TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

a77887 Archive

View 0 posts and 137 comments by a77887 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

is a cause-effect relationship between circumcision and the reduced rates. Did I ever contest that? When you circumcise adults in Africa (the cause), the effect (usually) is reduced rates of HIV. They're are many potential reasons for that effect. We do not know for sure what those reasons are, (go ahead, try to find something that disagrees with me) and so we can't just apply those rates to a completely different situation and expect the same thing to happen. We know that circumcizing adults in…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 10:57 PM
1

Is that more acceptable to you? Notice how the very first thing I said was "not that it really matters"? Because the benefits still apply Really? Not even the experts know for sure why those studies ended up the way they did - there are way too many variables to account for. So why are you so sure that it's a universal biological truth, and not something that could be influenced by living conditions, culture, etc.?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:35 PM
1

Or at least stay away off the road outside my window.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:23 PM
1

Even a ceremonial prick is still genital mutilation Well, not that it really matters, but, no, it isn't. By definition, "mutilation" requires an actual change to be made, so, that wouldn't count. There has to be some kind of permanent damage. there are proven benefits to having the procedure done. There are proven benefits to having the procedure done if you're an adult, living in Africa. What do those studies have to do with circumcising infants in America?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:21 PM
2

Some people believe they cause autism, just like you believe circumcision is "genital mutilation". wuhuh? Did you get mixed up or something? Who were you trying to respond to?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:11 AM
2

You could use this argument to argue against vaccination Speaking of tiny little pricks that don't do any harm, remember when they were proposing legalizing ceremonial pricks of a woman's genitals in order to reduce mutilation, and people kicked up a fuss and it got shot down? Even if you don't understand how men can be against circumcision, you should at least understand there's an equality issue. Parents can circumcise their boy for whatever reason, even if it's just ceremonial/cosmetic, yet d…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:03 PM
3

So I went to the Office of Violence Against Women website to see if they're actually listening to SAVE, but after seeing "1 in 5 women get raped" on the front page, I just wanted to close the page as quickly as possible.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:51 PM
1

That you acted like someone was saying "All Jews hate men" when what they actually said was more reasonable. What was your point?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 06:48 PM
-13

Seriously?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 05:55 AM
-1

What was your point?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:13 AM
5

It's a naturally damaging process.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:05 AM
1

I was almost thinking "I don't agree with you, but at least you're adding to the discussion" until I got the the "you guys are racist" part at the end.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:53 AM
5

Well, that's possible, you make an inter- D-D-D-Downvoted. sorry, what?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:51 AM
-1

in my anecdotal experience, there is an over representation of lesbians and Jewish women who gravitate toward the man hating spectrum. all women of a religion hate men. so, just here to troll are we?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:57 PM
1

uh, no one's talking about her gender.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:48 AM
3

meh, systematic oppression doesn't really require hate or the intention of causing misery.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:44 AM
2

Social contract thinkers are not shit. very debatable. I've yet to see an argument for justified social contracts that actually incorporates sound logic. It's mainly things like the "if you don't like it you should have left the state" argument. By the way, how exactly would that work when it comes to mandatory birth control? I assume it would start around the same time people become sexually mature, so is what you're saying "Either receive the mandatory birth control, or find a way to leave the…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 06:50 PM
1

If I hired a thug to beat someone up I wouldn't consider myself having commited to violence (direct reference to the debate gov = thug), merely have funded it. But in most countries, the state would consider it violence and punish it accordingly, and since everything the state does is just, it must therefore be violence. QED. Being serious though, your comment brings in all these irrelevant concepts. You don't consider yourself to be using violence when you pay military taxes. Okay, so? I never …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 06:40 PM
1

It's not a relative thing. It's either violence or it isn't. If you're going to say " I am not threatening violence", you better actually mean that, and not "I'm not threatening violence. Well, I am, but not more so than other things that are also enforced by threats of violence so that makes it okay."
/r/MensRights27/10/12 06:16 PM
1

