TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Thrug Archive

View 2 posts and 165 comments by Thrug on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Can we also talk about the capitalization?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/05/20 06:53 AM
4

sofisticated Yeah they are so "sofisticated" ....
/r/MensRights06/04/20 03:37 AM
18

True but at least they are allowed to talk. White men can't say shit about shit - you're literally the devil in any situation.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 11:32 AM
2

Next week from morally bankrupt misandrists; petition to ban men who think "wrongthoughts" about wymenz.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 10:12 AM
10

/thread
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 06:49 AM
1

No sex before marriage.. hahaha Naive much
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 05:14 PM
13

He needs to do whatever works for him, not whatever you deem as the right thing because it's important to you. Guys are not "women with suppressed emotions", a lot of us don't want to talk about them because it makes us feel worse, not better. We are different and have different coping mechanisms.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 07:56 AM
2

Yeah that's bs. The clear implication is that men are fragile and women aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/19 09:15 AM
7

Men never share their feelings or admit their mental health problems. Also, hahaha stupid dude gets depressed!!? What a loser.
/r/MensRights11/06/19 09:06 AM
7

Ah yes. Women decides not to contest leadership, and that MUST mean she is oppressed by the invisible evil men. The fuck is wrong with people these days.
/r/MensRights26/05/19 06:20 AM
1

Dollar shave club
/r/MensRights25/04/19 03:48 AM
1

that can't be real... surely...
/r/MensRights23/04/19 03:11 PM
1

You're after "tautology"
/r/MensRights23/04/19 03:08 PM
1

I prefer a model where men acknowledge that in certain aspects there are enormous disadvantages to being a woman Such as?
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:08 AM
2

I used to be like that, but the under 30s are a different breed in my recent experience. Just as snowflakey and just as likely to complain.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 12:01 AM
2

There's a lot of "bad stuff" in TRP, but it's important to understand almost nobody else is providing any kind of coping framework for young men. If you strip out all the anger and the PUA crap, then a lot of the core messaging is not only needed, but correct. Yes generalizations are bad, but as an older married man, in my experience the "cry in front of girl - she loses interest" is very, very common. It happened to me a few times in my younger years and was very hard to cope with, because nobo…
/r/MensRights15/02/19 11:33 PM
16

If it has a penis, it's not a woman.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 11:12 AM
8

Honestly, this kind of reaction is why things keep getting worse and feminists keep getting more aggressive and authoritarian.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 07:12 AM
3

I am so sorry for my gender First thing is to see this kind of thinking as the real enemy. Radical identity politics / post-modernism seeks to reduce everyone to their group membership. Don't be like that - let individuals be good / bad / indifferent, and defend everyone's right not to be reduced to their group (typically white, male, hetero, etc). You're a living example of how people are much more complex, and capable of much deeper thought.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 02:03 AM
180

This is pure feminism. It's marketed at 'let me do what I want', but in reality, it's 'I'm going to shove my values down your throat and you're gonna pretend to like it, or I'm going to cry sexism and get you fired'.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 01:54 AM
2

So.. sexism doesn't exist unless it's enforced? Might want to let the entire feminist establishment know that.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 01:17 PM
32

This is really where TRP comes into its own. If nothing else, we need to teach young men not to buy women drinks in bars.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:06 AM
1

Hey, the important thing is you managed to feel superior to almost everyone in the sub.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:22 AM
1

No good reason for this except depth of talent There are significant psychomotor ability differences between the sexes.
/r/MensRights21/05/17 08:16 AM
4

I'm so glad this is starting to get more awareness
/r/MensRights04/05/17 08:55 AM
73

This should be on the sidebar for people to refer to
/r/MensRights04/05/17 08:43 AM
5

Actually your fucking dumb. Fucking lol
/r/MensRights01/05/17 06:00 AM
5

It still advocates for equality For women. Equality for everyone is called egalitarianism. I know feminists who speak out for men's rights as well. So fucking what? That doesn't change the definition of the words. Fuck you're dumb.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:36 AM
14

Because feminism doesn't advocate for men's rights where they are disadvantaged compared to women. Therefore it doesn't advocate for equality. Guess it was just a case of stupidity.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:19 AM
10

