TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ymoh- Archive

View 0 posts and 145 comments by Ymoh- 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

did she falsely report him as having kidnapped the children, and canceling his passport to prevent him from fleeing the country is just standard procedure? To be honest I was thinking of something much more innocent like “our passports have disappeared from my home and I have no idea how it happened but I fear they were stolen by somebody” What I do know is that “wasting police time and resources” (which is what you get charged with when you pull these stunts) carries too low a punishment consid…
/r/MensRights26/01/18 02:37 PM
5

I was going to say exactly this. All the paperwork that can be filed “on behalf of a spouse” is a disaster waiting to happen.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 10:21 PM
16

What kind of crazy country allows a third party to cancel your passport??
/r/MensRights25/01/18 08:32 PM
1

I see what you did there, and I like it. Have an up boat
/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:49 PM
3

I don’t think it is just entertainment and sports. An artisan cabinet maker makes a ton more for every hour of work than your run if the mill carpenter. Salary is almost always a matter of the value of what you bring in or produce through your labor than about the time you spend on that labor
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:50 PM
2

This isnt America censoring us, its not some evil corporation or some evil government, its just your regular Joe One could fairly argue that the political framework in 1984 is one of the possible consequences of the current censorship being perpetrated by certain groups in our society. If the idea that thought policing is desirable became popular enough it would only be a matter of time before aspiring rulers started using it as a campaigning promise for a better, more just future for the masses…
/r/TheRedPill17/01/18 07:14 PM
6

look at the girl - basic thot, no detrimental skills to society I am afraid you used detrimental wrong. But I otherwise fully agree with what you say. Have an upvote
/r/TheRedPill17/01/18 05:24 AM
7

Its normal when talking about something to associate it to how it affects you personally There are limits. Reasonable ones. If somebody crashed his car in your garden, fucked himself up real bad and I found you complaining about your ruined petunias and then saying “it is normal to associate to how this affects me personally”... I would still call you a jackass. This shill is, once again, putting “her movement” over a man’s career and livelihood. She kept it pretty relative to Aziz though and st…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 04:57 AM
6

Is that a problem tho? Of course it is. When the good name of a movement for her benefit is more relevant than the dignity, career and reputation of an innocent man, you can bet you have a huge fucking problem right in your face. If feminists prefer to focus on women's issues I'm fine with it So am I. Right up to the point where the fight for women’s issues takes prevalence over the aforementioned fundamental respect for men. That’s when I start saying: fuck you and your feminism, darling.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 11:46 PM
19

So you engaged in activities suited only for adults without having the ability to behave or communicate like an adult and it is the fault of the men you chose to be with. Considering your lame choice making, I am willing to bet these guys were pretty much scumbags anyway. So yeah, it is everyone else’s duty to “educate themselves” rather than your duty to learn to behave, communicate assertively and make overall better choices. So very empowered of you. SMH
/r/MensRights15/01/18 08:20 PM
5

A cobra pit with windows. Please
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:08 AM
2

So essentially men are a superior life form and you are just mad?? Cause all you are describing is basically all the trappings of a superior life form. I understand getting mad but, after all, it is men that have built everything. Even the devices you are using to spew your drivel. I mean, if anything, you should be thankful. It is men that have made your life as good as it is. Must be part of the whole elitism thing. Thankfully, men cared more about progress than about feelings. All the matriar…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 07:29 PM
2

Meh. Mediocre. Try now something about chem trails. Or about vaccines. Cmon. I know u can do better than you are doing lately. This is just regular crazy. Gimme nutjob crazy.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 11:36 AM
2

Aww cool. You have things about aliens too?? Sweet. I’ll get popcorn. Please tell me more about those aliens you speak of.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 03:08 AM
2

Awww you run out of crazy really quick. Disappointing. I give you 2/10.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 11:00 PM
2

But what does that have to do with Flat Earth??
/r/MensRights07/01/18 03:18 PM
2

I am not saying feminism eradicated FGM here. I am saying we still don’t see MGM as terrible because in this modern day of being much more free from religious doctrine, the society is even more gynocentric than it was back then. Men are more disposable now than ever. Less deserving of mercy now than ever.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:32 PM
1

Cool story. Now something about the flat earth. Please.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:29 PM
3

Yeah, no. The west sees FGM as barbaric but condones MGM because feminism keeps pushing the gynocentric hamster wheel.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:48 AM
1

Ok that was several levels of hilarious. Good job man. You made me literally chuckle reading that drivel.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:47 AM
2

Hahahaha this hits sooo close to home for me.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 01:16 PM
4

you're going against professional opinion, religious doctrine, and cultural norms Professional opinion, religious doctrine and cultural norms are basically the three pillars sustaining FGM in all those “barbaric third world countries”. We still see it as barbaric and inhumane practice The only thing supporting circumcision in the West is a willful blind eye, and this willful blind eye is dressing itself in all those trappings you mention.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:46 AM
1

Men have never valued women or their labour Feminist nonsense. If men didn’t value women society would not have evolved over the premise of keeping women safe. You are being ridiculous. as he rushed off in to the big wide world to realise all his goals And somehow, despite your moronic previous argument it seems like the most prevalent of men’s “goals” has always been to work his ass off only to have the woman spend a big portion of the money he made. how would he ever be able to focus solely on…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 01:39 AM
5

