TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WellArentYouSmart Archive

View 0 posts and 161 comments by WellArentYouSmart on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I thought I'd go through these because although I'd agree with you on some points, I think a lot of them are wrong. Poly. This strikes me as a tautology. People who want to have sex with lots of people want to have sex with lots of people. If you're using poly as an adjective, isn't that the definition? On a side note, I think every person on the planet at some point in their life wants to have sex with lots of people, bar asexuals. I've never understood why people try and segregate that under t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/15 12:06 AM
5

In fairness, she was diversity officer at Goldsmiths University. I don't mean to be factitious, but that university already has a pretty awful reputation in the UK. It's our equivalent of a community college. Their student body is way too apathetic to care if she's removed or not, so it had no impact on the Union if they kept her and she had zero actual power anyway. What is more disturbing are the Oxford feminists. That group are fucking mental, they falsely accused a previous Oxford Union Pres…
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:27 AM
74

This more or less actually happened, and AFAIK she faced no internal disciplinary procedures, possibly because she was co-CEO. She was sued and her defense was literally that white men can't sue for discrimination because they aren't a protected class. I can't find the results, which probably means the suit was unsuccessful or is ongoing. A win in a case of this size would normally make the comic book world's news. (Edit: Formatting)
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:07 PM
1

Seems fair. If you've been friends a while, I doubt you'd be able to get a better measure.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/15 01:16 AM
1

No. From /r/seduction's glossary (side note, made me want to puke)[...] The guy who came up with the concept, Mystery, defined it as (essentially) shitting on a girl's self-esteem by showing her you aren't interested. It was basically the opposite of flirting. He used to wrap it in a compliment so it would be socially unnacceptable for the chick to get angry at him. He might have undermined her, but it was ostensibly a compliment. That's where the concept came from. That said, I wouldn't be surp…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/15 04:59 PM
1

I make sure that I date trustworthy people who share my values. How do you know they are trustworthy?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/15 07:09 AM
1

I get that they have similarities, but you're misunderstanding where negging came from. Han Solo and Leia were flirting. The purpose of flirting is to demonstrate your social skills (and your ability to empathise) while conveying interest. The purpose of a neg is to make a girl feel like you aren't attracted to her and that she's done something to make you dislike her. Flirting is how we show girls we're into them. It's not negging.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/15 07:03 AM
4

Negging: "I love you" "I know" Shit-eating grin. Or, alternately "Han Solo: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me. Princess Leia Organa: It's a wonder you're still alive. [Pushing past Chewbacca] Princess Leia Organa: Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way? Han Solo: No reward is worth this. " That's not negging. Negging is intentionally making someone feel like they've fucked up (by saying or doing something you disapprov…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/15 11:24 AM
1

Edit: This is a long post. It's mostly the same issue approached from different angles, so you might not need to respond to the whole thing. Because women are slut-shamed if they admit the truth about what they desire and so deny it, sometimes even to themselves. I think the reason not to take women at their word is that we have evolved to do things, but not to understand why we do things. The reason most women aren't going to give you a clear explanation of their motivations is that they have e…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/15 10:32 AM
0

Exactly - that's one of the problems. You can't claim you have a theory that "reveals the truth" about human nature if your basic assumptions are highly contested by your community. The "Red Pill" rhetoric implies you are revealing the "truth" - if you can't agree on what the truth is, then you don't have the truth - you just have a heuristic for understanding mating behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/15 09:47 AM
5

How do you know dread game has worked? Well, yes - that would also be a valid question. In fact, I would expect dread game to be more likely to create infidelity, since that's what we see in nature. When a violent male enters a primate group, the females become much more promiscuous across the board. It's a myth that violent apes get exclusive access to females - they just get access to more females. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of humans. It doesn't matter if the method of contr…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/15 09:41 AM
0

That seems a somewhat conspiracy theory-esque assessment when TRP is hardly backwards about coming forwards regarding what it thinks. Why not take them at their word? Why not take women at their word? (Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse - I really do think that's the easiest way to explain my reasoning.) And whilst there may exist differences of opinion over the minutiae, an alpha male is one who is successful with women Yes, this is in my opinion the only helpful way to define an alpha male. Most…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 02:26 PM
-1

Surely the reason for that though is they believe they already know why parts of TRP are toxic (overcoming anger, realising blaming women is wrong, etc.) and so don't need to be curious about it? I think this is the justification RedPillers will use, but it isn't the actual reason. I think they are also post-hoc explanations. The primary reason is because it's an ideology, and in particular an ideology built around rejecting the mainstream. As I say, the primary problem is that most RedPillers c…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 01:37 PM
1

