TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bluthru Archive

View 0 posts and 121 comments by bluthru 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

Seriously. The fact that women aren't given equal standing in the catholic church is pure bullshit. Bringing religion into gender equality isn't helping anything.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:24 AM
3

Is this a joke?
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:31 PM
84

So the person who violated their policy SIX TIMES is given a less harsh sentence than six others who violated it once?
/r/PussyPass03/05/14 02:50 PM
1

Even gnostic atheists aren't exactly wrong and do operate on facts. For example, we used to believe that the universe was slowing down after the big bang. People were sure of it. Then, they discovered that the universe was expanding at an increasing rate, which is crazy. So, now that there was evidence for it, it became the new fact. Another example: I don't believe that the tooth fairy visits everyone in their sleep and rapes them every night. Is it a fact that the tooth fairy does not visit ev…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:44 PM
1

You are still trying to make those who believe something by faith believe it by reason. No I'm not. I understand that they choose to ignore the fact that there is no evidence for gods and yet they believe in them. If I'm a devout Christian or Jew or whatever, and I say, "I believe in God/Allah/FSM," it's not because I have seen evidence for it. Exactly. To bring it full circle: They're acting irrationally and without facts.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:06 PM
1

It is ridiculous, but that's the definition of faith. http://biblehub.com/john/20-29.htm[1] is Christianity's take on it. Right. What's your point?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:47 PM
1

But it is acceptable "reasoning" for the statement "I believe that there is a god." I don't agree at all. "I don't have any evidence for something to exist, but I'm going to believe it exists anyway." That's ridiculous. You picked one third of wikipedia's definition, I picked another. Nope. There is the broader term "atheism" and it can be modified with the "agnostic/gnostic" modifier. As an atheist, I'm intimately familiar with the definitions. I used to be an idiot who thought I was "agnostic"…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:53 PM
2

It's all that humans have to go on if they are acting in a logical, rational, scientific manner. Which is not something that someone of faith does. You said it. Again, faith isn't acceptable reasoning in any other aspect of life. Fully familiar with your definition. There are multiple uses of the word "atheist" in common usage. You used one, I used another. Hence the confusion. No, it's not "my definition". The wikipedia page explained how both were included in the term atheism. That's why there…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:48 PM
2

You still don't understand the concept of faith. Of course I do. We're arguing using different definitions here No we're not. The wikipedia entry doesn't contradict what I was saying: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. In the narrow sense. AKA gnostic atheism. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. AKA agnostic atheism. Which is to reiterate that you can't prove a negative, even if it's a highly implausible neg…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:30 PM
1

An atheist only accepts what there is proof for. There is no proof that there is no god. Right. What don't you understand? There has to be proof in something's existence for one to believe in it. There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist on the edge of our solar system, but you don't believe in that, right? I think what you're thinking of is agnosticism, not atheism. No, I know what I'm talking about. Atheism and agnosticism aren't on the same plane: http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploa…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:35 PM
3

He said "atheism ... is fact based", meaning that he seems to say he has some fact that proves there is no god. Atheism is fact based. An atheist only accepts what there is proof for. There is no proof of gods, so an atheist doesn't bother with them. If it is a fact that gods exist, then an atheist would acknowledge their existence. Atheism doesn't mean "I have personally searched every square inch of the universe and traveled between dimensions and have not observed any gods". Someone who's rel…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:41 AM
1

Support for Roe is declining. Nope: http://www.motherjones.com/files/wsj-nbc-news-poll-roe-v-wade-abortion.jpg When the old white men who support it are finally gone and Hispanic Catholics take their places, what makes you think Roe will last? Forever. The country is less religious by the year, and even 40% of Latino Catholics support abortion.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:32 AM
5

Atheism isn't based on faith. It's simply the lack of a belief in gods. A lack of belief in gods doesn't give my life meaning. A religious person draws a lot of meaning from believing in gods, though.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:19 AM
2

