TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Wrecksomething Archive

View 3 posts and 162 comments by Wrecksomething 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)
1

The same acts are tallied for men and women. When you trivialize the category for women, you trivialize it for men. Dismissing the category because it includes digital penetration would apply to both women and men. This is just extending the stigma that being made to penetrate should not be treated seriously.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:59 AM
1

Trivializing the same acts just because the victims are women will not help the category be taken more seriously, which should be the goal here...
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:49 AM
0

Thought this might link to something that actually supported the headline, instead of just being a bald promotion.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 12:39 PM
6

1971 is when she "open[ed] the world's first women's refuge in Chiswick." Not when she provided the quote.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:15 AM
1

I invite you to try the same comments that got you banned in /r/FeMRAdebates. They're definitely banworthy there, but in better company since "patriarchy" is also against the rules in femradebates.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:29 PM
-3

That sentence is from a fictional character and the SPLC does not report on fictional hate groups.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 06:36 AM
0

No, he didn't. Futrelle and /r/MensRights did the same exact thing: linked to her fundraiser.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:06 PM
0

Advertising her fundraiser doesn't make him her employer. /r/MensRights advertised it too. By that logic she's as associated with Futrelle as she is with you.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:20 PM
-1

No, she was asked not to attend even if she were to buy a ticket. Also, contrary to the information above, she clearly stated that she has no association with Futrelle or anyone else. She raised the money for a ticket but made a deal with AVfM to instead donate that value to a men's charity they could mutually agree to in exchange for a ticket. AVfM agreed, then later rescinded the pass and asked her not to attend. She is still making the charitable donation, and if I understand she plans to tra…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:13 PM
2

This also lends some evidence that draft-support is strategic moreso than gender-based. For example the 1980 poll shows 39% of women (vs 49% of men) supported drafting women. This is remarkably similar to the 40% of 18-24 year olds (vs 66% of those 25+) that supported re-implementing the draft. Age, not gender, gives the largest divide with support for drafting oneself comparable across demographics. This is an unlikely outcome if it's merely a matter of gender roles. The question is also confou…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 03:21 PM
-3

The irony is that you're sourcing the same feminist source that conflates MRA's with mass murderers that the rest of the media also sources whenever it conflates the two. No, the irony is that you MRAs love this false accusation so damn much. All MRAs are insiders, so I guess Lepine is a Men's Rights activist -- applying your logic. Feminists didn't reject it because it was a PR disaster; they rejected it immediately because it was trolling, not feminism. They're just asking us to pretend it did…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:37 PM
-4

Media calling killer an MRA = bigoted feminists because media can't differentiate killer/MRA MRM calling 4chan trolls feminists = bigoted feminists because MRM can't differentiate 4chan/feminists. MRM thinking all feminists are would-be man-haters isn't MRM's prejudice at all. Got it! It obviously doesn't because feminists aren't "outsiders" to feminism. So in both cases the insiders understood the differences. Same scenario, why doesn't same logic apply? But if you're looking for insiders mista…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:33 PM
-15

Does this logic also apply to the Elliot Rodger, Marc Lepine, Anders Brevik, and George Sodini killings that everyone outside the manosphere thought sounded exactly like the Men's Rights Movement?
/r/MensRights20/06/14 02:47 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/273v18/mens_conference_is_under_attack_with_threats_of/chxyruz I'm the Social Media Director for the conference ... You're conflating two different things. The conference's staff list is not necessarily the same as the website's staff list, as the conference has its own duties to fulfill.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 08:43 PM
-13

This subreddit's creator just rehosted and reposted material he considers to be doxxing. You've left it up so I am going to generously guess you do not agree it is doxxing?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:04 AM
-1

187 people who sub to both /r/mensrights and /r/theredpill I think. It's 297 out of the sample of 4112 users. Also it measures users recently commenting in both, not "subscribed." If that is an accurate sample then 6,645 users are recently commenting in both subreddits.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:48 AM
6

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ... failed because of heavy lobbying by feminists and the National Organisation of Women (NOW). Huh Pro-ERA advocacy was led by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and ERAmerica, a coalition of nearly 80 other mainstream organizations. In 1967, at the urging of Alice Paul, NOW endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. 1970 February: Twenty NOW leaders disrupt hearings of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, demanding the ERA be heard by the ful…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 04:59 AM
1

You showed me by maintaining your frame of amused mastery. Just like training a dog, amirite. Oh well, women are still gonna get ya'!
/r/MensRights04/06/14 01:04 AM
5

Go ahead and pretend it's only all the other moderators, by some coincidence, that preach women's inferiority. Here you are preaching about Their lack of honor, their lack of courage. Their lack of dedication to truth, justice, or loyalty. because Women are biologically objects, whereas men are biologically agents. You got one thing right. It's best not to pay attention because there's just no defense for your shit.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 12:48 AM
-5

a viewpoint that said that men and women are fundamentally different Say what you really mean, asshole. Women are inferior to men in almost all aspects
/r/MensRights03/06/14 10:54 PM
0

they dont let me play in SRS :( please sir can I have some human rights?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:19 PM
-1

MGTOW is "Men Going Their Own Way," a community that I promise you is criticized because it is vile and hateful, not because it is gay (it's not). 22% self-describe as hating women on one MGTOW forum. For a favorite example, one of the philosophy's originators argued you should let little girls drown because they'll grow up into terrible women anyway. Or hang around MGTOWforums or NiceGuy's Forums and decide for yourself. Not sure why you found the Hanisch quote so interesting. It predates the M…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:51 PM
1

“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer. The quote continues, Security is when everything is settled, when nothing can happen to you; security is the denial of life. Human beings are better equipped to cope with disaster and hardship than they are with unvarying security, but as long as security is the highest value in a community they can have little opportunity to decide this for t…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 07:53 AM
-2

I said 'upvoted' which you can see it was (highly, and for 10 hours) from the screenshots, snapshots, logs, and charts. Of course that would change after WorstOf, SRS, SRD, and 400+ tweets got a hold of it. If you would like to report vote brigading you need to private message /r/reddit.com, the reddit admins. I would guess they've already acted on this case though.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:23 AM
-4

Friendzone is a pejorative. No one who talks about the issue in earnest is going to regularly rely on that term. An example: an upvoted call to outlaw the friendzone where the word "friendzone" does not appear. It is called "suitor abuse" instead.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:30 AM
-2