The real problem is people associate the use of inequality here with “women had it worse” which is actually highly debatable.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 11:03 PM
3

I don’t know what you mean, but I would love for somebody to explain how companies are supposed to prove things that are not easily demonstrable because they don’t produce higher yield but rather better synergy and an employer values that. Right now I am being paid more than a female coworker in an office job. We both have same rank but I know loads more English than she does so I can take care of jobs she struggles with. Yes, she can do things in English, but it takes her the whole morning, so …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 12:53 PM
9

You keep insisting that a law that assumes guilt and demands the accused to prove innocence is good. We don’t need to put words in your mouth. You are declaring it yourself: you are totally backwards. Obviously the rule of innocent until proven guilty stands...my entire point was saying the law was good, because if they could not prove that they weren't paying equal wages for a good reason, they should get in trouble. So... innocent until proven guilty stands by virtue of a law that is good beca…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 11:45 PM
25

Nobody can really be this thick. You have to be doing it on purpose. Let me explain how this law plays out: No incentive exists any longer to become more productive, more apt, more efficient or more professional at whatever your role is at the company, because you can no longer leverage your value against your employer. So long as a worker of the other gender exists, your employer finds themselves conveniently tied at the hands because valuing your proficiency at the job is now a liability in te…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 10:28 PM
18

guilty if they can't explain themselves. it is that simple Which is to say: guilty unless you can prove to be innocent. Yeah it really is simple.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 10:22 PM
2

Like every feminist argument, this one holds no water either. Prosecuting people who have been proven to have lied/tampered with evidence would prevent other people from coming forward and telling the truth when it is the truth?? Once again, Feminists are doing nothing but push men further down by conflating intentional liars with women who could not prove they were raped. Those are two entirely separate subsets of people and it takes a very special kind of intellectual dishonesty to fail to see…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 03:21 PM
1

Men don't experience the same prejudices and sexism as women experience because they are men Boy, at least have the guts to admit that what I already stated is true. You have bought into “women have it far worse because reasons”. See? I have no problem with stating my beliefs because I have reality to back me up. You on the other hand need to tiptoe around the rhetoric shaky ground feminism has taught you to parrot, because you know the second you admit to any of their victimhood-based pillars, …
/r/MensRights01/01/18 09:29 AM
5

I specifically said women who experience sexism. So yes that would be exclusive to women. If you believe only women face sexism, you are wrong. If you are trying to hide behind phrasing to veil the fact that you think sexism against women is somehow worse than sexism against men, well, you are just proving my previous statements correct, aren’t you?? would you mind sharing with us what these SPECIFIC "several pillars of our society" that feminism has destroyed. Sure, here you go, the things femi…
/r/MensRights01/01/18 02:54 AM
7

If you are a woman who experiences and combats sexism on a daily basis The moment you wrote this you lost any and all validity to your argument. You, like 99% of those who identify as feminists, have bought into the idea that women somehow live in a constantly oppressive environment and, worst of all, think that oppression and adversity is something that happens exclusively to women. Or that somehow it is worse when women experience it... because reasons. The truth is that feminism is a highly t…
/r/MensRights31/12/17 11:48 PM
6

Sane. Have my upvote.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 07:27 PM
9

Feel free to post something along the lines of “time for Bros to stand together and beat down women back into submission”. Then try to explain you were just being “hyperbolically humorous”
/r/MensRights31/12/17 09:21 AM
1

Doesn’t that imply women do need men?? I am not trying to be argumentative. Just genuinely surprised with your interpretation of feminism.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 10:06 PM
4

I don’t entirely understand how feminism values responsibilities over rights when the bulk of its ideology is predicated on pointing at supposed rights that men enjoy while disregarding the responsibilities that fall on their shoulders. I am using rights and responsibilities loosely on the last part of my statement.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 08:53 PM
2

Yo just said it yourself. Making “participation” a part of children’s academic grades is nothing but a covert way of punishing boys for being boys. A way of measuring things by how women do them and punishing those who don’t toe the female line. If we were grading children in any way that favored typically masculine behavior or inclinations you would have all feminists up in arms about how it is unfair to jeopardize a girl’s future just because she doesn’t act in a way that is more typically boy…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:20 AM
1

Si then how come you are justifying boys lower grades overall because of behavior?? Boys behave worse?? Worse when looking at what standard?? Either the standard is the female and boys fail to meet it because they are more prone to rough housing and assertiveness or boys are simply worse behaved than girls by general standards. You are either vilifying boys or vilifying their typical behavior and thus accepting that some behaviors are more typical in boys than girls... and that we find female be…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 12:57 AM
2

tough, assertive, and rough house. This translates to acting out in class. And of course those traits are all so negative. Right?? We punish boys so they will stop being assertive and tough, and equate rough housing with violence. But yeah. There is no vilification if traditionally masculine behavior. Smh. Young boys are more likely to get into a fistfight Are you implying that isolated instances of disciplining boys about this behavior is reason enough to mark them down in their school performa…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 12:52 AM
1

There are objective measures of classroom behavior that at have nothing to do with gender Implying boys engage in those behaviors more often than girls?? I thought it had nothing to do with gender?? Explain how you justify both assertions at the same time, please. Boys are such terrible creatures. If only they could be as well behaved as girls. Right??
/r/MensRights29/12/17 12:44 AM
5

