TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

cyb3rfunk Archive

View 0 posts and 106 comments by cyb3rfunk 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)
3

Because in their minds women have it strictly worse so pushing for equality in practice can only mean pushing to improve the condition of women.
/r/MensRights08/07/26 03:45 AM
1

Who are they even talking to? It's a ridiculous pattern in identity politics. When activists collapse a whole identity group into a monolithic hivemind, they feel like admonishing any member of the group equals to admonishing the problematic elements of the group.
/r/MensRights09/05/26 03:59 PM
16

It kind of goes hand in hand with being treated as a secondary/optional parent though. Not a benefit overall.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:46 AM
6

I wonder if it's just a matter of selection bias - like if the women who get there have to be more ruthless/heartless than the men for whatever reason.
/r/MensRights18/02/26 04:02 AM
3

Yeah that sounds right... "Know your place mudlark"
/r/MensRights29/01/26 01:19 PM
8

They also have extended abuse and agression to mean so many wildly different things (from inappropriate comment to outright r** ) that any claim about "agression" is meaningless.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 02:08 PM
1

Yes, and also everything that could have been done.
/r/MensRights07/01/26 12:11 PM
12

Huh. That's actually an incredible point. Thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights21/12/25 04:15 PM
2

I think it depends on the culture. As far as I can tell, it seems common for people to care for men in parts of Europe. I guess at the bottom of it it's about the kind of stories each culture tells their young.
/r/MensRights10/12/25 06:19 PM
6

It's essentially "No taxation without representation"
/r/MensRights08/12/25 04:26 PM
3

I think one of the spouse would have to explicitly sign an opt in clause separately from marriage. The problem I see is a spouse can unilaterally decide to stop working - it's not like the other can really stop them.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 12:52 AM
2

If uber drivers are contractors instead of employees, then a driver refusing service based on gender means their "micro business" is refusing service based on gender. You are right, uber itself isn't discriminating. At worst one could say they are facilitating discrimination.
/r/MensRights08/11/25 04:01 PM
1

It would still be gender based discrimination though. Would you be ok with the same idea applied to ethnic groups?
/r/MensRights08/11/25 10:31 AM
2

Yeah that makes total sense if you're not pursuing a career based on sheer interest.
/r/MensRights11/10/25 03:48 PM
8

Seems like that would depend on what kind of career you seek, no? I. E. Obviously degrees matter if what you want to do is practice law. Or is it that you think all jobs are equally uninteresting so might as well pick by salary?
/r/MensRights11/10/25 04:29 AM
5

The thing is "left" and "right" are not coherent uniform wholes. Both are coalitions of multiple interests and ideologies. People who believe the "men = bread winner" and "men should strive for strength and money" ideology are part of the right - sure - but they are not the right. They just occupy a big share of the media sphere because of the reactions they generate, and because they offer a simple actionable narrative for men who feel lonely/underachieving to orient their life. So, to answer y…
/r/MensRights26/09/25 05:48 PM
7

I'm not sure how useful is such a broad strokes argument. Taking statistical trends for an identity group, and then using this to reason about the group as a monolith is more an exercise in biased narrative building than truth IMO.
/r/MensRights18/08/25 04:11 PM
1

I agree it's used as an argument but it's not victim blaming. If it's used to say "my group isn't responsible for that thing, I'm not part of the problem on that one" I think it's pretty valid. If it's used as a way to dismiss suffering as some "get your act together and you'll be fine" the it's wrong - identity groups are not a monolith.
/r/MensRights07/08/25 06:44 PM
9

It's not victim blaming if the blame isn't on the victim. A gender is not a victim, individuals are. Applying individual logic to genders (and identities in general) leads to nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/08/25 12:41 PM
1

Don't you know? It's not any -ism if you're prejudiced against an "oppressor group".
/r/MensRights04/08/25 01:20 PM
5

Agreed - and I wish that was a Reddit wide rule...
/r/MensRights28/05/25 01:22 AM
0

I agree but I think gendered social hierarchies are unfortunately inevitable due to our nature, and that masculinity and feminity are just label we put at the "peak" these hierarchies implicitly point to. Which is why it's equally silly to try to define those things instead of to describe what exist. That being said you can refuse to play the "game" and just go your own way. Ironically that is a masculine path.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/05/25 10:13 PM
4

What do you mean by punishment? Like, legal? cheating isn't a personal affair if we dont consider DV a personal affair, and it being in a similar Ballpark Also, are you saying domestic violence is in the same ballpark as cheating? If so, how do you figure?
/r/MensRights24/04/25 12:12 PM
2

Over compensation. There was a legit anti female bias. It needed addressing. But we went too far on the other side.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/04/25 04:35 PM
21

Based on that outline, this seems to fall in the same trap as many such arguments, which is to take a patronizing stance on the men who follow what they deem as problematic content. In essence they see these men as lost sheeps who succcombed to the alluring promises of evil grifters. I think if you want to influence/reform a group of people, then a patronizing stance is a non starter. First, on a psychological level that attitude will be felt, and you'll never get their attention. But at a more …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/03/25 01:09 PM
1

