TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

The-New-Flesh Archive

View 0 posts and 127 comments by The-New-Flesh 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)
3

"Words are wise men’s counters... but they are the money of fools." - Thomas Hobbes I believe he is implying that a movement that purports to focus on gender equality can be used to actively harm one gender. Which is entirely possible. While I do not identify as an MRA, I think I can offer an adequate response to your Feminist sales pitch on behalf of them (well, most of them) and myself: We are not buying what you are selling. We are told by people like you that the real Feminist movement is ab…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:26 AM
1

By what measure can we consider it to be worse?
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:04 PM
1

I would like someone who believes female genital mutilation to be worse than male genital mutilation to explain to me in detail, precisely what is meant by the terms "female genital mutilation" , "male genital mutilation", "worse" and by what metric they are comparing the the two. My guess is that for those who do this, the intellectual dishonesty of their position will be exposed in their explanation. I presume this because both types of genital mutilation admit of many different procedures wit…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:02 AM
1

Yes. Answers to these sorts of questions come easy to those who have accepted the true depths of human depravity, particularly that of women.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 07:06 AM
2

Erections are not strictly voluntary, anyone who has been an adolescent boy knows this. They are also not necessarily required. I've heard stories of a woman in Russia tying twine around the base of a man's penis to keep it hard, a woman who stripped a q-tip and inserted it into a man's urethra, etc. In any case, erections are largely an automatic response to stimulus and do not require the consciousness of their owner's, let alone their consent.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:23 PM
3

You're right, there was a glaring lack of sympathy in that post. If she were here I would offer my sympathy towards her with a heartfelt combine-harvester... I mean hug. I will have to remember that the gateway to justice and an empathic society is sympathy, the most sophisticated of all emotions. I feel so ashamed for having forgotten that, I'm gonna go take a cold acid bath...I mean shower.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:50 PM
13

I find this unbelievable. How can you not intend to kill someone whilst plunging a knife into their heart while they sleep? Either the jurors or this woman must have experienced a complete detachment from reality. I must not privy to some important information about case or the report is bad, because no sane person can hold this specific action alongside such an incredulous lack of intent in their head at the same time.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 06:52 AM
3

Can you be anti-socialist and yet be for the rights of workers? Can you be anti-Christian and still believe that you should love your enemies? If you answered yes, the you have probably recognized that what people propose something to be and what it actually is, are not necessarily the same thing, and that ideologies do not hold monopolies on basic concepts; such as rights, equality, justice and compassion. The same is true for Feminism, you can judge it by what you or others propose it is for (…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 04:38 PM
16

My summary: We can help the sick by putting the needs of the healthy first. If your ideology concludes that black is white and up is down, I don't amend the definitions of those words, I reject your ideology.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:13 PM
3

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that the testimony of the accuser does not automatically count as evidence against the accused, which is why it is cross-examined and subject to the dismissal of a judge. There is a distinction to be made between evidence and the testimony of the accuser. Absent any corroborating evidence, the testimony of an accuser on the supposed criminal act of the accused is indistinguishable from the accusation itself. Either criminal accusations count, in t…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 10:45 PM
2

From my understanding, which is admittedly limited, that is what the reform is about. If an uncorroborated account counts as evidence towards a crime, then it logically follows that the mere accusation, which is entirely indistinguishable from an uncorroborated account, of a person for a crime counts as evidence in support of that accusation. We now have a legal system in which the accused gain a presumption of guilt, proportionate to the strength of the uncorroborated "evidence" of the accusati…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 09:26 PM
-12

Good.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 10:26 AM
1

That alone is proof they are damaging. In a Egalitarian society, no man or woman is left behind. I would like to know what law is built into the universe that prevents the members of an eminently egalitarian society from suffering as much as possible for as long as possible? But don't let my musings about the nature of reality spoil your vision of utopia. Only focus on those things we want and claim rights to, never stop to ask who has to pay for all of them.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 06:02 AM
1

No, it's not. Obviously we're talking about your definition #2, because discussing definition #1 wouldn't make sense. Any kind of difference in anything between any category of things and any other category of things fits the first definition. The second definition is a subset of the first. Discrimination did not always carry the negative connotation we perceive in it, and so it is important that we fully understand its concept, so that we do not misuse it, as so many people do. It is a word thr…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 11:26 PM
1

Let's review some terminology. Discrimination; 1) recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another 2) the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on grounds of race, age or sex Hence not hiring the black guy to do your taxes because he is not an accountant is still an act of discrimination, it is just not the type of discrimination we find objectionable. Well, in a perfectly equal society, we assume that different genders wou…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 10:56 PM
1

