TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bpj1805 Archive

View 7 posts and 188 comments by bpj1805 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

And here I was thinking that it's great that the suicide rate among males in Canada has declined by 34%!
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:49 PM
1

I don't think it's "weird". I remember that when I was that age there seemed to be a lot more pressure to be into anything female that moves. I never bought into that - I'm just weird that way - but I watched many of my friends acting hyperbolically attracted to women, in a way that (possibly only in hindsight) I don't think was "real", but was more of an act of conforming to expectations of how young men "should" behave. Nobody has any standing to say that you "should" find X percent of women h…
/r/seduction25/06/16 12:52 AM
1

In Ancapistan, if someone owes you money, you or your DRO can go and take his stuff whether he likes it or not. If he interferes, he's initiating violence and you can defend yourself against that violence with violence. But of course you would first remind him cordially to pay up his end of the bargain voluntarily.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 02:42 AM
0

The ancap is strong in your comment. Just remember, the father of the two children is violating the non-aggression principle by unilaterally reneging on the verbal commitment he made to contribute $200 without strings attached. By turning to the state to act with violence, the mother is engaging in self-defence, which the NAP allows for.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 01:08 AM
1

Every once in a while when I'm feeling grumpy I go through this sub's front page and just downvote everything that's just about feminism and has nothing to do with men's rights, and doesn't somehow excuse itself by being an otherwise excellent submission. I know the mods feel differently, but IMHO this endless feminism-bashing does not contribute to advancing men's rights, therefore I downvote. Not just out of disagreement.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 01:58 PM
1

There is no good feminism. It's stupid statements like these that make men's rights spaces unpalatable to the "good feminists" out there. Way to go, painting all of them with the broad brush dipped into the tin of the darkest black you could find. Does it then surprise you that even the more moderate feminists [*] just glance at a place like this, see tripe like yours and promptly dismiss the whole idea of a legitimate men's rights movement existing? If you hate them so much, then why do you do …
/r/MensRights29/04/16 01:50 PM
1

There's this article / essay / other thing I read probably 15-20 years ago, written by a feminist too, IIRC, that argues exactly this point. That the terribleness of rape is a patriarchal construct: that a woman's value is mostly in her vagina and its "purity". Then, if someone "steals" that by raping her, her value drops enormously and her life in classy society is basically destroyed. I wish I could find the essay again! Occasions come up so frequently where I wish I could link to it but I can…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 01:26 PM
-2

Yeah, some tiny number of nutjob feminists, like I said.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 09:29 PM
1

That's true; they've been embarrasingly silent. That doesn't equate to "feminism wants to kill all men" though.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 09:27 PM
5

No, they wouldn't do it themselves. That's for "other men" to do, when shit gets real.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:10 PM
6

Feminism wants to kill all men Oh please. Some tiny number of nutjob feminists genuinely want to kill all men. Some slightly less small number of feminists throw around "#killallmen" for shock value (they're trolls, essentially). This does not aboutamount to "feminism" wanting to kill all men. hyperbole LOL.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:01 PM
0

Off-topic self-downvoted nitpick: *elicit. Illicit behaviours might include snorting cocaine.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 01:10 PM
3

I don't mean we don't have guns. We do, although not as ubiquitously as in the US. I'm just pointing out that we're a completely different jurisdiction than the US. All the US-centric legal constructs (your constitution, amendments thereto, legal definitions like "felony") simply don't exist here. Kidnapping is still a crime though. I guess you could find an equivalent word for "felony", but "felony" per se doesn't appear in our books.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 01:37 AM
3

It's South Africa. We don't have your "second amendment".
/r/MensRights24/04/16 08:46 PM
1

I assume the kind of person who can afford a waterfall in her yard is pretty wealthy. Not where I live. You can be plain old middle class and have a waterfall. We're not talking a private Niagara falls here - just some fake rocks and a water pump. Anyway, take into account that Van Nes lives next to a music teacher. In what sort of area can a music teacher afford to live? And how wealthy are a music teacher's neighbours likely to be? Either way, a year's gross earnings seems like quite a bit to …
/r/MensRights24/04/16 12:29 PM
1

I don't think having views someone disagrees with makes one an "asshole" that directly. Certainly not a mere "I don't like feminism bexause X Y Z" view. "Feminism is bad because women are stupid"? Maybe.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 07:38 AM
1

asks for specific logical fallacies criticizes providing specific fallacies Yes, because the offered fallacies don't invalidate the comparison, if they even apply (as with the causation angle, which as I said I don't find "questionable"). You have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic if you believe this. Comparisons are not propositional logic. If X is doing Y, and Z is doing Y, the logical conclusion is Z and X will have similar outcomes. No, drawing comparisons is a far more abstract proces…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 07:35 AM
1

They're not "mine" BTW. I didn't draw the original comparison. Anyway, of all people I didn't expect to ever have to link this comic: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 I don't see you having demonstrated why even the fallacies you named would make the original comparison invalid. You just made up a rule that comparisons should demonstrate causality. That itself smells fallacious. Comparisons needn't do that. As for the fallacy of questionable cause, I don't think it's all that questionable. C…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:47 PM
1

Assholes are not a protected class. They can be. And being an asshole doesn't magically extinguish your rights. (And hobos aren't a priori a protected class. They often are, but they don't have to be. You're still not allowed to arbitrarily turf out a hobo just for looking like a hobo even if they're a cishet white male shitlord scum.)
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:38 PM
1

There are many, many other social networking sites Yeah, like Google+ If you make a website, why shouldn't you be able to decide its content? In my neck of the woods, a shopping mall can't turf out hobos just because they look like hobos. We have a sort of in-between state between "public space" and "private property" that you have when you throw your private doors open to the public, like a shopping mall does. You then don't have the right to arbitrarily decide who can come in and who can't. Fo…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 07:04 AM
2

It is cheap, and it is lazy, but you're going to have to name a particular fallacy you think applies here if you want to argue that the comparison is "wrong".
/r/MensRights10/04/16 09:42 PM
2

are you implying that censorship led to the holocaust? Censorship may not have caused the holocaust (alone) but it certainly didn't help to prevent it. If there were voices in Nazi Germany dissenting to Hitler's agenda, and they were censored, do you think this played any role in the holocaust happening? There's no point drawing a parallel unless you're trying to say there's a causal affect. No. That isn't the only purpose of drawing a comparison. Correlation may not imply causation, but it shou…
/r/MensRights10/04/16 12:04 PM
2

