TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

StephenMurphy Archive

View 0 posts and 56 comments by StephenMurphy 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

then they get posted to /r/againstmensrights How can you be sure if AMR is cause or effect, really? Also, plenty of stories that get x-posted to AMR are upvoted here.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 01:20 AM
0

subscribers should be able to I believe that it is in the better interest of the subscribers to ensure that their comments are not downvoted by outside users, and that their upvotes at least actually count, which they wouldn't so much if everything was downvoted.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 04:11 PM
0

No. Users are still free to not upvote submissions at all and upvote others, pushing those ones to the top. It would be more like trying to prevent a large number of people from Canada crossing the border and voting in the U.S. (obviously this is not possible, but it seems the most apt analogy).
/r/MensRights07/08/11 02:19 PM
1

Precisely because everything would be downvoted into oblivion. New submissions are often quickly downvoted to 0 despite the custom CSS.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 02:18 AM
6

It's sad to see the cyclicality in cases like this.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 05:46 PM
1

I'll definitely look into it. I find terms like "mangina" and "mansplaining" to be offensive as well, so I'm certainly no fan of such language directed at anyone.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 02:27 AM
1

I have an honest question: are you not doing the same thing to MensRights by having AntiMensRights in the first place? I would hope that subscribers on AMR would refrain from doing so, but the problem in our case is more about the sheer number of subscribers to MR vs AMR. Unfortunately, whereas /r/MR can stand downvotes directed at posts, AMR isn't so fortunate. Still, I think AntiMensRights takes things a step further that you might initially realize - MensRights is not necessarily a movement (…
/r/MensRights06/08/11 02:15 AM
1

please feel free to create a poll or ask around While I can't do anything scientific here, I do think I will ask around. I still don't see that most people would connect it with gynaecomastia, but then there could be regional differences as well. At any rate, I do value your explanation. I'll make sure to forward it to the other moderators.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 01:39 AM
-2

Intent is not magical. Not encouraging people to downvote is not necessarily equal to not causing downvotes. At any rate, I would be willing to unban you with a warning, should you wish to participate further. I certainly would have approved your post had it been worded in a less accusatory way.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 01:29 AM
1

Look at it this way: man - boobz men - who are stupid There is no such unoffensive meaning for "cameltoez" or "saggyboobz." What do the "camel" or "saggy" parts have to do with it? Moreover, the title of the site does not seem evocative of an image of physical appearance. You're making that connection here, where it isn't necessarily intended. With a site name like "TinyBoobs," I think we can agree that there is clear intent to malign. If I believed that the title "manboobz" was specifically tar…
/r/MensRights06/08/11 01:19 AM
-1

because he called that sub on it's bullshit Or perhaps because everything on /r/AMR is instantly downvoted by a crapton of people from MR, and he was attempting to further organize that. We might be "pesky," but we're nowhere near as bad as instant downvotes without any comments other than typical "you're the enemy!" or "screw you" junk.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 01:02 AM
0

"Boob" has meant "stupid person" since before it ever meant "breast." Source. after which I was promptly banned from posting You were not banned for your question.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 12:02 AM
1

Why do they need so many? You would be surprised at the number of troll posts that need to be sifted through on /r/AMR.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:05 PM
0

censoring ... "factually correct" comments If you re-read my comment, you'll see that what I specifically said was that they are factually correct comments posted to unrelated posts or comments. It would be like someone coming here and replying to a post about rape saying "Women are oppressed because x, y, and z that men do." It may very well be true, but that doesn't change the fact that it has been posted in somewhere that doesn't make sense and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:41 PM
-2

That's where you have factually correct but posted in reply to completely unrelated questions just to stir up trouble, "cool story bro"-esque unconstructive comments, and threats.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 03:28 AM
-1

The deleted comments are, for the most part, trolling. It should be obvious why AMR attracts trolling (just look at how much every submission tends to be downvoted).
/r/MensRights02/08/11 03:16 AM
1

Other opinions are not "silenced." Just take a look at the comments to this post.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 01:38 AM
0

Men are more than welcome to participate on /r/againstmensrights.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 07:26 PM
1