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes Not sure if English isn't your native language, or you're just stupid, but this sentence means that feminism only advocates for Women's rights where they are disadvantaged compared to men.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:16 AM
3

You should consider distinguishing between regressive left and progressive left. This is classic regressive left.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:19 PM
4

Soo.. you weren't discouraged or pressured, but you're absolutely sure it happens because people have told you, and therefore women need special treatment. I honestly hope you're not pursuing any field that requires logical thinking.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:12 PM
9

There's nothing reasonable about spectacular hypocrisy
/r/MensRights12/02/17 10:59 AM
9

I think the point they want to make is that most women aren't empathic towards men that display weakness or need help. Nobody in their right mind would suggest women aren't empathic towards animals or children.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:11 AM
0

Oh I see. You're the special kind of moron that thinks there are only two options - do nothing or go completely overboard. Good luck with that.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:46 AM
0

Not sure why you'd go with 'not as bad as' fallacy, but whatever. Clearly this sub has gone to the shitter if the WoW thread has a stronger response.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:15 AM
0

Yeah that's the best course of action. Let's not say anything against the cultural acceptance of violence against men because it's totally only the SJWs that think it's ok, and not the police or legislators. WTF is going on with this sub.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:10 AM
1

Nobody would give a shit if there was an ex-girlfriend equivalent, apart from the incredibly poor taste. But if you think the cultural acceptance of domestic violence against men isn't a core issue then the problem is really with you.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:57 AM
1

And what would be the response if it was an ex-girlfriend punching bag - because stabbing her is illegal?
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:47 AM
1

Here's the WoW thread currently blowing up about it: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20752375063
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:45 AM
1

That's the worst misrepresentation of the point Marx was making I've ever read.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 10:50 PM
6

Does throwing a tantrum and storming off count?
/r/MensRights11/09/16 09:59 PM
22

I had a woman once tell me (after I offered to split the bill) that she expected to be treated like a princess and an equal.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 09:31 PM
4

It's a fallacy because men also occupy the bottom end of the social hierarchy. Men are the majority of homeless, street sweepers, sewage cleaners. Men do the majority of dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs. Men are far more likely to be killed at work, by violence or by suicide. Pointing to the top ~10% of data as evidence of an overall pattern is about as dishonest and unscientific as you can get. You claim to be a scientist, but it's painfully obvious that's not true.
/r/MensRights06/07/16 10:37 PM
9

He even highlights it's because of his nice car... Not sure what he is smoking..
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:45 PM
6

Well feminism is about equality, right? They keep telling us that so it must be true......
/r/MensRights18/09/15 02:40 PM
1

The only thing that should be banned is the "this subreddit used to be good but now it sucks" circlejerk. It's the least effort upvote jerk possible. It contributes absolutely nothing to any subreddit, yet is constantly posted so pseudo intellectuals can get their daily dose of superiority endorphins (and cheap karma).
/r/MensRights24/07/15 07:07 AM
8

Whenever I hear how lucky someone is, I'm always reminded of the Jack Nicklaus quote: "yes, I was lucky, and the harder I work , the luckier I get".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/15 10:39 PM
1

Thanks for providing further (note the order these words are used in) evidence that fat people have personalities to match.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:21 PM
3

I love thin people :)
/r/MensRights10/07/15 06:22 AM
2

it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse I think this is a significant exaggeration, but I agree with the overall sentiment.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 04:28 AM
6

Be sure to include the statistics to support that a significant fraction of obese people are unable to do anything about it, rather than just that the conditions exist. Apparently the fat is interfering with your higher brain function.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:12 AM
1

Be sure to include the statistics to support that a significant fraction of obese people are unable to do anything about it, rather than just that the conditions exist. ..... Some chose a different sexuality, some are born that way, yet we don't judge them do we? But fuck, it's just fat people who cares right? Correct. Gay and Trans people are usually really nice, don't stress the medical system, don't take up 2 seats on public transport and don't stink.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:11 AM
2

I can't back up how many, but to be fair that's beside the point That's entirely the point. If the majority have no reason to be disgustingly obese, then the default position should be "get off your ass and go exercise", not "well maybe they have condishuns". we shouldn't judge because we can't physically see something wrong We can see something is physically wrong. Humans are not meant to be morbidly obese. Some are so enormous that it's actually kinda difficult to not have them in your field o…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:05 AM
7

