TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bitter_cynical_angry Archive

View 0 posts and 15 comments by bitter_cynical_angry 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

Agreed. Automatic -1 for Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 05:44 PM
1

Automatic -1 for Daily Mail. Find a better source.
/r/MensRights28/01/11 12:33 AM
3

-1 for Daily Mail. Pick a better source.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 06:48 PM
2

Me too. I was perfectly happy being alone for several years. Then I happened to meet exactly the right person and I'm 100% convinced our relationship is stronger because I'm confident in myself. OP sounds like he's not. If you're not happy with yourself, you can't be happy with anyone else. Or at least I sure can't.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 06:40 PM
3

I think names are important. The problem with having a name like "feminism" or "men's rights" is that you constantly have to distinguish, to people outside the movement, between your gender equality movement and the people who follow a more narrow interpretation of the name. As you point out, it's like "white rights" and "traditional marriage", only I fail to see why "feminism" doesn't also belong in that list. Why not call your (and my) beliefs by their proper name: gender equality.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 04:03 PM
7

...any man that believes women and men should be treated equally is a feminist himself. I believe men and women should be equal. That is feminism. No, that is gender equality. I think both feminism and men's rights are unbalanced in exactly opposite ways. Your "true feminist" argument could apply just as well as a "true masculinist" (or whatever the word is). Regardless of the stated goals of feminism or men's rights, the name itself belies the inherent bias.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:39 PM
4

Funnily enough, this is also the problem with "Men's Rights".
/r/MensRights15/12/10 10:39 PM
0

I appreciate your response. I still disagree though. I think the correct name for what we really mean to do should be adopted from the beginning. It's going to be inherently difficult to get both genders' input in a movement called "Men's Rights", just as I'm willing to bet that "feminist" groups have more women than men in them. (I don't actually have any data on that, so if I'm wrong let me know.) Finally, I believe this subreddit should not become /r/GenderEquality because the world is not ye…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 10:08 PM
-2

I'm a little amazed you seem to be saying this with a straight face. "Feminism is about women's rights, not gender equality, but Men's Rights is about gender equality, not men's rights." Seriously? You don't think it's possible that women would interpret "Men's Rights" the same way men interpret "feminism"? Until the name of this reddit changes to /r/GenderEquality, how can it reasonably present an even treatment of the subject? Of course, this is just, like, my opinion, man.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 07:47 AM
14

Er, what is so extremely unreasonable about this? Rape is non-consensual sex. If you are extremely inebriated, you can't give your consent. Or rather, you can, but since basically you're not of sound mind at that point, your consent doesn't mean anything. How is this bad? It can even be applied both ways; it's not like it says "if the woman is drunk"...
/r/MensRights04/10/10 06:42 AM
2

What FlackRacket said was: If he gets 3 years for recording, she should get 10 for the false accusation. What false accusation is that exactly?
/r/MensRights07/07/10 07:12 PM
1

Yes, probably so. But "apparently drugged"? And how did the cops trace her back to a house? It could have been anything from a bar napkin with his number written on it to her saying she remembered having been assaulted there. And how should I know what would or wouldn't cause a New Zealander to call the police? Here's one of my assumptions: I assume it might be a different set of circumstances than what I would use to judge whether or not to call the police. Anyway my point is that you start off…
/r/MensRights07/07/10 08:19 AM
4

I think the proper answer is "I don't know". Which is a very bad place to start concluding that this is a false rape accusation. It may well be. Or it may not, there is not enough information. If anything, what I get from what is in the article is that he may have showed the tape too early, but there isn't even enough information to say that for sure. Arguing that it's the nature of the medium to be vague and possibly inaccurate doesn't make it any less vague and possibly inaccurate.
/r/MensRights07/07/10 07:43 AM
5

Speaking of assumptions, according to the story, ...a member of the public found a woman wandering along The Terrace one morning in May. The woman, aged in her 40s, claims to have little memory of the night before but officers traced her back to Gardiner's nearby home. That does not indicate she was "in a stupor" or even drugged. Or do you have another source that is more specific that you could link here, because all google came up with was other news articles with almost the exact same wording…
/r/MensRights07/07/10 06:28 AM
10

I guess I missed where in the article they said he was actually going to be charged with rape. Here's what I saw: It is understood police began an investigation after a member of the public found a woman wandering along The Terrace one morning in May. The woman, aged in her 40s, claims to have little memory of the night before but officers traced her back to Gardiner's nearby home. It is understood he argued they had met at a central Wellington bar the night before and the sex had been consensua…
/r/MensRights07/07/10 06:23 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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