I rather like his videos, especially the one on maturity. Although, you have to approach his channels with a certain set of expectations. If you are expecting a thorough, very well-reasoned, scholarly critique of this or that, you will be disappointed. He's not a historian or a scientist and he doesn't purport to be. In his own he words, he is a "dancing clown" of the internet, a man who accords his own opinions the same disrespect as he accords to those of others. This is why I like his videos,…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 10:02 AM
1

What, precisely, do you mean by 'oppression'?
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:10 PM
3

Can the OPs please read the headlines before they post them, its common to find articles whose headlines are ungrammatical, illogical or contain spelling mistakes. If they don't take the time to properly formulate ideas, why should anyone else take the time to read them?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:26 PM
1

Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) A heuristic that should be carved into a baton and used to bludgeon people who do not heed it.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 09:22 AM
6

This is the problem with equality. It is too often used as dogma, as in 'men and women are equal' or 'both of us want equality'. Equality of what? Things which are equal measure the same when aligned to some metric. A man is equal in height to another man if they both measure the same number of inches on a ruler. So by what metric do we align people in order determine their equality? It is almost always left unspecified. This is so the speaker may chant the mantra of equality and then later meas…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:01 PM
7

Do they? Equality in regards to what specifically?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:19 PM
0

It couldn't possibly be that women are just less interested in politics. No, no, it must be some vast, quasi-conspiratorial element in society which keeps them from turning on a television and flipping to CNN or reading the news on the internet.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:14 PM
1

And I think you will find this to be a very inefficient strategy...natural selection will ensure that cultures where both members work to the full extent of their abilities will eventually displace cultures where only part of the potential is being realized. Precisely. What you're arguing for is a social model that has only recently become possible through technological and social advances. I'm not arguing for anything, I'm trying to draw a clear picture of the way things were. It's in the man's…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 11:32 PM
1

But two men investing in each other won't produce any children. Indeed. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Men, on average, can't help but produce more value through labor than women. Of course they can, all they need to do is work as much or less than women. The fact than men produce more is an accident of biology, not an indication of moral superiority... If you don't like that fact, your argument is with nature, not women. I have never intimated a moral superiority in either party,…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 09:54 AM
1

My point is that it's not that important. I think it's enough to have a general sense of what kinds of activities people were engaged in. I don't need to know whether sheering sheep is worth more than grinding flour. Well I suppose this part of the conversation is not going anywhere, so I will no longer mention it. Until recently... protect this investment. Yes, yes all of this is true. Women weren't hoodwinking men into trading more labor than they received in return. And yet men labored more a…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 08:58 AM
1

It's unclear to me why these measurements have to be made at all. These measurements must be taken if you wish to be rationally justified in your beliefs that women have worked just as hard or as diligiantly (or whatever) as men. My point is not to state whether they did or didn't but rather to ask; How do you know this? There's no way to measure the value of work beyond a crude sort of 'market forces' approach: the value is derived from the wages earned. I disagree. We are after all speaking ab…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:23 AM
1

I don't care one way or the other, that's just my opinion based on my experience and reading. I supposed that you did and still do care, because when I challenged you on your assertion that men and women worked equally as hard throughout history, you graciously admitted that this actually might be a bad metric for demonstrating equality among these two groups. However, you then went on to invoke some other metrics (diligence, importance and time) which you believe do demonstrate this supposed eq…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:44 PM
2

It is possible to define men's and women's contributions of work as "equal" Yes, this is possible. It also possible to define practically anything into a desired state of relations with something else. "how much of the man's potential for work is being utilized, and how much of the woman's potential for work is being utilized? Are they both typically running at 80% capacity?" If so, at least there is equity--equal effort. To say that the labor of two people is being utilized equally, does not su…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 06:41 AM
1

Hard isn't, perhaps, the best term, but I believe they worked as diligently. Fair enough. Why do you believe they worked as diligently? I ask because your posts give me reason to suspect that you are not motivated by a desire to honestly evaluate the evidence at hand, but rather, to satisfy some need to make the societal contributions of women equal to that of men. The fact that one job isn't as physically demanding doesn't mean that it isn't as important and time-consuming, Yes, this is true. I…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:40 AM
2

I don't know, It's part rendered fat? Jokes don't work if you have to explain them.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:48 AM
6

Who tries to actually decipher this verbal diarrhea. All I got from reading this endless maze of non-sequitars, was that the reader is overly obsessed with her vagina and derives a smug sense of superiority from this obsession. The reason they don't print articles like these magazines anymore is because their regular readers would be just as likely to eat them as read them.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 03:00 AM
3