Be sure to include the statistics to support that a significant fraction of obese people are unable to do anything about it, rather than just that the conditions exist.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 01:48 AM
15

"Muh condishuns" was a meme exactly because it's a load of shit. A third of the population is obese, and only a tiny fraction of those are incapable of losing weight.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 01:06 AM
1

It wouldn't be such a harsh truth if people didn't keep trying to deny it.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:39 AM
3

I can't hit a fucking treadmill and change my sex.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:34 AM
15

Making statements about the general repulsiveness of fat people is not the same as harassing an individual.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:33 AM
42

Fph was removed because fat people don't like being told they are gross and should lose weight, so they cried about their feels.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 10:27 PM
3

Engineer here. Cognitive Science is absolutely science. Materials science is absolutely science. Computer science is absolutely science. Not having a specific name for a discipline is utterly unrelated to whether it operates using the scientific method.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 11:10 PM
24

Femme fatale?
/r/MensRights14/06/15 11:00 PM
2

Libertarianism in the American context is Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Which is also why I avoid using LibSoc in the Chomsky/French sense.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 11:20 PM
9

There's no such thing as an authoritarian left. If you're authoritarian then by definition you're on the right You're confused
/r/MensRights04/06/15 11:01 PM
2

Libertarian (of the American flavour) socialism rejects core tenets of socialism and wants to be market based, which means it doesn't fit so well on this spectrum. If anything libertarian socialism would be central bottom. This explains their view pretty well: http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq17 Edit: Anarchism is not LibSoc in case that's what you were implying.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 11:00 PM
2

Just a PSA for this thread (since I see this mistake practically non-stop on reddit), political views are not 1 dimensional. At the very least you should view left and right on a different axis to authoritarianism and libertarianism. For example : http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 Right - Authoritarian = mainstream US. Right - Libertarian = Tea Party Left - Authoritarian = Feminism (and State Socialism) Left - Libertarian = Democratic Socialism Edit: Here's the Wikipedia for those t…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 10:21 PM
2

Minor correction - it's Libertarian left vs Authoritarian left. Feminists are no further left than progressives, they are just on the other side of the y axis.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/15 10:22 PM
6

This is the problem with trying to place views on a 2d scale. Feminism is left-authoritarian, which is really not where a modern democratic socialist sits.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:54 AM
2

I think you mean "developed world"? Personally I think the best way to help is to speak out in public. Specifically those situations where nobody else is. Be wary of echo chambers, since they don't really help.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 08:13 AM
0

Actually gonna disagree here in the context of smart casual or business attire. If you want to look like a successful professional, you need to dress "classic", not trendy. Lots of younger guys get this really wrong, especially with pants - if I can see your socks as you walk then your pants don't fit. They should sit comfortably over your shoes such that the back of the pants sit around the top or middle of the heel in dress shoes. When you walk they will pull up but not past the top of the bac…
/r/TheRedPill04/05/15 07:30 AM
-2

Sarcasm is amusing when it's unexpected.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/15 02:17 PM
3

"Humour" is a vast over exaggeration
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/15 01:17 PM
15

This sub should be renamed "redpillers argue with strawmen"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/15 11:00 AM
10

From what I've read, TBP doesn't even exist for most TRP people. Without any competing theories, BP can't really have much of an impact other than an amusing aside.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/15 10:55 AM
1

Pedantry without a point.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 09:29 AM
1

It's interesting how disagreement is "shaming" when it comes from RP and "rational" when it comes from BP. It is extremely clear. There's really no debate there - it's all over the sub constantly, whether you agree with it or not. Of course, "be the best version of you" is not some kind of morally relativist idea that any version is good. That is the entire point about how "just be yourself" is negative and harmful. Your 'best' morbidly obese self is not, in any way, as good as your 'best' fit s…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 01:57 AM
1

Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but that's not what PC culture has been teaching people. RP specifically teaches "be the best version of you". I'm not sure why people want to keep strawmanning RP on this sub... It's extremely clear on that point.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 09:49 PM
2

http://www.girlschase.com/content/just-be-yourself-worst-dating-advice-known-man
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 08:04 AM
1