Gun point? Action taken by the state is justified assuming the state is elected, I am not threatening violence. If I refuse your mandatory birth control, I'll be punished with fines or imprisonment or whatever. If I try to refuse that, I'll be physically held, possibly at literal gun point, and forced to face the punishment. That's a threat of violence. You're just being dishonest if you can't admit that.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 06:03 PM
5

That's insane. Why would you need magic scepters to summon Cthulhu? Just wait till the stars align. Typical Republicans wasting money.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:06 AM
3

I like that one. "I don't assume that all women kill their babies, but, just to be safe, I got rid of the microwave in our house before my wife gave birth."
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:05 PM
1

Okay, but the question is: do you think Republican politicians like the bible so much because of the plutocracy, or because most of their voters are Christian and they're trying to win elections?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:54 PM
1

Well, right, some issues deserved delegitimizing (is that actually a word). I guess we're in agreement.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:43 PM
2

Do voters have any power in your view of American politics, or is it all just based around what CEOs think? See, if I were to take a guess why "half of the parties" use the bible as guidance, it would be because their voter base wants them to use the bible as guidance. And, if you're talking about the same "half of the parties" as I assume you're talking about, I would point out that about half of that religious voter base, is, in fact, of the female persuasion.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:36 PM
4

In related news, Jonathan Swift faces criminal charges for advocating cannibalization of children.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:37 AM
2

What possible justification is there for things like this not being protected by the first amendment?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:35 AM
2

NOT trying to delegitimize issues that women have Some issues that women supposedly have deserve de-legitimizing, who better than MR to do it?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:29 AM
3

Why is it transgender? Wouldn't that mean they changed their gender, not their sex, which is the opposite of what happened?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:28 AM
36

I can't find the context of the quote, but it's Sowell, so, yeah, he's probably criticizing things like affirmative action and other related liberal policies.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 08:45 PM
2

The sick thing is, it basically worked. She got the news to immediatly report [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/la-woman-set-fire-hate-crime-article-1.1189946?localLinksEnabled=false]("woman set on fire by KKK"). How many people out there must have read that article, but missed the ones saying that her claim was false?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 07:33 PM
1

We're basically the only country that does baby circumcisions? Didn't realize that.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:40 PM
1

Guide to not making something sound like a conspiracy: Do not end your comment with "Coincidence?"
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:29 PM
1

What did the comments say?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:15 PM
1

That was impressively even-handed.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:12 PM
3

You just equated being a woman with having 2 x chromosomes, now you're dehumanizing transsexuals.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:00 PM
1

I remember seeing a great "sexy Mario brothers" pair of costumes two sisters wore once.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:59 AM
2

It just shows what this subreddit wants and how it reacts; No, this shows you how reddit works. have you been here long? We're certainly doing a better job than a lot of other subreddits at avoiding self-serving, misleading posts.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 06:12 PM
5

What's wrong with girls dressing sexily if they want to?
/r/MensRights21/10/12 06:03 PM
2

Then explain why the post itself was upvoted so heavily. Oh my god, people upvote things before being aware of all the facts. It's almost like we're on Reddit or something.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 05:43 PM
3

"let's get on with the show by first defining some terms" Something you would never ever hear if this video had been made by a feminist.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:46 AM
1

Possibly my biggest problem with it, the pain. Doing something that common sense dictates should be unbearable painful, (and research agrees) and most parents never stop to consider if it's worth it, since there's a doctor telling them it's all normal. It reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6DSRSzZ6so "It's all fine though, right? Cutting into my baby's penis while they're awake won't hurt?" "Really? Oh, that's good."
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:06 AM
2

We don't even count it as an intolerable injustice and inequality that men are still required to work five years longer than women before they become eligible for a state pension (it is entirely typical of feminists' capacity to pervert the truth that Germaine Greer once described that inequality as an advantage for men). Is this a thing? Why haven't I heard about it here?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 08:26 AM
1

Well, okay, that's a lot more reasonable of a post. I had no idea what you were talking about with the "emotional exception" stuff, but now you're making more sense.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:24 AM
1

What was wrong with that?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:10 AM
1

