TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

alacrity Archive

View 0 posts and 155 comments by alacrity 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)
-55

If this were true, then every right wing ideologue saying women need to be submissive to men is being discriminatory. Every. Single. One.
/r/MensRights27/07/26 09:02 PM
0

TIL: Richy rich all boy private boarding schools with wealthy founders and benefactors that don’t allow girls don’t exist.
/r/MensRights25/07/26 09:37 PM
-10

Well you should stop being coy and supercilious then, Mr Unsubtle Innuendo, “get more facts from Huffy?” Hope that helps.
/r/MensRights22/07/26 08:55 PM
-10

Nope. Don’t frequent “huffy” or the “post”. But I do enjoy watching people defending tabloids as news sources. Keep up the “good” work.
/r/MensRights22/07/26 08:43 PM
-11

NY Post. LOL. Might as well be the National Enquirer
/r/MensRights22/07/26 08:32 PM
-2

Odd. I was about to say the same thing to you. Women reported him, his gym banned him. You’re making up that he didn’t do anything. Get back to me when you can admit that.
/r/MensRights29/04/26 02:32 AM
-1

Yes, you are jumping to the worst possible conclusion, for women. Equality is great if it were ever on the table. Why do you hate it so much?
/r/MensRights29/04/26 02:28 AM
-10

He admits to dating women there and that he’s been reported for making women uncomfortable and making unwanted advances. You ignore that and find a way to blame women. Shocking. He’s bothering people is a completely rational and reasonable inference to draw. Men have been conditioned to believe that bothering women in public places minding their own business is fine, even if they are complaining. No surprise and hardest of hard passed. No thank you.
/r/MensRights29/04/26 02:24 AM
-12

I don’t thing it’s just existing when he’s dating, (hitting on) women there. It’s easy if you’re not doing that.
/r/MensRights29/04/26 01:58 AM
-15

Yes, and it's not going to be popular here, but notice how OP doesn't say, "I didn't do and would never do anything that would make anyone uncomfortable or want me to leave them alone." Just that no one ever said anything to his face about it. And he's dated 2 other women from there, so you know he's hitting on women there. Many times women getting hit on at the gym would rather be left alone and feel uncomfortable when it happens.
/r/MensRights29/04/26 01:19 AM
-8

https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd
/r/MensRights30/05/25 11:33 PM
-17

It’s a certainty that the Russians have spent a hell of a lot more than that funding all those right wing “influencers” and talking heads.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 09:15 PM
5

Gag. That explains the nausea.
/r/seduction29/03/25 08:24 PM
1

Ask Russia when all their men are “dies.”
/r/MensRights24/03/25 08:25 PM
0

Was that before or after Russia brutally violated yet another cease fire? And is that the Russia that could have peace anytime Putin wants by merely stopping his attacks and trying to take over a sovereign country?
/r/MensRights24/03/25 02:05 AM
-3

Well it's great that you want Ukraine to surrender to Putin. They do not appear to agree it's in their best interest.
/r/MensRights23/03/25 11:00 PM
-3

Cool. So all murdering, raping and territory grabbing invading forces should be surrendered to because otherwise “men will die.” Got it. Let me alert Canada and Mexico that they are good to go on any territory grab.
/r/MensRights23/03/25 09:42 PM
2

TIL: only women are selfish and inconvenience OP, and his poor experience with two women means women are ruining pharmacies!!
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:50 AM
1

Whoopsy… And now your feefees are hurty. Maybe you’re too emotional to be clear on issues.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 10:31 PM
1

LOL. So you ARE a dude who thinks people either agree with you or they’re radical feminists.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 09:44 PM
-1

LOL. You seem very, very defensive (and in denial) for someone who “can read,” and draws a clear, legitimate, and consistent distinction between women and feminists.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 07:37 PM
-1

Yup…. You sure did.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 07:04 PM
0

True, that is hilarious… but having fixed my egregious transgression and read the article and I’m guessing it was the “un-rapeable,” that was the issue and difference.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 06:10 PM
-2

