TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Syn_Ick Archive

View 0 posts and 93 comments by Syn_Ick 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)
2

It sounds like we have very, very similar outlooks. I definitely agree that if a qualified woman or transgendered person wanted an NFL career that their gender should not be a barrier. It's a shame that such an "us vs. them" mentality pervades the dialog between MRAs and feminists. There's a lot of common cause between the majority elements of the two groups which are not comprised by gender supremacists.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 04:27 PM
–

If that really were the case, would you feel better/worse/the same about feminism in general/possibly be willing to consider yourself a feminist if you don't already? To the extent that egalitarianism equates to equality before the law, I support it and consider myself a feminist. But my feeling is that more extreme forms of egalitarianism diverge from reality. From Wikipedia's entry on egalitarianism (emphasis mine): "Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 03:28 PM
0

False Dichotomy - it's both. Except in the meaning of "archetype" that is essentially synonymous with "stereotype", the male gender cannot be said to be an archetype. Archetypes are ideal figures or personalities. "Mother" or "father" or "sister" or "brother" might be archetypes, but "man" or "woman" just don't make sense that way because gender does not imply personality and makes no sense at all as an ideal (unless you think the following rendering makes sense: "the male gender is the ideal pe…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 12:56 AM
-3

Yes, where violence and murder is concerned You're changing terminology on me in a way that I think might be confusing us both. Violence in the context I had been using it in my previous posts referred specifically to physical violence, but your question to me was about "domestic abuse". You basically said that men can't help but murder or assault people when they're wronged. That isn't what I said at all. What I said is that there are differences in the means by which the genders tend to expres…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 12:31 AM
-2

So what you're saying is that men are bioologically redisposed to domestic abuse and murder? No more so than women. My point is about differing means rather than differing ends. Men and women can both be abusers, and the psychology motivating it is pretty gender neutral as well, but the way in which the abuse is expressed does tend to show gender differences as I've said.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:08 PM
-4

Someone can have traits of an archetype without being a "sexist incarnation." Sure, but "man" is not an archetype, it is a gender. An archetypical "manly man" faces difficult problems and situations, while grinning and bearing it. He doesn't complain about the trials he forced to deal with, he overcomes them. He lives in spite of it all. That is gender stereotyping. No man (or woman) should feel obligated to live according to someone else's standards merely by virtue of his Y chromosome (or her …
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:57 PM
1

I completely agree... not saying that arson is an appropriate response. Rather, my point is more about our culture. A man whose anger leads him to so much as make a remark about committing arson can expect to find little support even among friendly company, and to be thought a brute by the general public. A woman whose anger leads her to non-physical aggression is likely to be applauded for her bravery and independence by her friends, and to be judged much less harshly than the violent man, even…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:46 PM
–

You're a real man. If you have a Y chromosome and are past the age of consent, you are a man. The idea that womanhood is some natural sacred thing you get with your first period, but manhood must somehow be earned, is sexist and damaging to both genders.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:29 PM
–

Men and women respond to aggression differently. Some gender advocates on both sides may consider that fact sexist, but it is none the less a fact. Both sexes have tendencies to respond to aggression in ways which leverage their strengths. For women, this tends to lead them to adopt a strategy of social and psychological (counter)attack. For men, the tendency instead is to respond physically. Is one inherently more right or wrong than the other? I don't think so, at least not from a biological p…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:02 PM
2

No one should have to apologize on behalf of their gender. No one should have to be associated with or feel responsible things they've never done. These people of both genders who harass, assault, and take advantage of laws are in the minority: these are not representations of any gender. Hear hear.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 12:21 AM
1

Hello? Swee-hoo?
/r/MensRights09/08/12 09:44 PM
1

It is not an incentive, i see no campaign telling women That has absolutely no bearing on whether there's incentive or not. Can you explain what 'incentive' means to you? I am not sure we're on the same page there.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 08:23 PM
2

I do not think it gives an incentive Huh? How can you assert this? I've shown you indisputably how it does just that.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:16 PM
1

