TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

VoicelessFeather Archive

View 0 posts and 48 comments by VoicelessFeather 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)
1

For starters, while it doesn't always work, sex reassignment can offer a permanent solution. The surgery does not bring transgender people in line with the normal population, but it can solve their body dysphoria. Sex reassignment isn't trading one dysphoria for another because the statistics and mental states of patients pots op is simply better than before hand. Their dysphoria is demonstrably alleviated. It is pointless to argue that something that seems to work shouldn't work. You are right …
/r/MensRights08/09/17 10:42 AM
1

Chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer, it kills it, often temporarily. In the same way, a band-aid is better than nothing. Honestly, I don't care about the politics of the issue, whatever treatment gives the best results I will support wholeheartedly. If it is a genuine treatment to have psychiatric care that changes trans people's conception of genders, I will happily accept that. On the other hand, you have to consider that telling a transgender person that they should just challenge our gender bin…
/r/MensRights08/09/17 01:05 AM
1

You know that you are comparing to the general population right? The operation reduces suicide rates, but the rates are still higher than the general population. Obviously better solutions would be preferable like with chemotherapy and cancer. Chemotherapy is a non ideal treatment, but it is disingenuous to say that because those who undergo it have higher mortality rates than the rest of the population, we should abandon it. Even the article you linked says that it should be used as an incentiv…
/r/MensRights08/09/17 12:43 AM
3

I mean post op has high suicide rates, but it end up being lower than preceding the operation. Obviously we can't measure their happiness, but if they are old enough to make the decision it seems like a valid option.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 12:33 AM
1

It seems to reduce suicide rates post-op, If it works I don't really care. On the other hand 12 is absurdly young for a decision like that and I think that is the problem here.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 12:31 AM
1

Ok, I understand your point a lot more now. I mostly agree with what you are saying, but my main point of contention is that there are other reasons for gender based discrimination than the weak/strong dichotomy. As I mentioned earlier women are more likely to be considered generically "good" or "positive", as such I think it is oversimplification to say that gender based bias always stems from negative views towards women. I also think that women and men alike don't want the unfortunate parts o…
/r/MensRights10/08/17 07:24 PM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:55 PM
1

I see oppression as something on a large scale, I think that while both genders might find themselves hurt disproportionately by some given issue, they aren't being oppressed. The idea for me is that most people living in America for instance, are well off and unaffected by this. Also, the idea of 100% of the population being oppressed is a bit absurd. With regards to your other point I have a few problems with it: 1) Are men seen as superior in every scenario? Studies regarding the "women are w…
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:10 PM
1

I agree with you fully. I'm talking about movements here, essentially things that get corrupted by the sheer number of people involved. It's easy to be involved in a movement and avoid its pitfalls, but it is difficult to have a movement without pitfalls. With regards to my personal views, I would consider them closer to egalitarian. I think the biggest disconnect I have with both gendered movements is that I don't think either gender is being oppressed in the first world. I think the poor are o…
/r/MensRights10/08/17 12:42 PM
3

My point is that ALL identity politics groups include bashing the other side but are not necessarily all about doing so. And what it would take to change my mind would be some significant groups managing to avoid that. Your post that I was responding to was a bit off topic at the end so it was difficult to respond to it and stay on topic at the same time.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 06:07 PM
2

Social movements are groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on political or social issues. It meets the definition in that gender is a social issue and the subreddit focuses on that, whether you agree with it or not is a separate issue. You can argue merit to be sure, but since it isn't even strictly positive for something to be a social movement as I was discussing I'm not sure why it would be a matter of contention in the first place.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 05:44 PM
0

Most social movements have at least some solid justification behind them, I'm not denying that. However, though they aren't predicated on bashing outsiders, even with the most justified causes you would be hard pressed to find a movement that doesn't drum up support by identifying and alienating the "enemy". It's simply an effective strategy that alienates some and galvanizes others and sometimes it's worth it especially on black and white issues such as slavery. In the modern era issues are a l…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 05:19 PM
–

I would argue that all identity politics groups including Men's Rights and Feminism are about bashing the "other" in order to feel better, they feed off of outrage . The groups are only so controversial because they all take a derogatory tone towards everyone who doesn't agree with them or fit within their narrative. It leads to the situation where each group only sees the hypocrisy of the other side and confirmation bias runs rampant.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 04:32 PM
–