Grammar school vs high school might be a clue…. Just sayin.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 05:58 PM
-2

It doesn’t seem like you can….
/r/MensRights08/05/24 05:56 PM
3

I’m intrigued. Would you mind naming a view or two you consider leftist, but think todays leftists view as too conservative? Not being snarky…. Just interested.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 10:53 PM
4

He knew she was taking pictures, she was an artist, and was creating paintings from the photos she took.
/r/MensRights12/09/22 01:02 AM
0

Subscribe
/r/MensRights07/09/22 12:37 AM
0

I wasn’t talking about the women.
/r/seduction06/09/22 03:22 PM
2

Again…. Who said anything about it being at green lights? It’s a metaphor for preparing yourself for good/best outcomes. This kind of too literal pedantry is just another excuse/self-inflicted injury. And yes, I typically glance both ways as I step into traffic, even at streetlights.
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:15 AM
2

Naaaa. It’s not.
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:09 AM
5

Damn…. This X 1000. So many dudes think it’s a looks thing, and you watch their comments and you can see it’s just not. It’s a personality/self esteem/world view thing.
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:09 AM
2

Nobody said anything about at green lights, and if you think it’s a pride position to purposefully not look both ways when crossing a street, then you have larger issues than women or “dating.”
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:05 AM
8

A low self esteem position.
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:02 AM
10

Hence, the whole, you don’t do it for her or potential her, thing. You work on and improve yourself for you.
/r/seduction06/09/22 05:01 AM
5

Sure, don’t look both ways. Just walk across. I’m sure nothing bad will happen.
/r/seduction06/09/22 03:04 AM
39

Yeah, not every woman is going to be into you. Most won’t be, in fact. Regardless of what you look like. Good looking guys get shot down, and the ones who shoot them down can and do date/marry someone you might describe as not as good. So what. It’s not about “her.” It’s never going to be about her. It’s about you, and how you see yourself and what you project to the world and women. Take responsibility for yourself
/r/seduction06/09/22 02:00 AM
327

What’s the point of looking both ways before you cross the street if you have guys who don’t and don’t get killed. Odds. Chances. Percentages. Also, you don’t work hard for her. You work hard for you. That’s what will lead to a better her.
/r/seduction06/09/22 01:26 AM
2

Also being honest… I expected to get downvoted to shit on this. I wouldn’t normally use or even think the, “women don’t owe you,” thing, but OP’s little screed was just the worst. Even as a dude that was just a bunch over the line.
/r/MensRights28/08/22 02:57 AM
19

Nobody owes you a damn thing. Women don’t owe you, men don’t owe you. It’s not even remotely discrimination to not want to meet near your place. Frankly, your insistence on it and obvious entitled irritation with not getting your way on it so early in a dating process does have clear creep, stay away from vibes. I’d drop you too. You sound like the epitome of entitled, whiny loser. Decent looking doesn’t mean decent person. 100% not surprised you keep getting ghosted.
/r/MensRights27/08/22 11:40 PM
0

😂😂. This shit is hilarious. No self awareness or integrity at all.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 11:19 PM
-4

😂😂. I’m just pointing out that In the comment where OP bemoans “imagine this line of thinking for other problems,” and lists a series of problems we should be imagining that line of thinking being used for, and there’s an entire political party who’s EXACT response to all those problems is the awful thing we’re supposed to be imagining. And it’s hilarious that the delicate flowers here got all up in their downvotes as it’s unmistakably true. I’ve never enjoyed bruised ego downvotes more. Just th…
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:39 AM
-28

I’m sorry, but isn’t that EXACTLY the arguments used by a particular political philosophy for those exact problems??
/r/MensRights20/08/22 12:47 AM
6

Do you want to date someone insensitive and judgmental who’s pointing out flaws in you before you’re even at the going on a date stage?
/r/seduction17/08/22 02:27 AM
0