From the description: This subreddit is for exposing the bigotry of the so-called "men's rights movement." We comb the internet for egregrious examples of bigotry and post them here -- whether it's cissexism, heterosexism, or misogyny, it get's posted here. We are not against the concept of men's rights, we are against the "men's rights movement" -- if it can even be called that.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:41 PM
0

what belongs to him should stay that way Is what you said, and my reply was in reference to that. I'm working within the frame that the divorce has already been settled. She didn't work for it, she just stole it utilizing the feminist court system. If he feels that he has been slighted, he should take it to the courts. Saying that it is a "feminist court system" is simply a boogeyman.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:53 AM
3

The earnings they got during the marriage should be split even. But then you, again, completely ignore the work that she did during the marriage that she was not directly paid for, that they both benefited from. To argue that the money he earned should be his exclusively, while the work that she did should go unrecognized after the divorce, is undervaluing the work that she did. Yes, extreme circumstances are cause for adjustment in the individual case, but not throwing the entire system out, as…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:10 AM
0

I thought that "domestic work" was highly economic and undervalued Exactly. It's not that they're claiming that she was "horrible at her job," only that she wasn't compensated for it by the man, who directly benefited from it.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 02:52 PM
1

the leadership of mainline feminist organizations have made it clear that they have no interest in the major men's rights issues But doesn't that make sense, considering the oppression women face in society? Although there are "men's rights issues," women still face problems in all areas of society, such as objectification, abuse, and a glass ceiling when it comes to their careers. These issues have been around for a very long time, and they need to be fixed soon, so they are naturally a focus. …
/r/MensRights29/07/11 11:44 PM
1

I have to agree with the posters here on this issue. If DNA evidence gives them doubt, there should at least be another trial. Justice is a universally important issue.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 06:07 PM
1

ahem I'm not here for drama. I don't have time to respond to every claim and post because so many are directed towards me, many of them in hate instead of in the interest of honest argument. I will reply to your comment there.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 02:31 PM
-2

You and another poster seem to think that wanting to know more about your movement makes me a "prick" or "troll." While a rather easy way to dismiss me, I don't see what you're getting at. Should we not all be open to new information about movements we disagree with? This does not make anyone a "prick."
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:14 PM
-9

I'm not "concern trolling." I'm honestly interested in learning about the MRM to figure out why people would side with it. All I have stated is that I don't understand why you level the accusation of all of the individuals listed above being trolls seeing as some among them are fairly respectable moderators. You are a mod of a subreddit called /againstmensrights, why should I take anything you say seriously? That's a rather thought-terminating ad hominem.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 03:52 AM
-1

does not mean we support them unconditionally nor their tactics Then one might call out the poster in question. Also, you have just been spouting off things. Can I see some proof of what you are saying? You'll find a link in the "case in point" in my original post here actually. Or just look through tomek77's post history; it's full of him saying he has banned posters for being "feminist trolls," but apparently never on their own subreddit.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:23 AM
-2

So let me get this straight, r/mensrights is responsible for every time a feminist says something stupid in a comment on one of our posts. No, but that isn't the case. We're talking about not calling out an MRA supporter and in many cases upvoting. There is even a link to /r/malestudies in the sidebar -->
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:07 AM
-7

if you associate with trolls I think that's quite an accusation on its own. why shouldn't I insult you Resorting to such tactics will only make your argument look all the weaker.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:37 AM
0

You have way to much time on your hands. Are you constantly refreshing the new posts here? Thanks for further trying to insult me. I have new set to automatically refresh in a tab. The fact that you are defensive makes me believe there is some truth to my words. When you accuse someone of something like being "self-loathing", they generally defend themselves. It is just another ad hominem used to ignore male feminists. Besides, denial of something is not proof of guilt. I should think that peopl…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:27 AM
7

self-loathing male feminists I don't understand why all male feminists must be self-loathing. You make it out to be a fact of nature. It only makes it seem even more like you want to shame males who do not conform to the MRM into joining.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:14 AM
1

The difference is that someone actually acted on their hate, and apparently others have as well.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:33 PM
1

Dat downvote link They said they never wrote that word Even if they are talking only of their own observations in their own space, it's okay
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:23 PM
5

Care to back up that statement with evidence? Edit: downvoted for asking for evidence. Stay classy, /r/MR.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:04 PM
0

I'm glad to see this after the previous article. Convictions are very hard to get, so we should not assume that everyone not convicted is innocent.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:52 PM
1

I need to read, understand, and believe it all before putting my thoughts out there Without a basic understanding of the issues and theory, how would you supposed to make an argument? anytime I ask questions or bring something up I'm silenced and shamed (LOL) because of my ignorance Perhaps you sought answers in the wrong place.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:53 PM
-3