I generally agree, but I think non-RP people mostly align with current cultural/feminist norms. Personally, I think the self improvement and personal responsibility parts of RP are needed and important, so I wholeheartedly agree with those over the PC "just be yourself" narrative. I don't like the vitriol or the PUA stuff and I think the language that RP uses gets in the way of the core ideas.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 07:31 AM
2

I think both sides suggest their theories are more supported and rational than the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 06:59 AM
17

My wife doesn't date emotionally manipulative manchildren. Do you realise this sort of comment makes you look immature, not the people you're insulting?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:45 AM
2

The 2nd.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:44 AM
12

So one problem with that is that society of the last 30 years actually teaches things which either confuse those points or outright contradict them. 1) Lots of people are shallow, but women are less so. 2) But you should just 'be yourself' 3) Happy wife, happy life! 4) Ok this one is pretty obvious, idk why the fat acceptance movement even exists. 5) Again I think this is common knowledge. I think TRP is mostly a counterculture movement against political correctness (1,4), anti-male media and SN…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:38 AM
2

RP uses circular logic to cherry pick data that supports premises that they are emotionally invested in from anecdotal, personal experience. I find it highly unscientific, and references to science, data, logic and the like are generally only viable if one already accepts a host of RP premises from the get-go and ignores all other interpretations. So that applies to pretty much every single form of dating/sex/behavioural advice discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:04 AM
4

You may not have seen this paper. It's about Men in the Media in Australia, but it applies just as well for the rest of the Anglosphere.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:57 PM
1

I can't think You also can't read minds, or know someone else's thought process. That doesn't mean he isn't doing it because he is sexist, but if you're (plural) gonna throw around the term, be prepared to look like an asshole when it comes out that he had a legitimate reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/15 05:45 PM
4

The problem is that "experienced mansplaining" consists of two parts. Experienced a man talking down to them about something. Assuming the man is doing that because you're a woman. Nobody is arguing with 1. The disagreement is with 2.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/15 02:02 AM
12

It's a little ironic that you responded to the argument "disagreement isn't necessarily gendered" with a passive aggressive suggestion that his disagreement was gendered.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/15 09:51 PM
2

Abuse is about controlling the other person. TRP is about (among other things) controlling yourself, and refusing to abdicate your self-control to another person for sex. That's why TRP is all about "passing shit tests" (not letting your emotions be negatively affected) and "pressing" (putting your health and well being as the highest priority). There is no overlap between TRP/AF and abusers.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/15 09:34 PM
24

One of the key characteristics of a cult is control of the members. You aren't allowed to disagree with the leader / authority, and if you do then you are expelled. I don't know how many folks get banned from this sub, but I do see a lot of open debate, which is the antithesis of a cult. Case in point: I think a lot of TRP nomenclature is stupid, misleading and damaging to the core message (which, as OP suggests, is really important for men these days). I bet that I'm not only allowed to say thi…
/r/TheRedPill20/03/15 05:32 PM
2

Do you have a source for that by any chance? That's majorly fucked up and I'd like to share with some friends..
/r/TheRedPill09/03/15 11:05 PM
3

to educate herself or learn skill to find a job Why should she be entitled to a skilled labour job? If the genders were reversed, the man would be expected to find unskilled work in the mean time.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 05:36 AM
95

http://i.imgur.com/BIT4TTM.gif
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:26 PM
228

Meninism literally means equality for both sexes, how could anyone be against that?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:59 PM
3

Sadly femradebates is starting to feel that way too.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:19 AM
3

The most important tool to understand men's rights is to constantly reverse genders. This will answer all of your questions.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:15 AM
3

Are you a troll, or just that stupid? "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" Which means that feminism has no interest in any area where women have more rights than men (sentences, family courts etc).
/r/MensRights22/01/15 03:46 AM
9

That's not what FEMinism means.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:40 PM
0

If men don't have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won't feel compelled to be submissive Isn't this kindof exactly what this implies? Let's fix men in order to fix women?
/r/MensRights23/09/14 12:17 AM
1