Straw man it a bit more, please. So what you are saying is that the majority of boys misbehave while girls don’t and that is why boys end up scoring lower?? Give it a couple seconds to sink in and you will realize how gynocentric your reasoning actually is.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 11:19 PM
6

Please explain how judging boys behavior by the girl’s standard is not a consequence of the idealization of women and vilification of men (aka feminism)
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:03 PM
7

Feminists dominate academia? Is that why the majority of tenured professors are males? Thanks for arguing that feminism is there to guarantee equity rather than equality.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:00 PM
1

No I actually agree with the principle you are trying to put forward here. But there are two issues here. First: you are trying to use an isolated case as if it was applicable to the vast majority of cases of rape. This is simply not true. The vast majority of cases are one-on-one accusations. Second: I am sorry to say that I am sure a few/some/many (I don’t know what percentage) of them were not raped. Extorting sexual favors under duress is rape. Exchanging sexual favors for gain is not. There…
/r/MensRights23/12/17 10:29 PM
1

I dont think all men are guilty but just because it's a he said she said type of situation does not instantly mean the girl is lying Do you even realize how little sense that makes?? If it is a matter of “he said she said”, either she was raped and cannot be proven, or she is a liar and he cannot prove it. you're literally thinking that woman are guilty of a crime without any evidence Actually that’s not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the logical inference to make is that proportion o…
/r/MensRights23/12/17 09:27 PM
3

okay thanks buddy so nothing to back it up with not even antidotal evidence Of course I have nothing to back it up. It is the only reasonable speculation one can make. Who would need to back up that the reasonable assumption about cases that could not be proven either way would see the same distribution that the proven ones result in??? Unless you want to sustain that all those unspecified cases are just guilty man who couldn’t be convicted??? Essentially, you are assuming “guilty until proven i…
/r/MensRights23/12/17 09:15 PM
9

Making a fair guess should be simple enough. Check the rate of convictions over all allegations and the rate of fake accusations over all allegations. All other “unspecified” cases should hold the same proportion. Unless you want to claim sorcery and argue that all unspecified cases are somehow exempt from suspicion of false accusation because it is more likely for men to rape than it is for women to lie. Or something.
/r/MensRights23/12/17 06:56 PM
1

I don’t know if this is true. I am a firm believer in educating media (or any other provider of goods and services) by means of my wallet and my feedback. “Hello, dear money-making enterprise. I was thoroughly disgusted by your last coverage of X subject / the sexist tone of your last ad campaign. I will no longer by supporting you with my purchases or patronage and will advise my friends and family to do the same” A few hundred letters and a subtle dip in sales can change the course of action o…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 09:45 PM
1

I’m not much into going through people’s history and I am happy to take your word for it. I was also a defender of anonymity for accused people, then I realized it changes virtually nothing and has the added difficulty of requiring laws being passed, investigations carried when anonymity is broken... I was happy to overlook the costs for the sake of the benefits, until I came upon several realizations: 1) anonymity is unlikely to hold. In the era of social media kangaroo courts, anonymity and pr…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 09:18 PM
2

The guy is nuts. He is ok with exposing men before they are proven guilty, but wants to protect the woman until we prove she is guilty. Because equality, I think. Or something.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 07:47 PM
1

You cant be that naive. Please explain how making the name and face of an accused public when we don’t know if they are guilty is different from making the name and face of an accuser public when we don’t know if they lied. Even if the best of cases (woman didn’t lie) we are not treating them any different from the way we treat these men. How are you ok with exposing a potentially innocent man but need confirmation before exposing a potential liar in such a serious thing??
/r/MensRights22/12/17 07:45 PM
28

How do you know she lied? Hmmm let’s see. She provides copies of their conversation, redacted by herself. She says SHE redacted the record “to free up space”. He goes to jail. When the backed-up, non-redacted conversation surfaces, he is released. Please explain how she has not a) lied about the sexual assault b) lied about the nature and content of the conversation. You are a disgusting human being.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 05:05 PM
1

I don’t think you should be downgrading female suicide to push our point. As a relative of somebody who did exactly what was presented here (taking pills after telling everybody he was gonna do it and immediately calling for help) I can tell you that four out of five therapists we went through said he was not really suicidal but desperate for some attention.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 02:06 PM
10

the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear. That sounds like a peachy argument for DV apologists 😂
/r/MensRights20/12/17 09:25 PM
2

Yeah I agree overall. I am not arguing for instant dismissal from the force. I am arguing for thorough investigation across all levels, and the consequent inhabilitación of all parts involved. Personally I am not comfortable with “I was just following orders” Even if the time allotted to revise 40000 messages was insufficient, you cannot conclude “there is nothing relevant”. Do we really believe that the guy said “look I didn’t rape her she was constantly pestering me for sex, this makes no sens…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 06:20 PM
3

I get where you're coming from I just feel if we fired every detective for fucking up two cases we'd have none left I don’t agree with this. You are basically arguing that bad cop is better than no cop, and we don’t even know if we would be facing the “no cop” situation. For instance if it came out that this guy was pressured by higher ups to not provide that evidence to the CPS (he's only a detective constable after all) Then he needs to be fired for contributing to a corrupt system. He could h…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 05:14 PM
2