That interpretation is correct in letter, but flawed in spirit. Censorship-the-legal-construct is indeed limited to describing government action. But that isn't the only meaning it can carry (remember: words and their meaning are fluid; they're described by dictionaries, not defined), especially when you look into connotations. Noting that the entity doing the "censorship" isn't a government isn't a magic card that grants immunity from criticism. The criticism here being that, especially as pret…
/r/MensRights10/04/16 11:56 AM
1

for the purpose of anyone that believes that is a valid counterpoint Godwin's law also doesn't make any statement about the referenced argument's validity.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 11:42 AM
1

I kinda agree with the substance of Rasalom72's comment, but I don't agree with being an asshole about it. I hope you learn some assertiveness / self-respect through this episode. You might need it if you go ahead with legal action. Your adversaries are not going to pull their punches just because you suffer PTSD from the abuse. In fact I'd bet on them using it and other psychological weaknesses you have (or that they think you have) to pry you wide open. They already did when they turned the pr…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:45 PM
2

If a woman claims she was raped one a year every year for a decade and not one of those accusations have resulted in conviction then its safe to assume she is a liar. For you and me it's safe to make a casual assumption that she is a liar. We aren't held to any particular standard of judgement. An actual judge, on the other hand, is held to a rigorous standard, one that is not met by casual assumptions about "lightning doesn't strike the same spot twice". A judge needs to see proof beyond reason…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 03:42 AM
5

Not fair, but how do you prove she lied? "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to false rape accusers too.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:09 PM
1

I agree, I'm also torn. I think a nonpology is a perfectly appropriate response when someone projects blame for their own feelings on you. Show of hands, how many people here know at least one person whose response to any allegation is an immediate and generic apology? I've learned to control that impulse. It's possible to show sympathy without apologizing (even "on behalf of" others). I was raised that it was better to not apologize than to apologize insincerely Good for you. I hate these apolo…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 03:14 PM
14

Classic nonpology :) Along with "I'm sorry you feel that way".
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:22 PM
1

Who changed her mind about sex? Downvoting for ragebait misleading link title.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 11:34 PM
1

As some commenters on the article noted, the "I said no multiple times leading up to my assault" could also be referring to encounters with other men. So we probably just can't know exactly what happened or didn't happen here.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 11:27 PM
2

I'm not an expert in these matters, so I just look to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography#Divorce_to_marriage_ratio It seems like "divorce rate" is typically closer to "number of marriages that end in divorce" than to "likelyhood that a particular person's marriage ends in divorce". Noted in the wiki article, that I hadn't even thought about, was the distinction between stock and flow. 1000 marriages and 1000 divorces in a population of 100000 married couples is a ratio o…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 06:17 PM
2

Isn't the divorce rate among people married before 30 over 50%? Meaning pretty much everyone now is more likely than not to have married and divorced at least once in their lifetime? Depending on how "divorce rate" is defined, it doesn't necessarily mean this. Fraction of marriages ending in divorce =/= probability of a particular person's marriage ending in divorce. "Married and divorced at least once in their lifetime" is a saturating measurement. If you marry and divorce 10 times in your life…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 02:46 PM
2

Californias divorce rate went so alarmingly high Let's take a hypothetical spherical-cow population of a million people and look at how they marry and divorce. 100000 of them are a strict subpopulation, and they only interact with others of their kind. Each of them marries and divorces another of their kind 9 times on average over their lives. The other 900000 also only interact with others of their kind, but they marry another on average only once over their lifetime, and they never divorce. Qu…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 02:38 PM
6

Disclosure: Editorializing title - article doesn't claim, or even imply it. Some people's (non-)reaction to it does.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 04:35 AM
1

Fact is that if these people pose any risk whatsoever to the native population, none of them should be let in. If any men pose a risk to women, none of them should be afforded the usual civil liberties.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:54 PM
4

Most feminists don't despise men; they want equality. [some gendered issues] And how does discussion of these issues equate to despising men? The question about where the missing discussion of gendered issues is is about the equality that feminists ostensibly want. Despising men is a (tenuous, IMHO) step back to infer motives: an attempt at explaining why there is little to no discussion by feminists (who say they "want equality", that "feminism helps men too") of these gendered issues. My own e…
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:03 PM
2

The way I read it is that the wage gap exists in the form of (grossly stereotyping) women working as feminist dance therapists and men as electrical engineers. If one accepts that premise, then one has to agree that more women switching majors to electrical engineering would reduce this wage gap.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 02:22 AM
1

Why not? Women like sex, just like men. Why is hard to understand? If you can understand men cheating on their wives, you should be able to understand women cheating on their husbands. You're equivocating here. OP isn't referring to just cheating, but to letting one man, without his knowledge, raise another man's children. It's strictly worse than the act of merely cheating itself.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 05:15 PM
4

Your wife is your best fucking friend you've ever had, that's why you spend every day together until you die. Can you explain why this "best friend" that they marry or otherwise shack up with happens to be a woman for almost every last heterosexual man there is? If marriage were merely about bestest friends ever then we'd see more men marrying men and more women marrying women, and they'd do so independently of whether they happen to fuck. Attempting to write sexuality out of the narrative of wh…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 09:22 PM
-3

I'm sure it's not just women, but it's women who will get the press. I guess there is no violence against men in South Africa Sure, there's lots of violence against men too, but there's a distinctly chauvinistic culture that has it that it's okay to beat women. Men get beaten too, but that isn't "okay" the way beating women is. Or maybe I'm just paying too much attention to things that socially fucked up people say. But there seem to be an awful lot of them.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 03:56 PM
6

Reading this article leaves me feeling that the platform that International Men's Day is is being hijacked into an opportunity to highlight a "women" issue. That said, IMHO South Africa is a rather patriarchal society; I think we legitimately "need more feminism" here among our society, if not in government or in our laws. Yes, we have people who think women should be beaten, and it doesn't seem like an unusual view. Still, the timing of this minister's call smacks of "but what about teh womenz?…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 02:20 PM
3

You know why Torvalds is abusive in his emails? It's because he doesn't want to let bad code into kernel. Being abusive doesn't magically keep bad code out, and being nice doesn't magically let it in. But that aside (maybe it's a stress response, not a deliberate, goal-directed action), Linus's "abusive" manner doesn't bother me so much directly. As another commenter mentioned, he flames code, not (at least, rarely) persons. What bothers me more is that it enables/encourages others with a more t…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 07:47 PM
12