I think you are 100% correct - but so does Red Pill. Red Pill might be a lot more realistic, but it seems to me that theory is much more important than experience. Red Pill has no way of verifying who is bullshitting and who is telling the truth. To me, that's a warning sign. Most of the theories on TRP are going to be conjecture because there's no way to differentiate between conjecture and experience. Conjecture is filtered to the top, and that is what forms the ideology. If something doesn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 10:24 AM
3

It's not a fail-proof method, but so far it has worked for me. I think this raises another question. How do you know that it has worked?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 10:12 AM
1

The problem, I think, is that members of TRP almost never ask this question out of genuine curiosity. They find an ideology which involves behaviours that "work" to fix a problem that they have. It seems to work, though they don't know why. However, they have developed a few theories. Remember: those theories are post-hoc explanations, and in my opinion, a lot of them are very simplistic. They don't really understand why it works, they just have some theories. This means they can't differentiate…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 09:59 AM
3

Women do, though it's not conscious. As soon as physical strength becomes moot in the acquisition of resources, the gender with reproductive capabilities will out-compete the other from a reproductive standpoint. At least, they will when you're measuring reproductive power. This is a good video that explains the issue (though I disagree with his conclusion that traditionalism is a solution). However, viewing sex as a competition is an unhealthy way to live. If you derive your value from how much…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/15 09:50 AM
1

...Could you link it? I don't think that DV stat is true either, I thought it was at parity. I have a shaky memory on that one.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 06:56 PM
1

I don't think that's true. Where did you get that figure?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 06:38 PM
1

and then you argue against your own point. women rape kids more. Watch out, that's a statistical trap. Women abuse children more but that's because most carers are women. Men are statistically slightly more likely to do so. I'm also not 100% sure they rape kids more, but I'd need to brush up on my statistics. I think it's just sexual and physical abuse where women are higher.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 01:55 PM
1

I wouldn't want a woman to lie to me about her sexual past either. The question is, how often does that actually happen? Is that common, or just something that you read about online? Oh boy, all the time. Just look at the audience's reaction to this. Every girl I've ever been with lied about it the first time I asked. Most guys get really insecure if it's more than 3, they were only honest when they were convinced I wouldn't judge them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 01:36 PM
2

I think the same, but it's also said in the sidebar - "a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men". Vindiciation of men is part of the counterreaction to this. I think that's a very good assessment of where it comes from. Especially for guys who didn't have access to strong male role models growing up, a community like TRP is going to be very attractive. TRP provides a very strong identity. Problem is, it's also devoted to figuring out the world. Having your understanding of the …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 01:16 PM
1

Oops, I thought I'd mentioned that - yes, if she can prove fault then she should have a claim on his assetts.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/15 02:20 AM
3

TRP fails to ignore the inherent nature of men. I agree with this. My theory is that it's because TRP is about vindicating men as well as sexual strategy. It's Cosmo for guys - half emotional validation, half soundbyte advice. You're not going to get things that make guys look bad, or anything particularly in-depth. One of the problems with TRP is that they don't tend to delve very deep into evolutionary theory. They usually just give it a cursory mention and misunderstand the deeper nuances. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/15 07:34 AM
2

A low-status man has nothing to offer a high-status woman, but he could potentially pose a risk. He could, if he's particularly fucked in the head, potentially try and rape her and that could lead to pregnancy. The higher her status relative to his, the more this risk increases. It's a small chance, but a genetically disastrous outcome. If someone has nothing to offer you, but they pose a slight risk to you, you'll generally act towards them with disdain. That's why I cross the street from peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/15 01:56 AM
2

I'm going to go through this list and give you my perspective on your issues. I disagree with you. I'd like your opinion, though. Safe access to abortion. Women in the US do have this. I'm assuming we're talking about the US - if not, it's pretty unhelpful to label the issue as a women's issue. Poverty has many knock-on effects, the issue to be solved is poverty. So, let's assume we're talking about the US. Women have safe access to abortion in the US. Every single woman can, if she so chooses, …
/r/MensRights15/07/14 06:12 PM
1

Because it takes one step of logic to say "rape is horrific". It takes two steps of logic to say "rape is horrific, but some rape is worse than other rape." More people are going to hold the simpler view than the more complex one.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:56 PM
-1

MRAs believe that women are overvalued by society and put on a pedestal. Yeah, because of benevolent sexism, duh. They're victims really. Gosh...
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:25 PM
-2

No. The first is probably an accurate estimation of affairs, the latter is sexist.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:24 PM
1

So, I think the challenge hypothesis clearly applies to birds, or some birds, at least, but making the leap from dinosaurs to humans seems unconvincing. You appear to be interpreting that quote wrong: "Currently, no research has specified a relationship between the modified challenge hypothesis and human behavior, yet many testosterone/human behavior studies support the modified hypothesis applying to human primates.[11]" There's a fairly clear relationship, but it's impossible to specify what t…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:16 PM
1