What facts, exactly, prove to you that there is not a god? ...what? You're asking someone to prove a negative? The onerous is on someone who is religious to prove that there is a god.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:18 AM
9

At breakfast the next morning, I remarked on the collection of feminist literature in her bookshelf, and asked what she thought about the Men's Rights Movement. Not a smart move, OP. No need to shoehorn these matters in so soon.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 04:32 AM
11

Height has nothing to do with fertility. That's not how you spell "though".
/r/MensRights10/12/13 09:50 AM
103

And it has absolutely nothing to do with health. Also, an overweight parent can pass on some of their poor weight management via epigenetics.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:49 AM
1

You have not offered rational arguments. You are operating in a fantasy world not connected to first-world society in the slightest. Your opinion is so irrational and extreme that it will forever be without any consequence in the slightest. Enjoy that.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 09:24 PM
1

You're the exact sort of person who gives mens rights a bad name. You're letting pointless ideological purity get in the way of helping society and saving you money.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 09:17 PM
1

Laws can make men pregnant now? You're focusing on pregnancy as if it exists in a vacuum. Men and society are already financially obligated to pay money toward to baby. You seem to either not recognize this or wish it wasn't the case.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 09:04 PM
1

Yes it is. It is by definition exclusively a women's issue. Literally. Maybe in the lawless society you seem to come from. Men and society have a financial obligation to the baby. Legally. Literally.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 08:25 PM
1

If not, then who is giving up money for their own healthcare coverage in order to pay for someone else's? This isn't what's happening at all. Pregnancy isn't exclusively a woman's issue. You're giving mens rights a horrible name. You sound like you're from the 50's. Paying for birth control is an extremely wise investment for society. That's when one group of people pay it and another group of people receive it. Seriously, stop being stupid. I pay taxes for a fire department but I've never had a…
/r/MensRights12/11/13 08:19 PM
1

I'm only talking about funding, not "policing" anything. but your refusal to define which group of "citizens" actually pays Are you not familiar with taxes? Again, the issue isn't "women's vaginas", it's potential births which affect everyone.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 07:31 PM
0

It's paid for by citizens, just like your police department.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 04:35 PM
1

So... who should pay for it? I don't think Durex is going to start giving away their product for free out of the goodness of their heart. Citizens who want to save money. Birth control is far less expensive than the alternatives. Also, crime goes down and the world is less overpopulated. It's a win-win-win unless you're the type of person who is offended by every public service.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:48 PM
15

Let’s hope the changing landscape continues in a positive manner for all. Sums up everything, right here. "Women having a disproportionate amount of power is best for everyone!"
/r/MensRights01/10/13 01:02 AM
6

Sorry bud, those days are over: http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/03/11/217505/UScircrate.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Circumcision_by_Country.png It was super-popular before modern medicine, though.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:46 AM
7

From what i have overheard medical professionals discussing, there are hygiene benefits Only in parts of the world that don't have indoor plumbing. It makes about as much sense as cutting off an ear or labia.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:29 AM
5

Its a normal medical practice that is used ALL AROUND THE FUCKING WORLD Not really: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Circumcision_by_Country.png It's dropping fast, because there's no medical point in first world countries: http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/03/11/217505/UScircrate.gif im sure that if it was abuse, it would have stopped a long time ago. That's what we're in the process of.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:25 AM
18

and want the same for their own baby boys They can "want" all they want. They shouldn't be able to do cosmetically modify their kid's body without their consent.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:20 AM
2

Hey, if government tells businessmen how to run their business, we'll all be richer. Riiiiiight. We have all sorts of laws that tell businesses how to run their business for the betterment of the people. One example: antitrust.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 05:27 PM
2

Ah yes, because these issues didn't exist before we left the gold standard... /s When the money hoards at the top, bad things happen: http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/income-inequality-usa-05.jpg Great Depression and Great Recession, right there. It's pretty simple, the economy thrives when more people have more money to spend.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:14 AM
2