He has already laid waste to them in his unrelenting demand for salty snacks. He must be banished to the land of treadmills and diet water.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 02:31 AM
3

It appears to me that the oppressor/oppressed dynamic is mono-directional, whereby something of value (labor, resources, lives, etc) is and is only taken from the oppressed and given to the oppressors. There is no recompense payed to the oppressed, for that is what makes them oppressed. This isn't to say that women didn't work as hard as men; I firmly believe that they did. It's just that most of that work was less physically demanding and closer to home: gathering, cooking, cleaning, sewing, et…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 02:23 AM
1

Looks like ol' shit for brains (mod1) removed all his/her comments after realizing you can only jam your foot so far into your mouth until you start to choke. Or the mods removed them, which makes us look like we are arguing with ghosts.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:52 AM
2

Yeah, I didn't understand what the hell they were saying either. I just mentally replaced their speech with Monty Python dialog.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 09:14 AM
14

You've got this idea in your head about the word obligated in which all moral responsibility is absolved through it's usage - erase that shit from your mind. From the Oxford English Dictionary: obligate; verb; bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally Not every iraqi was "obligated" to become a soldier, or an insurgent Where exactly did I claim this. I don't need to travel to Afghanistan to understand that someone who is obligated to do something isn't exactly entirely free in thei…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:18 AM
2

http://www.avoiceformen.com/goind-dedicated/ I guess it's all just lies. Please tell me what web hosts will successfully host my professional website (a site with a teeny-weeny fraction of the content and views as AVFM) for $5 a year. I'de be very interested to know.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:57 AM
9

They chose to fight, because they felt it was their religious obligation. It's funny how women of the same religion weren't similarly obliged. It also strange how someone can be obligated to do something and yet be entirely free in their choice to do it. But what would I know, all I have is an understanding of what words mean and logic, not your impeccable pedigree as some guy who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:45 AM
3

The answer to your question is: because discrimination is not the universe of possible causes for men lagging behind women in education. It could be the actual cause, but more information than this is required to make that determination.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:27 AM
3

If its done through a host-provider, then it will depend on the traffic the site generates, the number of pages it uses, details of the hosting plan, etc. Which says nothing of sight maintenance, development, moderation or other overhead, such as hardware and electricity, if its self hosted, or third party services, such as video hosting and Paypal-like services. All in all, you don't know what you are talking about.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:22 AM
11

And what of men who are raped or beaten? Forced into a military uniform? Obligated to leave the safety of their homes? Way to miss the point of the video.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:15 AM
1

Define empathy.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:23 PM
1

How is this whole "who has how much say in abortion" thing supposed to work? Do father's less than equal say? Do father's have equal say? What happens if the mother disagrees? Do father's have greater than equal say? The fact of the matter is that abortion does not admit of degrees, you can either abort a fetus or give birth to it. There is no middle ground, and because of this, one party in effect, has either total say over the issue or none. If fathers are given total say, then they, in effect…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 07:43 PM
-3

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Someone called a politician a mean name, how horrifying.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 06:55 PM
0

You are not forgiven.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 06:02 PM
1

Yeah just parrot that dogma without an ounce of skepticism. Apples and oranges are equal. We get it. No need to explain in what way or by what measure these things are equal. No, no, no they just are, haven't you heard? Please take notice of how this lofty notion is always left unspecified. It's PC propaganda that we've all been taught to parrot as though it were gospel. Try thinking for yourself and not repeating what other's want you to say.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:40 AM
3

Initiating a divorce is a an annulment of commitment. You literally cannot be less committed to a marriage than one you seek to dissolve. Given that a marriage is, or at least once was, a commitment to spend the rest of one's life in wedlock, it is fair to say that this caliber of commitment supposed of the party now rejecting it, was never really there.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:19 AM
3

How does that logic work? As a tall man, do they not rule world? As an Asian man do they run it sometimes?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:33 PM
0

Donut monger, that made me chuckle.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 01:32 AM
2

I wasn't speaking in the legal sense, I was employing a normative definition, but thanks anyway for the clarification, I'll be sure to keep it in mind for future discussions. All of that being said, my original point still stands.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:55 AM
3

That's about as incorrect a use of "proximate cause" as I can imagine. No, it isn't. The effect we have at hand is the injuries from a car accident, what precedes this effect is a causal chain. It is something of the form: Person A decides to go for a drive --> He gets into a car --> He puts on a seatbelt and starts the car --> He drives down a road --> An old woman misses a red light --> Her car slams into his --> His car swerves off the road --> His car crashes into a tree --> His momentum fli…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:40 AM
3