You seem confused. Just now, you said: I am not ignoring what you are saying and i do agree that it is a problem But then, in your previous post, you said: The law does not give the act of sabotage an incentive. ...which is it?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 01:40 PM
–

The law does not give the act of sabotage an incentive. You can't reasonably assert that. I have shown you how it does in a very precise way. it doesn't matter if it is unfair comparison Yes, it does. that is fraud So is the situation I'm describing. Why don't you seem to care? It is hard to have a productive conversation with someone who simply ignores what you're saying.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 02:07 AM
–

So i will tell you why i hold my position. I hold it because I feel there is an amount of personal responsibility that comes with having sex. And so you feel like it should be the job of the law to make sex more threatening and risky for men, to create the sort of moral environment you believe is best? I have to say, especially in the face of the suffering that we both know goes on - the men whose lives are ruined by unscrupulous women who force parenthood on unwilling males - that your view is …
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:12 PM
–

Because not full proof =/= not effective Right, that's exactly my point. The child support laws as they stand today are exploitable in known ways that both create victims and tempt the unscrupulous. So, even if the law can never be "fool proof" in total, we should at least take care of the problems that we can identify. No it bugs me because it is not true if you dont want to allow them. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Women can lie or even sabotage birth control, and even if that lie or sab…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:07 AM
–

This whole woman have more options then men thing really bugs me Bugs you? It's a fact. I'm not trying to be offensive, but who cares if facts "bug" someone, they're still facts! The system that we've currently got set up has a loophole that is quite open to exploitation. Worse, the manner in which it is vulnerable to exploitation is more or less a natural temptation anyway for some women. It is a broken setup that incentivizes bad behavior and bad outcomes - that bugs me. There will always be a…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:30 PM
1

I think the issue is that a woman who is tricked into getting pregnant really isn't at much of a loss - she can choose to abort or adopt, or to get a paycheck from the father for 18+ years. On the other hand, a man who is forced into parenthood is essentially helpless.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:38 PM
1

Wow. Kudos to you, gracious sir (or ma'am as the case may be).
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:47 AM
–

Being "exactly the same" isn't relevant to the point I was making. Just so I know that I'm not barking up the wrong tree here, do you know what that point was?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:43 AM
4

Point of clarification: an ethnically Jewish man who says "neither my wife or myself are religious in the slightest". As circumcision is a religious ritual, it isn't really a mystery to me why a non-religious person wouldn't see any reason to participate in it.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:38 PM
1

Point taken. I'd probably be the lone voice, or among the few lone voices, raising that issue then, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:26 PM
–

it will probably get spun into how these two pieces of shit are somehow "victims" themselves But they are, really. To use the cliche: where are these girls' parents? Where have they been their whole lives, that this is the kind of thing that the kids do?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:13 PM
1

Feminism is pure reactionary rhetoric. That's not true, at all. Historically, women have faced tremendous discrimination and abuse because of their gender, and that's really wrong. Today things are much, much better and so because the everyday feminist isn't as participatory, the always-motivated fringe of the movement is beginning to dominate a bit, at least on the internet. Have you been watching the news lately at how Daniel Tosh's rape remark is clear proof of RAPE CULTURE? Sure, but that do…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 02:54 PM
1

Welcome to real life, where groups and communities generally agree on a set of values that define how they treat others and how they would like to be treated. This community made you its spokesperson, did it?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 08:09 PM
-4

How do you know that ? Looking around, I guess. Hum. Since men are already into the world, and seen as inferior, it looks like we're screwed. Oh well. Well, no. We haven't been limited in that way... you highlight some of the obstacles that men face later in your post. We need to find ways to address the fallacies that underlie societal acceptance of those obstacles.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 07:08 PM
–

You're not responding to anything I'm saying, just repeating assertions you already made, so I guess we're done here.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 06:07 PM
–