Can you imagine what would happen to any programming language if they let fucking feminists in Check out Python. who would silence any criticism of their code I haven't heard of Guido doing that though (but I don't really do Python so I wouldn't know even if he did).
/r/MensRights04/11/15 07:07 PM
1

So I go to the article, and knowing how /r/MensRights post titles are often ragebait, I do Ctrl-F and start typing "femin..." but the search box goes red, meaning neither of "feminist" and "feminism" appear anywhere in the article. What's this about, OP? Are you editorializing to manufacture outrage?
/r/MensRights15/09/15 10:07 AM
1

You made the decision to have a child, and you make the decision to work or stay at home with a child, why should others suffer due to your decision? I'm assuming you're USAnian, so I'll just go ahead and say it like this: I've never gotten my head around the USAnian obsession with such insular individualism. It's as if you lot think every man is an island! Don't you think that your putative child would pay tax too, and that we're all continually paying forward and paying backward and it'd be a …
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:38 PM
1

That's why I wrote that I'm referring to what happens on the margin - IOW how does average behaviour change when you change one factor by a small amount. This isn't about getting all parents to take perfect care of their children. If we merely get more parents to take just adequate care of their children, that's progress.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:16 PM
3

OP and his gf aren't your or our political soapbox. In their particular situation, she might well be the one who does or would soothe the fussy baby. We don't have standing to second-guess that choice of how they divide their roles.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:13 PM
7

I'd prefer we do away with maternity and paternity leave, or at least paid maternity and paternity leave. Paid parental leave should never be mandatory. Having a child is a choice. Philosophically, I agree. Pragmatically, I think it's a bad idea. People will end up neglecting their duty to their child. (I'm referring to what happens on the margin - differential changes - not to an absolute scale of child neglect.) Great, you say, their child, their choice, why should the rest of us have to pay f…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:54 AM
2

I like Wikipedia's article on objectification (without the Sexual_ prefix). With Nussbaum's list it seems possible to quasi-objectively evaluate a scenario of objectification. In OP's link's article I would say we find fungibility (IMHO explicitly putting people in a list goes a long way to meeting this criterion) and denial of subjectivity (IMHO any time you do a "Look at this duck - look at it." on someone with regard to their attractiveness (whether purely physical or not), in mass media, you…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:11 AM
3

Armies should consist of women only - that way more women will be able to pass the "can drag comrades off the battlefield" test.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 11:44 PM
0

I'm not so sure why you, admittedly not a US Citizen, are trying to tell people from the United States what it's actually like to deal with the police over here...? Maybe because Everybody needs to watch this video, especially men. Even applies to other countries apart from the USA.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 12:32 PM
2

the hypocrisy of your overall argument. What's my overall argument? It's against the law Then it should be easy for you to find a lawyer to help you correct this. vile example of hate Fallacy. Requires unreasonable projection of motives.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 12:29 PM
1

What's "dreadful" here? That a specific DV shelter takes only victims of one sex? If that's "dreadful", then it will also be "dreadful" if there are shelters which take in only male victims. What's dreadful is that there are few to no shelters that will take in male victims of domestic violence, not that a particular one won't. Edit to add: Furthermore, I didn't claim (or "suggest") that anyone hates women. I asserted that DavidByron2 is a "closed MRA" - the masculine version of OP's "closed fem…
/r/MensRights23/08/15 12:23 PM
0

That doesn't exist. Example of a closed MRA right here. because they hate men so much The hate you're projecting here might be your own. Being a DV shelter that's focused on women victims does not prima facie justify the "hates men" claim.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 08:30 PM
0

I thought I was having a discussion, but it seems you just want to burn straw feminists or something.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 08:47 PM
1

Great answer! I am a child. Would you rob me of my right to know who my parents are because some other person committed a crime? I don't think so, but I'm not convinced. Why should we privilege biological fatherhood like this? Does a child of a sperm donor have the right to know who its father is? The way I see it, there are two directions we could go here. Medicine, and social cohesion. If you're medicine-oriented I guess you would privilege biological fatherhood over legal fatherhood, and if y…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 03:45 PM
1

Framing matters. If you present people with pairs of pictures, and ask them to classify the pairs as either related or not related, of course you'll get incorrect guesses. This scenario is like giving people a whole book of pictures, and without prompting them, they notice two pictures, each on completely different pages, and ask if they are related. Of course you'll still get mistakes, because by pure chance two people can look very alike, but the way this scenario is set up you're dealing with…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 11:21 PM
1

Make it law so that before any registry of births issues a birth certificate, it must first receive the results of a genetic test attesting to the parentage of the child. I agree, except how do you deal with the case where the father is unknown? Literally unknown, because it was a rape, or an anonymous one night stand, or there were 20 men that could be the father, and the mother only remembers the names of 10 of them? And that the resulting birth records be searchable by any member of the publi…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:55 PM
1

you wouldn't say that to a biological father Why not? The mother is the patient, not the unborn fetus. Doesn't the same firewall exist even when it's the biological father asking?
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:45 PM
1

It's one thing if you get introduced to an intergenerational pair of men as father and son; everything from that moment forward is subject to your confirmation bias where you already "know" that A is the father of B. It's rather different when the similarity is so striking that people who've met the two only individually, with no mention of the relation, that they immediately notice it and ask if you are, indeed, related. There's simply no room for confirmation bias there - you don't have a pree…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:41 PM
1

What if the child is the result of a rape?
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:34 PM
1

Exclusive friday special! Only $5!
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:31 PM
1

But here's an interesting case. What if the father has brought the child in, and the information comes about as a result of treatment under those circumstances? I wonder how medical students would be told to handle that situation. One (imperfect) resolution is to give the facts, but not the interpretation. Tell the not-father that yes, their child has Tay-Sachs disease. Tell the not-father (if he asks) that they do not carry the mutation that causes it. Do not tell him that this means the child …
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:30 PM
1

both parents Legal or biological?
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:07 PM
1

It's a tough situation but I think the ethicist is choosing the lesser of two evils. It gets even hairier when the child has a disease which can only occur if both parents also have it / have a predisposition for it, such that the parents would also require treatment, but the father turns out to be someone other than the guy in the doctor's office who thinks the child is his. I've forgotten the go-to example for this scenario though :( Does ethics require the doctor to prescribe treatment to a m…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:59 PM
2