It's 200 out of 3526, not 200 out of 91k.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 08:17 AM
10

Oh shit, I first read that as "I was raped" These results include results for "I was raped" too because OP didn't bother putting the phrase in quotation marks to force exact hits for the phrase. Trying again, there's really nothing to talk about.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 12:10 AM
7

This has always been the most blatant evidence of feminist hypocrisy. WW1 era suffragettes fought discriminatory conscription. Emmeline Pankhurst and others called for universal compulsory service and insisted on Women's Rights to Serve. When the US reinstated the draft in 1980, feminists groups opposed the draft but also opposed instituting it only for men. The 1981 lawsuit brought against the draft included the ACLU argument that it ''significantly damaged the cause of women's rights". The Nat…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:03 AM
1

That particular troll has been around a while, taken credit for it multiple times, and the post is completely in his style (including a bunch of spacebar-periods " ."). The information is factually incorrect and the account avoided questions/verification. More, there were similar trolls including in /MensRights/ about heart health--from the same guy--around that time. And I guess a final point might be "ProseElement" is a name suggesting "Creative Writing" sockpuppet.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 02:31 PM
5

It was a troll.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 10:26 AM
-2

Same appears on AVfM's "offending" page and my impression is this isn't a result from copying makow since the intervening quotes didn't copy over. Also, the C&D mentions the photos, which are preserved from Mackney's blog and my impression is probably had the same captions (ie "llluminati victory"). You might be right though: it still leaves his doctor's testimony, his own desire for medication and admission that he voluntarily gave up custody. The fact is of all of us that doctor is best situat…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 02:06 PM
-5

A screencap of the header of his note. The screencap is taken from the C&D lawyers sent to AVfM.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:47 PM
-1

but no evidence. Some of the evidence is still retrievable. I've read archived copies of the court doctor's report on both Mrs and Mrs Mackney. There's also some evidence in Mr Mackney's own note and blog. It's disturbing. His suicide note blames the "Masonic-controlled family court system" and "illuminati satanists" who want to "destroy men." He mentions the medication he can't afford and difficulty keeping a job without it. The doctor report details someone who seems to genuinely need psychiat…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:09 PM
-4

Think back two days. You told us that whoever owns the whiteboard gets to decide what to write on it. reddit owns this whiteboard and doxxing isn't allowed here. Please stop advocating it here and calling the rest of the site cowardly. And, from your submission (above) we know it's not something you limit to people using Facebook publicly; at the time AVfM were doxxing and requesting doxx about U of T students. Your concerns about violence sound familiar though. Perhaps from when you described t…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:18 AM
-5

I can guess what he did. He logged into the wrong account. This one was shadowbanned along with /u/avoiceformen 17 months back for doxxing, with /u/johntheother telling the sub it was "stupid and cowardly" for not supporting doxxing.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 10:27 PM
2

For example, it is technically true to say that if a woman was wearing less provocative clothing, it would have made her a less likely target of the rape. Is it? The only research I've seen on this question always finds otherwise. Rapists rarely remember what their victims were wearing and targeted them for other reasons, like perceived vulnerability, and most cases are premeditated with the assailant knowing their victim. The factual connection between revealing clothing and actual occurrences …
/r/MensRights26/04/14 06:55 AM
1

For example, saying "no" then pulling off his pants and putting his penis inside her. No. She continues to say no while kissing/touching as they both consent to, and Farrell's concern is that because men are saddled with taking the initiative they will have to interpret these (supposedly) mixed message and will sometimes do so wrongly. He is explicitly concerned about not sending men to jail when they misinterpret as they take initiative. Farrell: It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respect…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:35 PM
1

she says "no" and continues to be sexual with him. Yes, she continues the sexual acts they were doing before and both consented to. "Date fraud" is not Farrell's description of a woman forcing a man to engage in "rape play" sex while he only wants "plain" sex. If he doesn't want to (as you/he assume) "play rape" when she says no, he can simply not escalate to sex, just like she asked. Farrell nowhere describes the woman forcing him to escalate to acts he does not want. If she is forcing him that…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 05:07 AM
1

The woman has unilaterally decided to go from one sex act to another Farrell imagined a man and a woman both consenting to kissing and touching. That's not unilateral. Where they differ is that she expresses non-consent for further sexual acts like penetration, while he consents not only to kissing and touching but also wants to have sex. He is not discussing a case where a man does not want to be kissed or touched and a woman does so anyway (while saying "no"). That's a new scenario you've rais…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 04:22 AM
0

Is that your description of what you call "date fraud"? Farrell uses the term to refer to a lack of sexual acts (after a man has gone through the stressful activity of approaching, perhaps paying for a date, etc.).
/r/MensRights13/04/14 07:26 PM
1

If he does it with that (non-consenting/unknowing) woman then yes, of course. What is your point?
/r/MensRights13/04/14 07:13 PM
-7

The claim that AVfM is "banned site wide" is pure fiction though and a fallacious attempt to poison the argument. It might be banned in /socialism, but it's clearly not banned site wide. No, really, it is. This means any link to the site automatically sends a comment or submission to the subreddit's spam-filter. That is how site-wide, admin-imposed domain bans work. The subreddit's moderators may choose to re-approve the links from the spam filter, as the moderators here in /MensRights/ generall…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:51 PM
5

You're in an anti-feminist subreddit, whose sidebar says "There can be no common ground" with feminists, for a movement whose leaders are explicitly anti-feminist in the strongest sense, among subscribers where 92% believe feminism is bad, in an advocacy movement that exists solely because it broke away from feminist-informed men's advocacy. If you like feminism so much, I have to ask if you're aware how much the MRM hamstrings it, by design and intent.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:40 PM
3

Links to other subreddits must use NP format ("np" in place of "www"). Anyone think it is funny that /u/jcoe, who to my knowledge supposedly supports equality, would reject an idea of feminism's and true equality? Like you they disagree on the facts. You don't think feminism is equality and they don't think MR is.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:25 PM
1

AMR strawmanning AKA direct MRA quotes. "I'd celebrate cops being killed" is not a violent comment. Disagree. Celebrating violence (mostly against men) isn't really appropriate. A theoretical situation where somebody refuses to pay child support is not a violent comment. Explicitly advocating murder-suicide to avoid those payments is. Pointing out that the system is biased is not a violent comment Advocating murder-suicide is violent.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 02:29 PM
-4