This is one of the core issues with why Feminism doesn't cover all the issues for men though. Quite often, when a male specific issue is raised, the response is that "feminism helps men too", without acknowledging that any area men gain is usually a side-effect of a movement specifically for women. You just don't see feminists arguing for an intervention to deal with the fact that young men are five times more likely to commit suicide, or for the large disparity in depression and homelessness. S…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:15 AM
2

because its a ridicule-worthy idea as Feminism fights against these things. Feminism fights against enforced gender roles for women. Trying to make a grab for "everyone" at the last minute when you realise that your movement is one-sided, doesn't change the history of feminism. For example, feminism's effect on gender roles for boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4
/r/MensRights05/06/14 03:23 AM
-2

Does this title bother anyone else?
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:46 AM
-1

You don't understand what an informal logical fallacy is. For something to be a fallacy I have to link it to my argument. I very specifically avoided doing that in the OP, and provided a separate counter to the charge of being spineless. You're wrong about X because you're fat. <-- this is a fallacy. You're fat. You're also wrong about X because <proof>. <-- this is not a fallacy.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 10:06 AM
-2

Now you're just getting incoherent. (a) and (b) were my points, not theirs.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:54 AM
2

Amazing interview thanks.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:47 AM
-3

Of course, but how is being an angry child relevant to micheal moore being spineless? It isn't. There are two points. a) he isn't spineless (see link) b) calling him spineless because you don't like his stance on feminism is fallacious and childish. Your insults were not used to disprove their point. Correct, they were aimed at b). That makes it an ad hominem. No (as in not a fallacy), because I don't confuse a) and b) above. If I had said "MM isn't spineless because you're just a kid", that wou…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:27 AM
0

Have an upvote for proving my point.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:02 AM
-3

You're confused, and clearly don't understand logic. I'm attacking their behaviour and characterising it as childish. This is vastly different to attacking an argument and using irrelevant personal information. Ad hominem isn't necessarily fallacious. I actually made this point 5 posts up this chain - the distinction between types of ad hominem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, …
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:59 AM
-6

Are you deliberately missing the point? The issue isn't whether he is fat or not, it's whether it is relevant to the topic at hand. The topic in the Michael Moore thread is his feminist apologetics. Him being fat is no more relevant to whether women start wars than Al Gore being fat is relevant to climate change. If you think ad hominems are reasonable and productive, then I have absolutely no desire to try and convince you otherwise.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:35 AM
0

I disagree with you, but have an upvote for actually articulating your opinion in a reasonable fashion.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:22 AM
-8

I agree with your semantics, but that's not the issue I was raising. Feel free to insult someone if that insult actually characterises their behaviour. That's not an adhominem, it's just an insult. Or more simply: Someone behaving like an angry child = angry child. Someone behaving like a feminist apologist != spineless or fat.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 05:04 AM
1

I agree and completely understand the pent up frustration, and if it wasn't the 2nd top link on MR then I wouldn't be having much of an issue. Let me put it another way, if the top posts were along the lines of "Ugly, fat feminist says blah blah" then I would have exactly the same opinion. Personally, it just makes me uncomfortable to associate myself with a social movement that acts childishly. Other people won't even see the distinction between calling someone that thinks the earth is flat "st…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 04:06 AM
1

Calling someone spineless ("fat" also comes up in the comments) because they have a feminist view is exactly the wrong way to go about promoting MR. It also happens to reek of teenage name-calling, which is where the insult comes from. Don't confuse insults on a specific behaviour with attacking the person to invalidate their argument.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 03:58 AM
7

Attacking behaviour isn't the same as attacking the person, particularly when the attack on the person isn't even relevant to the argument. Calling Michael Moore "fat" because he is a feminist is ad hominem. Calling someone that behaves childishly a child, when your central argument is around that behaviour, is insulting but not pointless. (You can also distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious ad-hominem, but that confuses people).
/r/MensRights05/10/11 03:53 AM
8

I'm not saying don't criticise his position. I'm saying don't call him names like MR is some kind of school yard.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 03:21 AM
3

Karma Whoring is more important than actually typing like a normal person :P
/r/MensRights07/09/11 05:47 AM
6

Actually it's pretty similar from the p.o.v. of the rest of the developed world..
/r/MensRights30/08/11 04:30 AM
0

