TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Woozer Archive

View 0 posts and 34 comments by Woozer 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)
6

Gender dysphoria is a mental defect, one for which a valid treatment is gender reassignment. The goal is to get a person to a state where they are capable of living a normal life, as unburdened as possible by their mental issues. If gender reassignment has (for those that seek it) generally much better outcomes than other options, why would we force people to pursue those other options? Why wouldn't we want to give them the most effective treatment possible? That's completely aside from any evol…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 10:22 AM
172

It's a rewrite of a strip of the webcomic Questionable Content. The original author did not write it that way, in fact the panel order is reversed. This was almost certainly part of the big group of rewrites that 4chan did.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:55 AM
2

I must just be missing something completely. What the hell does the way feminists and SJWs think have to do with how one should feel about this guy getting harassed? Because some people are idiots this guy suddenly deserves threats and abuse or we should be fine with said abuse? Your comment I first responded to seemed to indicate that this guy getting shit on was fine if he was whiteknighting. I replied that it doesn't matter if he is a whiteknight or not, he doesn't deserve abuse for a good id…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 08:26 PM
2

What was in his mind doesn't really matter. Even if he only did it for the reasons you described, it would still be admirable. His development is something that actually empowers and protects people and gives them peace of mind. I don't see how people getting pissed at him for making a great tool is somehow awesome even if he had ulterior motives. People weren't angry at him for whiteknighting, they were angry at him for daring to imply that women could/should do something to take their safety i…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 07:55 PM
9

Giving people tools to prevent rape is not whiteknighting. Rape is very bad, even if it's blown out of proportion by modern media and feminists. Anything that can actually work to prevent that is a positive thing.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 07:02 PM
5

Attempt vs. commit. The attempt rates are similar, the "success" rates are not.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 02:37 PM
13

It doesn't make rape any less of a crime, that is true. And nobody deserves to be raped, ever, full stop. But why is it that men generally are targetted to prevent rape, rather than trying to get women to behave more safely? The vast majority of men already don't rape people, and won't. But a woman can protect herself pretty easily by either having friends around and plans to get wherever you need to go, or not becoming intoxicated to the point of losing the ability to make sound decisions. If a…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 04:55 PM
2

For destruction of property, not much. I mean, a DV victim can and should take action to defend themselves and remove themselves from the situation. If they want to, they should work on ending the relationship. But destroying someone's property after the fact doesn't make the victim safer, it doesn't improve their situation, it serves no practical goal. I can understand the sentiment behind the destruction, and I get why someone would do it, but that doesn't make it right or justified.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 03:56 PM
1

So I take it you consider MRA some nutcase cult. Then all of the European medical agencies that take strong stances against circumcision must be nutcase cults too, I guess. I agree though, feeling upset about something you consider mutilation and had no control over is silly. All those people who whine about female genital mutilation also simply have misdirected anger. If only they could accept what happened, they could move on. Being angry is pointless and unjustified. /s Don't pretend to know …
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:07 AM
10

Part of the problem is that "FREAKING DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS" are not monolithic on this issue. There are a lot of opinions on both sides. This isn't like evolution where everyone who disagrees has their head in the sand. Take a look at this comment by OP. There are a lot of western medical organizations of "FREAKING DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS" that stand on the other side of the issue, for the same reasons that most of the people here do. So you probably got downvoted for voicing an unpopular opini…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:03 PM
7

The possible complications can't just be dismissed, because procedures won't always be done correctly, and because there is no way of ascertaining the psychological stability of an infant. I also don't understand why bodily integrity/control of one's body is never considered a benefit of leaving a child uncut. The link I gave was mostly refuting the medical benefits, and circumcising for "possible future penile problems" seems like a preventative mastectomy, only necessary in the most extreme of…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:06 AM
5

I will link to a comment I've copy-pasted elsewhere in the thread. comment If there's a specific medical need for a circumcision, I'm all for it. If someone, infant child or adult, has an issue that circumcision will answer, go hog-wild. But if it's just as a general "let's circumcise everyone because circumcisions are great" then I have to disagree strongly.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:43 AM
2

A possibly relevant comment I'm copying from user med_stu in a /r/skeptic thread about the recent AAP finding. People are missing the main point here. In good, non-corrupt medical practice the best course of action is ALWAYS considered the course which provides the maximum benefit using the least invasive and risky method. I don't think the studies used to provide evidence for the benefits of circumcision are valid, but lets assume they're all true. Lets look at the supposed benefits from the po…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:27 AM
8

But it is a trauma you choose. And the choice is what's important. If some people will be upset either way, why would we err on the side of removing choice for the individual? Why don't we say no solution is going to be perfect for everyone, so let's take the solution that at least gives everyone a choice.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:22 AM
7