It would just result in higher unemployment. Not absolutely. If the difference came from exorbitant C-level pay or profits, we'd see a reduction in unemployment because the lower class could consume more. It's funny that people assume that despite wealth stratification being at a nearly all-time high, those people earned all of that money. How dare those dirty minimum wage workers ask for more, despite the fact that real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 05:54 AM
2

There is a biological risk of getting pregnant. A woman can end this. There is not a biological risk of a man having to pay "child" support for 18 years. It is a human-constructe risk that isn't egalitarian.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:46 PM
5

Is this a joke? Are you saying that only men choose to have sex and therefore every act of male-female sex is rape committed by the male?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:52 PM
20

We say "racism" not "blackism". A gendered term for gender equality isn't acceptable. If we have "masculinism" the same definition as her definition of feminism, there would be no end to the outrage, and rightly so.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:48 PM
2

Go move to the middle east if you want to take away a woman's biological right.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:28 PM
12

Shit, we'll never get anywhere with idiots like you in the way.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:37 AM
9

Both times when I got back in the next day after getting over the worst of it several different female colleagues asked if I was over my 'Man-flu'. That's horribly sexist. Too bad it's not really a "report to PR"-level offense, but that shit has to stop. Call them out on their sexism.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 11:13 PM
3

Whining about household chores in 2012 in the first world? Fucking suck it up, human.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 02:28 AM
1

I didn't realized you said demographic: "make space for Third World countries' demographic explosion" So, I'm dealing with a racist. Great. Actually, half of potential black babies are aborted. You should be really happy about that. and tell me that at 10 weeks they don't look human... "Look Human"? That has nothing to do with anything.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:45 PM
1

And you're advocating cultural suicide to make space for Third World countries' demographic explosion. How is that any better? All populations' reproductive rates level off as they mature. Besides, the carbon footprint of an American is like 10x that of an African. Don't I wish this was true. I meant in this thread. For health reasons, a pregnant women should be able to. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the women make up her mind before that point.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 05:16 PM
2

I can think of [1] a [2] few [3] things it might set right We have 7 goddamn billion people on this planet, and somehow more humans are a solution? "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." You're basically advocating a population Ponzi scheme to create money. It's not sustainable is many, many ways. The United States had HALF of its current population only back in 1950. You are simply screeching that you need to be taken care of first and foremost, and damn that 26 wee…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:17 PM
1

And removing biological rights of fetuses cannot possibly harm society? Somehow removing abortion would be an incredibly stupid move, pretty much only motivated by religious beliefs. 1/4 of babies are aborted. The last thing we need is that many more babies being born, especially to parents that don't want them. Every child has a right to loving parents. I suppose you're ready to help support 1/4 more babies being born via welfare? Serious, what would be the upside of denying a woman's right to …
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:13 PM
2

Biology dictates that it's the woman's body. Grow it yourself.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 02:31 AM
1

Just because the baby was conceived through an act of rape does not diminish its rights. If the killing of an unborn child is immoral, it's immoral regardless of how it was conceived. Dude, seriously. Fuck your partisan word choice. "its rights" - The sack of cells is not even an autonomous being! The mother has rights. The growth inside her? No. "Unborn child" - I think you mean fetus. "killing" - Uh... I used some mouth wash last night. Am I a murderer? A growing sack of sells in a women can't…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 02:25 AM
4

She ignored my first question, and answered my second question with "the campus men's center is called the faculty lounge, ass". You should have pointed out that men are now a minority in college. Her amount of brainwashing is just sad.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:01 AM
11

How does this justify doing it to someone without their consent when there are no medical benefits in first world countries?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:34 AM
1

I guarantee that there are more men that would want to split the bill than there are women who want to split the bill.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:03 PM
0

Which is far from true in the long run. Eh, no? It's only beneficial in AIDs-stricken Africa.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:18 AM
0