I'll debate you here on reddit. You're passing up the chance to do so right here, on this topic. What goalpost did they move for you to make that accusation? He deleted them now but only after it was pointed out and he has not earned the benefit of the doubt if he tries to claim he missed them by accident. What does this even mean and why does it matter? Are you attempting to prove that he deleted the comments because people don't trust him to delete comments? What about the violent comments in …
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:47 AM
4

Circlejerking and insults do not belong here. That was a reasoned argument, not a hilarious joke, and you further undermine yourself by assuming anyone you think is wrong must also be a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/14 11:53 PM
4

Great, so anyone receiving those subs' attention must be alpha. There must be roughly 7 billion alphas then, so at least TRP's in good company.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/14 05:58 PM
3

How would you test this theory? Millions of redditors are not in TBP. Does this prove your general rule is perfectly wrong? Seems that people do not enjoy paying attention to TRP, except for a very few exceptions. You also require us to assume TRP are the alphas. I disagree. Mostly they're there because of their failures. They have aspirations, but their behavior is (imo) terrible, and their track record is too.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/14 05:55 PM
14

It's not about whether or not women communicate verbally. I think it is when you describe the bit as "using their bodies as sexual leverage, and are not developing outside of their sexuality." If women use other means, like verbal communication, then that is strictly not true. that implies a certain opportunity cost. So are we left to assume that people who enjoy/employ sex must not be "developing outside of their sexuality"? Seems like a hasty assumption; not everything is zero-sum opportunity …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/14 03:03 AM
1

Adding some interesting and important context: rps removed this thread saying "tits or gtfo" right before making that submission. From what I can tell it looks like it was an in depth and well received submission about TRP and women. The parts that were quoted don't look like simple attention whoring. For the users here who say the policy is only to prohibit attention whoring, why do you think this thread was removed?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/14 02:36 AM
34

Is a comedy routine that purposely leads respondents to that answer, for the sake of the bit, the best evidence that this phenomenon actually exists? ... if you lost your vagina ... Communication is unaffected, but sex is affected. Of course respondents will try to think of sexual solutions for sexual problems. Does research confirm women don't communicate verbally? That they prefer to leverage their bodies?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/14 02:28 AM
1

A non loaded factual observation would be to say some people responded to this post with date rape and immorality accusations, What does PPD think? Right. Which is what his headline does.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:30 PM
1

Calling the post "TRP "date rape" post" IS labelling. No question. Right, it is labeling the "this is rape" reaction as a "this is rape" reaction, and asking if TRP agrees. P.S. My post above yours was 5 minutes old when you responded and is low down in the discussion. However a downvote in that time frame? Seems sketch Rofl. I don't even know what you're talking about. My comment is at the bottom too... because it is new, and thus has lower score than every other. Is there a point to this over-…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:24 PM
1

bc nowhere in the post does the OP say date rape, rape or any such form. Read the redditlog. The original discussion had plenty of references to rape, which is why we're discussing it. TRP mods removed many of those references. inappropriate assumptions = labelling the guide date rape He's not starting with that conclusion; he's asking if users here agree with that conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:07 PM
1

I'm glad there is a well defined definition of date rape? Above you argued "date rape" requires drugging which is one reason you supposed it was inappropriate to use "date rape" in the title. Just noting you're abandoning that argument here: date rape doesn't require drugging, so that isn't a problem here. However CFR wanted to portray the TRP post as being about date rape No, CFR wanted to portray this discussion as being about the "date rape" controversy which demonstrably resulted from that s…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:03 PM
7

Date rape is drugging someone and raping them. No where in that post does he even suggest drugging them. Date rape does not require drugging. Any acquaintance rape could be called date rape, particularly if it is during any "date." If it isn't your words then why put it there? Lots of other people think it and it is debatable, so, here we are. We're allowed to debate other people's views. This is far from the only submission headline that has used someone else's views, either.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 07:49 PM
1

Using date rape right in the title? Seriously? Here is another moderator using "rape" in a title. A loaded question is one with inappropriate assumptions in it. The title here is not loaded. A controversial question is one that some people might not want to talk about because it makes them uncomfortable. This submission might be controversial, but it is not loaded.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 07:42 PM
1

If you want to have a honest debate then don't use loaded words. That describes empty debate, not honest debate. If the point being made is that there is a load, then you want a loaded word. Calling something "predatory" because it is predatory is honest debate. Concealing this fact because you're worried about language is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 07:36 PM
-1

My objection is that being confused should not be an affirmative defense for rape. Farrell seems to disagree. In the cases where someone genuinely does not consent, explicitly communicates they do not consent, but has a confused partner who thinks they are reading a "yes" elsewhere, I think we should put them in jail if they force sex, despite their confusion. Farrell argues their confusion should keep them out of jail. I agree with the problem though. Anyone who takes "mixed signals" and, suppo…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 05:23 PM
1

Can I just ask specifically about this sentence? And it is also important when nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching" conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no." What does this mean to everyone here? Sounds like he is saying we shouldn't put someone in jail even if they ignored an explicit "no" so long as they thought (... or claim to have thought) there were "yes" cues. I disagree: if someone says no throughout sex and then presses…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:28 PM
1

Condoms are the only reliable means of preventing HIV transmission. Pre-exposure prophylaxis drugs (PrEP) appear to be effective.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:13 AM
-1

Not when that humane treatment comes at the expense of the fair and humane treatment of others. I guess you include popular positions like "the draft is bad for everyone" in that description, since you continue to insist voting while opposing the draft is indefensible. Otherwise, kindly remove it from your list of reasons women supposedly proved they wanted Paternalistic Supremacy. In fact, going down your list in that spirit, you wouldn't have much left if this were your actual position. Please…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:14 PM
-1

One of the reasons NOW opposes shared parenting Maybe when you first said this, it was an honest mistake. But I saw you try to sell it to Naomi Wolf, and get publicly corrected. Now I am wondering if maybe you're just determined to lie about it. NOW does not oppose shared parenting. NOW opposes forced shared parenting, where judges are mandated to enforce split custody even if parents are uncooperative and would prefer a different arrangement. There are many important, considerable arguments abo…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:08 PM
1

And now you've exposed yourself as an idiot. I have never stated that all paternalism towards women was good. The only privilege I claimed women expanded was the privilege of holding biological fathers financially responsible for illegitimate children. You said "women have maintained and expanded all the positive aspects of paternalism". Now you're saying they didn't maintain it. Or, "they maintained it until they didn't," effectively the same thing: they brought about change and now it is gone …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:39 AM
0