Gais, c'mon, criticizing comedy shows for not taking a MR issue seriously? I was just reading a thread on SRS or somewhere about Always Sunny in Philadelphia, calling it "able-ist" and complaining about the rape jokes. Aren't we better than that? So there are comedy writers that thought they could do an episode about circumcision. If it was funny, good for them, if it wasn't, they should have tried harder. What else can you say?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:09 AM
1

How does any of that preclude having an all-male assembly too?
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:34 PM
1

TBH, I'm sure I would have hated going to that assembly. I remember the "don't let some pedo rape you over the internet" assemblies, and they were beyond useless, nothing but insane fear-mongering.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:32 PM
2

But do things like men being given dangerous jobs really support a patriarchy? Couldn't you have a, for instance, a matriarchy where men are still given the dangerous jobs? Or a matriarchy where men are thought of as more dangerous and incarcerated more?
/r/MensRights19/10/12 09:40 PM
1

It seems like the definition of "patriarchy" you're using is basically just "traditional gender roles," and has nothing to do with "archy". If that's the case, why would you use the word "patriarchy?"
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:13 PM
1

go on...
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:33 PM
0

I agree with your reply to Noltonn, I don't buy the "trade-off" thing either. My point was just: If women not having the vote necessitates a women's right movement, why doesn't an all-male draft necessitate a men's right movement?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:46 PM
1

xpost this to r/BreakingBad
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:40 PM
-1

Didn't we still have a draft back in those days?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:37 PM
1

you mean the ads, or people rubbing against each other?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:27 PM
1

He's definitely not talking about the status of modern women. He says that women have a "natrual hate of accountatiblity".
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:19 PM
1

-20 points for half-century-out-of-date "women are children" mentality.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:47 PM
2

Men of sound minds made this decision debatable...
/r/MensRights17/10/12 05:37 PM
17

Not just the female vote, the white knight vote too.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 05:24 PM
1

Well, yeah, we'd have to make it illegal first. It's just, it's not a "this is america" thing like you're making it out to be. There's no reason this couldn't be made illegal, there's tons of precedent for it.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 07:36 PM
4

HOWEVER. I live in America, where by law people are free to choose what is best for themselves and their families. In some states, it's not even legal to go to the vet and have them to declaw your cat. They'd be arrested for doing that, so why shouldn't be arrested if they agreed to do something as irresponsible as circumcising an infant?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 07:21 PM
2

most of us on here don't engage in such socially frowned upon things as him. Who cares if we get doxxed? First they came for the Violentacrez and I did nothing... Just kidding, kind of.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:40 PM
1

You've mad a terrible mistake. This isn't atheism, this is "atheism+". It's a long story, but the short version is that feminists decided to try to hijack atheism and make it about feminism, and they called it atheism+. They're a tiny, but incredibly vocal minority.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:46 PM
1

Sorry, you won't get any moreout of me.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:32 PM
1

I pointed out where they think it should be legal to fuck 12-year-olds. No, what you pointed out was that they think it should be "perfectly fine". You're now changing it to "they think it should be legal", which is, obviously, not the same fucking thing you asswipe. I should have just written you off as a troll like everyone else. Even if you aren't trolling, the effect is the same - you're saying whatever shit comes into your head as long as it makes MRAs look bad.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:43 PM
1

Sorry, but you're being an idiot. It's possible to disapprove of something without also thinking that it should be a crime. I know that you understand that, which leaves me to assume that you're just looking for any excuse to bash MRAs (as if that wasn't obvious from your first comment).
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:19 PM
7

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1872
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:29 PM
1

If you think statutory rape should be decriminalized, you're basically saying statutory rape is okay. Sorry, but you've just crossed over into "being an idiot" territory. There is a middle ground between "major crime" and "perfectly fine." Unless you think that every single thing that's morally wrong should be criminal, in which case you'd have to be an authoritarian nut-job.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 06:10 AM
1

That's definitely closer. It still seems like you're taking a nuanced opinion and boiling it down so that it sounds as objectionable as possible in order to demonize MRAs. "It should be a misdemeanor or just disapproved of instead of a major crime" becomes "40 year olds having sex with 13 year old girls is perfectly fine."
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:17 PM
1