Firstly, feminism is not a way for women to define themselves. It was started as a rights movement - women's rights - in the late 19th century. It has been redefined by modern "feminists" so they can shoehorn whatever self-entitled privilege seeking agenda they feel like in, and lend it an air of legitimacy. To answer your question - not at all. My girlfriend is both feminine and dislikes feminists which really hits home for me how far beyond the balance point we have gone.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 05:07 AM
0

I suspect many men are homeless because they are socialised not to ask for help. They are shamed by some women when they do, and made to feel inadequate or a failure. That makes this, at least partly, a gender issue.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 03:16 AM
0

Your "strongest points come through" in the comment where you simultaneously criticize someone for being brainwashed while claiming that there is a single legitimate feminist doctrine. Really? Third wave feminists may have attempted to redefine feminism to be egalitarianism in some kind of desperate grab for legitimacy, but the fact is that, by definition, it is a social movement advocating for women's rights. One can be both feminist and an egalitarian (if they are also a MRA), but you are clea…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:10 AM
1

So how do I distinguish true Scotsmen from false Scotsmen? I got a chortle out of this (because men aren't allowed to giggle).
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:55 AM
1

I like your thread, but these are pretty bad examples of male privilege. You get judged on looks, he gets judged on wealth. The equivalent to you turning up without makeup is him turning up driving a 20 year old rusty VW. I'd suggest that a new Audi takes more work than putting on makeup, but either way this is an evolutionary difference. Not male privilege. Women evolved to look after children and do fine tasks like peeling seeds, while men evolved to hunt animals and defend the family. That's …
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:32 AM
1

Sexism is discrimination based on gender, however gender is not just differences in reproductive systems. There are large physiological differences that make men and women better and worse at different types of things.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:58 AM
-1

The fact that you attribute that to your gender just makes you sexist. I'm male, a digital-electrical engineer (so I know even more about computers than you do), and I get plenty of "help" in our equivalent of Best Buy. I've even had salespeople argue with me about specifications after I told them my profession.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:53 AM
1

This argument doesn't hold water. If people are going to use presentation as an excuse to ignore your point, then they will do so regardless of how harsh your language is. If they can't make up their mind based on the content of the argument, then they aren't the sort of person we need to be convincing anyway.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 01:54 AM
3

I didn't say that they did. Maybe you should reread my post, especially the "too thick" comment.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:10 AM
1

The point is that the feminists are the ones that stopped the joke-making first. Imagine if you did actually send around a work email that laughed at how incompetent women are at project management, engineering or accounting. Would it be taken as "funny"? No, and you just don't see that sort of stuff sent around work these days. But they do the same thing in reverse and want it to be taken lightly? Are there no limits to the hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:48 AM
4

Any woman that thinks... Gentlemen, you have an intensely small window of time to make or break your success when approaching a woman. Like, a minute at maximum. Your approach is the backbone to your ultimate success or demise with any given woman. ... is a self-absorbed and arrogant bitch. Honestly, if you think you are that "hard to get" then you have just ensured you will never get a decent guy. We aren't interested in fawning at your feet and hoping against hope that we have hit the perfect …
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:24 AM
11

Wow, there are a lot of genuinely stupid people in this thread. The point isn't that circumcision is ok, it's that feminists will only get up in arms about it if you suggest that it might actually happen to baby girls as well. It's highlighting their own inherent prejudice and hypocrisy, NOT advocating for mutilating babies. If you didn't understand this from the OP, then you are probably too thick to be contributing to the discussion.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:18 AM
4

Except for the fact that it's mainly women that frown on compassionate men, and the fact that if the "patriarchy" (which is a load of BS) still ruled, then men would automatically get custody anytime we wanted it. But sure, apart from those little things called facts, you're totally right.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:11 AM
1

LOL. You're right. Because some guys on here had a shitty divorce attorney, sexism is a thing of the past, and women today have it easy. I'll tell my Mom - she'll be ecstatic! Ah, I see. You're a kid raised in a feminist household. Well hopefully one day you will start thinking for yourself and looking at the facts rather than just judging on your personal experiences.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:19 AM
3

The distinction that you're missing is that feminism only addresses female rights, and is perfectly happy (in the definitive and social senses) with areas where men have inferior rights. In previous generations this was somewhat more reasonable as women really did need better social rights, but in today's society it amounts to nothing more than sexism.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:32 AM
2