Solid analysis
/r/MensRights20/12/17 03:14 PM
2

There is no law requiring anonymity for children I was talking about kids testifying in trials and their testimony being subject to anonymity and secrecy. If anonymity laws go against first amendment, so does this measure. newspapers just do that as an editorial decision. And newspapers don't publish "so the public can drag accused people through the coals" but because they have a duty to the public to report on allegations against someone They don’t have a “duty to report on allegations against…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:09 AM
1

So if I send you my bank account information, you'll send me a dollar, because the benefit to me will outweigh the damage to everyone else? You having money does not have a wider benefit. Crowdfunding a project does. Living in a society where people can’t mess your life up with a single unfounded accusation does. Where is that right coming from? You are right. I should have said ability rather than right. The argument still stands. Why not just prevent all negative comments without a trial requi…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:32 PM
2

We still are in that scenario We most definitely are not. This is a clear case of false accusation far beyond preponderance of evidence. consider asking a million people to each give me a dollar Not sure what you mean by this. This exists. It is called crowdfunding and the benefits clearly outweigh the addition of individual costs. Seems like a really really bad example. The accused enjoys the benefit of having no disruption in his/her life. Society as a whole, however, no longer enjoys the bene…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:05 PM
2

Is it slander to say that A raped B? No. We can't prove that the statement is a lie beyond a preponderance of the evidence. You are right. But considering we are talking within a thread about a false accusation, I assumed we were talking about this scenario. In any case, the damages done to the accused by means of public accusation far outweigh the damage done by asking people to limit their making accusations public. Similar to how the risk of incarcerating an innocent person far outweighs the …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:20 PM
1

We'd be criminalizing public accusations of sexual assault They are already criminalized. It is called slander. So if you wanted to, say, email your coworkers that you had been raped by A on the way to work, That would be a rather clear example of slander unless it is determined, by means of trial, that it is true. In this era of global instant communication and fashionable social outrage and virtue signaling, penalties for slander need a serious revision too. The introduction of anonymity laws …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:47 PM
1

So then why does that right only attach upon the beginning of a criminal trial? I don’t understand the question. Honestly. What people are demanding is for anonymity when accusations are levied. During both the investigation process and the trial if charges are pressed. I don’t know where you get the idea that people demand anonymity during trials alone, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a person should not see their name printed all over the paper with an accusation that our society regard…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:15 PM
12

Nobody can “stop” you. Much like making murder illegal does not “stop” people from killing people. I am not gonna claim to be an expert in law or journalism, but we already have anonymity for children and it is no issue because people respect it. It is not a matter of “if people want to report it they will”. It is a matter of making it clear that putting names out there so that the public can drag accused people through the coals is not an ok thing to do. Much like killing the guy who killed you…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:32 PM
3

whenever their identity is divulged, they'll say that they've lost the right to a fair trial. I disagree with that premise. A fair trial should have absolutely nothing to do with anonymity. Not now, nor if the measure was put in place. Fair trials should depend on observing the rights to defense, not incriminating oneself, uncovering of all possible exculpatory evidence, etc. If public opinion is already affecting whether a person is declared innocent or guilty we have a much bigger problem in o…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:25 PM
1

I didn’t argue in favor of mistrial. I have made a comment a couple replies above to that intent and edited my first contribution in this particular conversation within the larger discussion.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:57 PM
12

If the investigation is still ongoing, you cannot report on it. If it failed to find compelling evidence, you cannot report on it. It is a clear example of wanting to enact a trial of public opinion instead of letting police and prosecutors do their job under the protections granted by the law. If you are hinting at police corruption because major of small town and such... I agree an argument could be made about the local police not being the right body to conduct such an investigation.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:55 PM
5

I didn’t argue in favor of the mistrial though. I argued in favor of anonymity being enforced and the viability of enacting legal consequences should the confidentiality be violated. I personally think that the mistrial thing is a poor idea. I should have made that point clear in my first response to this line of argumentation. Apologies.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:49 PM
10

Your friend talking to the reporter about you does not violate your anonymity in the process. The reporter digging up the information and making it public does. Even if the intent of your friend was to put the story out there, it is the reporter’s responsibility not to do it. Also intent is not needed for all punishable offense. Reckless driving does not require intent. Professional malpractice does not require intent. The list goes on.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 06:09 PM
83

Honestly I find the argument of overworked justice system a rather lame excuse not to fix issues.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 04:45 PM
76

That is actually pretty simple to solve. Divulging information that goes against anonymity of people involved in ongoing cases/trials to persons or entities not directly involved in the process should me made punishable by law. Those trying to tamper with the judicial system by violating confidentiality, whether in favor or against an accuser or the suspect will be prosecutable themselves. Edit: for clarification, I don’t support mistrial being the consequence of confidentiality breach, but I do…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 04:14 PM
6

I don’t think he means that. The line of thought appears to be that a gay son is much safer from toxic women than a straight one.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 11:28 PM
3

what she did was basically (inappropriate) seduction to a young man who was full of raging hormones and saw a chance to get himself laid. That has to be far from a 23 y/o male teacher pinning down a 17 y/o female student and forcing sex on her Your assumption that the young male wanted it and the young female was forced by her teacher is disgusting.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 04:17 AM
1