I don't dispute that we should be learning from the feminist struggle - in fact I'm saying just the opposite. Whatever else the feminist movement may be, they are not reactionary - feminists take the initiative and engage in proactive actions to build support for their movement.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:32 PM
–

Put out a single article that men are better at X or Y and watch the attack fest. Right, that's true, but is that circlejerkery, or a part of what's achieved feminist goals? And even if the social movement/circlejerk aspect is necessary, are we doing as good a job as we could be on building a social movement that is compatible with the social and political views of the mainstream?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:04 PM
–

no. because this is not a bank, it's a penis and a vagina. That's irrelevant. What we're discussing is trust, and whether that trust is placed in an investor or in a sexual partner, blaming the person who is betrayed for the act of betrayal is deeply wrong. If a woman lies about BC and becomes pregnant, that is not - at all - the fault of the man who believed her, any more than it is the fault of some old person that Bernie Madoff took their lifes' savings. The law exists to protect people from …
/r/MensRights17/07/12 03:42 PM
–

Ideas matter. Someone is going to have to defeat the concept of female superiority if we want boys to get more help in school. Did male supremacy fall to some counterattack? No. It fell because women have gotten out into the world and demonstrated their worth to society. Nobody can justify keeping half the population locked up in their homes all day, now, because we've seen how society can be better if women are treated more fairly. Not because we've refined our rationality and somehow all have …
/r/MensRights17/07/12 03:32 PM
–

I'm talking about making mens' rights into a positive movement with meaningful goals of our own that aren't a reaction to either some offense we've suffered or to something some other group is trying to do. The civil rights movement wasn't about opposing racists. Suffrage wasn't about the hurt feelings women had about having been denied their rights. They were movements focused on future attainment of justice. I think we need a bit more of that attitude in MR.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 03:09 PM
–

Isn't that a bit like blaming investors for being defrauded?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:51 PM
2

It's much worse than that. A man could have full motion video evidence of a woman secretly sabotaging a condom, then giving it to him and using it, and if she became pregnant from that incident, the man would be liable to support her decisions. That is how lopsided our system is, presently: it feels no shame in, essentially, forcing men to marry (or at least become endentured to) their rapists.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:41 PM
–

Not trying to be critical, but I wish the Mens' Rights movement could move beyond this sort of reactionary anti-feminism thing. Yes, it's true that feminism is increasingly about gender superiority, not equality, and yes it's true that radical feminists can be very crazy. But as long as we define mens' rights in relation to feminism or female rights, we're not really standing on our own. What are OUR principles? What are OUR causes? And how will we fight for them?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:31 PM
1

They are very different from nerve endings in regular skin. Citation?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:42 AM
1

That's just it... no it isn't appropriate! I haven't claimed that or somehow implied it.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:12 AM
–

The nerve endings in your dick aren't an important body part? Not particularly. You have nerve endings everywhere that you have skin, but the ones in that ring of foreskin are not particularly important and really won't even be missed.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:54 PM
2

I hear ya bro. It's just a shame that this is what is becoming of MR, the one place on Reddit that ought to be a safe space for men to come and discuss contentious issues affecting us openly and reasonably. I hate to see something valuable being shat on.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:33 PM
1

My objection is that the previous poster's choice of the words "torture" and "mutilate" to describe circumcision constituted hyperbole, and not an accurate description.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:19 PM
1

I'm posting in a thread about circumcision, so therefor I must know what positive benefits circumcision has to society? Surely you must already know then yourself, since you too are posting in a thread about circumcision. Why ask me?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:07 PM
1

I didn't mean to be a downer, if academia is your calling them more power to you man, that's great. It could be worse, you could be 31, with a 15 year career that makes you about 1/3rd more than minimum wage, and which has become secondary in your heart to another field at which you've continually demonstrated some truly bizarre talent but that nobody seems to want to give you so much as an internship in. Happiness is like the ancient Greeks defined it: "the exercise of vital powers, along lines…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:51 PM
1