It looks like that's not really a case of "MRAs agree". It's a single person in the entire comment section. Who's comment has a negative vote score. If anything, isn't that proof that that isn't a popular opinion among MRAs?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 01:30 AM
2

That's not nearly proof they're a troll. That's basically the standard response when you ask anyone who disagrees with MR to provide evidence for their claims about what MRAs believe. They link to something that obviously isn't what they described, but is sort of similar to what they claimed if you ignore every detail.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 01:18 AM
0

I read most of those comments and didn't see anyone saying what you claimed. In case I missed it, could you point out a specific comment?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 10:06 PM
3

Why don't you reply to the specific comments you disagree with instead of leaving a comment to the article itself? If you make a good point, you might get people to change their mind. If you act like an idiot and say shit like "all you do is complain about women", we're going to assume you're just here to be an idiot.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:42 PM
0

I've seen MRAs disagree with the age of consent, but 13?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:30 PM
1

googled it, you're probably talking about this: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/062110-537967-is-us-now-on-slippery-slope-to-tyranny-.htm
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:04 PM
1

Fair enough, point taken. I guess I was trying to say that their ignoring the law should be commended, even if what they're actually doing isn't commendable.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 05:32 PM
0

Breaking an unjust law should be commended.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:46 AM
3

Who the fuck is agreeing with this bullshit?
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:21 PM
1

"If it doesn't suit me then we don't have to have a legal system anymore" Jury Nullification is part of our legal system.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:03 PM
1

That's just pseudoscience. Maybe someday we'll do the necessary research find out that you're right. But right now, there's no more reason to believe people who say they were born in the wrong body than there is to believe people who say they can recall their past lives.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 12:26 AM
1

"half of those things" reading comprehension
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:24 PM
1

Finally, in that moment of desperation, lie down on your back and listen to your breathing. Listen to your heartbeat. Try to shut out external noise. You will probably find that problems that appeared insurmountable and very serious are in fact much less significant than you thought. You may even burst out laughing at the fact that despite all your troubles life is raging through your veins. Sorry, but that sounds like stupid nonsense bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:44 AM
1

Half of those things aren't even bad. "Legalizing prostitution would increase the size of the prostitution industry." Yeah? So?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:38 AM
7

a) Boys lack motivation to be the best that they can be. When I was in school, I had plenty of motivation to "be the best I could be." Unfortunately, the teachers seemed more interested in me wasting my time with useless busy work. It's amazing how quickly motivation can evaporate when that's the kind of thing you're supposed to be showing interest in.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:22 AM
2

They last during the most painful part.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:49 PM
4

Aside from your argument being completely retarded, the "look like everyone else part" isn't even true. The number of Americans circumcised nationwide hovers around 50 and 60 percent. It's not even close to "everyone".
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:35 PM
8

No, it doesn't. You can use effective anesthetic when you're older.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:29 PM
2

In other words, if you can seriously tell yourself that women are not marginalized in our society, if you can tell yourself that spousal abuse is swept under the rug, and if you can tell yourself that it is men who face more gender related issues than women, without providing any evidence of it, then it is you who are illogical. Go on. I'm waiting to hear the logic and the evidence.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:21 PM
1

er, think you mean this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7IldlbIRQo&feature=plcp
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:52 AM
1

why oh why do you do this
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:48 AM
1

I think the Judge's point wasn't that raping a transgendered woman is impossible, it's that what he specifically intended to do was impossible. He wanted to put his his penis into someone's vagina, and he never had a chance of doing that.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:44 AM
2

Quit it.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:35 AM
1

How did you coerce John not to shoot the animal? Specially.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 10:59 PM
1

I was assuming you lived in America. I guess you're using one of those annoying definitions of "patriarchy" that doesn't actually have any "archy" in it, and just has to do with gender norms. Fair enough.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:46 PM
6

Meh, sounds like they're just adding more information. As long as it doesn't get too gushy, can't really complain.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:10 PM
2

Ha, I bet Manzboobz has no idea how to respond to this.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 03:28 PM
1

i'm saying that coercion doesn't have an inherent badness at all Coercion is specifically designed to make the person you're coercing feel bad in some way if they do not do what you tell them. If it didn't do that, it would be totally ineffective. Do you disagree with that?
/r/MensRights30/09/12 03:18 PM
1