This sentence is an oxymoron. You are claiming I am strawmanning feminists immediately after admitting that plenty of them are stuffed with straw. No. They do believe women have been disfavored" as you said, but their belief does not match your description, lacking any nuance, where men are always privileged and women are always oppressed. That's only you. This is not the case with men and women, since women have maintained and expanded all the positive aspects of paternalism re women, Lol. What…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 03:13 AM
-1

There's no "alleged association." There is just what you said, what I asked, what you answered: you defend upskirts of children privates so long as they're not nudes, and even more damning you think only a troll could object to them. Call me a troll then.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:59 PM
0

Plenty of feminists (even intersectional ones) tend to see maleness/masculinity as privileged and femaleness/femininity as oppressed or disfavored. Yes, they do, and yet as I said: it is only your strawfem view that permits no nuance. I have also never said that women never, in any circumstance, got the short end of the stick. What you said was I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms. Glad to hear that you di…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:48 PM
-3

Yeah great edit, you really said it all: no one you would associate with would ever disapprove of upskirt photos of children.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:01 PM
-3

... the "or" in whether the person is fully nude or not you mean? No, I did not miss that. What in my comment made you think I missed it? I just happen to think "upskirts" of children are indefensible even when the children are not "fully nude." Which frankly is being redundant; you do not talk about "upskirts" of fully nude people. So... upskirts of children, regular "gaze" for you? Defensible? So long as they're not fully nude? Help me out here.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:01 PM
-2

Did you miss the "of someone's private parts" in that quotation, or are you really defending upskirt photos of children as regular "gaze"?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:56 PM
0

that is, I'm not interested in whether paternalism was morally good or bad. You did judge it though: when you said women are not getting shorted, because they're getting paternalism. Your words: "I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms." That's a value judgement. I think you came close but avoided a direct answer to what I was asking. Everyone knows history is not so simple that women are universally oppresse…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:24 PM
1

Aren't you sort of libertarian-leaning? It is baffling to me that someone with your background constantly defends paternalism as though it is no risk to freedom at all. I mean, do you know why women could not take out a loan unless they had a male cosigner? It was because women could not be sued when they defaulted on the debt, but their husbands and/or fathers could. Oh, well, so long as women forcibly had rights taken away "for good reason" then! So long as it is a double-edged sword where som…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:08 AM
11

It's just a shame that the article is dead wrong, directly contradicted by the study it is reporting on.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:29 AM
1

I was pointing out that if the reason people are here is to make fun of others, they have issues. You didn't really prove your point then, did you? Just because making fun of "special needs kids" is a problem doesn't mean laughing at anything is a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/14 12:16 PM
7

I didn't want to have to sex. Like I really, really didn't want to but I was too intoxicated to put those words together and tell him.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:01 PM
0

Actually toysoldier's "refutation" was itself refuted by me here. He wrongly pretends that subgroups have the same statistical characteristics as their supergroups. He wrongly believes that perpetrators against a representative-group of victims must be a representative group of perpetrators. These are details that the CDC handled very expertly and which he does not respond to at all, just re-asserts them against the evidence, bashing head against wall. And of course he then retreats to suggestin…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:27 PM
-11

so let's focus on each one separately That's all the programs in question did. When it suits this sub, you choose to view "separate" as "exclusive." Those programs help women but do nothing to hurt men. PS don't forget the submissions were total fabrications. "The feminist view" was not even represented in those links, just distorted to pretend "separate" is "exclusive."
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:42 PM
-13

This sub exploded in rage<sup>[1]<sup>[2] when a troll pointed to women's health programs. These differences are why that gender-divided research exists. Don't let that interfere. Continue to blame feminism for unfairly studying women's health, while also blaming feminism for supposedly not realizing women's health is different from men's.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 07:22 PM
-2

Can you give a direct answer? That didn't answer. I am asking if you think the (partial) result of this hypocrisy was to inaccurately overinflate the number of (female) victims. I am asking if you think it is a problem that researchers disregard whether or not victims say they were raped, in favor of behavioral questions.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:16 PM
-1

I never "lamented" anything but the hypocrisy. So you do not believe that Koss inflated the number of victims by relying on behavioral questions instead of self-reporting? It's not just Koss that does this; all research does now, and you yourself lament that victims self-reporting is not reliable. Are you agreeing there is nothing wrong with "disregarding if they said that they hadn't been raped" or do you think that should be the key measure of victimization?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:06 PM
-3

Made it clear, then indicated she changed her mind. Saying "no" and then dead-fishing is not clearly indicating a changed mind. She put up as much resistance as she was willing to (verbal) and no more. You can't just continue fucking someone over their objections until they stop objecting and call it consensual. We clearly don't have the whole story Great, and all the people here assuming she is lying or there's more to the story are one thing and I'm not even touching that. It's the people who …
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:23 AM
-4

"Feeling pressured" can be rape, but that first and foremost requires the pressure to be from someone other than yourself. No, it does not matter what pressure leads someone to not want sex. The fact that they don't want sex is all that matters. If you believe her story, she didn't want sex (maybe because of internal pressure, who knows) and she made this clear. Anyone who has sex with someone they know or ought to know doesn't want sex is in fact guilty of rape.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:02 AM
2

So if you get "coerced/pressured" into sexual acts, it is the same a rape? "forced?" Not it is not. Is it your position that you can't be a rape victim unless you use force to resist your attacker? If you believe her story, she was saying no and that did not stop him. If she didn't escalate to physical resistance, then he would not have needed to use physical force either, but personally I think having sex with someone who is telling you they don't want sex is rape even if they're not resisting …
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:49 AM
1

But attempted for women means rape. And attempted for men means something else. No... wrong. Attempted rape for both means rape. It's the "rape" part that is being used to exclude some men's cases, not the "attempted." For example, if someone attempts to penetrate a man against their will, the CDC counts that as rape. I would have expected the opposite based on the headline here, because the headline here says that attempts are only counted for women and not for men. That is not the basis of the…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 04:53 AM
5

TIL I am a rape survivor. Neither the CDC nor the Bureau of Justice would defines verbal threats as rape. Only when you combine their incompatible definitions and cherry pick the parts that makes the worst combination do you get this result. "Rape" for the CDC requires forced penetration or attempted forced penetration. Verbal threat of rape does not satisfy the CDC definition. "Rape" for The Bureau of Justice requires forced sexual intercourse. Verbal threat can only satisfy the "attempted rape…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 04:41 AM
2