You have misunderstood the nature of my analogy. The analogy is intended to illustrate that the consent towards some cause is not necessarily the consent to bear it's potential effects. The proximate cause of a car accident is the consent to get in a car and go driving, the fact that we know that car accidents, failed seat-belts and fractured skulls are a potential consequence of such actions does not impel us to consent to them or ascribe this consent to others. "They knew that it is possible f…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:38 AM
3

It makes perfect sense to say this, so long as you agree that consent to have sex is not the same thing as consent to be a parent. If you don't, then you must agree that women who consent to have sex also consent to become pregnant, carry a child to term and mother that child until it is an adult. Consent towards a cause is not always consent to bare it's potential ill effects. You don't consent to get into a car accident where your seatbelt fails, when you get into a car. It's possible, in few …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:46 PM
2

Are you referring to "A Modest Proposal"?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 09:06 PM
3

Sure thing buddy. As we all know, REAL MEN pay for your Toyota Prius and I can't bear the thought of someone not thinking I was a real man for not mindlessly paying for all their shit.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 08:54 PM
3

All of you down-voters have no appreciation for the succulent flesh of innocents.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 09:36 AM
16

Should the man be able to sign some paperwork and leave the pregnant women with 100% of the cost of dealing with this situation (whether it's an abortion or not)? I don't think that's fair either. I do, because "If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, only the woman can make the choice on whether to have the baby or undergo an abortion, and this is how it should be." If the woman gets 100% of the choice over the life of the child, she should get 100% of the responsibility for that choice. Consider this…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 09:32 AM
2

My thoughts on the subject are that the mutilation of a little boy's genitals (also known as circumcision) is an act of barbarism that should be absolutely intolerable to any just and free society. Anyone partaking in this act should be tried in a court of law and put in prison for torturing children and violating their rights. I think this topic, in particular, exposes the intellectual vacuousness of the appeal to moderation, as the only intellectually defensible position is at the end of one e…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:12 AM
6

I'm skeptical of the claim that "women chose to work inside the home out of a desire to avoid physically demanding and frequently dangerous labor." For what reason? People (not just women) tend to avoid physically demanding and dangerous work, because we tend to dislike injury and death. It seems dependent on the idea that work around the house for these women was easy and infrequent. It isn't, it's dependent upon the idea that work around the home was less physically demanding and dangerous tha…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:03 PM
2

Yes, and I think he is wrong, but what I wish to drive at is the manner in which he is wrong. Human beings are, first and foremost, survival and reproduction machines. Not only should these be (or be part of) the main principles by which we organize human behavior, they must be. For any human whose behavior is inconsistent with these principles, drives himself and/or his potential progeny into extinction. The same is true with any other species. From these principles flows certain important logi…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 07:59 PM
3

By 'gender roles' I was referring to behaviors typical of each sex. For instance, if you replaced P2 with "Female chimps exhibit behavior X and male chimps exhibit behavior Y", you would have the same argument. Often 'gender' appears in a conversation as an ill-defined concept which obstructs the nature of the argument, which is one that should only concern sex and behavior. For my purposes, I do not employ the concept of 'gender' but rather the concept of 'gender roles' or 'sex roles', which ar…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:48 AM
2

Also, muscle sinks and fat floats.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:35 PM
0

I don't think there is any good reason to believe this. Humans aren't chimpanzees, so that does not follow. I just don't by arguments which explain human behavior through animal analogy. Yes human beings are not chimpanzees, but they are, indeed, animals. So arguments which regard them as such are not even analogical, they are categorically true. I think the reasoning involved in comparing human behavior to other animal behavior, is actually inductive rather than analogical. It goes something of…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:03 PM
22

Obviously, men covering their heads denies women the ability to look at men, which is a manifestation of male privilege. Relatedly, as a diet soda drinker, I am oppressed by grocery stores, as they generally carry many more kinds of "regular" soft drinks than diet soft drinks, thus making them places of hegemonic non-diet soda privilege. More advertising for diet soda might seem to remedy this injustice, but to do so would actually oppress diet soda drinkers, as they would only serve to remind t…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 04:36 AM
52

TIL, wearing a hijab is oppressive to women because it promotes male privilege by teaching that only women have to cover up their bodies and thus repress their sexuality. Yet, not wearing a hijab is oppressive to women because it promotes male privilege by teaching that a woman's appearance is to be scrutinized by the male gaze. Also I learned that oppression is something that can be done with eyes, merely by looking at someone. The male gaze oppresses women in the same way that gravity oppresse…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:04 AM
1