It is a factor, but what is the relevance here? I don't get it. You don’t get it because you move goalposts at every turn. Good for an attorney, bad for having a moral compass. 1) its a good thing that a drug user gets to keep on caring for children (past actions irrelevant to possibility of future consequences) Dude, drugs are irresponsible behavior for a parent. She is clearly unfit but got to walk scot-free. 2) drugs are irrelevant to the crime!! (a fact is only relevant if it has related con…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:29 PM
1

they are *more likely* to be an unfit parent. Statistically, there are more people in jail raised by single mothers than by single fathers. Children are *more likely* to go to jail as adults if raised by single mothers than if raised by single fathers. Mothers are *more likely* to kill/abuse their children than fathers are. Because of *likelihood*, children should go to the father. Let me save you your next post: you can’t just assume a mother will kill\abuse their child just because statistical…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 05:54 PM
1

But that statement was not about custody, it was about crime It was about the crime. But the implication is that drug use and ability to care for a child are not necessarily related. Of course drug use by a parent should be a factor in reaching custody determinations Why?? You just said that using drugs and letting your child die do not need to be related. it is inherently relevant to what is in the child's best interests So... letting your child die can be unrelated to drug use, but drug use is…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 05:23 PM
2

When did I ever say that drug use should never be considered a factor when deciding custody over a child? You didn’t. I did, based on the same logic you are applying here: if drug use is irrelevant to the death of the child, then drug use should not be a factor that is considered It follows that drug use and ability to care for a child are intrinsically unrelated. Otherwise you are arguing that drug use can be disregarded as a factor after an event of failure to care for a child, but should be c…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:47 PM
2

The factual scenario here is that the mother’s affirmative act was to lower her ability to be alert by using drugs. Whether the drugs played a role in that particular event is irrelevant. Again, by your reasoning, DUI should not be illegal. In case of an accident, alcohol should not play a role in deciding guilt either. There is no way to prove that any potential accidents would not have happened if the driver was sober.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:26 PM
3

So you would feel the exact same way if this was a single father who worked two jobs and was overtired as a result? If he was doing drugs, of course I would. Contrary to feminists, we don’t apply lower standards of behavior to the people whose rights we fight for. Or are you just attaching a special stigma to this woman because she is a drug user. Of course I am attaching special stigma because she is a drug user. It is irresponsible behavior, unbecoming of a person who is supposed to be looking…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:14 PM
3

But what good would a prison sentence do for her or society? What would the point be? Only to punish her further. I get it. People who steal crazy amounts of money and are unable to give it back because they spent it should not go to prison. It doesn’t help them or society. Men who don’t pay child support because they can’t make enough money should not go to prison. It doesn’t help them or society. Men who kill their wives should not go to jail. It doesn’t help them or society. Instead, they sho…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:07 PM
2

(1) This woman was at home sleeping, not at work doing her job; Whatever else she does for a living... her job was acting like a responsible mother of a 3 year old. I'd also like to note that this woman did not "get away" with anything, her son is dead. She got away with letting a defenseless innocent child die while he was under her care and responsibility. Your making excuses for her disgusting behavior is shameful.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 03:49 PM
6

It’s a tragedy but I fail to see how this isn’t a fair sentence. Yeah. If a nurse gave your grandpa the wrong medicine because she was inattentive due to drug use and he died... would you be ok with her getting away with it because “It’s an accident that could just as easily have happened if she was exhausted from a long work week or several poor nights of sleep”?? It is called being fucking responsible for your actions.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:31 PM
3

Hahahaha nice. This Mike guy sounds like a fucking genius troll. To top it all off, this sadbag of a dance teacher feels so entitled that she thinks this is somehow a crazy event. Do not miss out on how she says “guys shouldn’t be allowed to talk like that”. Girl, women talk like that and act like that every day in every city. Dozens of people go through what you did and just soldier on. Most of those people are men. Get a fucking grip.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:53 AM
6

Nobody defended that to be cool, but the your comment speaks volumes about the anger you share with the shamer above, and about how you think it is ok to shit on men whenever they step out of your approved femi-narrative. Please take your man-hating ways and your victim complex somewhere else.
/r/MGTOW12/12/17 07:17 PM
6

I think you are missing the point. Making anonymity of donors void in a retroactive manner opens the door to demanding responsibilities over children with no registered fathers mostly. This means single mothers in a much higher scale than couples who conceived via sperm donor. Sperm donor children in a traditional couple already have a “father” understood to be financially responsible for them (and the mother). Much like the vast majority of “for the benefit of the child” legislation, this is no…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 11:47 PM
6

I don’t understand the relation you are making between being politically conservative and revoking anonymity. If you ask me, preserving anonymity is a lot more likely in a truly conservative environment. This is not a matter of traditional ideas or not. It is a matter of a country’s dominating ideology and, the more progressive the ideology, the more it skews towards feminism and political correctness, which are men’s rights biggest ideological enemies at the moment.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 10:51 PM
53

In Denmark you can donate anonymously and the recipients will never know who the biological father is Except if one day the law is changed retroactively and you are subject to. DNA test for whatever reason, you would be made liable.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:18 PM
75