That is what I said... the basis for excluding those cases is not that the case was "attempted" but not completed. The basis for excluding those cases is that it is "made to penetrate" which is not counted as rape, whether "attempted" or "completed". In contrast, the headline here makes it sound as though "attempted" cases are excluded from men's rape statistics (and not women's). That's not the basis of the decision at all. For men and women both, attempted-acts are tallied in the same exact ca…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 04:30 AM
1

I didn't say your intention was deception. I certainly did not understand your headline though. Attempted rapes are included for both genders, and I thought your headline implied otherwise. Still, you're right that the definition of rape is narrowly defined to exclude many male victims, but that exclusion is not on the basis that I would have thought from the headline.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 11:52 PM
2

So for men, "attempted rape = rape" the same as women, and your objection is "rape" is defined too narrowly, not that attempted rape is excluded for men only. Just making sure since headline seemed to say otherwise.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 11:38 PM
2

Yes, I understand the complaint that "made to penetrate" is not and ought to be included in the "rape" category. That is a separate criticism from the question of whether "attempted rape" is included in "rape." I am asking why your headline suggests that male victims of "attempted rape" are not included in the "rape" category, when your evidence suggests they are included. Are they, or aren't they?
/r/MensRights08/02/14 11:19 PM
-1

Your headline attempted rape = rape, but only if a girl is the victim. Your evidence Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, Why the disparity?
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:32 PM
8

2 days ago, another redditor was shadowbanned for linking a real name and reddit username in an almost identical case as this. That username was of another well known MRA, who self promotes/identifies their own reddit account. The reddit name matches their .org domain name, youtube handle, and twitter handle, all of which display their real name. Even though that redditor was saying "Follow me on twitter: @[username]", reddit admins said that even just linking their reddit /u/username and twitte…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:23 AM
5

This program might have helped him had it found him decades ago. By the time of this story, he did not need risk screening or a referral for a doctor's appointment. He needed emergency care. Maybe that clinic didn't have it but it would have been pointless to send him to another clinic because none of them can offer him that service because he is a man. Any facility capable of providing the emergency care he needed is legally obligated to provide that emergency care. For non-emergency care, I ha…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:32 AM
7

Just to be clear, the program does not directly provide any diagnosis or treatment services. It provides risk assessment, lifestyle programs, and referral services. It certainly does not provide emergency care. OP did not say his friend was turned away from the clinic because of his gender. It sounds like the clinic in question did not have the emergency treatment services he needed, but I don't know the details of his case.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:30 AM
31

MEN ARE AT GREATER RISK FOR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. " [...] the absolute number of annual [Cardiovascular Disease] deaths among the female sex has exceeded that of the male sex since 1984. These data are often confused with CVD mortality rates, which, when adjusted for differences in age distribution, reveal that the CVD mortality rate is substantially higher in men than women (Table 2)." More women are dying. However, age is such a factor in CVD that adjusting for age (with men living ~2 years …
/r/MensRights01/02/14 12:58 AM
9

I want to tack on this finding from the NYT article: [...] the finding suggests that women in unhappy marriages are less likely to proceed with a divorce if their husbands become ill. From skimming I only see limited info about who initiated the divorce. Sick people (who might be having a life-clarifying experience) could initiate a divorce, even if that's not what we expect, but at least some of the research suggests this possibility does not explain the gap. The trend is in the other direction…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 03:20 PM
9

Again, "as persuasive as" bad evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 10:11 PM
7

And to that end, it is as persuasive as arguing that Duke Nukem proves our zeitgeist has shifted towards extreme masculinity, or that Hallmark proves our zeitgeist has shifted the definition of masculinity to "gives witty $5 cards."
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 10:07 PM
6

Young people find many things other than masculinity appealing. Ad agencies are not authoritative either.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 10:01 PM
5

he looks like an effeminate foppish weak puling Peter pan. If that is how he looks, then he is not iconic of modern masculinity, which is what is being claimed. I agree. How can this be iconic of masculinity? I can't identify any part of it, and it's hard to imagine anyone calling it masculine.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 09:34 PM
8

Submissiveness is not a stereotypically masculine trait. Doesn't TRP demonize submissiveness in men?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 09:28 PM
6

Google the incidence rate of men removed as default perpetrator police remove the man from the home, regardless of who was attacking who. I hope you have evidence for this and were not simply relying on your assumptions about male oppression. mandatory arrests are not part of VAWA (largely thanks to feminists criticizing that policy) "Research consistently shows" that these arrest policies increased the rate women were arrested faster than it increased the rate men were arrested. This isn't a se…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/14 03:03 AM
1

Equal relationships means starting with a blank slate and letting each person have equal access to writing.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/14 02:15 AM
10

There are things they do not know, and they are not even aware that they lack knowledge. They have just as much ability and motivation to learn those things as men do, if not more. Women want good partners, so advertising what makes partners good is to their advantage. In fact if you're just going by experience, I'd say any individual (ie woman) has a hell of a lot more experience about what that individual finds attractive than TRP can offer. And besides, TRP freely advertises its struggles wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/14 02:08 AM
4

who on any of those subreddits dares to say "being a good person is not a prerequisite to getting laid like a king" and gets upvoted? No one anywhere thinks that is a prerequisite. It is self evident that many bad people have sex, including (for starters) rapists. You have your finger on the difference here though. Other self help subs do not advocate being worse people just to get sex because the ends don't justify the means, especially when the goal is self improvement. I think this is exactly…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/14 12:03 AM
3

But if I ask you to name an observed difference in outcome (meaning, point to something that men do more or less than women, like a particular choice of a career) that you suspect is due in part to an innate difference, you'll demure. That's not true. I suspect many differences. I would just demand a higher degree of evidence before stating these differences conclusively, because I understand that the complexity of this topic has frustrated our suspicions and resisted our desire to generalize. F…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 10:57 PM
3

My "high horse" is that I have never made the ridiculous claim that "stud" or "pig" has never been used to describe men. Take your factually incorrect claims elsewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 10:54 PM
3

TRP does not call women hamsters. You've got to be joking. Yes, "hamster" can refer to the mental rationalization process. But it is obvious on its face that TRP also calls women hamsters.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 09:16 PM
9