Jesus, this is hilarious.
/r/seduction05/08/22 10:19 PM
3

Sure I can. YOU can’t because you’re emotionally stunted. And a No True Scotsman logical fallacy that you’re Dunning-Kruger-ing your way into. Wrong and dumb. (Emotionally unintelligent, if you will) Empathy: The term “empathy” is used to describe a wide range of experiences. Emotion researchers generally define empathy as the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling. Also: : the action of understanding, being aw…
/r/seduction15/07/22 10:15 PM
4

FFS…. I’ve never been paralyzed. Do you think I can’t have empathy (not sympathy) with a person who is? You keep making my point.
/r/seduction15/07/22 10:04 PM
2

Sympathy and empathy are not the same thing. And you seem even more emotionally unintelligent the more things you say. But good luck out there, Hal.
/r/seduction15/07/22 10:00 PM
1

Yes, to the first, probably not to the second, but not due to any empathy or caring.
/r/seduction15/07/22 09:52 PM
-17

Lol. Sure Mr Ironic and self deluded
/r/MensRights08/06/22 11:17 PM
-23

Another bigot that thinks “feminists” want to kill men, and that “mensrights” means men.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 11:06 PM
-39

Nothing misogynistic here.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 07:56 PM
1

“and all the hoes who won't give me the time of the day.” Found the reason she’s (and the others too) not texting you back.
/r/seduction04/06/22 01:16 AM
2

She doesn’t owe you anything. She will never owe you anything.
/r/seduction04/06/22 01:14 AM
1

Is a criminal who shoots 6 people in a drug deal gone bad “mentally ill?”
/r/MensRights17/05/22 11:28 PM
-9

The severed finger he admitted to his sister he severed?? The “beatings” that multiple testimonies and even his texts to others indicate were mutual, I.e. he was also beating/abusing her? How about we don’t turn a drunken, drug addicted co-abuser into some kind of hero, okay?
/r/MensRights21/04/22 08:30 PM
1

thathappened. #noreally #itstotallyreal.
/r/MensRights15/04/22 03:14 PM
-5

Disingenuous, at best.
/r/MensRights10/04/22 08:43 PM
-10

Case in point.
/r/MensRights10/04/22 04:09 PM
-19

People don’t use the terms men and females. Ideologues do.
/r/MensRights10/04/22 02:43 PM
6

The assumption that women are the driving or primary force of interest in 4 of these 6, and you can’t have conversations with them because of that, is just hilarious. Hell… the vast majority of women would probably kill to NOT have a guy talking about sports, anime, Marvel, (DC) The Office, (arguably) and video games for once. The issue is in anyone thinking this is what you need to be into in order to have a conversation with “women.”
/r/seduction19/03/22 11:45 PM
1

.06 percent of the population signing a “petition” doesn’t make the thing they sign the petition about right. You used the slavery example because it fits your narrative, but you could find a much higher percentage of people in the US who think it’s okay to line up all atheists against a wall and execute them. Is that right?
/r/MensRights16/07/21 12:17 AM
1

Were the southern states .06 percent of the population??? A tiny percentage of a population believing something doesn’t make then right, either. In fact, it’s utterly meaningless.
/r/MensRights15/07/21 08:23 PM
-13

The population of South Korea is 51 million people. Not sure a survey of roughly .60 of the population is a sign of support.
/r/MensRights14/07/21 10:07 PM
29

David Lindhagen.
/r/seduction21/03/19 05:42 PM
1

The ENTIRE New York Times, or just that one opinion piece writer?
/r/MensRights02/05/18 08:52 PM
-13

Tit, meet tat.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:08 PM
4

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/government-hating-diner-owner-pleads-guilty-23g-welfare-fraud-article-1.2660362 Government hating, welfare hating right winger pleads guilty to welfare fraud.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 11:53 PM
8

I don't know... I guess it's just me but seems abundantly obvious that you can completely grasp that a country filled with "brown people" could be horrifically worse to women than your country, but still not think your military, trans or otherwise, should be bombing them.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 11:47 PM
1