You can only sell something for what it is worth. Demand for health services is as infinitely inelastic as any good you're ever likely to think of, when it's a matter of life and death. And IIRC that's the single biggest area where US health costs get driven into the sky. Service providers charge a fortune for relatively simple interventions, because on your deathbed you'll pay anything for two more weeks.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:49 PM
1

It isn't the "SJ" part that makes the pejorative, it's the "W" part. Where W is not for Worker, but for Warrior.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 08:22 AM
2

He basically implied that all scientists can't work together as human beings without any control of our sexual desires. By saying, "my trouble with girls ..."? No, sir, you inferred something he never implied. Mindreading.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 01:01 AM
1

When institutional racism is in play, however, individual racism becomes much more potent. Here in South Africa, back in 1987 if you're a white person in a leafy suburb, if you didn't like blacks and there was one walking down your street, you could just call the cops and tell them that. (No need to even describe it euphemistically like, "There's a suspicious man walking in my street.") That had very real consequences for that black guy. Now, in 2015, I could make that same call and the most I c…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:18 PM
1

Not at all. Maybe your sarcasm detector is broken. I'm saying that the fact that negative consequences might occur for some fun things we do, doesn't mean that we're idiots if we do those fun things and the bad consequence turns out to happen. We're not idiots for leaving the house, crossing the street and getting hit by a car, we're unlucky. We shouldn't have to self-censor our activities for fear of what some asshole might do. This " If you don't want your naked pictures to end up on the inter…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 02:52 PM
-4

So basically, stay indoors and don't talk to anyone, or else you might get run over by a car while you're crossing the street, and it'll be your own damn fault! Then, a few decades after you're born, you die of nothing and get put in a box, and someone buries it and puts a stone on top, engraved with "Here lies ArcadeGoon, he was safe".
/r/MensRights27/04/15 01:21 PM
-2

Sure, but your claims My claims? And the question remains: if not feminists, then who? Oh I don't know, I think the burden of proof should be on you to show that it is feminists doing their inscrutable conspiring against the righteous Men's Rights warriors. But how about... MRAs who believe in Star Trek-tyle rational discussion? Or MRAs who like civility and have not (yet) had a gnostic experience of its futility? The fact is you're jumping to conclusions. If you don't have any actual evidence t…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 01:19 AM
2

Do you realize that it's posted to /r/changemyview, and that posting it there is basically an invitation / request for convincing arguments counter to the stated view? As in, ostensibly OP wants their view changed.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:08 AM
1

It is a possibility, but considering current divorce rates it is a believable outcome. At the risk of getting downvoted like last time I mentioned it, I'll say it again: the percentage of marriages that end in divorce isn't the same as the probability that a particular person's marriage will end in divorce. You can imagine a degenerate population where one in a million people marries and divorces a million times, and everyone else marries once and it lasts until one dies. Presto, 50% of marriage…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:38 PM
-2

it's somewhat difficult to picture who it would be if not feminists. Like feminists, MRAs are not monolithic. Come on dude, get over this "if you're not with us (on every single micro-issue) then you're against us" mentality.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:31 PM
1

Only if you insist that men and women look for partners in identical fashion. You're confusing "women as a category" with "a particular woman".
/r/MensRights14/04/15 10:58 PM
5

People have blindspots and its very easy for you to believe you are the exception. Maybe the guys who stumbled on psycho exes are the exceptions, not the guy upthread who's about to get married. This subthread also reminds me of that quote - "If you mean one asshole, they're just an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole."
/r/MensRights14/04/15 06:18 PM
0

Or we could try to peer pressure the newcomers..Sort of. I mean, by up-voting constructive and factual posts, and down-voting those who are not. Recently I've tried to do this. I downvote anything I see that brings nothing but feminism-bashing, and upvote things that contribute to objectivity, rationality, and some other good things. I wish more people did it; unfortunately I see too many comments challenging straw men, getting downvoted.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 06:10 PM
2

Once feminists apologize for What are the criteria for satisfying your demand? What would qualify as "feminists apologizing for X"? I think you're setting up an unreachable goalpost here, I don't think you want it to be a reachable one. Will it suffice if Andrea Dworkin herself apologizes? To whom should she apologize? To you personally, or would it be enough if she writes a letter of apology in the NY Times? Can't you just take this person (OP) at face value? Nothing of real consequence is at s…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:49 AM
1

No again. I'm saying that belief in patriarchy is not the same as believing "all men are rapists". Try reading for comprehension rather than for straw men to burn.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 02:31 PM
1

No you disingenuous ass, I'm denying that all feminists believe all the same things. Where did you even pull that from? I wasn't even talking about whether any, some, or all feminists believe in patriarchy.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:38 AM
1

Well I just showed you how "all men are rapists" is implied by a belief in "the patriarchy" No you didn't. You wrote: The idea that men oppress women and therefore all heterosexual sex is rape is basic enough to feminism. You just wrote that it "is basic enough to ...", but you didn't actually justify your claim. Argument by assertion. Now to address your next move I believe you'd be likely to make: No, I'm not claiming that no feminists ever believe that all hetero sex is rape. Why is rape wors…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:02 AM
1

The idea that ... all heterosexual sex is rape is basic enough to feminism Bullshit man. To some yes, but you can't paint all of feminism with that brush. Keep it real man.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 05:45 AM
1

i don't believe in patriarchy because women have always been protected Protected as persons or as property? To be fair to patriarchy "theory", this part doesn't refute the existence of patriarchy. But regardless of why society protects women, to me it reduces the value of the gendered term "Patriarchy", since it's no longer unambiguously about "men ruling society for the benefit of other men", but a more general gender-roles thing - "people ruling society for their mutual convenience". Patriarch…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 05:38 AM
3

One shouldn't need to have something bad happen to one in order to have empathy for people to whom it does. Do you care about journalists getting decapitated in some shithole? If so, why? It hasn't happened to you after all.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 06:03 AM
2

Is sea water "water"? Should you drink it when you're thirsty?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 06:01 AM
6

I don't believe in patriarchy theory because it isn't a theory. Well, not a useful one anyway. It doesn't make any predictions that you can test to see if the theory works. It's misnamed. When you look at the more nuanced versions, you might as well call that "group psychology theory". What we have in the West is definitely not men conspiring, as men, against women, but rather just powerful, wealthy people advancing their own interests. The most powerful and most wealthy might happen to be men (…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:59 AM
1