Women were not educated throughout history and they rarely worked outside of the house. What examples of historical pay discrimination are you talking about? The modern era is one of the first times that women have been able to work for wages at all, and when pay discrimination actually occurred such as in cotton mills, they DID only hire women to save on labor. EDIT: *for wages
/r/MensRights26/09/16 07:23 PM
1

Oh, that was an extremely imperfect analogy. What I'm saying is the punishment should fit the crime. Our prison system is really screwed up and expensive but that is a different issue. One of the main holes in my analogy is that with crime, unlike in the simulation, not very many criminals are caught. So let me give you another example that should outline it. I am a career thief (hypothetically) and every times I steal I make an average of $350 and I get arrested in 5% of my crimes. Now, let's s…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 01:42 AM
1

Are you saying that scale doesn't exist for disincentive? Execution and a slap on the wrist are identical? If I had to pay $20 dollars every time I committed a crime, it would be perfectly intelligent of me to steal $300. A "smart" person will commit a crime as long as the benefits of the crime outweigh the consequences. Sure, a stupid person will not think of the consequences and act anyway. Here is the key, however. Though a stupid person will always commit the crime. A smart person will not. …
/r/MensRights14/05/16 01:20 AM
–

Why are assault and theft stupid ideas? Because if you get caught, you get punished harshly. If we didn't have harsh punishments, they would cease to be anything more than immoral, and we would have people who wouldn't do it with the punishment in place (that made it a stupid idea) doing it.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:50 PM
–

So you are saying that if punishments for crimes was minimal we would still have crime at the same rate? If you could steal $10,000 and have your only punishment be that you can never steal again, who wouldn't steal just once? Do you have some study that shows that punishments only disincentivize people who don't need the disincentive? The people who would steal but don't because of the punishment are there; you just don't see them. Your argument makes literally no sense. People who know that so…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:17 PM
–

Prison is a disincentive. It isn't solely to prevent further crimes. This isn't about stopping individual false accusers but rather creating a larger disincentive for them.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:03 PM
12

Overall, I'm pretty sure that violent crime is just as if not more likely to impact men. Serial killers are not a large portion of violent crime. It turns sensationalization into discrimination. In addition, black men commit more crime than most other demographics. By your logic, "whites have a legitimate reason to fear blacks" . Of course not, both these examples ignore massive amounts of information and bias to justify discrimination.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 11:14 PM
3

"Next Week- Why trying to run white people over isn't racist", I don't even...
/r/MensRights12/01/16 02:18 AM
2

It reads like satire, especially the end of it.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:50 AM
–

This seems like satire.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:47 AM
–

But it is a contradiction for feminists to be misandrists. Feminism has a definition, that definition includes equality. If something does not meet the definition of feminism we DO NOT call it feminism, regardless of what that thing calls itself. If a pig calls itself a human, we do not change what it means to be human, instead we maintain that the pig is an animal. Feminists aren't being misandrists, misandrists are being misandrists. So lets maintain that they are misandrists. Go ahead and use…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 01:57 AM
1

I consider myself an egalitarian; I am in this sub a decent amount, yes, some people who claim to be feminists are clearly misandrists. However, if I was on a subreddit about men killing people, I can't conclude that all men kill people from that subreddit's feed. The same applies to Men's Rights, the feminists who are showcased on this sub don't meet the definition of feminists, they are misandrists. I personally know feminists who clearly stand for equality even if I don't entirely agree with …
/r/MensRights29/10/15 07:50 PM
–

If your analogy doesn't hold up in translation, it doesn't work. You told me this "feminists say their defining factor is being feminist (equality is in the definition after all), that doesn't make them feminist." The two examples you gave me are not the same thing. The dictionary definition of North Korea, does not include democracy THAT is why we don't agree that democracy is their defining factor. (If the dictionary definition did include democracy, we would call them something else, as they …
/r/MensRights29/10/15 07:08 PM
–

The basis of equality defines feminism, as it is within the definition of feminism. Every group has those who maintain that they are within the group without meeting the definition. There is no scenario I can think of, in which we start agreeing that North Korea is a democracy. If I were to convince 14% of the world's population that pies don't have to have crusts, would you change the definition? Wouldn't that make things more awkward? Word definitions should be constant, just as we call North …
/r/MensRights29/10/15 07:05 PM
2

