill themselves. Yet they take pills and call a friend 5 m…
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:36 PM
2

Women work in jobs that require degrees (nursing, teaching). Men work in jobs which do not require degrees (truck driver, sales). Colleges aren't turning away men and only accepting women. No, but the way the education system works is that the feminine way of learning, of gaining information and experience is considered the correct one. The education system is tailored to women and girls: boys are defective girls as they can't sit still and don't like the literature they have to read as it's too…
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:21 AM
2

Women are just naturally too stupid to kill themselves properly. Men aren't being oppressed here. Men are just better at getting things done First of all, that's rather sexist since it's not based on any proof. Secondly, it could also be that women use (attempted) suicide as a call for help, whereas men actually want to end it, as help is often not in sight for them. Thirdly, nobody is saying men are opressed. But we sure as hell aren't the opressors. The issue with the suicide numbers is that e…
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:21 AM
2

I am not that shocked. And it's not like I hate Tom Hanks now. Many people, especially celebrities/actors just go with the flow, they don't do research. It is a shame, but I'm not surprised. It is just not acceptable to say men/boys suffer just as much as women, if not more.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 09:47 AM
6

But what study? I can't find it anywhere. That doesn't mean the results are false, but this isn't, like Ooshkii rightfully said, a scientific article. It's a survey done by a company, which may have a conflict of interests regarding the results. Obviously, we have to assume it doesn't until proven otherwise, but it is important to keep in mind that there is a big difference between a scientific study and a company survey. If we can't find the methodology, how sure can we be this is a fair assess…
/r/MensRights03/03/16 09:18 AM
5

To the persons downvoting Ooshkii's comment, can you explain why? Or did you just not want to hear the opinion of this person?
/r/MensRights03/03/16 07:40 AM
1

Does this one work? http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract And otherwise http://goo.gl/qMuSnb That one always works :P
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:52 PM
15

The two long comments down the line are really great. The guys/girls do a lot of solid research. Can we get that put somewhere?
/r/MensRights09/11/15 01:56 PM
7

Yeah, I don't consider this a problem. Be careful not to become what you fight against. I know it's a cliché, but it holds true.
/r/MensRights11/10/15 08:04 PM
0

"A subset of society gets upset over rape jokes about one gender (feminists, SJWs)." Not true though. While they may not get upset, the rest of society agrees with the feminists when this happens, but not with the MRA's when the opposite happens (like in the original post). TL;DR Society in general gets offended at a rape joke about a woman, but not a rape joke about a man.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 08:32 AM
1

If not, can you list some sources/ literature that show objective data that this gender bias doesn't exist? One doesn't have to proof that something doesn't exist or hasn't happened. The burden of proof is with you. That being said, you might be right, I haven't read your links.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:19 AM
10

Yeah, the reason they separated men and women is not because their fighting styles are different or something like that it's because men are (almost) always better fighters (mostly due to their innate physical strength). If you're a woman and you beat all the other women, you can call yourself the 'women's champion', but not 'The champion' like men can, because they are the best fighter: the best female fighter is not the best fighter. Simple as that.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 11:22 AM
18

She is talking about some championship title where the 'women' part is removed. Do women fight men in that championship/league 'thing'? Because if not, I don't understand why the 'women' part is removed.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:33 AM
7

And there are actually relatively reasonable people that believe that women may not suffer more, but suffer just as much as men during war. Imagine if I said that a husband suffers just as much if his wife is raped. Feminists would go crazy.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 08:10 PM
1

I get the reference :)
/r/MensRights01/07/15 05:35 AM
6

Have you ever stopped to consider that traits are neither patently masculine or feminine? Except that there are behavioral traits that are genetically much more prevelant in males, to such an extent that they should rightfully be considered 'masculine'. The point is to not ridicule a man or treat him unfairly because he has less masculine or more feminine traits, but to say that that traits shouldn't be considered masculine or feminine bugs me (though there are grey areas).
/r/MensRights21/06/15 01:03 PM
4

I'm especially glad that they understand that 'abuse' isn't just physical, especially against men, as written in the brochure, above 'physically hurt you?'. Though abusive women use physical violence as well, their strongest weapons are often verbal/emotional.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 12:51 PM
0

Hey, I remember that article. My reaction is below it.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 05:46 PM
7

Personally, I see stuff like this all the time for both genders. I don't think this is truly something we should concern ourselves with.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 05:40 PM
1

I get what you're saying, but with that reasoning, you could also add 'bigger muscles than your mother' to the list: on its own, it's harmless, but he could use his greater strength to harm the kid or force him/her to do something against his/her will. This would add almost every man to the list of 'abusive parent'. As if the list didn't do that already.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 06:40 PM
81

And don't forget being in control of the money. That makes you a horrible human being! /s
/r/MensRights08/01/15 10:34 AM
23

Russel Crowe says that older female actors shouldn't demand only 'young' roles, but also 'old' ones, like he does himself. Of course, the Jezebel writer only reads the examples mr Crowe gives and harpoons them to death: "Oh, he said that old women should not reject all the roles that let them play old people, like they are? So all old actresses should shut up and take sexist roles? All actresses should play old spinsters, and the only role women have in reality is to fornicate?! Mah soggy knee!"
/r/MensRights05/01/15 09:50 PM
1

Sure, but only if the moving of that couch is in that person's job description. If not: sure, it makes sense to ask a person strong enough to carry the couch if you can't, but you can't expect them to do it, and you certainly aren't justified to slander that person. Girl says: "he didn't help me lift the couch, he's such an asshole" is somewhat accepted, whereas when a guy says: "He (rich person you aren't friends with) didn't pay for my food, what an asshole/bitch" is considered irrational, or …
/r/MensRights28/12/14 10:39 PM
2

Not really, that would mean that whenever you go out to dinner with a group of 20, the most affluent person would have to pay for everyone, even if you invited everyone. If it's your couch, you have to do the lifting, unless someone wants to help (or some arrangements have been made).
/r/MensRights26/12/14 10:06 PM
2

Yes, that's what I meant, I didn't mean to blame women for this. Though I do blame feminists for a big chunk of the sexism against men.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 06:01 AM
5

I'm not saying this is the case, but women are known to be treated much lighter by the justice system (I'm sure you are aware of the well known fact that women receive 60% less jailsentence for the same crime). So it wouldn't be a surprise if that played a role.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 05:16 PM
5

You make a good point and I agree with you that some MRAs do this. And you start off correctly, saying: "Why do you do that?", only referring to the person that actually did this generalisation. But I started disagreeing when you said: "So why do MRAs seek out things that 13-year-olds say on tumblr and act like it represents feminism?" First of all, you just stated that MRAs, in general, 'seek out tumblr posts by 13 year olds'. That is obviously a generalisation which you cannot back up. Second,…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:35 PM
3

If you sign this petition, you are joining the side you should be fighting against. Her video, though supposedly sexist towards men, shouldn't be removed. I understand if you don't like it, but censoring the arts (like somebody mentioned) is a no-go, to me at least.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 05:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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