The quote means that while a law may appear to treat or benefit all parties equally, the reality of the circumstances of each party and/or the way in which the laws are enforced often precludes this supposed fairness. For instance, a law that gives both men and women the right to abort a fetus living within their bodies, is a law that in reality, only gives women this right, as men are biologically incapable of pregnancy.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 11:02 AM
3

Of course it is, just as eggs are a part of a woman's body. His blood is not his body, it is a product of it, but it is not part of it. See how silly that sounds?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:28 AM
6

Again, personhood is completely irrelevant to my point. The only important point is whether or not you can force someone to support another with their own body. Which is also irrelevant to your point because you amended your original point to say that it applies to situations of original consent. Thus, no one is forced into doing anything, they consented to it. As for the question of the personhood of the fetus, it's absolutely pertinent to the topic because only a person can be murdered. In add…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:20 AM
1

Why is the aggregate of the bars for men shorter than that of women, if men supposedly have greater well-being?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:11 AM
1

Please look up denotation and connotation, they do not mean what you think they mean.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:34 PM
1

No, they didn't. "Don't rape" does not denote the concept of rape culture anymore than "Don't murder" denotes the concept of murder culture. "Don't rape" may however connote the concept of rape culture but that is a issue separate from what the meme addresses.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 09:52 PM
1

No, you are confusing a supposed secondary meaning of the sign with its primary meaning. What is written on the sign is "Don't rape" not "Rape culture is bad" or "Women shouldn't live under an anti-rape schedule", and so its denotation is precisely what is written on the sign. The sign puts forth the instruction "Don't get raped", negates it and replaces it with the instruction "Don't rape", this is the full description of what the sign denotes. Just the same as it would be for a "Don't murder" …
/r/MensRights24/04/13 08:55 PM
1

You must not understand the point I am making. The signs denotation is X, what the meme addresses is X. You claim that the meme is invalid because it does not address connotation Y of the sign. I make the point that the meme is not intended to address connotation Y, and so your objection isn't a valid one.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 08:13 PM
1

I'm aware of what they say about rape and rape culture. I'm aware of feminists who claim that women live under a constant threat of rape and that this is unfair. I am also aware that you may not agree with them. The point I am illustrating is that the primary meaning of the sign, what can be understood from it without other information, that is, its denotation, is absurd. You can dawn a feminist hat or appeal to what some feminists have said, and say that although the sign says X, what it really…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 07:59 PM
9

Look up the difference between connotation and denotation. The basic logic of the sign is absurd.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:41 AM
6

Yes of course it is. You may claim that you are merely parroting the intentions of the sign's maker, but you are doing so according to your own interpretation of that sign, which may also coincide with say a feminist's interpretation of it. My point is that what the sign denotes is absurd, you may claim that it also admits of non-ridiculous connotation, but that simply fails to address the former absurdity. Just as the connotation of a pervasive anti-murder schedule, fails to address the absurdi…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:34 AM
11

What is written on the sign is "Don't Rape", what it negates is the sentence "Don't get raped", your interpretation of that is a supposedly pervasive anti-rape schedule. The point of the image macro is to point out the absurdity of thinking the ideas presented on the sign help in any way to solve the problem it addresses. Imagine a sign in which "Don't murder" is written, accompanied with the negation of the sentence "Don't get murdered". Do the ideas presented by this sign help to address the p…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:30 AM
1

Hehe, I probably shouldn't mention that I detest freedom either...oh wait...dammit
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:16 AM
5

To be fair, I do have a murderous hatred of puppies.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:43 AM
2

That, and your anecdote reaks of orientalism. What the hell does orientalism have to do with Inuit society? Last time I checked, the Inuit people were never from the orient.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:35 PM
2

I would cite good statistics on violence and the distribution of both men and women in them. Then state that if we valued the lives and health of males equally to that of female we would expect to X, X being some such thing that we can agree is the product of valuing the two as equals, perhaps proportional coverage in the media. Then evaluate whether or not we see X, and assuming that we do not find X, we must conclude that we do not in fact value the lives and health of men to the degree that w…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:04 AM
1

Ok, thanks for the reply. The reason that I ask, is that many feminists and non-feminists alike either believe the concept to be false, do not want it discussed or want its discussion to only take place under a particular framework. While I still hold to my opinion expressed in my other post to you; that you should state what it is you believe in, rather than attach ideological labels to yourself, acknowledging male disposability as a real phenomenon should take you far with people who may other…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:40 AM
2