Sure thing - the broad area of study is known as the challenge hypothesis. This is a good article about how testosterone manifests in aggression towards those who are seen as a competitor, although it doesn't focus on that. It's a pretty easy read, depends how deep you want to get into the subject. The article is provocative, though. It's not exactly honest. This is a study that focusses on the link between testosterone and competition, and this study talks about how testosterone is produced to …
/r/MensRights10/07/14 06:57 PM
1

Producing public films counts as "public..."
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:47 PM
1

Yes, they would be consenting adults in a public setting. That's why it would be illegal.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:40 PM
1

Whilst you're right, I think you've got away from the other problem - it still criminalises anal porn produced in canada for any age.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:13 PM
0

Although this law is on the books it is virtually never enforced. Completely, utterly, and totally irrelevant. Let's say there's a law criminalising being gay, but it's not that often people are arrested for it. Would you be ok with that, even though "although the law is on the books, it's virtually never enforced"?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 01:44 PM
3

As if battered woman are demanding to be abused, and almost deserve the abuse for antagonizing men. She's not saying battered women are demanding to be abused. She's saying some battered women do attempt to get their husbands to hit them. This is true, and it's really tragic. It's essentially a defense mechanism. For those that grow up being abused, they learn to instigate the abuse themselves because it's safer than leaving it outside their hands. From a biomechanical perspective, many of those…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 01:39 PM
3

It's majority report, what do you expect? They're idiots who shout how their ideological opponents are "creepy" and expect people to agree with them for that reason alone. Every debate they have is essentially "you have the emotional maturity of a child and aren't taking into account all the factors," "what factors aren't I taking into account?" "some of them." As I said, they're idiots.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:03 PM
1

With respect, is the reason why you respect Hallashk because he's educated, or because he's pragmatic and pro-feminist? Because, well, coming from someone who (I hope I don't seem conceited, but I don't know how else to phrase it) is well-educated in this particular field he's wrong about testosterone here. Not that he isn't generally very pragmatic - he is - but I think you're giving him more credit than he deserves. Higher levels of testosterone don't predict higher levels of violence towards …
/r/MensRights10/07/14 11:43 AM
2

Probably dox on the judge.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 09:42 PM
1

Damn. Well, I'll be.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 12:04 PM
1

Yes, but as a sole trader you can pretty much apply any business transfer to your tax deductions, can't you? You just claim it's a gift and the recipient has to sort out the tax instead. I could be wrong, I'm not so clued up on the US or Canadian tax systems but I'd assume they're looser than the UK's.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 02:00 AM
1

Huh? Higher rates of a minority of serial offenders vs. isolated offenders is evidence against culture causing people to rape. Otherwise, the spread would be far more even - an extreme exponential falloff as the number of offenses increases.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 01:58 AM
1

And one third had two offenses, meaning two-thirds wouldn't be classified as serial offenders.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 12:49 AM
2

He'd take it as a sole trader, like anyone who's self-employed. For sole traders, any expenses including donations to related charities count as expenses.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 11:58 PM
2

Considering the likely annual amount of donations, one third or more of that money then goes right to the IRS and State and local taxes. That's not true. One-third of the profit goes to the IRS and State and local taxes, which is going to be considerably less.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 11:19 PM
1

I don't think it does. A serial offender is three or more isolated offenses, right? Edit: That's how the FBI has attempted to define it for murder, at least.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 03:45 PM
0

Male rape isn't portrayed in porn. Not outside extreme snuff, at least. The point of porn is to titillate men that would want to be in that situation. The function of the media revolves around the fact what they're portraying emphatically isn't rape, of either party.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 07:33 PM
1

Exactly. Debating about the nuances is like debating whether a schizophrenic man saw 5 or 6 real life goblins.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 06:34 PM
1

I think if they'd used that, then the results would be much higher. I think a lot more than 6% of men have had drunk sex. Getting smashed and taking home a girl from a bar? I'd be willing to bet that's bang on 6-7% of guys who've done that.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 02:57 PM
1

Honestly, if this is question 1: 5.2% responded "yes" to: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?" I wouldn't know how to respond to that. Are you saying if I removed someone's clothes they were too drunk to consent? What a ridiculous example. I can see why a confused participant might say "yes, I've removed a girl's clothes for her"…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 01:10 PM
1

is there much of a difference between attempted rape and successfully completed rape? Well, taking someone home when they are highly intoxicated and then realizing once you're back that they're in no frame of mind to consent, and then not having sex with them, could probably be classified as an "attempt." Given that, you can phrase a question much more broadly in order to artificially inflate the results. I'm willing to bet one could phrase a question such as "did you ever take home an intoxicat…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 01:01 PM
-4