Just some things to think about. It was nice to talk with you. Enjoy college and make the most of it, it is the experience of a lifetime and one that you'll never forget, good or bad... so make it good, those days don't come around twice. At the same time, don't ever start trusting human "authorities" or stop asking questions.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:04 PM
–

The Men's Rights stance is Really? Who is the person or group that gets to decide what the stance of the mens rights movement is?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 09:54 PM
–

So then requiring your child (without being abusive) to attend church against their will, i.e. non-consentual participation in a religious ritual and religious indoctrination, is OK? What happened to: Autonomy trumps religious freedom. Why isn't the religious freedom of the parents to raise their children according to their faith being trumped by the child's autonomy, in this case?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:19 PM
1

Certainly, nobody including you can alter your ethnic heritage, but someone asked about the practices of Judaism, and you responded with an answer that was misleading because it didn't really address the normative practices of Judaism, but seemed to. Even reform rabbis, who don't get hung up on wearing linen or eating bacon, say that circumcision is required.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:08 PM
1

I'm not sure why you're asking me that, I've never claimed that it had any.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 06:34 PM
–

Fair enough, I wasn't aware WHO had taken that stance on pin-pricking. That actually would be a double standard, in my view. There's no significant harm done by that act, unnecessary though it may be in any actual medical sense. To my view, its just as wrongheaded to conflate clitoral pin-pricking with female genital mutilation as it is to conflate male circumcision with female genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 06:24 PM
0

You're doing for child abuse what women who falsely claim rape do for rape - diluting a term into meaninglessness that deserves to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:22 PM
0

"Religion serves no positive benefits to society" is a ridiculous fad belief that completely contradicts the historical record. I realize that I'd might as well be arguing with an angry brick wall right now, but I'll say it anyway.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:58 PM
–

the ECHR would never, ever rule that "forcing" kids to go to church is an HR violation unless they wanted their court flooded with kids claiming their HRs are violated every time they are "forced" to go to school. Slavery is a violation of human rights whether or not any given court would be flooded with cases. What I wanted to know was whether, in your view, forcing kids to go to church is a violation of their human rights. Is it?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:32 PM
1

I'm not trying to impugn your faith, you have every right to believe as you choose. However, wouldn't it be fair to characterize your beliefs as outside the mainstream of religious Jewish thought, given that even Reform rabbis don't agree with your views? And wouldn't it also have been a good idea to mention that earlier on when you were making claims about what the Jewish religion teaches?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:28 PM
–

Right, it isn't like context matters at all to that statement. Doctors who amputate gangrenous limbs of unconscious patients, you are all hereby found guilty of assault.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:35 AM
–

So when you said "To circumcise a child without their consent is illegal according to international law", what you actually meant was "I believe that to circumcise a child without consent violates international law". It isn't actually something that has ever been found to be in violation of international law. Autonomy trumps religious freedom. So then, if someone's parent forces them to go to church, or perhaps a religious educational institution, in your view they are violating the child's huma…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:32 AM
0

As for what you are mentioning, about foundation of faiths, I dismiss it unequivocally as a cultural spandrel without much use in our modern, highly technological society. Just my opinion, but seriously... you are throwing out treasure. There are some very, very good reasons why these religions have played such pivotal roles in human history beyond serving as some sort of vestigial stand-in for scientific knowledge.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:32 AM
-3

I'm just trying to get this right, you are saying the difference between whether or not something can be considered torture is consent? No, the operative distinction is not consent but intent. Another example - a doctor amputates the arm of a delirious, semi-conscious, uncooperative patient suffering from gangrene without anesthetic. This is not consentual, but neither is it torture. And at any rate, we're not even discussing a situation of non-consent. We're discussing a situation of parental c…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:20 AM
1

I am intent on stopping human rights abuses. Why are you fighting such a meaningless battle, then? Torture (like, the actual kind) is more popular in Western society than it has been in modern history, and you're off arguing against circumcision? Seriously?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:10 AM
–