Ummm... Morgan Freeman, who's 78 has 117 movie or TV movie credits on his resume. Pretty much every year since the 80's he has multiple movies being released. Not only that, but MANY, MANY of his movies do, in fact, have huge box office.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 10:48 PM
6

underage prostitutes So you think a 12 year old "prostitute" really consents to sex?
/r/MensRights28/11/15 05:11 AM
1

Yes, he sexually assaulted numerous minors, who aren't of age to consent. How is this above your head in this day and age?
/r/MensRights28/11/15 04:45 AM
1

No you're not, and no you don't.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:03 PM
1

Sigh... I regret I continued this. Enjoy the rest of your day.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 10:29 AM
1

Maybe it is indeed worse for women on the internet Hmm... It was not clear to me that you were conceding on this larger point, and I apologize for not being more generous in my following remarks. As far as Sarkeesian... I don't know what her true situation is, and more importantly, neither do you, in my estimation. The conclusions about her and others like her appear to be rank speculation and supposition based on bitter carping started by an angry ex, and a lot of the same type of harassment th…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 08:01 AM
1

Well, for one, that it's worse for men than women on the internet. That women are exaggerating the level of harassment they receive in order to "cash in." Things like that.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:34 AM
1

See my second reply. Again. Sorry for using two.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:26 AM
1

Sorry, I wanted to add something but didn't want you to miss it in an edit. You did admit to being wrong... about the specific point of characterizing it as "violence," rather than "threats," but didn't admit to being wrong on any of the larger points, and in fact doubled down on many of them in your earlier post. (before getting called out on the "violence" thing.) I don't see how you are expecting some kind of gold star for that. You got caught red handed. What else could you do?
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:24 AM
1

I accepted your original point and actually admitted to being wrong later on. Yet you still said I wasn't being honest - You weren't being honest. Period. The end. still assumed I "tried to lie on every point". You did try to lie on every point. Just wow indeed.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:20 AM
1

LOL. Projection absolutely has a lot to do with it, but not by me and not in the way you think. My comment does speak for itself and was correct on every point from the beginning. You weren't honest about ANYTHING in your link and tried to hedge - or lie directly - on every point. It's a dead ideology. 5 years from now you will be denying you ever believed any of it. Maybe not even 5.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:09 AM
1

The article states that more men receive harassment, which is worse in itself, AND are more likely to be targets of physical violence. You can't be honest, no matter what, can you? What the article actually says is that men are more likely to be the targets of physical threats, not violence. What a shock that you conveniently misstated that giant difference. Quite convenient. Now, tell me again who exactly it is who is dishonest/disingenuous/liars? As always... it's you. Again, your buddy saying…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:47 AM
0

I accept that No, you clearly don't. What we're really seeing is feminist women playing up the threats and harassment they received as some sort of misogyny (when it isn't) and using that to get victim bucks. No, lets get this one thing straight... what we're really seeing is MRA's and gamergate fanatics desperately grasping at any straw that might minimize the damage they do and harping at "statistics" that show men receive slightly more harassment, (note: your buddy calling you a dick for camp…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 11:10 PM
12

No, it's clear that you, and it looks like most other commenters here, completely missed the point and context. There is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between someone tweeting, "you're a joke," "I hate you, motherfucker!" or even "you'll get yours, asshole!" to a public figure/politician/leader of a country and someone tweeting, "I just got out of jail for manslaughter, I know where you live, I'm coming to rape and murder you."
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:59 AM
1

Maybe, maybe not. So what? "Good intentions" does not equate to bias, and more specifically, MORE bias for the good intentioned vs cruel bastard.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 08:46 PM
0

Still mad? You go girl.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 11:01 PM
-1

Poor baby.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:54 PM
0

Awwww... look who's panties are all bunched up. Maybe you can try an, "I know you are but what am I," next. It's at your level.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:47 PM
0