I find you personally distasteful I don't even have the words to describe someone who thinks it's ok to tatto an infant. 3 month old daughter. She's glad to have that as a sign that he'll always be with her. So let me get this straight. The mother forced a three month old to endure thousands of needle pricks and inserted ink into the skin. That doesn't sound like abuse to you? The baby didn't ask for it. The mother did it for selfish reasons. There is absolutely nothing caring about imposing tha…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 03:07 AM
8

Yep, that's the only issue here. Letting people be in control of their own bodies.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:54 AM
3

HA! Hair is dead. No circulation, no nerve endings.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:52 AM
2

Excuse me, but you have NOT provided any reason that is ok for a parent tattoo a baby. Just as you are not allowed to permanently alter a stranger's skin against their will, you are not allowed to alter a kid's skin against their will. You are NOT debating, you're just saying "I think it's ok". What you think doesn't matter when it comes to altering someone else's life. You are not permitted to tattoo someone against their will, sorry. Go on, explain how this: tattoo a small image for sentimenta…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:28 AM
2

Religion and Circumcision Probably because they're both pointless and harmful?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:13 AM
0

Ahem, be civil, sir. Says the guy who thinks it's ok to tattoo a baby. others would tattoo a small image for sentimental reasons.. This is in no way ok. Whoever does that to a baby is an absolute piece of shit who should have the baby taken away from them for abuse.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:13 AM
0

Because if you tattoo a babies arm, its an acceptable thing Tattooing a child is not acceptable. What kind of sick fuck thinks it's ok to tattoo a baby?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:04 AM
5

So what you're saying is: you're not ok with tattooing a baby's foreskin, but you are ok with tattooing a baby's arm? Why are you making a distinction?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:31 AM
3

Why is the location relevant? I was just keeping it consistent to the body part at hand.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:19 AM
12

what I don't get is what the answer is No one is allowed to surgically alter someone else's body. When they become 18, they can choose to do it to themselves. Basically, treat it the same as tattoos. Could you imagine if parents tattooed something onto their son's foreskin?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:26 PM
1

It's pretty horrible how ignorance and selfishness are rewarded in our society. It truly gives me no hope for human progress.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:30 PM
3

"I just wanted someone on my side, not this crap." When did this ever become a thing? No lady, people aren't entitled to give you the emotion and opinion you desire on demand. She was not wronged--she did the wronging. She should feel bad. Running red lights potentially kills people. You should tell her "just be lucky that no one got hurt" and be done with it. The worst part of it? If she's this emotionally immature, she'll probably tell all of your mutual friends what an "insensitive jerk" you …
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:59 PM
42

This country needs an anti-marriage movement.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:15 PM
1

Yes, but not to the degree that would not require charging men more. I'm saying that those who can't drive responsibly should take on the burden.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 02:37 AM
1

it's justified because males have more serious car accidents on the whole I have a hunch of a group of people who are more likely to be in expensive accidents and it isn't discriminatory: Those who have moving vehicle violations. I bet a woman with a speeding ticket is much more likely than a man without one to be in an expensive crash. I'd propose to increase the rates of those with tickets instead of males. Anyone have data on this?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 02:01 AM
3

Right, but do they deserve the tax break?
/r/MensRights20/05/12 08:51 AM
3

We definitely need to get rid of those. "Oh, you got married? Well, you must automatically be worth more to the country than single people! What's that? Data shows that single people contribute to their community more by volunteering and other activities? Oh, uh... WE MUST DEFEND MARRIAGE FROM THE GAYS!" Who benefits from state marriage beyond divorce lawyers?
/r/MensRights20/05/12 07:46 AM
7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:46 PM
2

I'm accusing a group of people, not a gender. Who happen to be primarily male. It's fair to assume that your standard redditor can barely dress himself. That's not the case with me. I'm an architect so the right side of my brain isn't dead. but then you can argue that painters are materialistic because of their need of a canvas and brush. Two things: painters aren't replacing the utilitarian with the lavish the same way fashion goes above and beyond standard clothing. Paint and canvas is really …
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:01 PM
6