Is there a better term to use now or what? There is a better sentence to use; "I'm in support of the legal and social equality of the sexes." There you go, it gets your point across and doesn't come with excess baggage. If someone were to tell you that they support the redistribution of income, would you think they were a socialist? Would you demand that they identify as a socialist? Is income redistribution, as a concept or word, wholly owned by socialist ideology? Feminists do not have a monop…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:58 PM
1

What do you mean by ending the notion of male "disposability"? Do you mean ending male disposability? Eliminating the concept from the public consciousness? Or do you mean changing people's perspectives in a way, such that they view men as no more disposable than women?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:47 PM
1

I selected the first dictionary result Google gave me. Well that's just dandy. Why should I care again? This is not a dictionary definition, and does not demonstrate your stated ability to rifle through different dictionaries. It does not support your argument that I "claim[ed] that [you] have redefined those words because they do not coincide with my chosen definition" From my original post: " There are a few different definitions of the term, the OED defines a patriarchy as "a system of societ…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 11:41 PM
3

No, not necessarily. Generally, a word is linguistically manipulative when it gets you to believe something that doesn't logically follow from its use in a sentence. For instance, according to the OED privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity available only to a particular person or group of people". This is how the term is commonly understood; it's an even metric, meaning that it is, in principle, applicable to anyone and that it carries no bias other than towards its own defined cr…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:24 PM
3

You redefined the word: No, I have defined the word. You see, I too, can rifle through different dictionaries to find alternate definitions of words and then claim that others have redefined those words because they do not coincide with my chosen definition. The definition(s) I chose is based on the common understanding of term patriarchy as evidenced in discussions and articles that involve the general public as well as feminists. If the statistical dominance of men in the composition of high o…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:22 PM
7

No, it isn't. It follows precisely the same logic as described before it; P1. If the majority of the members in high offices in government, business and the military are X's, then we live in an X-ocracy. P2. The majority of the members of said high offices are X's. C1. Therefore, from P1 and P2, we live in an X-ocracy. The disparity or lack thereof in the composition of the general public versus those in high office is not relevant to the argument. The same argument works for a tall-ocracies, ad…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:50 PM
1

The penetration of a vagina by a penis is, literally, the same event as the envelopment of a penis by a vagina. The two describe, precisely, the same event. Yet one is considered rape and the other is not. This is entirely, implacably unreasonable. Here is why: P1. Men and women can be raped. P2. Event X, in which a penis penetrates a vagina, is equivalent to an event Y, in which a vagina envelopes a penis. P3. If event X occurs against an involved party's consent, then that event is a rape. C1.…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:39 AM
13

From what I've read and discussed, patriarchy is defined in a misleading way, applied as a linguistically manipulative tool and appealed to as a nearly invisible, yet ever present, looming, yet unverifiable explanation for all social ills. There are a few different definitions of the term, the OED defines a patriarchy as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it". I'de argue that the most common definition is something of the form; "A s…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:56 AM
2

I always liked that quote
/r/MensRights06/02/13 10:31 AM
1

Oops I meant to say "is not a". I will now change my comment to a less idiotic version.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:55 AM
1

Perhaps malestudies.com and newmalestudies.com could prove to be resourceful.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:32 PM
5

Nothing to critique, because anyone who doesn't agree either defines emotions and taxonomy in an irretrievably stupid way or doesn't understand what these things mean. Nothing to critique, because there is nothing that could be wrong with thinking thoughts. The content of one's thoughts can be wrong, such as "it's logical to contradict yourself", or "a tomato is not a fruit", but the act of thinking them cannot be. What's worthy of critique would be whether and how you choose to let some thought…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:11 PM
10

The true test of your manhood is how you treat a woman. Your identity as a man is fully contingent upon your utility to a woman, there you go, plain as day.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:54 AM
1

I'm pretty sure I read a paper that claimed the foreskin contained between 10,000 and 20,000 nerve ending, particularly in the frenulum (not always removed) and the "ridged band" (part of the foreskin I take it). Everything I have read thus far about the clitoris has claimed that it has 8,000 nerve endings although not all sources specify if they are talking about the glans and/or prepuce or the entire organ. The paper was called "Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. by.…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:29 PM
1

If that's what gives you your jollies, then that's fine by me. The phrase "intellectual homosexuality" is out of context in my comment, because there is no context in which it fits. Its just a series of topical words strung into the abortion of a intelligible thought. It's as coherent as the idea of "financial homosexuality" or "intellectual pedophilia". I do hope the author can elaborate on the academic merits of the esteemed, intellectual position of wanting to fuck other men in the ass.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 10:21 AM
1