About the level of maturity in reply expected. Gotta admire consistent and predictable stinkage. Well done there.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 10:39 PM
-1

bi·ased unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something. heart·less displaying a complete lack of feeling or consideration. cruel. First, your opinion that this subreddit is unfairly prejudiced is noted. The flight of fancy that everyone is unfairly prejudiced about everything is laugh out loud, specious claptrap and would only get upvoted, (or the contrary downvoted) in a place like this. As far as cruel, inconsiderate people being more "unbiased," I'm not sure what to say to that. Some…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 08:43 PM
-10

That is just projected, unsupported nonsense. Sorry, and it's not likely to be popular in this sub, but people have empathy and sympathy and "heart" for an uncountable number of things, issues, problems and what have you that they aren't biased about. There are people in this sub, many, many people most likely, who put their heart into this issue. Are you suggesting they can't be unbiased?
/r/MensRights04/03/15 08:36 AM
-5

Heartless people tend to look at the facts of a situation. Wow. That is some major league conjecture/wishful thinking there. Whatever in the world would make you think heartless=unbiased?? I'd say heartless just means biased without giving a fuck about the fallout or consequences.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 05:56 AM
-1

TIL: Health insurance rates only started rising under "Obamacare." If only there were some data that existed that showed health care costs, and the cost of insurance, has been skyrocketing at pretty much the same rate since the 60's (third graph) Much easier to blame "Obamacare" though. No thought required at all. I know MY insurance has been rising steadily and only started leveling off the last 2 years. Does my personal anecdote trump yours?
/r/MensRights09/02/15 11:58 PM
-1

No, it's horrendously bad. Sorry.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 11:44 PM
-23

Only if you think GLARING, gaping straw men are logical.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:20 AM
-23

I like how you think this is logic.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:17 AM
-2

If you see that societal norm as an advantage in your column, it doesn't mean that others do, nor does it mean that it is. In a similar vain, if you see that the social norm is not an advantage in your favor, it doesn't mean it isn't. Funny how things work that way.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 10:29 PM
-2

I think that the idea that there's a "female entitlement" that "a woman needs to be earned" is entirely an invented concept that doesn't exist outside overwrought navel gazing. Women - like men - are self actualizing and unique entities unto themselves. OF COURSE they have the ability to decide to accept or deny advances from men (or women) when someone chooses to approach them. In your analogy, (it is her decision, not the other way around) it IS the decision of the man to approach that particu…
/r/MensRights01/12/14 09:34 PM
-1

Male A goes to chat with female B, but is rejected (check two to women for more readily being afforded the option to refuse). I like your overall point and emphasis and agree completely. Just because one privilege exists, doesn't mean other, completely unrelated disadvantages might also exist. I would suggest though, that giving women a point for "being afforded the option to refuse" doesn't make a lot of sense, or ignores the point that the man has the option of who to ask in the first place an…
/r/MensRights01/12/14 08:35 PM
1

You are getting hammered, and I will most likely get the same, but you are not wrong. Anyone who thinks a shirt with naked or near naked women on it is appropriate at an internationally televised press conference for an amazing achievement in hard science is just a fool. And there are lots of very, very foolish people here with easy access to the downvote arrow.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 02:02 AM
13

Voice of reason. What the hell are you doing here? :)
/r/MensRights23/10/14 07:19 AM
1

LOL... Reality. Sure.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:40 AM
-6

Now I've compounded my absudity with a false equivilancy!!
/r/MensRights20/09/14 03:37 AM
-1

I'm posting a clever literary reference that doesn't apply at all!!!! It's literary, so that means I'm super smart!! FTFY
/r/MensRights20/09/14 03:31 AM
12

Well I certainly understand your avoiding mildly irritating for financially ruinous and American Taliban.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 11:39 PM
2

It is a bit of a refreshing break from the tidal wave of conservative cannibalism that's a constant refrain these days.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 11:21 PM
3