Ideology doesn't stand a chance ;)
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:12 AM
0

Well read through it, but there isn't much to say. He seems to only be interested in looking for excuses as to why the behavior might not be her fault (wrong pill, work stress, something he did, etc...), and that is just going to send him further down the rabbit hole. Regardless of whether she is cheating or not, she is no longer his wife. At best she is a female room mate that he shares money with, and at worst she is just a friend. Until he is willing to face that fact you're not gonna help hi…
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:09 AM
5

If you're going to get into these then you should: 1) Cite your own sources straight up. 2) Tell them that the argument is simply discontinued until they cite their own sources, and be ready to haul out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) if they try and get away with "omg take a course". Basically don't get dragged down to the level of people that want to argue their own biases without actually looking at data.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 02:08 AM
0

Associating MRA with "game" and the retarded "alpha" / "beta" labels is probably doing more to undermine the movement than anything feminists could do. It's taking something that should be legitimately mainstream in western society, and associating it with incoherent fortune-cookie psychology.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:52 AM
1

This is probably the America vs Rest of the World thing again. My girlfriend (Australia) really dislikes what feminism has become and can see things from the MRA perspective. We are both pro-"real feminism" and are very upset at some of the real issues that women face (islam, abortion rights etc), but she would be the first to call other issues, like the recent "men not wearing dresses is misogyny" a complete joke. Then again, she isn't in the least bit self-entitled. She wants to work and have …
/r/MensRights18/04/11 02:51 AM
6

This Alpha/Beta rubbish is as stupid as it is childish. Anyone that uses that sort of language or studies pick up techniques is probably one of the least dominant people when they actually get out of high school. You meet these sorts of guys in the workplace, and generally they are neither successful nor well liked. And if you actually look at them in a group of sober men, they aren't even close to being the "alpha". In terms of MRA, trying to characterise guys that don't hit on women in bars as…
/r/MensRights18/04/11 02:38 AM
1

Here's my take: http://i.imgur.com/uWtiL.png
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:34 AM
2

Except, feminism implies that latter because it is not "equality" it is "equality for women". The implication is that it only applied to inequalities that are an issue for women (where they suffer). Please note there is nothing inherently wrong with this definition or with the movement in its pure form. The issue is that it should never, ever be confused with gender egalitarianism, which seeks to redress issues of inequality for both genders.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:06 AM
1

Honestly, post the specific generalisations that you have an issue with, or be quiet. Constant repetition of "but, but generalisations!" just makes you annoying and gets you downvoted. If you want to help then pull out the parts of the FAQ that need addressing and make a logical argument as to why they should change. Be prepared to have your argument critiqued and if it doesn't hold up then also be prepared to be wrong.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:03 AM
0

Someone that got crushed by rational discussion and logic in a 2XC thread. It seems like even the 2XCers didn't like how biased she was.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:01 AM
11

That stems from the confusion between "equal outcomes" and "equal opportunity". This is a common one with feminists when they argue that pay should be equal between the sexes without looking at specific professions. Anyone that wants 50% of the CEOs/bankers to be women should also be arguing for 50% of the coal miners/construction workers to be women.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:39 AM
1

This. It's so simple that it's amazing we have to keep having the argument. Different words have different meanings.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:36 AM
2

This guy is far too ignorant about evolutionary biology to be taken seriously. Men posture for dominance and try to be successful with as many females as possible? Ya-fucking-think? You could get that from the Discovery Channel..
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:15 AM
-2

This is where you stopped being rational and started being a biased smacktard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:13 AM
2

I think it's a combination of things: Feminists are used to dominating the social discourse on sexism and inequality, and their sense of entitlement gets bruised when people start suggesting that maybe women are often not the victims Feminism itself is struggling for relevance. You can see this when they start posting things like how men not wanting to wear womens clothes is actually society putting down women because their clothing is inferior (or something). They have equal opportunity these d…
/r/MensRights14/04/11 02:05 AM
3

Gotta love it how MRAs are like.. a million times more honest than feminists. At least we can fucking admit that MRA and Egalitarianism are different ideas, even if we actually support both!
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:56 AM
2

You're cherry picking. Almost every definition of feminism is that it pertains to women's rights. Suggesting it is for all is nothing but propaganda. http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+feminism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:20 AM
1