When girls are circumcised, the WHO calls it genital mutilation. There is really no comparing the two processes. The sorts of practices the WHO refers to as FGM would be equivalent to doing things like cutting off all or part of the glans, or splitting the penis, things like that. Those sorts of practices really are mutilative and, whether they're being done to boys or girls, should be halted.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:59 AM
0

It was my understanding, and it seems to be borne out by what I'm reading on the internet, that circumcision is a requirement even according to Reform rabbis. I mean it is really pretty fundamental... it's one thing to not take the Torah as a history book, but without the covenant, what does it mean to be Jewish anyway?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:39 AM
–

To circumsize a child without their consent is illegal according to international law. Upon what are you basing that rather extraordinary claim? Has any international body ever held this to be true?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:29 AM
–

Would you call foot binding torture? When a CIA agent waterboards a prisoner, that's torture. When Chris Hitchens has some dudes he know do the same thing to him to try it out, that isn't torture. The act is the same, so clearly whether or not something is torture cannot be determined just describing the act.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:22 PM
-9

To give an example, a man having his arm cut off without anesthaesia because it's trapped under a rock miles away from civilisation, we would say has been tortured, although clearly nobody had only the motive to hurt him. But that's just it -- no, we wouldn't! We might say they had endured a torturous experience, but nobody would say "here's Amy Roughrider, she was tortured by a rock" as an introduction for a such a person. That's just misusing words.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:05 PM
0

I wish you would leave it at that, raise your children the way you think is best and let other people do the same. But instead you seem intent on forcing everyone to do things your way. :(
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:54 PM
0

People mentally subsumed into religious fundamentalism. People like you, I would presume. Nice prejudice. This is actually a first for me... I've been called a whole lot of names in my life, but if my memory is serving me correctly, this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a religious fundamentalist of any stripe. But, please don't let any of that stop you. Do feel free to go on about how my beliefs have made me irrational and judgmental. How do you perceive the foundation of y…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:44 PM
–

Er, nope - torture is inflicting pain on someone. I'm going by Princeton WordNetWeb's definition, available by heading to Google and typing in "define: torture". A murderer can torture someone to death. Sadism is actually a legitimate omission from the definition given at Princeton WordNetWeb... that should be in there. But it's materially irrelevant because male circumcision is not performed for sadistic motives.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:32 PM
-15

Going to Princeton WordNetWeb again: "The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something."
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:20 PM
1

The rape thing is in Deuteronomy 22. Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that's part of the Bible. Christians do not, generally speaking, believe that the rules of the Old Testament apply to them. If they did, they would follow kashrut, for example. Also note that Jews do not stone adulterers any more, either. Even ultra-orthodox don't do anything like that. This is not because they're being unfaithful to their religion, not all religious rules are created equal. The ci…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:09 PM
-1

Stoning raped women to death is in no way optional in the Christian religion Where are you getting that? I believe the reason he is being downvoted is because he is saying that his dogma trumps the rights of others. You're mischaracterizing his position, and in any event disagreeing with his point of view is not a good reason to downvote. That's what the reply button is for.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 07:04 PM
–

No wonder I view you guys with such fucking contempt. What guys would those be?
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:08 PM
–

-27 just for this thread. And you're making perfectly reasonable arguments founded on facts. Reddit, you should be ashamed. Quashing reasonable discussion just because you disagree is what will make this site suck.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:06 PM
-25

ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:00 PM
–

It would prove that you're suffering cognitive dissonance, as you think it's perfectly okay to inflict same procedure on babies incapable of consent. Logic is not your strong suit.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:59 PM
–

What do you think it would prove if I screamed during circumcision, which undoubtedly I would? I'm not sure what your point is here, except to do a sort of internet tough guy thing.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:30 PM
–

Again, I'm volunteering to demonstrate that on you personally. Demonstrate what on me personally, exactly? I've never claimed that circumcision isn't painful. You seem to be a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you won't scream one bit, or plead for mercy. You're going to do the internet tough guy routine in MRA? Really?
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:27 PM
–