I didn't realize the requirement for Selective Services for men and not for women, thus creating an inherent difference in which women have more rights than men in the US by default, was not a men's rights issue. It is a men's rights issue. So talk about that, the fact that men don't have an unconditional right to vote, rather than constantly dragging feminism into the discussion where it doesn't need to be. By dragging feminism into it you're confounding the debate. Where you could have had a r…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:26 AM
0

Look around, you fool. How often do you see us talking about /r/feminism? I didn't bring it up. Upthread: Feminism doesnt even debate on reddit because their arguments are indefensible. They've sheltered themselves in /r/Feminism and /r/feminisms. You think your precious feminism is above criticism. Feminism isn't "mine". I'm not a feminist. I guess it's a good thing we don't need your approval to post what we feel is relevant, then. I want men's rights advanced. Constantly bitching about femini…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:13 AM
-2

My plan would be that we talk about us, and not about the bully. Be for something, not just against something.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:52 AM
-2

The problem isn't explaining grievances with feminism. The problem is that it crowds out actual men's rights-related discussion on a subreddit ostensibly dedicated to discussing men's rights. I don't think you're educating anyone if you bash feminism on /r/MensRights; the audience here is already largely distrustful of self-identified feminists.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:51 AM
-1

And after those two (admittedly short) paragraphs of bashing feminists for some hypocrisy, are you any closer to being able to vote without having to sign up as cannon fodder?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:32 AM
-4

I'm advocating that in /r/MensRights, we talk primarily about men's rights, and not about how horrible some ideological quasi-opponents are.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 02:29 AM
-1

You still haven't made a case that discounts the fact that reality is zero-sum. What an impoverished world view, but okay, I'll play. You can promote fathers' rights by winning in court. Bashing feminists doesn't win court cases. Winning court cases changes laws. This doesn't take anything away from (dictionary) feminism. You can support charities that address largely male problems (for example, homelessness). You weren't supporting feminists anyway, so you're not taking anything away from them.…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:59 AM
-3

By whingeing about it tiresomely in your own playground where the bully doesn't even hang out?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:21 AM
-4

/r/Feminism isn't "feminism". They may be feminists, but they are not the movement as a whole. I was asking whether "feminism" spreads false information or toxic thoughts on /r/MensRights. That's what's contemplated by Where feminism is spreading false information or toxic thought? Absolutely. Just bashing feminism on /r/MensRights is what I'd call toxic (I won't go so far as call it "spreading false information"). If you need to put the "Feminism" flair on your post, I think you're doing /r/Men…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:19 AM
-1

This happened because his opponents acted as if support for him were a zero-sum game. It doesn't mean it is a zero-sum game. Pointing at the other side and saying "But mooom, they're doing it too!!" is juvenile.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:14 AM
-5

Where feminism is spreading false information or toxic thought? Absolutely. Does "feminism" spread false information or toxic thoughts in this sub?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 06:41 PM
-4

Do we have access to infinite resources? No, but we haven't exhausted the ones we do have access to, so we don't have to rob Patty to pay Paul.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 06:40 PM
1

It doesn't even need to be a groupthink mob. They might just identify with "feminism" because they like the dictionary definition, but it isn't something they feel or act very strongly about so they actually aren't even aware of the incoherent (with the dictionary definition) things done in the name of "their" movement.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 06:13 PM
-4

Look at the recent popular actions of feminism You say that like it's a single, coordinated group. It isn't.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:34 PM
-5

Feminism was never about equality. Is this propaganda war helping to advance men's rights in any way? Can you explain how this zero-sum game mentality that asserts you must tear down feminism at every opportunity helps in any way?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:29 PM
2

SA here too! My mother and I always talk about that Department as the "Department of Women, Children, and other Disabled" in reference to how we both think that this institutionalizing of the idea of female victimhood effectively casts womanhood as a disability.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 01:07 AM
1

'shop the picture to transpose the "men" and "women" sections, then start the shitnado yourself.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:54 AM
1

So what is the "real message" here that conflicts with the words in the linked article?
/r/MensRights25/03/15 10:14 PM
1

I didn't visit the link, but I'm guessing it's something that puts her in a bad light here. Should that matter when judging this article? Wouldn't it be argument ad hominem to judge it by what she had written earlier?
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:10 AM
1

IANAL but I doubt just putting up a notice "only hiring X" would help you. There's a difference between mere contractual rights and human rights. You can't contract away the latter. You should totally ask real lawyers! (Or search the Internet for similar questions.)
/r/MensRights22/03/15 05:50 PM
2

Slam dunk Acquiescence. Not so slam dunk.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 04:51 PM
6

Have you heard of this thing called a "null hypothesis"?
/r/MensRights13/03/15 05:13 PM
13

It's funny how many nasty looks you get, or women trying to get your attention. Wasn't there a link here a while ago about lay misconceptions of what sexism is? Laypeople interpret lack of benevolent-sexist behaviour (as true egalitarianism would demand) as "misogyny". Ah, found it: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf?sequence=1 FWIW "I actually started ignoring women and treating them the exact same as men as an experiment" is not true if you "only [hold] door…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 01:32 PM
17

I have a feeling you've read the same article I have. (Ctrl-F signaling)
/r/MensRights16/02/15 03:58 PM
1

No, we should draft in a manner that maximizes your and my chances of survival, i.e. probably not at all. Not in a manner that maximizes the chances of victory in some bullshit war that advances only the corrupt interests of some political elite.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 10:13 AM
2

Victory is the priority. Peace is mine.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 12:33 AM
1

They think being feminist is counter-culture?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:58 AM
1

Yeah, if you stick around here you'll get used to DavidByron2.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:20 AM
1

Don't worry about downvotes; sort by new.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 12:42 AM
1

It's the law. Period. No, not "period". The law is not graven in stone, handed to us by God himself. It's unjust to punish people retroactively for a new law, but I don't see the injustice in retroactively decriminalizing something.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 02:29 AM
1

The mistake Anita, and perhaps you, are making is to imagine power as a one-dimensional variable. "Men" don't unambiguously "have power" while "women" don't. In this jews/men word-substitution, this is central: jews do have disproportionate economic and political power, but they're also a favourite target of race-based persecution (or the wish for it). So they both "have power" / "are dominant", and are victims. And that's the core of this substitution: that even if "men have power / are dominan…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:33 PM
1