Erm... that's sexist? I was simply going by the hard data of 4 to 1 fashion stores. But seriously, "Fashion's quite the opposite of materialism" is probably the biggest bunch of bullshit I'll read all day, and it's before 10 am.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:44 PM
6

Is it opposite day?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:34 PM
29

Female fashion stores outnumber male ones by at least 4-1. Funny, I see lack of materialism as a good thing.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:09 AM
9

I think society as a whole needs to not tolerate as much childish behavior. Reality TV certainly doesn't help.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:01 AM
0

If you can't explain to your child what's a joke and what's not, you're falling into the stereotype perpetuated on the shirt. The bottom line is: it isn't worth it. A baby could wear a onesie with a joke about some ethnicity, but it's simply tasteless and harms society. It wouldn't be worth trying to explain the joke to an undeveloped, impressionable young mind. It's simply greedy bastards profiting off of people who look down on men as parents. Fuck 'em, it's a net harm.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:39 PM
4

"I don't see the problem therefore there isn't a problem." Any siblings this baby may have is taught through this clothing that men make poor parents. Sure, it might be just a stupid tasteless, ignorant, unfunny joke for adults, but it reinforces negative stereotypes about men in children. So yeah, that's kind of important to get worked up about. You're part of the problem with society.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:26 PM
10

Saying religion is the cause of pedophilia No. and child genital mutilation Yes.
/r/MensRights21/04/12 06:41 PM
18

Feminists, this is the sort of issue we'd really like an ally on. I'm serious. Equality is the goal.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 05:32 AM
28

Are you completely against the idea of women taking some of the man's earnings after the divorce The fact that you put it in terms of "women taking some of the man's earnings" is part of the problem. I think everyone wants equality, and gender shouldn't have anything to do with it.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 09:11 PM
3

The law doesn't tell us what we're allowed to do, only what we aren't. Such as discriminate. They do, it's called the rest of the hotel. Like the "colored" drinking fountain? Men are not allowed in women's changing rooms, or toilets. Those are areas that nudity could occur, and the sexes aren't permitted to be there during that time. No one is changing their clothes in a hotel hallway. it's only has one floor that has gender restrictions. And it's only for females. Congratulations, you've found …
/r/MensRights28/12/11 04:26 AM
5

As each floor can specialise to the average wants of the gender. Such as? What wants is unique to a gender? Remember, this hotel is prohibiting, not simply specializing. But no one forces the women to stay in there, which means no one is forcing separation. This makes zero sense. Men are forced to separate from the floor. Women don't have to be forced in for men to be forced out. This is like saying that black students weren't forced out of a particular school because white kids weren't forced i…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:43 AM
3

I have addressed the benefits of having separate sex floors Where? Segregation implies a level of force. That's not what is going on here, don't be disingenuous. Um, one is forcibly removed from the floor if they are not a woman. Let us not make laws based on people's schedules, even if they are inconvenient. It's about discrimination. Rooms tailored to what the average woman enjoys, and rooms tailored to what the average male enjoys. But why be sexist and prohibit men from enjoying the hotel ro…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:13 AM
4

"safe haven"? I'm not aware they're advertising this as a safe haven from men. It doesn't have to be explicitly advertised. Why make it a women's floor? Why not have these types of rooms throughout? Why not allow men to rent these rooms if they want these accommodations? "The front of the bus is only for whites." Men and women are different. Anatomically we are different, and we statistically like and value different things. This is not a comment on how things should be, just on how things are. …
/r/MensRights28/12/11 02:20 AM
6

There isn't a quota.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 01:52 AM
4

There's nothing wrong with choosing to be separate. Oh yes there is. It teaches children that men and women are different, and that women need a safe haven from men. Besides, both sexes didn't choose this. It's no different than a bus choosing to separate the blacks from the whites.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 01:51 AM
6

I guess male paramedics aren't welcome?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 01:48 AM
2