WOW! Because California is the ONLY State with common law marriage statutes or that recognize common law marriages. Sometimes the comments in threads are so appallingly ignorant it's mind boggling. This was one such comment.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 09:59 PM
0

the "Libertarian" movement "within" the GOP is filled with carpetbagging GOP. Merely one or two questions on social issues shows they are nothing but GOP looking for a better cover for their book.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 06:29 AM
2

No, that's not what "we" get AT ALL.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 12:17 AM
2

No. I understand the right's desperate attempts to paint fascism as leftist, but no. Also, not really an accurate description of crony capitalism either. More outright favoritism and purchased advantage by elites than regulation and fees. That's just another righty attempt to twist reality. Intellectually dishonest much?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:28 AM
2

That sounds remarkably like crony US style capitalism to me. From the viewpoint of the haves, of course.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:22 PM
7

Freudian slip.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 06:07 AM
1

That's odd because it looks like Khaemwaset is merely stating - factually - that many assumptions are being jumped to based on a 10 second interaction where even a mildly close or empathetic look at the other side of the coin would show two men who've been drinking shouting non-discernibly at a woman walking alone at night, and you followed up with a snarky appearing "question" that - to paraphrase - her state of mind doesn't validate her "behavior" (which appeared to be nothing more than to be …
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:31 AM
2

No, to shout twice in a non-discernible (as she indicates according to him) manner at a female walking alone on a dark street. And he said: The proper response would've been to either ignore her and let her distance herself from you or, at the most, shouted a clear, non-threatening apology of circumstance.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:06 AM
0

And yet your post focuses on her behavior and he skates? Interesting choice for one who says, "not to me."
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:02 AM
4

You mean the "her" that was shouted at by two anonymous and drunken men on a dark street?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:48 PM
1

Something that might be better asked of the drunken guy shouting at a woman at night.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:42 PM
-1

So its exceptable for anyone who experiences a slightly negative reaction to their drunken behavior to escalate even further on others without consideration and be justified?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:39 PM
0

It certainly seems to validate and excuse his. (For some)
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:33 PM
-3

Hey, remember when you were trying to pretend this was about her "wanting to be on the PGA tour?" Now it's about bitches not knowing their proper place. Sorry, but she was OFFERED the spot because she was the best female golfer in the world by far. That IS earning the spot, you contemptible toad. The "men" she supposedly "took" a spot from were not the best at any level of golf anywhere. She earned the spot more than you, or they, will earn any spot anywhere. No doubt you're utterly unaware that…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 04:04 AM
-2

She was OFFERED a spot by the PGA. She took nothing. I would be fine being as great as Annika Sorenstam was at the time, (I'm guessing the guys she beat felt the same) and all evidence indicates you're nowhere near there.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:43 AM
-1

She was invited to play by the PGA. You should save your misplaced disdain for the men who did the inviting. No "privilege" was used (and the very notion is laughable) and your entire rant is specious and absurd. It's like you're trying to troll out a badly ironic, satirical version of what a typical male chauvinist would say. Your rank speculation and "vibe" feelings failed miserably so now the "evil wimanz took a spot a man should have had!" I guess she should have known her proper place, righ…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:36 AM
-1

In a thread about men trying to crack into a female only poker event I find this comment and the tone it encompasses to be amazingly shortsighted, ungenerous and dishonest. She was the best woman golfer in the world at the time, by far. Her invitation and result were no different than amateurs who are invited to these kinds of invitationals and also don't make the cut. Are they laying eggs in front of a nation when they don't make the cut? How much of an egg did the male golfers who's also misse…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:08 AM
-1

I would guess that she went to the colonial to do something that hadn't been done by a woman since 1945. That is, in fact, pretty significant all by itself without you drooling rank speculation all over it. No woman has ever made the cut at a PGA event. Being invited was most likely viewed as quite an honor in and of itself.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:42 AM
1