I wasn't issuing a rhetorical challenge, I was being literal. Can someone please inform me if the MRM advocates a particular ideology, and if so what is it? Be sure to explain it with as little assumption of knowledge on my part.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 05:05 AM
4

I stopped reading a couple sentences after "intellectual homosexuality". What a pile of post-modern drivel.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 11:59 PM
6

In the purely logical context that quote actually doesn't support assumption 2. It's possible for both men and women to fear things, and pointing out the fears of one does not foreclose on the fears of the other. However, in the linguistic context it does (at least to some degree), because we recognize distinctions as exclusionary. This is especially true when it comes to binaries, such as sex. It is true that people have fears, it is also true that women have fears. If the speaker merely means …
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:03 AM
1

What is MRA ideology? Explain it to me like I'm 5.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:01 PM
2

Heh, "White Knight bridge", the irony is palpable.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:35 AM
2

There should be no such thing as a criminal conviction that lacks a basis on evidence. Unless we wish to reinstate the witch trials, any system of justice cannot abide this travesty.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:09 AM
6

So far as I can divine, the structure of this man's argument is this: P1. P enters into a contract with Q. P2. Q uses this contract to enact an injustice unto P. P3. If one enters into a contract with knowledge of its potentially ruinous consequences, then they deserve to suffer these consequences, should they befall him. P4. Information on the dangers of this contract was readily available to P, prior to entering said contract. C1. Therefore, P deserves the injustice beset upon him by Q. I thin…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:13 AM
0

Yes they do document some of their shortcomings. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that they are shortcomings. You put forth a hypothesis, test that hypothesis and confirm or deny that hypothesis. That is good science. This study is garbage, because the researchers altered the experiment half-way through, because the experiment was not conforming to their hypothesis or related preconceived notions. Acknowledging that you have conducted shitty science doesn't change the fact that you ar…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:50 PM
24

As the project approached the target of 200 interviews, the researchers became concerned about an insufficient number of girls versus boys in the sample, especially pimped girls, and they eventually instructed subjects that they could no longer recruit boys, only girls. This, of course, considerably diminished the capacity of the project to sustain recruitment trees, and while it did boost the number of girls recruited into the project, it did so at the expense of the quality of the RDS data, wh…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 01:10 AM
1

Your questions are very problematic: Are you really trying to argue that men -- despite holding a wide majority of the positions in question -- don't actually have disproportionate influence over society? Firstly, this question operates under the notion that it is appropriate to draw conclusions about a very large group from the attributes of a very small, non-randomly selected group. Men are a massive group of people who make up about half of the population of any given society, the overwhelmin…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:24 PM
1

Ok, fair enough, allow me to rephrase the question: is there some reason for narrowing the term power to exclude other fields in which the standard definition applies? From what I've read you have expanded the scope from government to business and government. As well as the decision-makers at firms that define "culture" through business choices Also in what way do "decision-makers" at firms define culture (not sure what's with the scare quotes) through business choices? So I don't think a defens…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:53 AM
4

What precisely do you mean by "in charge"? I have heard it argued that a patriarchy is a society in which men hold more power than women, and when I inquire as to what is meant by power I am essentially told that it refers to positions in government. I question this seemingly arbitrary restriction on the term power, as I would argue that power, in regards to the social context, is most commonly understood to be the ability to get others to do what they would not otherwise do, which is by no mean…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:48 PM
3

The majority of the ruling class throughout history have not been elected by any constituency. The only sort of public election of government authorities that has taken place for most of history has been the collective decision over whether or not to murder one's rulers.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:22 PM
21

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a trustworthy source by any measure.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 01:56 AM
1

Bring in valid statistics, peer reviewed papers, articles of law and other related material to back up your point. Take them and your essay to your principle if necessary.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 04:39 AM
1

Wow, just wow.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:05 AM
1

that implies that I'm against religion or other people's gods No, the OP stated that being an atheist implies anything other than the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It doesn't. Your argument about the OP's wishes to avoid stigmatizing him or herself with a term that has some negative connotations is also weak sauce. If you assent to the ideas of Karl Marx, you are a Marxist, if you murder someone, you are a murder, if you are only attracted to members of the same sex, you are a homosexual an…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 11:19 AM
2