... but we don't know ... Did you even bother to read the comments? That is sort of the whole point! I'm responding to the way too many comments that presume to know that because she was flirting enthusiastically, she was necessarily also consenting to all-the-way sex. That's a pretty rapey attitude IMHO. This question is poorly worded at best Perhaps. I don't think so though. It doesn't ask, "Is this rape?"; it asks, "Is this a [potential] policy violation?" and horribly biased at worst. Sure, …
/r/MensRights13/12/14 04:11 PM
2

You guys are circlejerking hard again. With her enthusiastic flirting, Mary was consenting to something, but we don't know what that is. We can't mindread. Being "very flirtatious ... and making suggestive comments" might just mean she wanted to make out or something; it doesn't automatically mean she wanted to bone. Also, it's quite reasonable IMHO to believe both that this wasn't rape (if you believe that "being drunk" (but still able to be flirtatious / make suggestive comments) does not exti…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 03:04 AM
2

The question asks if this is a "potential policy violation". When did "policy violation" become "rape"? (It might be rape according to the law, but the question as imgured doesn't directly make this interpretation.)
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:53 AM
1

People might not take the post seriously if the title were such a low-effort pun.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 03:47 AM
4

The right to make informed decisions, to give informed consent?
/r/MensRights01/12/14 01:54 AM
1

When women are forced to pay child support is when women will start to push for fairer child support laws. Or we can just skip the "forced to pay" part and jump directly to "push for fairer child support laws" by supporting Halle Berry, who seems to be already pushing.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:23 PM
1

This is that constant example of women not being able to decide "Women" aren't monolithic. Some women want chivalry, some want equality, and some want their bread buttered on both sides.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:20 PM
1

2015 BENEFIT CHANGES: ... New: HPV vaccine for boys (10-26 years) It doesn't say much unfortunately, so I don't know what it means that it's a new "benefit", or how it compares to what's available to girls.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 10:47 AM
2

I think you are wrong. Innocent until proven guilty is a judicial standard; while it might be a good heuristic for the rest of us, it isn't binding (legally or ethically, IMHO). A court is facing the decision whether to send an accused into a cage for a long, long time; random associates and business partners are just facing this choice: "Is our association still mutually beneficial?" Nobody is under compulsion to be a social charity, lending their social proof to a potential villain. Also, AFAI…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 02:27 AM
0

I can't imagine that it would harm to do a bit less of this "but she started it!" preschool mentality feminism-bashing at every turn. A real movement needs to be for something, it gives up credibility when it seems to be all about being against something else. Most women think the concept of men's rights is outright hysterical, how do we combat that culture? Give prominence to the issues that are incontrovertibly non-hysterical. For example, talk to people about prison rape and frame that as a m…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 02:08 AM
1

Worked for me then, works for me now. Dunno? Oh well, not something I can fix. Hope others can see.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 01:48 AM
1

I think I'm with you there. I decided to hit "subscribe" as an act of defiance back when the Internet decided that Elliot Rodger was an "MRA". I've noticed the subscriber number seems to have jumped in the last week or so - is this a result of the #shirtstorm? Still, I don't wear the label "MRA" considering how many self-identified MRAs are just 90% about bashing feminism. Theirs is a religion too, which I do not share, and their Satan is Feminism. I'd like to hear less about Satan and more abou…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 07:29 AM
2

Also, as a PUA, I think that it's stupid to attempt weak assed opens like this. You gotta go big or go home when you open in cold approach situations. What did you think of "Hey! I just saw a thousand dollars!"?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:55 AM
2

Cervical cancer.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:38 AM
1

As of yesterday, she makes shirts only as a hobby and doesn't sell them, so the site you linked may only be selling similar shirts that have no direct connection to her. #justsaying
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:38 AM
5

The conservative gun nut vs liberal gun controller dichotomy is a US thing, AFAICT. We're in Europe here. Also, wearing a shirt with a print featuring cartoon women with guns is not the same as being into guns.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:24 AM
2

Out-group homogeneity makes them think MRAs, PUAs and redpillers are all just different aspects of the same population?
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:34 PM
1

but the content of those messages are sexists Yes, and? That makes the people who send those messages jerks (necessarily), but not necessarily sexists. and you defending such scums Did you misunderstand what I wrote or are you just being dishonest? I wrote: sending death threats and harassing people online, while evil, are not necessarily sexist acts *How am I "defending" such scums [sic] when I'm explicitly qualifying their actions as evil? Please explain how you arrived at your conclusion that…
/r/MensRights04/11/14 03:17 AM
2

And therefore that saying horrible, horrible things to women like "no, you're wrong about X because Y" is not necessarily rooted in sexism. Edit: And that yes, sending death threats and harassing people online, while evil, are not necessarily sexist acts just because the perpetrator is male and the victim female.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 01:51 AM
5

The article itself may not be about gamergate, but it is relevant and related to it. In this case, if for no other reason then because OP is using it to provide context to a more directly related gamergate argument.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 08:29 PM
5

"I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips." Merely disclaiming relevance does not, in fact, necessarily establish irrelevance.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 07:54 PM
11

she can't wear those pants and not expect a lot of attention If you absent-mindedly forget your car key in the ignition switch and return from the shop to find your car missing, did you deserve to have your car stolen? No. If you walk in the park at night and come home to find a clump of dog shit sticking to your shoe, did you deserve to have dogshit soil your shoe? No. So she is both frumpy and a slut who deserves it. Where did this "deserve" angle come from - from you or from your boyfriend?
/r/MensRights03/11/14 07:47 PM
1

Either way, walking near someone isn't harassment Are you talking about the legal definition of harassment or about the word as used in everyday speech? Because while I think it is the latter, I'm not convinced it is the former. (She never told him that she did not welcome his conduct and to please discontinue.) do you think men should cross the street to make women feel safe? No, but I do think men should not be fucking creepy, to "make" women feel safe. Even if this guy were "just awkward or c…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 05:03 PM
2

The five minute guy who may very well have simply been walking in the same direction? If you watch the beginning of the five-minute-guy episode, you'll notice him staying back for a moment as she passes him. He didn't just happen to walk in the same direction and then chirp her; he chirped her and then "happened to" walk in the same direction.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 10:11 AM
1

Just start sending them canned messages; your conversion rate will be about the same but at least you won't be spending as much time putting in the numbers.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 10:00 AM
1