She would have loved to be able to make it on the men's tour, Assuming facts not in evidence. Your opinion, and really rank speculation, does not change the volume of data written about the event and the dirth of indication that she had any intention to do more than what was done. Sorry if I find your reading of a "vibe" that may or may not have existed at all less than compelling. Why don't you attempt to make this argument about Michelle Wie. At least with her that case can actually be made.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:35 AM
-3

Apparently not. In no way shape or form did Annika Sorenstam "try to make the PGA tour," or anything like it. That wasn't her purpose, stated or otherwise and it wasn't what was happening. She was invited to a single invitational event BY THE PGA and played it. Again... the end. The statement I was responding to was inaccurate and hyperbolic. Nothing you said made any difference to what USADV said or my response. What purpose did you expect your response to serve?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:20 AM
-3

Sigh... Annika Sorenstam didn't "try to make it on the PGA tour." She played one event on the PGA tour she was INVITED to... the end. She also isn't the first woman to ever play in the PGA, the first having happened in 1938. How bout you cool your jets a bit and at least make an attempt to be accurate when you're condemning something.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 10:10 PM
0

Oh I doubt it, and you're just being sloppy and inaccurate. Also, love the device that drops you out of the conversation with an attack, but tries for the last word. Here, let me play... I'm also done... you're stupid.
/r/seduction19/02/13 11:01 PM
0

You keep missing the point. It's either on purpose or... The fact is he did NOT explicitly say it wasn't advice.
/r/seduction19/02/13 09:10 PM
1

"Not got much advice" (followed by advice) is not the same thing as explicitly saying "This is not advice." Perhaps you don't understand what "explicitly" means. He certainly didn't.
/r/seduction19/02/13 08:07 PM
1

No, you didn't.
/r/seduction19/02/13 06:47 PM
1

No. Just no. The average person probably has a much clearer idea what Limbaugh says about women than you do. If asked about this incident, they might say "he called that girl a slut,* which is accurate but not complete. And the money Clear Channel makes from selling advertising was not and is not his. The money paid to him according to the terms of his contract is. My guess is if his ratings remain stable, and there is no indication he's taken a ratings hit that I've seen, his next contract will…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:51 PM
0

That may or may not happen, but that isn't what you said. What you said was "Rush Limbaugh actually LOST millions..." and he did not. You also implied (really flat out said) he lost them merely for saying one girl was a slut when he's been saying similar things for over a decade, which you conveniently ignored.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:38 PM
0

Rush Limbaugh did NOT lose millions, he has a contract that pays him 400 million dollars. His employer lost millions when sponsors pulled. He's also been calling feminists names for longer than a decade and been getting away with it rather nicely. So it hasn't been just this ONE. This ONE happened to be particularly egregious example of his standard behavior. Most likely due to his being so blatantly and demonstrably wrong and lying about what she said and what she was testifying about.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:22 PM
-1

"A lot of people say..." is always such a compelling argument.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:14 AM
2

I can tell you have no idea how myopic this comment is. If you're looking for something with a metal detector, all you're going to find is metal. IT'S ALWAYS METAL.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:21 PM
2

TIL: Useful=Disposable. Whiny, bullshit, victimhood chasing headline. I kinda like my useful wife and would highly recommend to any child who would listen that they pick one up.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:07 PM
0

Hey jackass, no way in hell anyone but a total dumbass believes your badly written, poorly conceived "updates." So suck that, jaggoff. Made up story on the internet gets "confirmed" with totally bullshit "updates." Who saw that coming? Fucking nitwit.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 08:05 AM
0

Yes, I read the bullshit assumptions that you call reasons. Bolding them doesn't' make them stronger. The fact that you think she's "broke ass Jerry Springer trash" is not reason to jump to the assumption that criminal charges should be filed because she's extorting your "friend." You don't have any good reason to think he didn't knock her up or even that he used birth control. Hey... here's an idea. Tell your friend to stop fucking "broke ass Jerry Springer trash," and why should we think he is…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 01:11 AM
1