No it hasn't. Stop being petty.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 11:45 AM
1

No.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 11:42 AM
1

Crazy, didn't know you could tell what rape it was from the awareness poster. Well, again, thanks for informing me.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 03:03 AM
1

Well, thanks for letting me know I was talking about that situation and not the other example, where it's 5 gang members each with a pair of knuckledusters and a glock.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 02:21 AM
0

Like I said, if you feel it's dangerous don't, but that doesn't mean nobody should. That's not what you said. To paraphrase, what you said (or at least, implied) was: Everyone should be encouraged to do it. That's kind of the opposite to "if you feel it's dangerous then don't."
/r/MensRights04/07/14 10:38 PM
1

Grow up.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 10:25 PM
2

[cowardice] The failure to take what one knows to be right action out of fear of the possible consequences to one's safety or reputation. Ok, I'm not willing to accept that definition, so I disagree with you. It's the failure to take into account what one believes to be right action. Bravery doesn't imply accurate judgement. Further than that, it's the act of taking an immoral action in order to avoid taking right action. Otherwise, you are being a coward every single moment you don't spend givi…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 04:09 PM
2

No, you're wrong. It's is ok to call out people on cowardice. Against my better judgement, I'll engage you here. You need to define cowardice. Without defining it, you might as well be claiming any action by one person that doesn't benefit another (in this case a woman) is an act of cowardice. What do you mean? This is the exact same bullshit feminists lay on when they want to explain why nobody is allowed to give assault victims grief over not reporting. Well, yeah. It's fine to talk to a rape …
/r/MensRights04/07/14 02:39 PM
1

It comes down to the bottom line. That's kind of my point. Wearing shorts doesn't affect the bottom line. Keeping someone on after they've worn shorts doesn't affect the bottom line. Firing someone does affect the bottom line.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:44 PM
2

And challenge the guys? That's how you make a safe (if uncomfortable) situation dangerous. That's how you turn hassling into violence. I mean, sure, the violence won't be against her... If you were going to encourage people to step in, you encourage them to pretend they're her friend and that they need to talk to her alone for a second. That's what girls do, because unlike men they haven't been told their entire lives to protect other people by drawing aggression onto themselves - they've learnt…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:40 PM
1

Well, I'm glad the poster specified that it was just when "college dudebros" were "hassling" a drunk girl, rather than being ambiguous enough to encompass pretty much every situation when a girl is getting unwanted attention. Right? Right??
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:43 AM
2

What the parent poster is saying is that we should not be trying to shame or pressure men into that role as if they are every single woman's personal bodyguard and meat-shield, which I believe is a very reasonable thing to say. Thanks. You put that more eloquently than I did.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:40 AM
2

Let's not turn heroism into a dirty word. Heroism is fine. Heroism is admirable. But making someone feel guilty because they weren't heroic enough? Making someone feel ashamed because they weren't willing to put themselves in danger for the sake of a stranger? That's not ok. Treating self-sacrifice as admirable is, in my opinion, absolutely excellent. Treating it as expected? That's not ok. It should not be expected of anyone to put themselves in danger for the sake of another. It should be hono…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:37 AM
1

I agree, but that's still putting the burden on someone else to intervene. I'm not sure it's fair to make someone feel guilty for not helping a stranger if it would require putting themselves in danger. You and I would probably step in, but I don't know that it's morally justified for us to expect that of anyone else.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:33 AM
1

Hah. Go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:32 AM
1

Even when there are lots of people who want someone's job, it's still incredibly expensive to replace staff. Even ignoring the hiring costs you have the 4-weeks severance package. You think they're going to shell out a month's worth of wages for 5 workers because they wore shorts instead of trousers?
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:30 AM
0

I can understand the shirt, at least. I mean, they do have boobs, and I'm fine with boobs being accommodated. Boobs are great. Boobs. Heh. I love boobs...
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:20 AM
0

and when the company complains You really think the company would complain? Honestly, if all the guys in my workplace turned up in shorts and t-shirts because it was too hot for them to work otherwise, I can't see any reason why it would be worth starting something over that. Just do it, what's the employer got to make them want to enforce the code?
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:18 AM
1

The second seems to be putting the burden on those not involved to put themselves in danger. I can see why people would disagree with that one.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:14 AM
1

I've read it, and it does (at least as far as I am at the moment). It's a very, very, good book.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 02:33 AM
1

No worries. :)
/r/MensRights26/06/14 04:18 PM
1

Raidicus, I stumbled across this video and it's a really interesting analysis on the issue, focussing on his emotional connection to his parents. Thought you might want a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-fJwQXok50 I know Stefan Molyneux did one as well, but that was a lot more "this is true, this is true, this is true" than an analysis of the issues he was talking about. It might be worth checking out if you find BlitheringGenius' perspective interesting, though.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:56 PM
4