The interesting thing is, men suffer from far more harsh victim blaming. So how is this societies fault?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:59 PM
1

Can't argue with that.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 10:00 PM
1

You want to literally call them that?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:54 PM
–

Absolutely, no protections for the falsely accused, not even being compensated for the legal fees, people not understanding the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", the idea that women never lie, are all evil. But on the bright side, your family sounds amazing.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:32 PM
–

So what are those who support equality with a focus on women's rights called? Are they not "true" feminists? Your definition is also oddly specific and might translate badly from person to person. From this I get the idea you definition, ironically, ONLY includes the extremists. Should every group be defined by its extremists? (Somewhat justifiable as extremists are what the sub wants to fight). Wouldn't it be awkward if no one could say democracy without having to clarify that North Korea doesn…
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:27 PM
–

So what is your definition of feminism? What can I infer from you calling someone a feminist? Does this term have any meaning? And lets consider the case of North Korea, they call themselves a democracy. Does the fact that they call themselves a democracy, change the definition of democracy? Are words meaningless? How can we communicate in a language where no word has a single definition? Can I make the definition of pie have no connection to reality by calling myself a pie?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:17 PM
2

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. EDIT: So that means you don't gain any information when someone calls themselves a feminists?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:13 PM
–

Wow, that sucks. I'm reasonably sure the court couldn't do anything at all to you, unless they completely ignored due process. If I was in that situation I would have done the same thing, so I shouldn't talk.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:13 PM
–

So when you call someone a feminist, I gain no information whatsoever?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:05 PM
–

Isn't there some action to be taken against a corrupt court? Or are you helpless to be "found guilty of something". I find that absurd.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:03 PM
–

Exactly! North Korea is NOT a democracy just because they say they are. That is just like how someone is NOT a feminist just because they say they are. But, consider what you just told me. If I were to rewrite it in a different context: Democracies say their defining factor is elections. That doesn't mean they have elections. Does that make sense? Your two examples aren't the same thing. North Korea is claiming to be something it is not in the first. In the second you are saying "Bread says its …
/r/MensRights28/10/15 08:48 PM
–

Words have definitions; they need to in order to have meaning. If feminism cannot be said by one person and heard by another and mean roughly the same thing to each person, it no longer works as a word. What is your definition of feminism? And if it does not involve equality, then what is the female form of a Men's Right's Activist?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 08:43 PM
–

Feminism is literally defined to be on the basis of equality, the Scottish are defined as people from Scotland, NO ONE who is not from Scotland is Scottish, EVERYONE from Scotland is Scottish. The same applies to feminism. Every part of the definition has to be met or the definition is meaningless. If wanting equality is a central aspect of these movements EVERYONE WITHIN THEM MUST WANT EQUALITY. People within a movement for equality cannot not want said equality.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 08:37 PM
–

Did you read the official definition I posted? If no feminist wants equality, then feminists don't exist. If no one lived in Scotland, everyone who said that they did would be lying.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 08:32 PM
-8

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Feminism is essentially egalitarianism with a focus on women's rights. There is nothing wrong with having a focus. I think it's easier to change how we define people than the English language. That way we wouldn't all have different definitions of the same term. If a self proclaimed feminist acts like a misandrist, then we call them that. Anything else is a petty attempt to devalue those who do actu…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 11:17 PM
–

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. If someone does not support feminism, I don't consider them a feminist. If feminism is to have ANY meaning, the definition must matter. Or the term is meaningless.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 11:13 PM
–

Defining factor of feminism is wanting equality. No true Scotsman only works if I say something other than, "no TRUE Scotsman isn't from Scotland."
/r/MensRights27/10/15 10:54 PM
12

There is an obvious flaw in their argument: They are literally saying, that in the case of a legitimate male victim, they will give them less care because of statistics. The equivalent would be in a scenario that 95% of people who are sent to the hospital are men, the women do not receive care.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 03:55 PM
3

That father sounds abusive.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 10:42 PM
–

It means the post is sarcastic.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 10:48 AM
–

Statutory Rapist
/r/MensRights29/09/15 07:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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