But if faced with a situation like this, just be civil. He was more than civil. That shit would get a guy pepper sprayed.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:23 AM
3

get a STEM related degree There are plenty of practical and essential degrees that don't fit into this mold. People forced into a line of work that they don't excel at doesn't help anything.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 04:35 AM
2

Because cutting off parts of dicks shouldn't be a matter of opinion except for the person who owns the dick. Take the 18 year old's foreskin, not a baby's.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:32 PM
2

That is YOUR opinion. Oh god, the irony is indescribable. How about letting the baby make his own decision with what to do with his own body? Babies aren't allowed to get tattoos until they're 18 in most states. I don't see why circumcision should be any different.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:19 PM
17

"Savings" No, that's not savings. Also, would anyone mistake her face for a good person?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 05:31 AM
5

I'm a Chiquita emanyea and I've come to say, bananas have to ripen in a certain way!
/r/MensRights06/12/11 12:59 AM
5

(Having to have an abortion or give it up for adoption is still a responsibility she is left with and not the male). So... "biologically, the situation is not equal". You can use that line two ways. And of course this doesn't even bring to light entrapment/deception, which this is about.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:38 PM
6

Read #2 as if you're telling that to a woman who you're prohibiting from having an abortion. This is why it's a double standard.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:10 PM
20

2XC has always been cool and level-headed.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 04:54 PM
6

That's not awwdaww's point. You can cohabitate and be life partners without "marriage".
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:32 AM
1

I can't even believe I'm the same species as this despicable person. What kind of upbringing does one have to be so self-centered?
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:46 PM
5

Your right to say that doesn't exist?
/r/MensRights10/10/11 02:42 AM
22

I feel like a few years of boot camp would do my generation a world of good I think you have good intentions, but may I redirect them to something like this: Mandatory community service. Soup kitchens, cleaning up the streets, neighborhood watches, mentoring, teaching, etc. are all FAR better uses of taxpayer dollars than soldiers. But hey, no-bid military contracts don't happen that way, so here we are, inheriting just the shell of a once-great nation.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 02:41 AM
8

Feminism is all about freedom as long as a woman conforms to the feminist freedom. This reminds me of how severely religious people think that religion owns morality, and that the root of all good is god. Feminism doesn't own equality or the people who are for it.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 08:29 PM
3

That term isn't limited to genetic mutation.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:07 PM
7

To fail at life is to have a worldview that everyone should have your worldview and be critical of those who don't share it. You have some evolving to do.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:24 PM
19

"aren't you worried about if they will keep things clean?," Thank you, marketers, for raising a generation of kids who think men can't keep things clean.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 10:20 AM
2

But your argument is that women would think twice. About having the baby, not about having sex. Why should law matter? Because a man's livelihood shouldn't be at the mercy of a woman who wants to play mommy with his money?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 02:24 PM
1

Are getting someone to cover for you at work and simply not showing up indistinguishable, too? Poor analogy. It's closer to refusing a job offer and someone else takes the position. Of course, the women would be creating the job position without your consent.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 02:08 PM
6

But that doesn't apply to the woman? 1 out of 3 women will have had an abortion during their lifetime. 99.9% of the time, sex is not for procreation.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 11:06 PM
1

The definitely suffer a strong financial disadvantage. They also suffer an emotional disadvantage (again: cue angry replies from happy adults raised by single parents) of not having both parents available to support them as individuals, and to take the stress off each other during the exhausting business of raising up children. Why do women and the system think taking part of the man's paycheck is sufficient, then? Why would a mother choose to bring up a child like that in a less-than-ideal envi…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 10:30 PM
2

That or allow the man to opt out of the child's life with no right to opt back in. This is what I think. Basically giving the kid up for adoption. The child's life is in the hands of the woman, as she's producing it. The obligation of the father should be independent of this, however.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 10:09 PM
1