AlphaWhooshie ;)
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:06 PM
0

Probably something to do with the death penalty.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:05 PM
17

I'm inclined to agree, for a different reason. When a woman calls her a slut, it's the couple that's responsible. Can't have it being her fault if there's a man close enough nearby to share the blame.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 01:58 PM
4

Both are equally as bad I'm not sure that's true. Both are equally unjustified but one is shaming someone for their actions, one shaming someone for their inaction. Both are horrible, but there's no point throwing around platitudes. Shaming someone for being unable to do something is worse than shaming someone for making the choice to do something.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 01:52 PM
2

Although I am glad the groups are getting funding, this does sound like misrepresentation of fundraising to me. As far as I can tell, their allegations seem to be true. Can anyone clear this one up for me?
/r/MensRights26/06/14 12:30 AM
3

I'll bet you a significant amount the feminist lobby is already claiming this is just sexism against women "in disguise."
/r/MensRights25/06/14 11:28 PM
4

Imagine, just imagine, that you're a rape survivor watching this. One of the apparently rare male rape survivors who actually didn't want it. Bill Maher, if that was you, how the fuck would you feel watching this segment?
/r/MensRights25/06/14 07:45 PM
3

I know. I was pointing out that when a woman acts like a man, it does nothing to increase society's respect for her and it's strange how that's omitted from the "men acting like girls" theory.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:59 PM
4

Why can women wear pants but men can't wear skirts/dresses? "Can wear" is not "respected more for doing so." Why are women admired if they act tough or inhibit masculine traits You're suggesting women are respected for doing hard things. Doing hard things is not a masculine trait, emotional suppression and a disregard for physical safety are masculine things. The word Dyke is a good example of society's distaste for women who cross certain gender lines. But whatever, these are subtleties. I'll p…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:55 PM
1

Shhh, don't open the echo chamber.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:49 AM
14

"They don't respect him when he does female things because they don't respect girls!" "So you think society respects women more when they act like men?"
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:37 AM
1

Well yeah, of course radfems are going to claim their feminism is the real feminism, and radical feminism does happen to be at the root of feminism. The "radical" label, though, just means incompatible with the mainstream. That's the same for any radical political group. That's where it came from initially.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:33 PM
1

You're addressing the definition of radical in the context of, say, science or linguistics. Political radicalism is a little different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_(political) Edit: In fairness, I suppose my example would be incorrect too. In the context of feminism it means the side of the movement that is incompatible with mainstream views.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:11 PM
3

Radical doesn't mean extreme, it means different to the mainstream. So, you could be a radical metal fan - that doesn't mean you like extreme metal, it means you like metal that is considered weird. Radical feminism is the branch of feminism that was considered crazy at the time of its inception. That's about it. It's not a "more extreme" version of "actual" feminism. Ironically, it is actual feminism.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:12 PM
0

I know. I mean, some forms of MGM are done consensually. It doesn't matter. Typically, FGM is worse and typically, MGM is non-consensual. Pedantry about which is worse isn't helpful when you're trying to make the distinction that "which one is worse" doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:38 PM
2

He runs a website called manboobs, which exists to target MRAs and make them seem as evil as possible. Honestly, it's quite a useful resource. It's your one-stop-shop for the literal worst they could dig up on anyone prominent in the movement, and most of it is pretty pathetic.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:29 PM
7

Whilst you're correct, when you say "but it is true" after a joke, you've just made it a proclamation - not a joke.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:37 PM
2

"Hey funny joke, haha, haha..." "But, you know, it is true." Really?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:35 PM
2

Men are no different...
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:35 PM
2

I'm concerned about how the MRM and this subreddit may attract... Why do you want to stop something that attracts new members? Unless it is the KKK we're attracting, new members are new members. Every single voice makes us louder.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:30 PM
-1

I wish more people would take their head out of their ass and realise this. Yes female genital mutilation is worse. It doesn't matter. They are both wrong and should both be illegal for the exact same goddamn reason.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:24 PM
2

Wicked. This is what's needed.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:21 PM
2

I know one of the Oxford Feminist committee. She once posted a resource on Facebook for female victims of sexual violence, then said for any guys who wanted help to "message her." Totally went over her head what she did wrong. The ignorance she comes out with is astounding.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:04 AM
8

If he's of no means and unemployed, he can go to the Mission, Sally Anne or city shelter. Add an s.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:16 AM
2