“A woman grabbing a man is a-ok because in most cases of sexual assault the victim is the woman”. Nice circular logic you got going on right there.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:35 PM
9

Yeah I went and checked it myself. Depressing. On the bright side, another droplet of bullshit I can use when converting all the poor souls that still think feminism has anything to do with equality.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:32 PM
17

Under the tab "Support for men" there are a grand total of TWO further tabs. One titled "I am being abused" and the other titled "I am an abuser" Is there a tab for “I am an abuser” under “Support for women”?? Because the absence of one would actually tell the whole story on its own.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 01:37 PM
1

Well I think this is actually a potential step forward for the MRM. Mishandling of this policy will do nothing but expose the true nature of how these people actually operate. In before leaks of names for public awareness and what not. MRM organizations in Canada should start looking into civil action against all the potential misuse of this information that these organizations (I am sorry to say) are likely to incur on.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:56 AM
1

Agree. Online trolls merely represent the pressures that are put on lawmakers to pass bullshit laws and policies.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:30 PM
1

Nobody is slandering gay men. The only reference here is SJWs. You are making the same logical jump that the bully morons made.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:29 PM
9

I didn’t find anything either. Sounds like fearmongering.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:16 PM
1

Sorry but one’s ability to defend oneself against unwelcome behavior does not make the behavior any less egregious, or any more forgivable. Start considering your bias here, because the very same argument you are making (it is no longer irrational feminists) is the exact reason why physical abuse of men is not taken anywhere near as seriously as physical abuse of women. I do think men need to be given the same consideration. You don’t really think this. You say so in the very last sentence of yo…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 10:27 PM
1

Perhaps you are speaking more broadly. I thought it was clear that I was. Apologies. But if there is consent between the two of them, there's no issue Agree, but reality does not always respect this standard when the “offender” is a man. I don’t hunk I need to link any of the hundred stories of men chastised when it would have not been needed if this argument had been observed regardless of gender. The true irony / hypocrisy here is this subreddit engaging in the exact same outrage / victimhood …
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:53 PM
1

My argument is that your rationale of looking for excuses when women do what men are punished for is what has men’s rights in shambles, and the hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. You making a stupid case for what you think my argument is does not make your position any less hypocritical. Irrational feminists are irrational, And yet the irrational feminist argument is what creates laws and policy like Title IX and the directive of “affirmative consent”. Your hypocrisy is what men’s rights is actu…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 06:47 PM
1

Thanks for your input. Now feel free to go and post exactly this Consent is by definition a mutual agreement and is not always verbally asked for out loud, its contextual and depends on the nature of the relationship of the people involved onto the comment section of every feminist site article where they are advocating for “ongoing and enthusiastic consent”. Defend your position unabashedly without making concessions. Keep arguing it is all about context and that verbal consent is not necessary…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:32 PM
1

Situation 2 is worse. What people are complaining about here is not situation 1 vs situation 2. People are complaining that both are so heavily skewed in favor of women. So much so that the woman is being defended for engaging in situation 1 and being considered a victim in situation 2, but a man would be vilified in situation 1 and told to learn to take a joke if he was the “victim” in situation 2. Consider how much of this is true and how much it affects your judgement in why you condemn one o…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:08 PM
1

I’m not talking about Adam Sandler, and that isn’t the issue here. It is exactly the issue. Assuming the woman in the picture had the kind of relationship with the performer that allows her to jokingly grab his butt with no consequences, she is the same position Adam Sandler was with his female co-guest when he touched her knee. He was vilified for it. I’m not ignoring any fact. You are taking two snapshots of a stage performance and using that to discredit a victim. You are ignoring the fact th…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:02 PM
2

Even if tried it as a joke with no real intention of touching the girl.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 04:25 PM
2

Nah. Every sane person here agrees he was out of line. The real conversation is the hypocrisy between how we see it when the “victim” is a woman and the excuses we make when the offender is a woman.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 04:24 PM
1

You are purposefully ignoring fact. The context you are so hang up on was very clear in the case of Adam Sandler and whatever her name was, and it didn’t stop the indignation brigade. I don’t see them anywhere here, wondering and questioning why she took the liberty.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 04:22 PM
1

Agree. A coworker jokingly smacking the ass of a female at the office is no big deal. He just joking. If you insist in arguing the difference, remember there was a time when this was considered ok because “joking” or because “take it as a compliment”. You are defending a situation that we deem demeaning when the roles are reversed. Hell, not so long ago Adam Sandler was being disparaged for “affectionately patting a female co-guest on the knee”. Even after she said it was not an issue for her. W…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:55 PM
-1

Seems like he is. But this does not tell us whether she went ahead and just groped him without even bothering to consider consent. It isn’t any different from a guy in an office back in the 50’s smacking the ass of a secretary and she laughing it off. I find it really curious that feminists would consider that behavior as “degrading to women” but would make excuses for what we are seeing in these pics.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:27 PM
0

Yep. Cause a dude grabbing the ass of a female performer on stage would go down soooo well. Please get real.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:16 PM
-3

You are missing the point. She makes an advance on him. We don’t know the nature of their relationship, but she does make an advance. Him taking it well does not invalidate the fact. Your argument here basically throws away the whole concept of “asking for consent”. By your logic, rape victims that orgasm have not been assaulted at all. Have fun selling that to feminism. Not that feminism is particularly known for its adherence to consistency in any case.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:15 PM
11