Those little caveats reveal your true position - there are no average cognitive or behavioral differences between men and women. You seem to think that a complex position cannot exist, so if one is expressed it really means a different, simple position. Those little caveats reveal their real position: that differences are relatively small and often caused by culture (not biology). There's no weaseling. They just don't agree with you that the topic is so amazingly simple as to invite the reductio…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 09:11 PM
14

but from the perspective of TRP, the parody backfires by being exactly what they are expecting. In other words, you're saying TRP is non-falsifiable because any criticism of TRP proves TRP correct because TRP predicts criticism. Non-falsifiable theories are worthless garbage. Predicting criticism doesn't prove everything you say is correct by making it immune from criticism. I predict you may disagree. Now if you do, you've proven me completely right. If you don't, I am completely right. Frankly…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 11:15 PM
2

Are these just the ones which end in rejection? No. I don't think rejection makes a story less plausible. Where did that question even come from? Your position is the same healthy skepticism that thinks implausible things on the internet are likely lies. What I think you miss is the selection bias. TBP selects the unlikeliest stories because they're ripe for circlejerking. That doesn't mean TBP thinks TRP is all lies.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 07:16 PM
2

That's not the assumption. It's when there is evidence of implausibility that TBP "concludes" it is BS, if that is even a sincere conclusion and not just circlejerking. I can point you to plenty of TRP stories that TBP accepts really happened. Of course I don't mean to say that everything posted on TRP should be accepted at face value. People often lie on the internet and everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Congratulations, you share the position you're interrogating, here.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 06:49 PM
6

Men can choose to kill pregnant women or their children. They could also flee the country, commit suicide, etc. Your reasoning suggests this choice means spermjacked men, by virtue of having options which prevent fatherhood, opt-in to being fathers. Some of those options might result in jail time, but then, to the Jehova's Witness in your example the result is probably eternal damnation, which is worse than jail. More, not all women have access to safe, legal abortions.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/13 11:47 PM
6

I think you'd still rightly call that rape. This is not rape. "Unwanted child" is not rape. Rape is sex without consent. When there is consensual sex, followed by "spermjacking" and an unwanted child, there is still no rape. You seem to be inviting form of "regret rape" here. But to entertain your false comparison let's discuss the women who have unwanted children from rape (in comparison with men who have unwanted children from consensual sex). First, like men, women are financially responsible…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/13 11:37 PM
-1

Clicked your profile. Ctrl+f+"genderr" and pasted the 5 hits I found. Work smarter, not harder. Unlike other forums, I do not think reddit will be receptive to a self-aggrandizing "signature" to your posts, if that is your intent. Your choice though, unless mods/admins step in with spam concerns--I don't know that they would.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 11:54 PM
6

http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tpa43/what_the_hell_is_up_with_this_add_supposedly/cea9cb4 http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tpa43/what_the_hell_is_up_with_this_add_supposedly/cea52zp http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tox2w/get_ready_for_a_storm_father_sets_self_son_on/cea4t46 http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tire6/my_bf_m29_and_his_brother_m30_are_convinced_men/ce9017s http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tire6/my_bf_m29_and_his_brother_m30_are_…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 01:24 PM
-2

Does it help to know that "Sex Slaves" is actually the title of a series on MSNBC, and that it does report on people bought and sold into slavery? If there was a series about drug crimes named "Drug Cartels" and it had an episode abound the "end user" (street buyers of drugs) I could see how that might be misleading if that was the only episode you were aware of; no one should consider those end users to be involved in "drug cartels." Yet they are still a part of the drug cartel phenomenon and r…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 03:12 AM
3

The extreme-right and anti-feminist blogger Eivind Berge has been arrested for inciting and glorified the killing of police officers. No where does it talk about anything to do with men's rights That article doesn't call him an MRA, but he still is. At least, according to this subreddit, other MRA websites, Berge's own blog. The article probably chose to use "anti-feminist" as a stand in for "MRA." It's an accurate description that is more widely recognizable, since the MRM does not have the nam…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 02:33 AM
13

There are, of course, no reported cases where female victims of statutory rape have been held to a similar support obligation. That's not the first time you've made this claim. (EG same wording) However it seems to be in error. First, women are financially responsible for children they have as a result of rape. They also happen to often win full custody (or custody is never contested), which makes this gender reversal (being ordered to pay support to their rapist) less frequent. But women losing…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 07:50 PM
-1

Because 1) believing in justice does not necessarily mean I believe Alahverdian needs a new trial and 2) I see no way to help him even if I were so inclined. He is exhausting his 5th (at least) legal appeal right now and it is shotgunning dozens of different factual claims including RICO charges against the prosecution and allegations of sexual abuse. On top of the right-to-a-jury thing. There's no legal theory I could imagine that he has not already beaten us to. What do you want from me? That …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 12:25 PM
-1

What a sad bit of maneuvering on your part. Rather than admitting any of your at-least 4 legal errors here, or thanking me for providing the info, you'll go straight for the ad hom. If it comforts you to pretend the MRM is the only arbiter of justice in the entire world, and anyone critical of the MRM must be "anti-men's rights," and that the well-cited facts they state can thus be ignored in favor of your contradicting fantasies, go ahead. It doesn't reflect well on your movement though. PS I s…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 12:14 PM
-1

state v. pless In fact, holy shit, I just checked this case for you and you seem to have PURPOSELY left out the part that would be applicable to Rossi's case: In Tate, supra, syllabus, we held that "[w]here a defendant in a petty offense case has a right to trial by jury and pleads not guilty and demands a jury trial in the manner provided by Crim.R. 23(A), it must appear of record that such defendant waived this right in writing in the manner provided by R.C. 2945.05, in order for the trial cou…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:53 AM
-1

he filed it in writing over a MONTH before the trial started! Yeah? That was my original question, right at the very, very, very top of the very, very top post. So, where was this request? Link it up. Why doesn't his latest complaint mention filing this demand for a jury trial, even though it does mention asking the judge for one after the trial started? As for the rest, you once again fail to read what you quoted. the defendant in a criminal action must sign a written waiver, CRIMINAL ACTION. T…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:41 AM
0

Did you even read what you just quoted? It does not support your argument. It is the crux of mine. He needed to demand a jury trial. That demand must be in writing. His demand was not in writing. That demand must satisfy strict time limits (10 days before trial or 3 after receipt of notice of trial date). His demand did not satisfy the time limit. And finally, failure to file this written, time-limited demand constitutes a complete waiver of his right to a jury trial. He does not need to file a …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:26 AM
-1