Are most men really potential rapists as the term “rape culture” suggests, Rape culture does not suggest that men are potential rapists, no. If men will rape more when the culture causes them to, then that is treating most men as potential rapists. All they need is a bit of culture thrown at them, and bam, suddenly they're a rapist. I will not rape a woman. Even if you put me on a planet where there were government loudspeakers pinned to my ears shouting at me about how it's "ok to rape a woman"…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 12:06 AM
2

Genetic privacy is a different issue, somewhat. If I'm responsible for my own DNA, I have the right to know where it exists and this law is upheld in most situations. You have free access to any database on which your DNA is held, and you used to have the right to a unilateral paternity test. Feminism was pretty much single-handedly responsible for removing father's rights to their children, which is why the discrepancy exists when it comes to this particular situation. I'm not saying that's rig…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:53 PM
1

Good reply. ;)
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:49 PM
2

Was there a law on the books prior to the feminist movement that mandated a woman had to notify possible fathers of a pregnancy? I don't have a citation handy I'm afraid, but I remember girlwriteswhat talking about it. I believe so, yes.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 05:17 PM
1

I'm not sure it needs stating, but I'm not actually trying to placate SRS.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 05:16 PM
2

Ok, so intersectional feminism is about applying feminist theory to other forms of oppression. Since we're talking about Patriarchy, how is this relevant to the point at hand?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 05:13 PM
1

This is disregarding the 'brutality' of the act and merely going off the definition of sex without consent. Yes, I agree with this one. There should be different degrees, just like with assault. I was going by the worst form, and that which people tend to associate with the crime. (I wonder how SRS will read that one...)
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:05 PM
5

Maybe it's better for me to say that he was suffering from a slew of behavior disorders of which I believe narcissism was the controlling behavior, and some minor aspergers simply complicated it. I like this definition a lot. It seems to me, reading his manifesto, that even in spite of his delusional sense of self there were certain things - certain ways people acted - that he might have understood if it weren't for an inability to understand subtext. It really was a horrid tragedy. :/
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:02 PM
4

And he wasn't claiming feminists say "men don't experience any violence" either. He was addressing feminists who claim men aren't suffering (and I would imagine more specifically, that they aren't the "victims" of) specific bouts or varieties of violence, for example that of Elliot Rodger.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:58 PM
2

the theory of Intersecionality being a fundamental part of which current Feminism is based on. Can you please explain to us what the theory of intersectionality is (or link to it), or otherwise rephrase your post to be clearer on what you mean by it?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:44 PM
1

Why doesn't she respond to any of these requests...
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:41 PM
2

It's a normally pleasurable act done without consent. For the benefit of SRS, this does not mean it is also pleasurable when it's done without consent and he isn't saying that. Rape is not second to murder. This I disagree with. I don't know any single act that can damage an adult psychologically as much as a brutal, violent rape that wouldn't also count as attempted murder. Besides which, legally it is second only to murder as a crime.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:37 PM
4

Hold up, you're talking about a different issue now. This was your original quote: nobody is saying men don't suffer violence And the article is taking a subset of violence, and attempting to exclude men's suffering from it. I'm talking about the mentality behind what's being said - to ensure men are seen as "not suffering" violence. "Men don't experience any violence" is a different claim.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:26 PM
1

Oh yeah, I know what you mean - but from the point of view of someone who thinks "facts are unimportant", their emotions, bias and prejudices are absolutely the most important things in the world.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:23 PM
1

That's a quality I respect. Good on you.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:58 PM
4

The author of the article...
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:58 PM
2

I am strongly questioning the diagnosis he received based on the videos I've seen of him and having done years of volunteer work with autistic and aspergers children in the past. Obviously I could be wrong, and I'm not a psychologist but it seems very suspect. How severe was the autism that you worked with, and how old were the children? I ask because I work in a field with a really large prevalence of high-functioning aspergers men around Elliot Rodgers' age, and I seem to be attracted to hobbi…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:52 PM
6

They're using the word violence, giving it a definition, and excluding men from that definition. The purpose is to exclude men from being victims of what they call "violence." That's exactly what they're trying to do.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:36 PM
4

We can't make feminism the boogeyman where feminism has no clear involvement. I'm pretty sure feminism is responsible for the law saying that pregnancy information is private to the mother, rather than to the child's parents. I see your point here, but feminism doesn't have "no involvement".
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:24 PM
4

Oh yes they do.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 01:46 PM
2

That doesn't follow. If facts are unimportant, then emotions might still be important. Prejudices might be important, and subjective interpretation might be.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 01:45 PM
2

He definitely did not have Aspergers Syndrome What? He did. Whilst the diagnosis of aspergers syndrome is out of date, it represents a diagnosis of a specific type of autism which would have been labelled aspergers at the time of his diagnosis. To say he didn't have aspergers isn't true. The dude was clearly autistic. If you watch his videos, it's clear he has some strain of autism as well as narcissistic tendencies. Where did you hear he that wasn't?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 01:40 PM
1