Just to clarify, to be an atheist is to lack a belief in the existence of a god or gods. It does not imply a stance on religion or morality or anything else. Given your statements, anti-theist is the term you should refrain from calling yourself, not atheist.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 05:16 AM
0

what the heck do you think i have been talking about?...... what do you think whole point is, of why we are all on this website? Had you included the sentences following that one, you would see the distinction I was drawing between your apparent goals and mine. It seems that you are indifferent to the propagation of personal politics onto the law, thought and expression. I am not. do you think men will gain eqaul [sic] rights by using logic and reason? This is not a relevant question, my concern…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 09:08 AM
1

Perhaps you and I have different goals. I would like to see a world where men and boys receive equal treatment in the law, in its execution and in its measures to prevent discrimination. I do not want to actualize a future in which the law, thought and expression are even more subject to personal politics. I'de like to see a future of intolerance, the intolerance of bullshit. A future where people who try to effect social and governmental policy by way of emotional manipulation, personal grievan…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:51 PM
1

Well I guess you and I just don't see eye to eye on this. I don't think the petty moral outrage game is a good strategy for advancing the cause of the fair treatment of men and boys. I think it is a incredibly volatile game because it relies heavily upon emotion, perceived moral transgressions, an us vs them mentality and what I will call the victim fallacies. I also think that women and Feminists have historically had the upper hand in this particular game (refrain from profanity in the presenc…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 07:03 AM
1

I agree that there is a double standard and these t-shirts provide themselves as evidence towards that assertion. The question still remains then: How does one deal with these double standards? One way to neutralize them would be to act as petty, petulant and unprincipled as the upstanding keepers of the "moral" zeitgeist. To call for censorship or condemnation of all manners of expression one finds offensive, to take everything one hears, watches and reads personally. Another would be to point …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:04 AM
-1

Yes, you are being too sensitive, but you're not alone. Untold numbers of people today suffer from the illusion that what they find personally offensive is at all, in any sense, important. Are these shirts offensive to some? Yes. Do they promote ant-male bigotry? Potentially, it depends on one's sense of humor. Does any of that matter? No. Freedom of expression is the freedom to say and do things in spite of the moral sentiments of others'. It doesn't exist to serve those who want to exalt the k…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:52 AM
1

Wow, I didn't know that. That sounds like a terrible idea. If your employee can't handle your equipment you get a new employee, you don't change all of your equipments, thus jeopardizing the safety of her and everyone else. Plastic hose parts for fire-fighting equipment? Really? I'de like a source if you can give one, because that just sounds like a profoundly stupid idea.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:50 PM
18

Their lack of testicles and testosterone for muscle growth led to many deaths and the ruining of forests. What do testicles and testosterone have to do with forestry?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:41 AM
1

There's also the restriction of their roles in the military and laws prohibiting them from going topless, but for the most part your'e right. Also I would argue that no one has the right to contraception, in the sense of the financial support, although it sounds like a pretty good idea. We should be careful about what we choose to call rights as to avoid polluting the concept.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:12 PM
1

If someone is not willing to engage you in a rational discussion, that is, if they are not willing to entertain the notion that they may be wrong, that you may be right and that the two of you can resolve this disagreement through, and only through, logical arguments supported by evidence, then you aren't going to have a civil discourse with them let, let alone change their mind. I also would recommend that you be cautious as to which ideologies you choose to endorse. Feminism, much like most ot…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 09:06 AM
2

If you gave consent that was dependent on information that was false, the consent wasn't valid. What an utter load of nonsense. The consent is to have sex, not to have sex with a rich man, or a smart women or anything else. If your answer to the question of "Want to engage in sexual acts with me?" is yes then it isn't rape. The only thing consent should be predicated on, as it applies to rape, is a person's willingness to have sex with someone else, not on other notions they may have about that …
/r/MensRights16/09/12 04:31 AM
2

The trouble is that it is sustainable, because there is no law which mandates that people not behave like assholes. As long as this Dr. Phil, do what your emotions tell you bullshit prevails, people will have no incentive to not be despicably selfish and narcissistic. Adultery has not been against the law for a long time and now, as the article appears to demonstrate, it is losing it social stigma. That would all be fine and well if people could just view sex as dispassionately and objectively a…
/r/MensRights16/09/12 02:57 AM
0

'What I mean is, do women who dress and act provocatively; who taunt men sexually, toying with their libidos for personal power and gain, etc., have the same type of responsibility for what happens to them as, say, someone who parks their car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition and leaves it unlocked with the motor running? Obviously, we still blame the car thief for the actual theft, but don’t most of us turn to the person who owned the car and at least want to ask, “What the fu…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 01:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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