Cutting through that many nerve endings without any anestetic would rate as torture under applicable treaty on torture. If. it were done on adult POWs there would be no question that it was torture Torture is about punishment or forcing someone to talk. Circumcision without anesthetic might be painful for the newborn but is in absolutely no way done in order to hurt the child or coerce them to do anything, so calling it torture is just misusing the term. Mutilation, according to Princeton's Word…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:11 PM
–

To me, circumcision is in opposition to the non-aggression principle. Circumcision of one's child is aggression?
/r/MensRights15/07/12 02:52 PM
–

torture and mutilate Sooo... hyperbolic, much?
/r/MensRights15/07/12 02:52 PM
-1

Unfortunately it is the reality of the US political system these days. Great, so all we have to do is wait for the other side to nominate Hitler and we can get away with anything! Muhahaha.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:43 PM
1

This is really poor logic. "Hitler did worse things to minorities than the KKK, therefor the KKK isn't bad for minorities." Uhm, no.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:03 PM
16

Vastly. The WW2 draft had a huge impact on gender roles in America, as well.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:49 PM
1

I'll do a self-post tonight... tl;dr preview - I'm an American indentured servant for the person who stabbed me in the back and ruined my life.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:37 PM
–

how many men really think of what an ugly woman feels like? Raises hand. Worst mistake of my life, incidentally, but that's another story.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:15 PM
0

Do you have citations for those claims...?
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:46 PM
0

You live in an imaginary world where you are the self-proclaimed leader of MRM. As I've never proclaimed anything of the kind, it would appear that your imagination is the problem here, not mine.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:19 PM
–

Get lost fake MRA. There's nothing fake about me or my involvement in the Mens' Rights movement. The deal is, I've been fucked over by the family court system that harms so many men and their children. I know the realness of the need for the Mens' Rights Movement. I see the injustice and suffering inflicted by our present order onto men, the generation of children being raised without the benefit of fathers and strong male role models. And then I look at people complaining about snipping an esse…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:32 PM
1

Women are slightly more likely to physically abuse and men are slightly more often those physically abused in heterosexual relationships. I stand corrected. Thank you for teaching me!
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:16 PM
–

A conspiracy to what end? You really think anyone important on this Earth sits around contemplating ways to force people to snip the foreskin off of baby penises?!?
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:59 PM
–

[EDIT - apparently I am wrong. Sigil1 points to CDC 2010 statistics which do confirm that men and women are victims of physical domestic violence at approximately similar rates, with men slightly more likely to be victims] Male abusers are the primary source of physical domestic violence. There are plenty of exceptions, but as a rule that holds true. It is more a part of the male psychological make-up to physically attack perceived threats than it is for women. With that said, not all abuse invo…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:56 PM
2

Heroic and beautiful people are interesting. It may not be egalitarian that we would rather read about the exploits of Theodore Roosevelt than a meek math professor with a happy family and uneventful life, but it is human nature.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:48 PM
1

Parents getting their girls' ears pierced is the next female genital mutilation...? Indulging inanities like this serves only to make a mockery of the mens' rights movement. I implore my fellow MRAs to focus on issues of consequence, problems in our society that actually disadvantage men. We're being trolled by people wielding throwaway accounts here. No legitimate Mens' Rights Activists are focusing on this (non) issue. The sad thing is that some of us are falling for it... like watching some s…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:22 PM
0

Until this recent spate of threads on Reddit, I had probably only thought about the fact that I am circumsised a few times in my life. It's a complete non-issue for me personally, and I find it more than a little embarrassing that the first mens' rights issue that seems to be gaining internet traction centers around people with some sort of bizarre penile inferiority complex, rather than more rationally substantial and meaningful rights issues like family law or labor equality. It seems to me th…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:33 PM
2

Only the majority can be bigoted? What kind of bullshit reasoning is that...?!?
/r/MensRights11/06/12 04:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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