That's merriam webster for you, not exactly the authoritative source for the English language. Feminism is advocation of the rights of women. It has nothing to do with male rights.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:18 AM
5

It's dishearteningly common for women to grab power in custody battles by accusing men of some kind of abuse. The attitude of society nowadays with regards to both rape and child abuse is guilty until proven innocent, and this only came about with feminism. Most feminists dont advocate this sort of thing, but it certainly is one of the ways that some women have sought more power.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 09:20 AM
1

Well I gotta say it really does sound like you know what you're talking about. I just learned a really important distinction - thank you!
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:23 AM
2

Not so much that they are less tolerant, but that they just ignore the fat ones. As Oscar Wilde (?) said: "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about"... But agree on the lack of benefits package.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:04 AM
4

Yes men would fare better when you take into account coal mining as well, but for some reason women don't seem to want equality in that area....
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:17 AM
3

Um. No. That is not actually sound logic at all. So you'd be fine if we made women work 9% more hours for the same pay? Hint: this is how we can tell feminists don't want equality.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:13 AM
2

Yep couldn't agree more. I've seen this happen as young as 28 as well, when the new batch of 21 year olds come along and steal the attention. Quite amusing, but mostly very sad.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 06:04 AM
1

I think you're arguing against a pet peeve, rather than the point of the quip that started the thread. As with most comedians, the post is about a fundamental truth (whether you like it or not) called the "Halo Effect". Physically attractive people do get preferential treatment (in both sexes), but this joke works because traditionally it was men that held the power in business / politics, so you either had to be an attractive women, or you had to work your butt off. Nowadays, there are plenty o…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 06:02 AM
1

You think she might realise that given that almost all of her comments are in negatives.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 07:07 AM
1

You think she might realise that given that almost all of her comments are in negatives.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 07:07 AM
1

Actually I really disliked that talk. She tries to mask her underlying sexism by putting the onus on women, but the entire thing is predicated on the assumed that women have it harder at all levels. Statistics that take into account the entire world are stupendously biased. Australia has a female head of state who is also an atheist. Just because large parts of the world are backwards doesn't mean that "we" are. The statement that every single profession is male dominated is also absurd. Nursing…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 03:23 AM
1

Look, I think if this was a situation where some radical nutjob imams were advocating that husbands smack women in order to calm them down (if they don't already) then you would see /r/MensRights up in arms as much as anyone else. I certainly would be. But that is not the case, and it's a really important distinction to make. Making an issue out of a game like Duke Nukem shows how completely out of touch and self-serving these people are. The game is already one giant joke, and it's clearly inte…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:25 AM
11

They refer to this as Third Wave Feminism. The key quote is "Proponents of third-wave feminism claim that it allows women to define feminism for themselves by incorporating their own identities into the belief system of what feminism is and what it can become through one's own perspective." Which is basically a nice way of saying that we get to use feminism to justify anything we do. I think this is a lot of the reason the movement has basically died, and women are struggling to get real issues …
/r/MensRights24/03/11 02:44 AM
3

It's exactly the same as every other form of entertainment. They don't put fat, balding, middle-aged, hairy men on the cover of magazines, so why the hell would you expect them to use the female equivalent in video games or action movie? Modern feminism needs to move past anti-sexuality before it loses its last shred of credibility. Men and women are both sexual creatures, and we both like looking at the "best" of both forms. Suggesting that making women sexy in entertainment is exploitative is …
/r/MensRights24/03/11 02:09 AM
17

Well good for you - I do the same with my girlfriend and it makes for a great relationship. Personally find a lot of the 2x crowd to be humourless, hypocritical and self absorbed. Their reaction to the Duke Nukem thing was a good example - crying about women being treated like an object in 2011 while watching Sex and the City reruns is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:56 AM
24

The biggest reason for that is because it gives them an opportunity to dominate / control what they perceive as an alpha male. The truth is that the guys that over exaggerate their masculinity (too much gym time, tight tshirts etc) are not the alpha dogs, and are actually quite insecure. They are the ones willing to chase after a woman that treats them like dirt, so exactly how are these guys meant to be respected by other men? Real alpha males simply don't accept controlling or game playing fro…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:31 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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