So women should be allowed to have abortions when their only days away from giving birth?
/r/MensRights30/09/12 03:15 PM
1

That's retarded.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 03:13 PM
1

Men being put on the front lines is the result of the idea that men should be in charge? I don't think so. We live in a Democracy. That's happening because people (mostly women) voted for it to happen.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:37 PM
1

I gather that now you're admitting that it would be foolish to say that such a thing is bad just because it's coercive. Good thing I never said that you jerk. Coercion by itself being a bad thing doesn't mean that using coercion in any possible circumstance is a bad thing. You have to weight the good and the bad. Murder is, in and of itself, a bad thing. If that person you're murdering is hitler, it might still be worth it.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:33 PM
2

The problem is that the top of the page defines a "matriarchy" as "a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property." The source cited by that line was written by Heide Göttner-Abendroth, and her definition of "matriarchy" is more like "any society that isn't a patriarchy". That line is redundant anyway, since, the "matriarchy = equality" thing is already mentioned a few more times throughout the page
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:33 PM
1

So it's not only illogical and confusing, it's also unethical? I've read the discussion, and I'm still missing why "circumcised" is anything but a useful word to describe people who have been "circumcised."
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:48 PM
1

I've said again and again that I'm not talking about whether or not it's right or wrong. Why are you bringing "does this make the father a bad man" and "did your parents ever bla bla" It has nothing to do with my comments. At no point did i say "if you believe in using coercion, you're a bad person and you should feel like a jerk" or "using coercion is unnecessary should never ever be done ever." I'm not the one sidestepping. If you feel like reading any of my comments and responding to what I w…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:44 PM
1

If a lot of people thought being fat was desirable, it would, in context. This is my whole point. "Uncircumcised" only sounds bad because a large amount of people think it's undesirable. If people start to think it is desirable, the connotations will change. That's why changing the word is unnecessary.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 11:17 PM
2

Is anyone out there being confused by "uncircumcised"? I thought it was pretty obvious what it means.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 11:13 PM
-5

But if you did say "unamputated" or "not amputated," would that really imply that amputation is the standard, or would it just mean that you personally haven't had any fingers amputated?
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:57 PM
-6

I completely disagree with this. Describing yourself as "not fat" doesn't validate being fat. It doesn't imply that being fat is normal. It just means that you aren't fat. Some goes for "not tall," "not smart," "not handicapped". If someone asks you if you need a wheelchair, or if you aren't handicapped, what would you're response be? "Don't act like being in a wheelchair is 'normal.' I'm able-bodied, and those people are *non-able-bodied.'" The word "circumcised" already makes it clear that som…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:23 PM
1

Tentacles don't ask for consent either, so it's sort of related.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:02 PM
2

Well, yeah, I think I've been on the internet long enough to know what sex is like in Japan. I was mainly talking about the "patriarchal culture" part.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 06:27 PM
-1

The patriarchy isn't something that just hurts women, it has affected our entire society. Going so strong until this. but, good comment overall.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 06:05 PM
2

Go on.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 05:47 PM
0

What would the father have done if his son disobeyed?
/r/MensRights28/09/12 05:36 PM
0

You obviously understood my point from the very start. I'm not going to have a pointless debate about this. Stop using the word "harmless" to describe things that are intended to cause harm. If it didn't cause harm, it wouldn't be any good at coercing anyone. I don't care how justified causing harm is - I might even agree with you that it's justified - it's still fucking harm, and you should call it that.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:18 PM
1

You obviously understood my point from the very start. I'm not going to have a pointless debate about this. Stop using the word "harmless" to describe things that are intended to cause harm. I don't care how justified you think causing harm is - I might even agree with you that it's justified - it's still fucking harm, and you should call it that.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:10 PM
1

I fail to see why coercion, in and of itself, should be a bad thing. By "coercion", you of course mean "violence." You're talking about using the threats and physical force. I shouldn't have to explain what that, in and of itself, is a bad thing. I really doubt that you're failing to understand it. Obviously, in certain circumstances, using "coercion" is worth the harm it causes. But that's no excuse for pretending that they're harmless, or "unavoidable". They're not harmless, they're meant to c…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:20 PM
1