Note that this "policy" (it isn't policy yet, and I don't think it's fait accompli that it will be implemented) applies to state houses, not houses in general. So it would apply maybe to some government employees and some welfare recipients.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 10:50 PM
0

every major talking point in the men's rights movement can be understood as a function of patriarchal double standards A theory that explains everything, explains nothing. Is patriarchy theory even in principle falsifiable? What evidence would it take to disprove it?
/r/MensRights26/09/14 02:46 AM
1

for 1/2 the men it does not Are you referring to that (claimed?) statistic about half of all marriages ending in divorce? Because that doesn't imply that half of all men's marriages will end in divorce.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 12:46 AM
1

What's special about the opinions that we classify as "religion" that justifies banning their expression?
/r/MensRights16/08/14 10:28 PM
3

And it's enforcing the lack of religious outward signs. To me, that's going beyond the ideal of separation of state and religion and heads in the direction of fascism. Would you like it if the feminist matriarchy passed laws that forbade the wearing of aVfM T shirts as outward signs of doubt in patriarchy theory?
/r/MensRights15/08/14 10:04 PM
3

I would say France is leading ahead. They managed to ban the headscarves from public places, for secularism. Do you mean public places as in government-owned buildings, or public places as in places open to the public? If the latter, I would argue that that isn't "ahead" but behind, by inserting the state into people's religious lives. It would be the opposite of religious freedom - almost like atheism (or anti-theism? is that a thing?) being the state religion.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 08:03 PM
4

Thank you - now I know I'm not the only one. I've always felt the same about that stupid "If I were a boy" song. A horrible cocktail of solipsism and projection. The "If I were a boy" premise is really that you transfer agency to your newly male body, but not wants, needs, and nor do you admit to facing a different social landscape once transformed to the other sex. You (newly male) become the ideal agent to your (female) principal.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 07:16 AM
1

When I learned of that mist just a few months ago I immediately moved my toothbrush cup to the opposite end of the bathroom :[
/r/MensRights14/08/14 07:09 AM
28

It obviously doesn't kill only women, but many people think that heart disease is a "men's problem", to the point that they think women are basically immune. It's a bit like thinking breast cancer is something only women suffer from. Now and then, it's good health policy to also put some attention on atypical disease. That said, I tend to agree more with Revoran's comment next door. Rather address both at the same time, perhaps highlighting the majority sufferer demographic, but not this cyclica…
/r/MensRights31/07/14 12:42 AM
-1

Belittling? What on earth is belittling about OP's comment?
/r/MensRights22/07/14 05:07 AM
2

I think what we're getting at (what I am, anyway) is that words reveal attitudes. This isn't just a matter of you using "there" where you should have used "their". It's about your harbouring a mental schema of the world that causes you to qualify your beliefs with that "A real man would ..." What are the chances that you would ever use "A real woman would ..." or "A real African American would ..." or "A real transsexual would ..."? I bet they are close to zero. Because I suspect that you hold t…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 08:47 AM
3

I'm sorry my comment went over your head. I'm sorry you're so arrogant. A real man would realize that you do not meet violence with violence. I mean real as in the kind of man who trades his vices for virtues. So really you're redefining a "real" man as what might actually be an ideal man, thereby holding real real men to an unrealistic standard. "A real man would ..." is a favourite shaming tactic used to mobilize men for causes that aren't directly theirs. Additionally, it promotes the sexist …
/r/MensRights19/07/14 06:53 AM
2

What does an unreal man realize?
/r/MensRights19/07/14 06:09 AM
1

Did you know that the average age of puberty 250 years ago was 17? Today's date is 12 July 2014, not 12 July 1764. Kids are hitting puberty at a younger age these days.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 04:17 PM
1

Large chunks of Europe think 14 is just fine. Why do you hold people in this sub to a higher standard than whole European countries? Spain even goes to 13. Your or my personal opinion about whether 14 year olds can meaningfully consent isn't very informative. The universality of that opinion being correct is what matters here. I don't see it as one that's "obviously" correct. One isn't a pedophile / ephebophile / whatever just for thinking that 14 is a reasonable age of consent.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 04:15 PM
19

That is the reason that this law is a problem? That accusers will be cross-examined aggressively? Seriously? No, that is not the reason, but it may be a more persuasive argument to people who would otherwise support such law, than appealing to "innocent until proven guilty". Do you want to be right or do you want the law defeated?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 07:56 PM
0

That is NOT exactly what PM_ME_YOUR_PNEUDLES said. Do you understand the difference between "Hey kids, welcome to the class, I'm going to teach you what rape really is and how you can avoid situations where you become a rapist" and "Hey kids, all of you might rape somebody one day, so I'm going to teach you that you're a horrible person who should feel bad"?
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:11 PM
1

we cannot make the mistake of lumping them all in with the crazies. From the "reasonable feminist"'s perspective, are they crazies or are they useful Overton window-shifters?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 04:31 PM
1

You would've liked Usenet then. Edit: Ugh, now it seems very lacking in context. I think I got confused - I had just read another comment about how threading is ideal for derailment.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 07:22 PM
1

#NotAllWomen It irks me too when people say shit like "Men do X" or "Women do Y". It's usually clear when a reasonable person says these things that they don't mean literally "men" or "women" as in ALL of us, and more of an existence claim ("Yes, there exist people who do X/Y who are wo/men"). But sometimes it just seems like intellectual laziness, and encourages people to think in absolutes. So I think one should strive to hold oneself to a higher standard than one's de-facto opposition, and ar…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 03:39 AM
0

Why do the extreme feminists bother you so much? They bother me because they poison the well with a narrative that's so alien to the reality I experience (I'm a man though, so I expect some differences in experience) that I have difficulty believing them. To me it seems like the best kind of propaganda: with an element of truth, but overall a misrepresentation. Then I worry that people will believe that narrative, and buy into its divisive world view: an us-vs-them false dilemma. When I think of…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 01:13 AM
1

And the conclusion is that yes, the MRM/MRA has a few legitimate complaints and issues, some that I believe feminism already covers Do you believe that if feminism and the men's rights movement both cover an issue that affects men negatively, that only one of the movements should "own" that issue? Would it be okay if both movements had a say? So, it seems to me, that you guys need to rebrand. I haven't seen myself as one of "you guys" and I've impulsively thought the same. At some point you have…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:47 PM
1