It's not really pertinent when or why he started feeling this way. He feels this way about it now, so it shouldn't have been done then. It is also nothing like "the girls who get mad about being 'raped' because they had consensual sex and regretted it but had friends tell them over and over again that they were raped until they believed it themselves," because the circumcision was never consensual. He may not have always been upset about it, but he also at no point ever gave consent. And that's …
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:20 AM
2

My bad, I had just woken up and my reading comprehension was a big pile of dumb, I'll edit the original to be less asshattish. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:22 PM
13

Its a mens rights issue, because for all we know the coach had a relationship with this woman and the pictures were not unwelcome, they have a fight or things end and now she wants to humiliate him and get him in legal trouble. That's what we suspect, but we don't know much of anything for a certainty. The article was really sparse on details. Hopefully any investigation that takes place will consider the possibility of the woman lying. The woman should probably also face some consequences for s…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:35 PM
5

The people who agree with whatever is posted will upvote and move on. The people who disagree will move into the comments to let everyone know they disagree. So the minority who don't like it have a higher concentration in comment sections.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:57 AM
6

He also publicly apologized for that and retracted the Harry Truman statement. They do try very hard to avoid any responsibility, but I don't consider it any worse than Fox news talking heads saying, "But I'm just an opinion man. My statements aren't intended to be factually accurate."
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:02 PM
1

Is he actually prepared for the shitstorm he's going to cause and that will be brought upon him? If he is, and he's cool with that, he should go right ahead. But he shouldn't go into it thinking it'll all be people laughing and a good-natured argument where he will get to leave without being attacked in the worst of ways. I got verbally massacred for asking questions, he's talking about doing much more confrontational shit than asking some questions.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:03 PM
8

And if he wants a lawsuit great. Most people I know don't want to go through the expense and hassle of a lawsuit if they can avoid it easily.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 01:44 PM
24

No you don't. You think that because you have reality on your side that that will matter, or change their minds, or make them acknowledge how clever you are. It will do none of those things. It will piss everyone off and get them to make your life hell and continuing in the school difficult. If you actually want a legal battle to keep going to school there without dealing with more shit, then go ahead and "troll" them. Otherwise, just keep your head down.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 01:43 PM
8

You claim that feminism is in no way responsible for any of man's ills because it's too new. Isn't the modern state of families, marriage, divorce, and custody a relatively new phenomenon? I don't necessarily think feminism is the only force at play here. But to say it can't be one is a little dishonest in my view.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:05 AM
3

I think designers choose those body types because there is nothing there to distract from the clothing, not because gay men like little boys. Just sayin'.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 12:34 PM
1

I didn't mean to imply that studies shouldn't focus on male victims at all. It's just that in my mind there is a difference between a study about shit people don't know about in the Congo and sexual grievance studies in a nation like the United States. In the USA its not very defensible to ignore half the population. In DR Congo, I imagine its more difficult to get a complete picture and it's more justifiable, in my eyes anyway, to be more limited.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 08:08 PM
1

Wow, it's unfortunate that the Congo is quite so fucked in every respect. I still think this is less a MR issue and more a human rights issue. And I don't think it's terribly anti-MRM that the study focused on a specific population. But thank you for dropping additional knowledge on me.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 06:42 PM
0

Then make that point, not the point that a study doesn't include consideration for men and children.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 05:03 PM
1

Good point. For myself, I can't see what this has to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 04:16 PM
3

I don't really have a problem with a study on rape in DR Congo not focusing too much on boys and men. There is a real issue there with rape many, many orders of magnitude worse than in the USA. It's actually somewhat noteworthy that they mention the study has holes in it. I support the MRM, but this is not a fight worth having. DR Congo is a very different place than western society.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:08 PM
2

This is the crux of the issue. You are coming from a very different set of experiences than a lot of the people here. You seem to believe that your experiences are representative of reality and should dictate the way MRAs handle themselves. The thing is, just because you have had great experiences with feminism doesn't mean feminism is/has been a force for good in the experience of many of the people here. And frankly, saying we should just call ourselves feminists because feminism has been good…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 12:53 PM
12

I don't see what's wrong with "separate but equal" in this situation. It's inherently unequal, but society doesn't have a massive stake in making all private scholarships open to everyone. Let people give their money how they want. It would be different if this was a public institution, but it's not.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 02:48 PM
1

Men and women are definitely being objectified in advertisements. I'm not really sure how one could argue against that. The more important question is, "What are the effects of this objectification?" If it actually causes widespread damage to the fabric of society it's bad. If however the outcome is benign, I personally don't see a problem. However, I have no idea what the effects of objectification are, and thus cannot provide a meaningful answer.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 04:20 AM
4

I don't think it speaks much to human integrity that they have to see a life destroyed before they would consider doing the right thing.
/r/MensRights16/05/10 03:21 PM
0

The article didn't really seem to draw the conclusion that "men treat their friends better than women do." It seemed to only say that men were more forgiving of faults.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 04:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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