I don't think that follows exactly. Can we hold TXC for every stupid thing that every one of their members does when not posting to TXC? I don't think so. But he does it when he posts to /r/MR too.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:43 PM
-2

Exactly. The extreme voices are silently agreed with to avoid bringing problems to the rest.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:28 PM
4

I was banned from /r/malestudies without even knowing it existed. If you look at Tomek77's posting history, you'll see all the amusing examples of "TROLL!! YOU'VE BEEN BANNED FROM MALESTUDIES!" when they were posting on something completely unrelated. EDIT: case in point
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:17 PM
0

I don't see a way of reading it My point was that many may do it inadvertently, but /r/mensrights still supports the patriarchy. Again, this isn't to say that everyone here is inherently bad because of it. And that is what I'm ultimately here for: to state my case.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:05 AM
0

Fair enough. I don't "paint all the readers here with the same brush," I simply feel that the MR movement as a whole has a net negative effect. That doesn't say much either way as to its individual members.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:44 AM
-5

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I'm not so much interested about a single woman's problems, or saving a "real life damsel." And I don't see how I stand to benefit from that anyways, if that's what you're trying to insinuate. What I'm interested in is destroying patriarchy.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:30 PM
-4

Men like you only want one thing: damsels to save. I don't have much interest in saving some hypothetical damsel. But that was an interesting theory.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:18 PM
-1

Gotta save those damsels, huh? you are ass raping Woman-hater. And thus you resort to attacking me. No reason to continue debating this.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:00 PM
-7

so women are not only living longer, safer lives, they also have more access to family on average This does not equate to less oppression. How do you know when you reach that point if you're not spending as much time codifying and examining men's issues as women's? If you've predetermined that 'women's issues are more important.' Men can also benefit from the fixing of women's issues, as it improves society in general. What is clear is that we're not anywhere near fixing all the issues women fac…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:49 PM
-7

Why don't you start with the expendability of men thorough out history. I see this as being part of the problem with the patriarchy, and the tendency of male-dominated societies to see individuals as expendable, males in particular. What you've done is created a hierarchy with women's interests on top because they're 'more oppressed.' If one group faces more and worse issues than the other, which issues do you start with first? Not only is that a poisonous way of removing women's agency, it make…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:35 PM
-2

usually unsupported by any actual research into how men have been oppressed throughout history Is there some research that I am unaware of? you are essentially creating a hierarchy with yourself on top I am not a woman, and I do no such thing. Why would men who want to end imbalances that hurt them be interested in a structure that puts them on the bottom, last in line, and basically there only to work for women's interests? Because it isn't women's interests vs men's interests. Problems created…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:17 PM
-7

When you believe this antagonistic crock of shit Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it untrue. While I think you present a rather extreme outlook on feminism, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that women have been oppressed on a level men have not. It just seems unreasonable to me to say that an organization for men and organizations for feminism are mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:52 PM
-3

Thank you for stating that fact that anyone could easily check. Would anyone care to discuss the actual issue, now?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:31 PM
-2

I don't personally see why it's so strange that an organization that advocates for men would partner with feminist organizations as well. It seems to me that the bottom line is equality. If I'm wrong here, please feel free to explain why.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:21 PM
3

you wanted to ban me for any reason at all and did so. Let's not pretend otherwise. You can assign blame all you want. I would love to have legitimate discussions with MRAs, but that's not what you were bringing to the table. I will not respond further in this matter except to messages sent to me.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:17 PM
7

You called another poster a "f[******] idiot" and posted unrelated comments, and you were banned because of that, not because of any "insightful observations."
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:02 PM
3

Sounds like you're more interested in attacking me than discussing this. Your post really had nothing to do with discussion. If you wanted discussion, it probably would have been better if you had just asked for reasons we oppose /r/mensrights rather than bringing in your pet theory about how we're all angsty "anarchist wannabes." To say that everyone in /r/againstmensrights opposes you for the same reason would be silly. In my case, I see this reddit spewing more contempt towards women than lov…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:36 PM
7

I think that is a red herring, it's irrelevant whether they are male or female, trans or cis. The reason they are acting in this childish way is because they want to play at being anarchists. You don't think there's any other reason to oppose MRA other than on anarchist beliefs? That's quite a sweeping generalization.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:02 PM
3

Self-trolled I guess
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:16 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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