"Expecting people to dress themselves in public" would be fine. You're free expect other people to do whatever you want. "Harmless conventional norms" would be fine. After-all, they're "harmless". Forcing people to follow your rules is different to both of those things, and you shouldn't by conflating them.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:50 PM
1

Are you sure those Kleenex are big enough to absorb the crocodile tears?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:51 AM
1

"harmless"? You're saying we shouldn't "let" people run around naked in public. What's your plan for enforcing that that doesn't involve harm? Will streakers be politely asked to put clothes on?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:45 AM
23

"In one of its worst forms, a pre-teen girl’s clitoris and entire external genitalia are cut, scraped, or burned out, which can cause severe pain, infection, life-long incontinence, obstructed labor and delivery, and even death. To be truly equivalent, one would have to cut off a man’s entire penis in order to produce the same effect, rather than a small flap of skin." Why do they keep using this same pathetic argument? In one of the worst forms of MGM, they split your whole penis down the middl…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:36 AM
2

Yes, because feminists frequently accuse MRAs of lying, and it would be nice if we didn't do anything to prove them right.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:27 AM
1

We just need to work on ascending before it comes to that.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:59 PM
-1

Looking into it, it seems like it's just really hard to determine, so, yeah, I spoke too soon. However, here's some solid info on violent crimes: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm Next time, just stick with the rape fact, that one's a lot harder to disprove.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 11:27 PM
8

Well, there's your answer then, miniweiz. You claim to be in favor of advocating for both genders, but you're ignoring the problems men face and focusing exclusively on the women. This is why we hate on feminism, and why it's impossible for us to ally with them, because they still haven't stopped spreading lies like the ones you just repeated.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 08:37 PM
2

Number of times "women", "woman", or "female" is used: 28, 24 referring to rape inmates, 4 referring to staff. Number of times "men", "man", or "male" is used: 15, of which 9 are referring to inmates, and 6 are referring to staff. Note that this article exclusively talks about staff on inmate abuse, so read "inmate" as "rape victim" and "staff" as "rapist."
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:57 PM
3

Is that a serious comment? You understand those aren't the only two options, right?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:18 PM
3

Women face violence and rape at a much higher percentage than men When you factor in prison, isn't that not true?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:13 PM
1

No point. I explained to you why the poster was allegedly perpetuating a stereotype. You explained why it isn't. I suspected your logic of being inconsistent, but it turned out it wasn't.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 04:57 PM
1

The usual response would be to say something liken to say "That's different!" and then given some pathetic reasoning as to why, but you avoided that, so, well done.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 04:08 PM
1

It's cliched I know, but I'll go with the standard response for comments like that; swapping "men" and "women" for different groups. "I saw a dark-skinned man on the street. He stabbed me and took my wallet. In most muggings, Caucasians don't know their attackers." Going by your logic, as long as most crimes in my country really are committed by minorities, that isn't perpetuating a stereotype - it's just being accurate.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 06:42 PM
1

this comment taken seriously and posted to SRS in 5... 4... 3...
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:19 PM
1

The reason it perpetuates a stereotype is that it's a woman being raped by a man, and there are no similar posters showing anything else.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:00 PM
1

Again, "felt they had to", is different from "legally required to" The blame for what happened belongs to one or both of the people directly involved. It wasn't the fault of "the law" as your description says.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 07:17 PM
7

This subreddit is looked down upon because of its name. It's barely anything to do with the actual content.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 04:48 PM
1

''Can arrest you" is different from "HAS TO" arrest you. I don't now why you were downvoted, but I hope it was because you misrepresented my question.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 04:32 PM
1

"But she refuses belligerently, starts arguing with him, he requests she exit the vehicle, she refuses this, so he has to remove her of course, that's the law." The law states that he 'has to remove her?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 04:53 PM
2

So fitting that Sean Connery doesn't mind hitting a woman, while Roger Moore has this kind of stuff happen to him.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 04:42 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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