This decision is retroactively applicable to Alahverdian Yes. So, if it were applicable, it would help him. It's not. The court's ruling was that SB10 cannot be applied retroactively (to acts committed before SB10 passed) because doing so is an illegal, ex-post facto law. SB10 was never retroactively applied to Alahverdian... his alleged conduct was after SB10 passed. There's no ex-post facto concern, which is the only issue the court handled. As you said, there are "cases that are "serious" as …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 09:56 AM
-1

the Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Williams, ruled that the Sex Offender Registration is punitive, therefore necessitating a trial by jury That was not the determination of the court in State v. Williams. State v. Williams found that because the new registry requirements were punitive, the state violated the ban on ex-post facto laws when it applied SB10 retroactively. In Rossi's case, it is not being applied retroactive (his alleged misconduct was after SB10 passed). The court did not rule tha…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 08:01 AM
-1

You're confusing two different legal standards that both coincidentally use the word "serious." At best, the case is "Blanton-serious, but Ohio-petty." Constitutionally, right to a jury is guaranteed in 3 types of cases: criminal cases, cases with possible 6+ month imprisonment, and other cases that are "serious" as indicated by the legislature's punishment of them. Separately, Ohio criminal code (which tells us how a jury trial is actually effected) categorizes all right-to-a-jury cases as eith…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:35 AM
0

He requested a jury trial, and his request was refused by the judge in his case. Yes, his complaint does say that he asked the judge for a jury trial. However, the criminal code requires that he submit this demand in writing before his trial begins (if this ultimately it classified as a "petty offense case" and I can see no way around that). I also saw that he had already appealed arguing that his counsel was ineffective and the appeal was denied (two other appeals as well). It would be good if …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:53 AM
-1

Did Rossi/Alahverdian request a jury, in writing, before his trial? Reading his complaint I am forced to conclude that, if he is correct (that the 15 year sex offender registry requirement entitles him to a jury trial) then his charges would be classified as a "petty offense case where there is a right of jury trial." They are not a "serious offense case" because they are neither felony charges, nor carry penalty of six or more months imprisonment. So it seems to me that even if the court agrees…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 03:05 AM
0

They absolutely do need to justify why they put some data in one group and some data in another group. Wow, your reading comprehension is like non-existent. I explicitly said their definition is bad. But they don't need to justify the definition to answer "If we use this other definition, are these statistical claims true?" They answered that question. Using the appropriate definition, the claims made of their research are resoundingly false. They asked victims if it was a male or female that pe…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:20 AM
-1

You mean the attempted justification for ignoring their own results, and for why they don't believe a woman forcing a man to have sex isnt rape, which didn't actually offer any reason for separating "made to penetrate" from "rape" other than "men have penis'" and women do not. They don't need to offer any reason for the purposes of this statistical analysis. They do explain their definition is different, but their entire analysis is that even using the other definition, the math does not work ou…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 02:57 AM
-1

it is unclear whether the offenders as reported by the victims changed during the 12-month period. Subsets are not snapshots of all the statistical characteristics of their superset. You're unqualified to talk about this topic. Not only do we have tons of evidence showing these groups are very distinct statistically, but if you were right (omfg you're not) and we had no reason at all, we still would not assume they're the same. That's not how math, science, subsets, logic work, and you're just l…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 12:20 AM
2

Update, for those that care. Futrelle has changed his position [emphasis, mine]: So I’ve been reading back through the comments here, and I’m thinking that the semantic (not legal) distinction I have been trying to make is really not worth the trouble that it is causing. I thought the distinction I was making was relatively clear, but the fact that it has been taken to mean all sorts of things I didn’t intend it to mean suggests to me that the distinction I was making did not serve to clarify ma…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:25 AM
1

Toy Soldier didn't seem to deal with that assertion - nor do you. They're the same person (as far as I can tell). The blogpost links to /u/Jacobtk's comment from a month ago saying As for the CDC’s response, I commented on that on reddit:
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:28 AM
-2

You're upset that I gave my perspective after a regular here asked for perspectives like mine. Guess you have your answer. The people he wants to post here probably don't post here because it is banworthy.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:39 AM
-1

Saying that 40% of rapists who rape males are female is supported by the survey. No, it is not. Read the CDC response. They did not survey the perpetrator population. They cannot say anything about the perpetrator population. They have neither the numerator (number of female rapists who rape males) nor the denominator (number of all rapists who rape males) in the ratio you're claiming their data provides. If 50% of rape victims are male and 80% of them were raped by women, at least 40% of rapist…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:29 AM
3

Is it rape if a person forces a woman to pleasure herself with a dildo/vibrator? Or is it "made to penetrate"? Is it rape if a man forces a woman down and brings himself to climax using a woman's hands or breasts? Per CDC definitions in NISVS 2010: the first case is rape (unwanted vaginal penetration, by use of force or threats of force). The definition does not require the rapists to use their own body to penetrate. The second would be sexual assault, which goes to show that we should consider …
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:40 AM
-9

So I guess straw-feminist is not so pervasive and monolithic after all. There goes the point. I'd advocate not making claims about people unless you're able to demonstrate they're true. Especially such extraordinary claims, with no evidence.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 01:56 AM
-7

how long did it take them to accept she was lying? That seems to contradict the claim that they supposedly think women never lie. Don't accuse me of short term memory because you can't find a single actual example of this being said. That's a problem with your memory.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 01:40 AM
-12

They've said as much before. Can I see examples of your feminist lurkers saying this? You don't make your case look good when you purposely skew what I said, though: Of course yeah. It's the predominately male police force to blame here. ... Picking people who can't well fight back ... But I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Where are these true feminists who say lying to police is not bad, and locking innocent people get locked up is not bad? Where are the ones who say rape victims (or is it ju…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:35 PM
-70

Funny how none of our feminist lurkers ever stop by to comment on these threads. It's because the feminists you imagine don't exist. Women never lie about rape. None of your lurkers here think that. The "victim" should always be believed (meaning the accused is always guilty). Or that. Personally I find the "Official Misconduct" the most troubling part. It removes the check against this abuse and invites its own. Police likely could have framed this man (68-IQ, schizophrenic, substance abuse pro…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:28 PM
22

i have no doubt 50 years ago everyone bought the line that once women were "allowed" into every field, their true suppressed genius would emerge...what people on my side of the fence are curious about is, ok, why haven't they? Maybe because they've only been in the field for 50 years. We don't have a Mozart every generation.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/13 07:54 PM
2