I get it now. Pretending to grope a sleeping woman is worse than groping an awake male while he is performing on stage. However I do suspect this has a lot more to do with who is doing the groping than the state of the recipient. Call me crazy.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:53 PM
1

Checkmate
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:50 PM
6

Here in America, we believe one is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, that is no longer the truth. At least not in the court of public opinion.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:49 PM
27

Both are inappropriate. Getting pissy about pretend groping while taking the liberty to do groping yourself is somewhat hypocritical, though
/r/MensRights07/12/17 02:47 PM
-1

🤣😂
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:35 PM
2

Feminism needs to be torn down in order to bring attention to men’s issues up. In a world with finite resources, money destined to men’s health is likely to reduce money destined to women’s health research. Shelters for men are likely to reduce money available for women’s shelters, hotlines and legal help. The feminist narrative has established the public conscience that DV is a gendered issue and that breast cancer is the one cancer we should be fighting against. Until we tear that false narrat…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:27 PM
-3

The “tradition” was initiated by a rugby team that grew a mustache in solidarity with a team member diagnosed with prostate cancer. (The member in question had a very distinctive mustache) Maybe you should make the effort of becoming aware of certain things before disparaging them as “a fad attached to an already existing tradition”.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:23 PM
0

Are you high?? Do you know the amount of criminal trials that result in “innocent” and “not guilty” outcomes??? Your comment is so out there that I am actually considering you have to be trolling here.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:15 AM
3

If the accused really is the aggresor in a violent crime That can only be determined after the trial. Up until the veredict happens, anonymity for this type of accusation should be maintained. If we create a layer of anonymity for the accused In a society that punishes a man for the simple fact of being accused, every layer of anonymity should exist. If they are genuinely innocent, it sucks but it risks harm to hide them from the spotlight It “sucks”??? There was a feminist moron that one day wr…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 02:10 AM
1

What I am saying is that a false accusation needs to be proven false. In an accusation of rape it often happens that the alleged rapist cannot be convicted because it cannot be proven that the sex even happened. Sometimes it can’t be proven that the sex was not consensual. Those are not cases of proven false accusations. Those are cases of inability to prove guilt of the accused. They are different things. If we make it so that any person unable to prove they were raped is in turn charged with w…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 01:57 AM
15

Agreed. Considering the social rejection to sexual misconduct, anonymity should be enforced to protect the alleged offenders from the wrath of public opinion courts.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:48 PM
57

Agree. But only if the claim is proven to be false. Failure to prove an aggression took place (as it often happens) should not be considered a false accusation or we risk to reverse the scenario and create a situation in which people who have actually been assaulted are afraid to report for fear of consequences.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:49 PM
24

If being a sex worker is illegal, then it most certainly is an indicator of character.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:47 PM
15

I think you misunderstood his comment’s point of view. What he is saying is that so long as false accusations keep happening, and they will, the more likely it is for shit to get really serious about repercussions regarding false accusations. He is not encouraging accusations, nor his he wishing for innocent lives to be destroyed. He is just shedding light on the inevitable path that this “false accusation pattern” will lead to. He is, as we all are, wishing for this inevitable end to happen soo…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:42 PM
1

Educate yourself to liberate yourself More feminist tripe 🤦🏻‍♂️ But if your goal is to hold back a collective consciousness of battered women My goal is to hold back the multitude of lies that feminism keeps spreading to the collective consciousness. The fact that battered men exist in similar numbers to battered women is actually the first of all realities feminism insists in denying. Keep throwing shit at victims of violence I’m throwing shit at feminism. Feminism is not equivalent to women. W…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:03 PM
1

Thank you so much for explaining the female perspective to me The things I explained to you have nothing to do with the female perspective. I don’t know why you would actually need tampons. But that’s just one specific example of how a woman’s basic needs are controlled where I live. A tampon is not a basic need. Even if it was, you can lay off the emotional argument of control and basic needs. Nobody is controlling your basic needs. Tampons are subject to taxes. So are many other products that …
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:01 PM
3

There was a time when women were only allowed to be teachers, secretaries, homemakers or in rare cases, nurses And brewers. And websters. And potters. And seamstresses. And shepherds. And farmhands. How very oppressive of men, in the wake of the industrial revolution, to allow women to stay away from factories where dangers were abound and stay home were they did not have to inhale toxic fumes or risk getting their arms ripped off by some shit machine. Sorry dude but the stereotypical nonsense y…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 11:36 AM
3

I genuinely don’t understand your question. The motives for one person to desire parenthood even if it is in single state probably outweigh the cons it has to deal with the baby alone. Parenthood is usually a rather strong desire.
/r/MGTOW04/12/17 12:51 AM
17

to blame the feminist narrative for its effects on men is just as naive Are you saying it is naive to think that the effects from the Duluth model and the female-only scholarships and the feminization of healthcare and school systems and Title IX and the resistance to men’s reproductive rights and the injustice of child support enforcement (all of them pushed forward by Feminist narrative) are not really there or do not hurt men?? just as naive as blaming all men for the centuries of subjugation…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 10:03 PM
15