I decided I couldn't very well bitch about the lack of support for male sexual assault/domestic violence victims if I wasn't willing to provide it... I don't think that's true. It's a bit like saying you shouldn't be voting if you aren't willing to become a politician. It's absolutely admirable that you are providing it, though. Too many people can, but don't.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 01:25 PM
1

It's not just that it encourages empathy - it also points out, very clearly, what an erection doesn't signify. That's the problem, I think. Men can't be raped because an erection is consent - you just need people to empathise with someone who's erect, but not consenting. Unlike most men's issues I don't think it's apathy or malice that causes the stigma here, it's ignorance.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 09:56 AM
-2

This isn't objectification - they want him to want them. Just like most cases of female "objectification," their interest rests on him being able to make his own decision and choose them. Don't misuse the same terms they do. Edit: People seem to be bothered by this one. Perhaps I should make it clearer. "I want you to want me" is an act of wanting someone not to be an object. You want them to have agency, and to exert it on you. That's subjectification - you want them to be the subject of your f…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 11:56 PM
1

Show her this video and see what she makes of it. You need to make her empathise with victims, since she isn't at the moment. Show things from their perspective, and she might.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 11:51 PM
3

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the original book's authors weren't too concerned with accuracy.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:04 AM
11

SRS identify with their beliefs. They aren't trolls.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 11:34 PM
1

The point is that it's such a dramatic proposal, you don't need to follow through with any action...
/r/MensRights08/06/14 10:12 PM
3

A link to that article. Edit: One particularly ridiculous highlight: Meta-analyses have shown that women are not only twice as likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic event but also the chronicity of symptoms usually persists up to 4 times longer than for men (Norris, Foster, & Weisshaar, 2002). These rates are shown despite equality in the baseline number of lifetime traumatic events encountered by men and women (DePrince & Freyd, 2002; Norris et al., 2002; Orsillo, Raja, & Hammond, 2002). Whe…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 10:04 PM
2

If you don't get therapy for that, your husband is probably going to end up in jail. That will fuck your kids up more than just about anything else in the world. Get. Therapy. Now.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:52 PM
32

Seriously, do they have some sort of particular hatred for people pointing out that feminism usually treats rape and abuse exclusively as Male on Female, without even a token acknowledgement of other groups of victims, including some women? Yes. SRS are fucking mental.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:46 PM
0

I just compared a fair-minded woman who calls herself feminist The two are incompatible
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:44 PM
4

Feminazi also separates the negative actions, conceptually, from the majority of feminists. "Those actions belong to the feminazis, not the real feminists!" These aren't "feminazis", they are normal feminists.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:42 PM
5

It's peaceful, but it's also against what is essentially just discussion. I can understand protesting female circumcision, war, male circumcision, political decisions, even other public protests. I can't by any stretch imagine protesting to stop someone from sharing their opinion of the world at their own private event.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:40 PM
1

Seems excessive it's worked Seems about appropriate to me then.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:20 PM
1

Who cares? You aren't risking prison time if it's a man you're defending yourself against.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:20 PM
-1

You just contradicted yourself, brother.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:18 PM
9

By that logic, Men's Rights is less worthy than feminism in general since only one is a billion-dollar industry.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:12 PM
39

Careful saying "M>F" on reddit, you know how SRS will interpret that.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:10 PM
2

I wasn't saying that there is no such thing as hiring discrimination, but I think you know that I wasn't saying that based on your responses. Oh yeah, I do. I thought that was your direction at first but yeah, I understand where you were coming from now. I really hate those AAUW-type "reports" that masquerade as scientific analyses when they are more like persuasive essays. Me too. 50 pages of writing and 3 pages of un-annotated data always gives me a bad feeling from the start. Sorry I don't ha…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:18 PM
3

Oh, I'd agree 100% - I wish I had the other study to hand, it was a lot more watertight. On this, though: Unexplained is not discrimination I agree, perhaps I chose my words badly. What I mean is, there is a gap and it's unexplained, but from personal experience I can see how discrimination affects the hiring process. So, there's a gap, and there is also discrimination, but the two are not necessarily directly related. Essentially, these three factors: 1) Nerves around women leading to a prefere…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:03 PM
2

That's probably worth mentioning too, actually. Donglegate turned female employees into potential legal liabilities, further increasing the overhead of a female employee vs. a male one.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:35 PM
3