They had their first recipients selected: the DongleGate men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/13 12:12 AM
4

Just tracked down some of the welcome message text. Here is the promise I alluded to in the OP: In the mean time, we promise to post all financial information to this reddit so you can stay up to date.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/13 10:50 PM
3

the only motivation I can think of for believing it is hatred. Even if that intent is not there, the result can still be misogynistic. I don't think the term (or similar) was ever limited by intent. For example, we talk about 'benevolent racism/sexism/etc' frequently. Personally I'd back off from the intent-debate because it is difficult to verify and often not important. I'd prefer to focus, whenever possible, on why the outcomes or means are objectionable.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/13 10:10 PM
1

I was banned in TRP for claiming I disagree with 'radfems.' In other words, a moderator used an ad hom attack against me, admitted later his definition was 'different' but said I was lying by explaining that I was not one. Frankly every time the topic comes up, there are hilarious stories of how people get banned in TRP.
/r/askTRP02/08/13 07:20 PM
0

It's important to take any opportunity to distance onself from dangerous extremism, so: I am not a radfem and am very critical of their core beliefs. Days since last rebuke: 1 0. I appreciate the courtesy.
/r/TheRedPill31/07/13 03:47 AM
16

There is not a single accurate description of US law in this comment. It's actually been declared unconstitutional to have to go to counseling and speeches. No, it has not. "35 states require that women receive counseling before an abortion is performed ..." Courts have consistently sided with these, including as recently as 2012. Telling doctors they cannot, have no right to, inform their patients about medical procedures would make it impossible for doctors to obtain legal consent. It would be…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:52 PM
0

Pragmatic reasons: this post basically follows another moderator's invitation to do exactly this. anyone can benefit from the content here/understanding the sidebar, and vote ratio will determine how useful the community thinks it is. Rational reasons: Basing the decision on posting history alone is ad hom-y, which is discouraged in this sub. My identity does not force us to conclude I am everywhere and always wrong, nor prove (in)sincerity. This subreddit purports to welcome theoretical debate,…
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 11:19 PM
1

Thanks. I share some of the questions from that discussion: 1. Do women stop developing mentally earlier than men do because of biology? Because of culture? or some other cause? 2. The science cited is from the 19th century. Has there been more research on this claim since then?
/r/TheRedPill30/07/13 10:10 PM
2

I honestly find it almost comical when people talk about western women being oppressed. I'm struggling to see the relation to the ERA here. Do we have to think women are "oppressed" to advocate for an equal rights amendment? What about MRAs who advocate for legal equality for men; must they first prove that their discrimination rises to the level of "oppression"? Also, I think any amount of discrimination can be oppressive. Of course it is not rising to the level of apartheid or slavery, but tha…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 05:51 AM
3

This is women's spot to discuss objectively and realistically Is that possible here? Women in male spaces prevent their objectivity yet this female space is being run by men. Perhaps the reverse does not apply though...?
/r/RedPillWomen17/06/13 08:20 PM
1

There was no imputation of malice. I chose to lump other AMR posters in with the one you were criticizing. As one of those in that thread, it is fair to say AMR agreed that: they are of the false assumption that it is impossible for a father who wants to pursue a role in his child's life to be denied that based on the mother's actions. as you put it. Which continues to be a correct description, not a false assumption. But I don't mean to be antagonistic and since my sincere correction has clearl…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:57 AM
2

Not sure why a comment was removed here but here is what I had for responses: You state I am incorrect yet if a father is not named on the birth certificate and there are no other responsibility agreements in place (which there very rarely is due to cost and effort of a court ordered one) and the mother is deemed to be an unfit parent then in that situation under those circumstances the father has no recourse. As you can see from the sources, a father can be placed on a birth certificate or volu…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:49 AM
1

Your AMR post said fathers would need good luck to succeed in such a circumstance. Your headline here says that AMR believes the world is fairer than it actually is. In AMR, the suggestion is that a legal process exists (and presumably is sufficient). If you're not able to provide evidence that it is not sufficient, then you are incorrect to suggest AMR falsely assumes the world is fair, or that fathers need luck when dealing with it. You did not provide an anecdote (that I can find) only a hypo…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:45 PM
1

So teach us how unfair the world is: How many men want to raise their biological children, are prevented from signing the birth certificate, are denied any legal recourse by the court system, and then have their child given away without their consent? You're claiming that AMR is unaware of how widespread this epidemic is, so there must be plenty of evidence of it.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:16 PM
2

What this means is that even if you somehow had unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-positive girl, you’re still quite unlikely to be infected. Here are transmission rates: Vaginal sex, female-to-male, studies in high-income countries 0.04% (1:2380) Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner unknown status 0.27% (1:370) So yeah, you're about "6x safer." Meaning, if you think it is risky for a gay guy to have unprotected anal sex with one random partner, and you go out and do the same with 6 wome…
/r/TheRedPill05/06/13 06:22 PM
3

I haven't seen it (why would you not lead with such a damning statistic?) but I have to seriously doubt any serious person could pin an increase that size solely on female voters. It is clear that the period following suffrage in the US was also soon accompanied by radical changes in political philosophy, a result in part of the Depression and unemployment hitting men (not merely men being concerned that they must support welfare spending to capture female votes). It was also accompanied, not co…
/r/TheRedPill02/06/13 10:34 PM
6

I'm ok with a government that doubles the number of people it is representing spending 28% more than it did previously. Unless TRP is inherently political-conservativism, then increased spending is not the same as a nonfunctional society.
/r/TheRedPill02/06/13 09:05 PM
5

Everyone pays taxes. Why are we venerating income tax to some special position above property, sales, SSI, and so on?
/r/TheRedPill02/06/13 09:03 PM
1

Seems like cancelling it hurts the children most of all. Not sure the event hurts men at all (though losing their own obviously would).
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:17 AM
1

There will be no rest until my personal opinion is established, however unrelated to the subject. But, by mutual agreement, both of you made your personal opinion the subject at hand. Others did this by being interested specifically in your opinion and asking about it, and you did it by insisting that others misrepresent your position.
/r/askTRP02/06/13 03:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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