She hasn't asked for more money. You are rank speculating that she will and threatening legal criminal charges be filed. Shut the fuck up. You don't know for shit whether anything you're speculating about is true and yet you're ready to crucify the woman here. What a fucking tool. Also, to be only a week off on a speculated conception date and using that as "proof" to push all kinds of nasty shit onto this woman without a shred of proof is just heinous. Jesus, you're everything people hate about…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 08:17 PM
5

I wonder why "nobody deserved to be extorted," but the woman in your story deserved to be assumed to be extorting absent any evidence that is the case? If your friend knocked up a one night stand that was a risk he assumed when he chose that behavior. Paying for an abortion is his best option. The fact that he handled it very badly by not driving her to the clinic to support her while she has a dangerous procedure done that he contributed to causing, and also making sure it was actually done is …
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:58 PM
5

What is it about supporting the children you brought into the world that is not amicable?
/r/MensRights25/12/11 04:26 AM
1

Yeah... I've seen it. Not the same kind of "political" at all that the others engage in.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 01:19 AM
2

John Stewart, Steve Colbert, Bill Maher and... Jay Leno?? Which one of these things is not like the others?
/r/MensRights11/12/11 01:11 AM
5

If the job opening is for pretty girls who will help bring in business then pretty girls ARE more qualified. How is this not clear?
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:05 AM
-3

Job Interviewer: You showed up for your interview wearing shorts and a tank top. Do you expect me to view you as a serious candidate? Applicant: Manner of dress is subjective. Do you know how many classes engineers take on how to dress? Zero. Just fucking zero. Excuse me if my outfit isn't perfect, I'm here to do math, not dress to your expectations. It's people like you who are preventing intelligent people from getting jobs that would better a company! YOU'RE BREAKING THE SYSTEM!! Job Intervie…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 07:26 PM
1

Well, since you have to ask, I'd like to see what hard data your extensive internet research revealed regarding ANYONE'S CIA status, and I'd sure like to see a cite revealing how you know what way Anna Ardin might "swing." Regardless, how much it might cost for anyone to "whore" themselves (in your opinion) in whatever "town" you might care to name (your opinion) relates to nothing other than a figment of your imagination.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 01:50 AM
1

[citation required] or Opinion masquerading as fact.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 01:33 AM
1

Right. Because CIA connections are always obvious and easily uncovered with an internet connection.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 11:28 PM
12

I'm not going to lie to you, that smells like pure gasoline.
/r/seduction12/11/10 12:02 AM
6

Well I tell you what, next time you're "harassed" by a "drunk" guy in a club, and that "harassment" involves getting physically assaulted by the "drunk" and then choked out by a totally different guy acting as muscle for the first guy and pretending to be a cop, you get back to us, m'kay, pumpkin? You might want to note that male on male violence and bar scuffles DO have nothing to do with men's rights, and a woman using her gender to get a guy assaulted in a a bar does.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 01:20 PM
2

The Greater Good!
/r/MensRights04/07/10 01:57 AM
1

Well, if you have no problem assuming "something like" 20% is attributed to "women" with no explanation on what comprises "women," I think it's reasonable to conclude that "something like" 80% is comprised of "men." My primary argument is with the assumption made by the headline and justifying statement. "something like 20%," without proper attribution only sounds damaging if your ignore that the reverse is "something like 80%."
/r/MensRights02/07/10 09:14 PM
1

Umm.. men are the vast majority of pedophiles. That is inarguable. It's not a difficult concept. Just as men are the vast majority of serial killers and mass murderers... Look, it doesn't mean all men are pedophiles, serial killers or murderers by any stretch, but it's seems stupid to pretend that reality is something other than what it is because the truth might damage our fragile ego's.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 08:50 PM
0

What about it, does that have anything to do with the article, the headline or the statistic in question?
/r/MensRights02/07/10 08:38 PM
19

Interesting headline. Just judging by the headline, the first thing that popped into my mind was that if 20% of sexual abuse in perpetrated by women, then 80% is perpetrated by men, then men are rightfully looked at with a higher degree of suspicion.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 03:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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