Yeah, no. That isn't what OP said and not what we are talking about. You're right, that's not what OP said, which is why I'm talking about it. Furthermore, I have to question your speculation about the lower salary for women. Fair enough. Here's a study that places the controlled-for-other-factors difference at around 6.6%. http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf?_ga=1.7578036.722397424.1379578621 I remember re…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:13 PM
3

when you say that femininity is undervalued in the scientific community, what exactly do you mean? People automatically assume girls are bad at, for example, programming. So, all other things being equal, a faceless candidate is a fair amount less likely to be granted an interview if you put a women's name on the application than if you put a man's and the starting salary offered would be about 5-10% (I think) less on average. Wage discrimination in computer science is very real, primarily becau…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:34 PM
1

This is an illustration of the problem, not proof the problem exists. He's not saying "this proves x," he's saying "this is an example of x." When I talk to feminists and I give them analogy to explain my point of view, they tend to try and find a way that the analogy is different from the original situation being described. "No, it's not the same because of this way the analogy is different." Now, obviously they can always find a way in which the analogy is different - that's the point, it's an…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:01 PM
1

Because it's not religiously motivated.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 10:26 AM
1

Exactly. They're worried about lawsuits, not damage to their hotel.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 10:24 AM
2

I think it is demanded of men that they be mature enough not to be scared when it isn't going to be helpful. I'm not sure that expectation is placed on women. If anything, I think the reverse is true.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:16 AM
5

Important to note is the fact that if there's doubt about a case, women generally won't be indited in the first place. Less will be falsely imprisoned, and consequently less will be released after false imprisonment.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:02 AM
3

A woman who has slept with less men is, statistically, significantly less likely to leave you. From a biological perspective, it's also pretty natural - a women who doesn't sleep with many men is less likely to be tricking you into raising another man's child. Personally, I don't give a shit how many guys my girlfriend's banged in the past, but I can see why someone would.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:30 PM
4

I would assume proper channels have been notified. You think? They know full well it isn't a genuine threat. I doubt they want to escalate it. They want AVFM to cover the officers just in case, and they want to leave it there. That's what I'd guess, at least.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:23 PM
4

Why is it sad? If I value IQ, I value IQ. If not, then I don't. It's my choice. Intelligence isn't innately better than attractiveness. If I want to value how kind someone is over their intelligence, is that wrong? How about how brave they are? How about how charming they are? I don't understand this obsession people have where they complain that people value certain traits in them more than others. You know what? They're allowed to. If someone likes me because I have a big dick, then more power…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 08:12 PM
0

She might not want you to die, but whatever hatred or apathy she feels towards men that makes her even remotely ok with #killallmen is going to be directed at you. You told her that "killallmen" makes you feel uncomfortable and she made it about herself feeling upset. Cut her out. You don't need someone like that in your life.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 02:26 PM
4

But I also don't think society, at large (aka those even not represented on the internet) believes that women's issues, specifically the ones shown in this picture, are more important than the rights of people in the third world. From working in the area, I can tell you that this is wrong. People care a lot more about domestic women's issues, particularly those of fairness, than they do about children starving in the third world.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:49 PM
3

Do you think men's rights are generally something taken seriously by society? Does society at large view them as more important than the rights of people in the third world?
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:19 PM
0

For what it's worth, I didn't understand your intent. If Typhon hadn't commented and you replied, I still wouldn't.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 12:54 AM
5

#violenceisviolence We would do well to remember that.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 09:54 PM
1

This is a fantasy world. I am not Jamie Lannister. No actual man is Jamie Lannister. No actual woman is Cersei.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:33 PM
0

The directors have said it wasn't rape. I think it's a creepy scene, I think it's badly produced, and I think it was designed to look like rape. I think they might have even claimed it wasn't rape just to be controversial and stir up publicity for the show. But that's irrelevant. The writer of Cersei gets to decide whether Cersei has consented in her own head. Let's say I was into bondage, and I was playing rape with my girlfriend. If I told my girlfriend to stop, then later I myself said it was…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 03:06 PM
2

As far as I can tell, it wasn't supposed to be a rape scene. The directors have come out and said it wasn't rape, and at the end of the day, they're the only people who get to define what their own fictional characters are thinking. The problem comes, I think, with the fact not even feminists seem to understand what actually constitutes rape. Rape is about consent, and that's it. It is not defined by the communication of consent. In a story like this, if the directors said Cersei was consenting,…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 02:47 PM
6

The modern American political party is "The Libertarian Party," not "Libertarianism."
/r/MensRights22/05/14 09:43 PM
292

"Quit deciding for yourself, I'm trying to protect you!"
/r/MensRights22/05/14 02:15 PM
1

What about general abuse? Can you say: "I'm driving to get away from this person who just ran at me with a knife on the street," and by extension, your SO if they were abusive? Edit: Not so sure I have an opinion on this one.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 10:17 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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