Hell, two days ago, I believed the same thing. Can you say why you believed it? Was it just an ordinary case of believing what your in-group had been telling you, which would be sad but understandable, or was it something else?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:43 AM
2

Earliest mention I found goes back to 1999: Get to know women as individuals, and you'll go far. Been there, done that, and have dozens of good female friends to show for it. If I continued as you suggested I'd die a single man with a few hundred women friends by my side. What you say makes logical sense...but in the end it puts a guy firmly into the Friend Zone nearly every time. Like most guys here, I'm sick and tired of "doing everything right" by women only to be thrown into the Friend Zone …
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:24 AM
1

I think there's a bit of crossover between the girl knowingly exploiting the guy's interest, and just obliviously assuming he's "just a friend". I get the impression that in the manosphere we mean the former more often than the latter, and when feminists use the word when talking about "men feel entitled to women", they mean the latter more often than the former.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:59 AM
1

Doing better than random is the wrong test to apply, because there's already an option that's perfect in that fearing all men already includes all sexual attackers if you believe that, as a woman, you will never be sexually attacked by another woman. (Sure, that's a problematic belief, but my reply in that case is to shift the strategy to "fear all people".) If I exterminated all dogs, I would never have to worry about getting bitten by one again. Pity about all the nice pets, but meh, think of …
/r/MensRights28/05/14 04:30 PM
2

Or rather, there is no actual basis for your fear, it's irrational and you should realize and understand that it is so. I disagree. It is rational to fear people based on observable traits. The goal isn't to achieve perfect specificity, it's to achieve perfect sensitivity for people who may harm you.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 03:39 AM
1

Sorry! Is "acquaintance" better?
/r/MensRights27/05/14 06:46 PM
6

Feminism doesn't have to do anything for mens issues. that's sort of the point. Sure! Good thing we have a men's rights movement also, to take on the issues that fall outside the scope of feminism's goals.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 03:32 AM
1

Do I get a pass to fight back if a woman attacks me The OP's feminist friend acquaintance mortal enemy already makes allowance for that.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 02:03 AM
-3

i don't know if you know this, but WTF is this condescending soapboxing for? I was just addressing your interpretation that this guy had high self worth, and how it relates to what I think the predecessor to your comment was trying to communicate.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:13 AM
4

What, in your view, are the defining positions of men's rights activism?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:06 AM
2

One of the comments linked to this very thread, cueing a subthread about how this sub is so blind to the facts or something.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:03 AM
-1

he doesn't have issues with his self worth, he thought he was the bees fucking knees. Yes. No. Wait, not that simple. As much my own editorializing as what I read in /u/nigglereddit's comment: He thought he was great. The world did not, and he was aware of this difference of opinion. That anger is the outward manifestation of the tension between his internal sense of dignity - we're all human, we have some sort of intrinsic worth - and a realization that the world was (apparently) not acknowledg…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:45 AM
1

(double standard) "A rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups." Here's another version: "A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or two different people in the same situation." The mating market that men and women face are very different situations, so I wouldn't call the stud/slut thing a "double standard". You can call it some other unflattering phenomenon, but not that, IMHO. While I recogni…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:43 AM
1

While it's obvious to me that MRAs are by no means all innocent, I feel [bias alert] like feminists are far more fond of cherry-picking otherwise neutral data into a clearly biased dossier. If you agree with this idea that feminists are more willing to play fast and loose with facts, do you think MRAs should learn to mirror that? Or will it just backfire when people are more suspicious of MRA "facts" than on feminist "facts"?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 10:01 PM
1

LOL, you mean the "you sound so angry" parry? Please elaborate! I remember how it used to just inflame my emotions more when I was a kid and my parents told me not to "speak to them in that tone!" Adding insult to injury, I was now being punished for something I had no control over, at the time, being a kid and all.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:45 PM
1

Unfortunately they're not the one's that "feminists" focus on or even usually mention. Can you name some issues that seem "important" to you that affect women (negatively), that "feminists" [*] under-advocate? Any speculation on why they might under-advocate these? [*] And I mean any or all or "real feminists", "angry internet feminists", "mislabelled feminists", whatever. straight up harm that modern "feminism" does to other groups Examples to illustrate what kinds of things you mean, please?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:42 PM
1

Or maybe we'll have a very large war that will require women to serve and die in equal capacities to that of men. Sometimes I wonder if it would advance men's rights if one went all trollface-feminist on them, kinda like a parody, and beat all the right-sounding drums, like advocating equality in the army, protesting for more women in mineshafts and as lumberjanes etc. Hijack their own talking points :) they don't see me as human Ok, well I think I can respect your opinion although I don't agree…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:37 PM
1

The Overton Window is usually moved by a useful idiot in the employ (or cynically manipulated by) a shadowy puppetmaster. He's right; you're just commingling undirected anger and victimhood with a veneer of real issues.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:29 PM
2

Do you (sometimes?) think that the MR movement is being unstrategic in how it pursues its agenda? If you were somehow the MR autocrat every MR activist listened to, what would you ask/order them to do differently? Is there some way one could at least approximate such an edict?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:38 AM
1

I was thinking about just this, and comparing it to how you get those nutty anti-abortion folk who actually kill doctors who perform them, who self-identify as "Christian" or whatever, and then you have sane Christians who don't go around killing doctors, but don't exactly go to great lengths to disassociate themselves from the crazies either. That ambiguity is intimidating, because as an abortion clinic doctor you don't know that the crowd picketing outside is sane (as in, they won't kill you f…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 05:56 PM
1

In my own journey it's become clear to me that these borders are not my own "instincts", but internalized versions of other people's interests. Maybe an abusive parent, or the kids who picked on you at school, or church elders who advocate that you act weak so that they (and this may not be conscious on their part - they're as programmed as you) can seem alpha by comparison. What all of these have in common is that these interests are those of people who are, in some sense, your rivals (for reso…
/r/seduction29/06/12 01:21 AM
1

You are my long lost twin brother. It's really hard to be congruent with anything if you're in this position. The best I can come up with that my instincts (btw: they aren't really instincts - rather just (mental) habits) are still okay with is that I am an adaptable, mentally flexible primate one of whose defining attributes is to be capable of change. That allows for mistakes and a bit of awkwardness - almost as if it's "in character". I can't evaluate whether this bit of internal congruence e…
/r/seduction29/06/12 01:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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