Adoption is a morally responsible choice. I was saying it's morally irresponsible for the man to sign away his financial responsibility to the child and leaving it at that. I really don't see how they're different in this case. You accept the risk of being responsible for a child when you have sex with a woman who will keep the child if she gets pregnant. Right, and this is wrong because the woman doesn't accept any risk of being responsible for a child when having sex. If you think this inequal…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:47 PM
2

But they are inextricably linked to biology What does this mean? A child dies when it only has the income of one parent? This statement makes no sense. Until you can understand how they aren't "inextricably linked", this discussion is pointless. and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet. Just because it's law doesn't make it right. Think pre Roe v. Wade or pre women's suffrage. We're talking about what should be the law. Convention != justice. Sh…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:43 PM
2

but if there is a child in the world that's yours, you're morally responsible for it. Not true. One can choose to give a child up for adoption. If you sign away your financial obligations, you're just putting your irresponsibility in writing. How is this different than a woman choosing to have an abortion, financially? I think we're back at the original image, here. It's a lot harder for the woman to actually do those things. Well, as you put it, that's "the way our bodies are".
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:12 PM
4

Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy. Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby. Financial obligations are not biology. At what point do the child's rights and best-interests engage? Before the child is born, which is why the woman can choose to have the baby or not. Maybe she won't have the baby if she can't take the man's money without his consent. Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fat…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:12 PM
3

No problem. I don't get the sense that our view is in the minority, though, at least among pro-choicers.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:04 PM
1

It should be longer than a month, but telling your GF 7 months in that you want to break up and don't want to pay for the child is too cruel.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:55 PM
2

What difference does it make if he disavows all responsibility before or after the child is born? Because the woman can choose to have the baby or not before it is born. That choice doesn't exist after. Once the child is born, it is still without the support of the man responsible for his/her existence. No, two people are responsible for the child's existence. The problem is that only one person gets to make a choice regarding their involvement. The woman would have to consider if she really wan…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:48 PM
5

I'm just a guy who happens to pop over here. I wouldn't label myself an MRA or a feminist. I'd like to think of myself as an egalitarian or no label at all, since about all of them are loaded. Forcing a woman to carry a baby? Heck no. That's like giving a woman a 30 pound tumor against her will. It's her body and it's completely up to her. If she chooses to carry the baby out of shear kindness, fine. If she chooses to carry the baby and gets paid for her work, fine. I believe the "It's her body"…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:44 PM
3

Which is precisely why I suggested that this all happens before a child exists. Not allowing the man to have a say in hist involvement before a child is born is the problem.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:18 PM
4

Agreed on both points. Couples should always split the cost of birth control, IMO.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:15 PM
17

While it is unfortunate that ignorant people might call women (1/3 of women, that is) who have had an abortion terrible names, that has nothing to do with the liability disparity between the sexes. "Deadbeats" have to pay. "Murderers" have their choice.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:34 PM
1

True. It's pretty easy to hide a pregnancy for a month. Now that I think of it, how would it be possible for the guy to know that a girl is pregnant for a long while, especially if she's overweight? Maybe the solution is an "opt-in" policy? That way the woman has an interest in revealing the pregnancy ASAP? At that point the man could sign on to being legally bound to the baby. What definitely isn't right is that a man signs on to having a baby just by having sex while the women has more freedom…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:25 PM
163

Conception: 50% male DNA, 50% female DNA. Pregnancy: 100% the female's. Birth: 50% male's, 50% female's. If divorce: 70% female's (or more). I don't think a man should have any say about a baby during pregnancy, but that must be coupled with a man being free to make his own decision about whether or not he wants to be involved in the child's life. If a man could sign away rights to be the father during the first month*, then maybe women would think twice about bringing a child into the world tha…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:01 PM
7

The same way that you would get a ticket if you parked in a spot reserved for handicapped people? Handicapped parkers have rear view tags or special license plates. If an officer or someone with authority walks by and sees that the car is not marked, they get a ticket. There'd be no way to know this unless you saw a man get into the car.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:24 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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