Where is the ad-hominem??
/r/MensRights03/12/17 08:13 PM
23

You do realize that creating a false narrative of victimhood is the first step required to be able to push for unequal laws, policies and measures and that exposing the tactics by which feminism creates that narrative is actually the beat way to diminish their power to affect men???
/r/MensRights03/12/17 08:12 PM
13

Good Poe
/r/MensRights03/12/17 08:06 PM
30

If criticizing feminism is accepted as “hate” then you should be able to make the connection that feminist ideas have acquired a halo of untouchability. Considering many of those ideas are the root cause for the lack of consideration for men’s rights... Why the hell are you playing into their hand by letting them shame you into silence?? What you just did here is legitimize the feminist agenda that men’s rights need to be discussed within the limitations set forth by the dominating feminist mind…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:56 PM
3

Abortion plays no role in anyone's decision to risk having children for a few minutes of fun. This still does not prevent what you said earlier from being a valid argument against the legality of abortion and evidence of the hypocrisy of today’s society’s view of men. I understand you come from the perspective of “fuck this world and its stupid gynocentric rules”, but those of us who chose to go our own way without becoming nihilistic are still able to point out what needs to be fixed. If you ha…
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 03:11 PM
4

if you are not willing to pay child support, don't put yourself into a position where you might have to Great argument against abortion. if you are not willing to raise a child, don't put yourself into a position where you might have to
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:41 PM
3

The father can in this case just leave before childbirth while the mother can't. That is the downside of female reproductive reality. The upside being that they can choose to have a kid “on their own” while men can’t. Advocating for a reality where you get to enjoy your upsides and have your downsides corrected at the expense of another human while refusing to reciprocate is hypocritical at best, tyrannical at worst.
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:39 PM
1

Why should abortion be illegal? Because every argument in favor of men’s responsibility by virtue of “you could have taken measures to prevent pregnancy” is equally valid in arguing against abortion... by virtue of “you could have taken measures to prevent pregnancy”
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:35 PM
6

The fact that you need to shame men for supposed small dicks on every comment you make just makes it obvious that your arguments do not hold enough substance on their own. You need to hold the threat of further shaming in order to try and put an end to your faulty logic being dismantled by the most simplistic measures of equal consideration to both sexes. Your game is up.
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:31 PM
6

It would be as simple as enforcing the paperwork where the mother needs to prove she notified the father within first 6-8 weeks of pregnancy. The bullshit where women are exempt from having to protect themselves and their interests because daddy government does it at the expense of men needs to stop. Women are the ones getting pregnant. Women should be the ones making sure that if they don’t want to end up in risk of raising a child on their own they need to get their asses off the chair and tak…
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:23 PM
2

If he doesn't pay for the kid, then the burden falls on the rest of society to pick up the slack. Same scenario occurs when a woman gives the baby up for adoption and that is acceptable somehow. Even worse than the man having to pay for his own shitty kid is the rest of society having to pay for the man's irresponsibility in having unprotected sex. Same argument.
/r/MGTOW03/12/17 02:11 PM
1

Aaaah.... the YT cesspool. I would say don’t fret. People are much more likely to lash out from behind the screen than in real life. Real life takes actual time and effort. I have yet to encounter a feminist in real life that is able to go to the extremely ridiculous lengths you see them go to on YT. Don’t worry about not being taken seriously by some. I guess you can’t help it, but you are not there to convince people that you are genuine. The issues you talk about are genuine on their own and …
/r/MensRights03/12/17 10:56 AM
1

I specifically told my then girlfriend that if she wanted me to do half the “house chores” she would have to carry half the weight of our luggage when traveling, half the weight every time we took things from/to our storage unit, wash our cars every other time, take the trash out every other morning, do half of the painting jobs we had planned to do even if she was tired after work, learn to fix appliances... she chose to continue doing house chores as if nothing had ever been discussed. Smart g…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 12:56 AM
2

As much as I am against the TYD, it was introduced by British lawmakers following a claim by Caroline Norton (I think I am getting the name right) in the 19th century. Maybe Feminism has managed to erase their influence in this bit of history but back when I looked into it I struggled to find any ties between her, the lawmakers and feminism. Can you provide evidence?? I am not antagonizing. I am asking for resources to splat across the face of the next feminist that says something stupid like “p…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 12:47 AM
1

Sorry to say but that system is ridiculous. Another example of typical Amaerican big government malfunction. The guy is responsible for the payment of child support but he is not responsible for making that payment effective??? Makes zero fucking sense. I suspect child support agencies or whatever they are called are just another one of those brilliant moves made by politicians in one of their “looking good because doing things for women” tours. You are responsible for child support and you will…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 12:33 AM
2

Of course it is worth. I think you would be surprised. Announce the meeting and the topic(s) to be discussed. As soon as people see it is not “men’s issues through the feminist lense” they will not give a damn about what your genitals are. For lack of a better summary: they are not feminists. EDIT: when you put the meeting out, be aware that this type of thing needs build up. D not be discouraged if your first meetings are 3 people. The ball will eventually get rolling. I started having talks ab…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 12:07 AM
2

Preach
/r/MensRights02/12/17 11:54 PM
7

yes because no two privileges can occupy one space
/r/MensRights02/12/17 10:05 PM
1

Your granny is a freeloader. 😂🤣
/r/MensRights02/12/17 09:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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