You do realize feminists are not a litteral hivemind who think and act as a monolith, right?
/r/MensRights20/03/25 04:28 PM
4

Also, a lot of times that mental load is self inflicted - she can't prioritize her mental well being and accept some things will be done later and some things will fall off the plate. It's an inability to relax unless everything is perfect.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 06:15 PM
0

There are multiple variants of masculinity. Some of them are healthy, some of them are toxic - as in, they are founded on problematic tenets. For instance a variant of masculinity that promotes never complaining, bottling up emotions and is toxic because it leaves the person completely vulnerable if crisis hits. So I would say there are toxic masculinities, yes. But obviously there are also healthy ones.
/r/MensRights03/03/25 04:11 PM
10

Amen, and I'll add that just because she is willing to sacrifice her relax time just so a made up schedule is met doesn't mean he should sacrifice his.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:14 AM
3

You can't think of any group as a monolith like that. There are misandrists in every group just like there are masculinists in every group. I'm sure there is even a non negligible amount of masculinist feminists. That "group as monolith" thinking is the same type of thinking that causes men as a whole to be blamed for a minority of assholes/pigs.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 02:43 PM
12

I think it boils down to 2 things: The belief that patriarchy is oppressing women WITH the belief that men are primarily the ones behind the patriarchy WITH a tendency think of men as a monolith. The belief that victims are meek and that they must generate sympathy. Men usually will not enduldge in self pity, complain about unfairness and cry for help. They will usually take things in their own hands, for better or for worse. To a lot of people that disqualifies them as victims.
/r/MensRights12/02/25 04:00 PM
1

I think their core tenet is the belief that the "common wisdom" of what a man should do/be to attract women doesn't correlate with what most women actually respond to. What they actually respond to is fitness, confidence and money. Anything else is just performative bullshit, so cut the crap, face reality and play the game. Roughly speaking that's what I think they believe. Personally I think the core premise is not wrong per se but reality is more layered and complex, and their ideology is too …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/25 03:48 PM
0

the status of an unguarded woman constantly throughout human history has been "rape target"... Jordan Peterson seems to think that rape is actually the norm amongst men This is incredibly misandrist I think the question is, what % of men being rapists would be needed for rape to be a legit concern? I suspect it is much lower than 50%. It seems that even 10% would be more than enough. Which means you can say "women need protection from rapists" without implying that most men are rapists.
/r/MensRights13/01/25 01:58 PM
5

I think it's because it's because it allows people from outside their identity group to create digital puppets that can do things that are not sanctioned by the in group. At its root its kinda the same idea behind blackface.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 12:42 AM
1

Right on, but I think it's better to call the for what they are: misandrists.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 05:12 AM
11

For the same reason immigrants are blamed for a range of issues - people like having a simple scapegoat. Then confirmation bias reinforces it.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 11:31 PM
3

I can't tell if this is a dumb or a smart ad. It seems incredibly demeaning to think a significant number of men would be swayed by these manly men telling them its manly to vote for Harris. Then again Liquid Death is a thing.
/r/MensRights23/10/24 03:58 AM
1

The manosphere as it is painted by most media is a pretty shitty thing. I think anyone with a minimum of empathy would have problems with it - and socialists are usually empathetic people. Of course the media is cherry picking the worst elements of it so the depiction is completely off. However, to know this from the outside you need to think "let's get exposed to this hyper toxic social space" (hyper toxic being how it is represented, not how it is) - and most people aren't willing to do it.
/r/MensRights18/10/24 02:09 AM
1

The problem is using misogynistic as basically a catch all word for anything that brings harm to women, or reduces their opportunities, or makes them feel unsafe, or makes them feel violated. It's a definition based on outcome, not origin. Which is fine in itself - if that's a useful word to make a case for something then that's a good word to have. Problem is some feminists are trying to have it both ways and to also say the word is based on origin (hatred of women). You can't have a word that …
/r/MensRights30/09/24 05:22 AM
2

The part that annoys me is they use misogyny in its broadest meaning when they say something is misogynistic, but then they use the narrow "evilest" meaning to reason about it and say why something is wrong. That would be like me saying poker and pool are a sports (in the broad sense). Then saying sport is good for health (narrow physical sport sense). And then concluding that poker and pool are good for health.
/r/MensRights30/09/24 12:21 AM
3

A few reasons: - male hyperagency vs female hypoagency - gender empathy gap - women are wonderful bias - the "submissive woman who isn't allowed to take control of her life" historical archetype and its continued existence in some backwards cultures
/r/MensRights27/09/24 07:47 PM
-1

You're right, but mods in most subs (including here) mostly don't care about posts staying on subject. Whatever drives engagement.
/r/MensRights21/09/24 05:05 PM
18

In my experience, these claims of unfair cognitive burden is their inability to delegate and inability to handle their anxiety.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/09/24 04:33 AM
1

I see what you're saying. I think we're saying roughly the same thing.
/r/MensRights23/08/24 01:43 AM
3

Right. Which is why I said "something like it". It's more like a combination of confidence, assertiveness and an imposing physique playing into success tropes.
/r/MensRights23/08/24 01:16 AM
18

The whole alpha/beta male thing is pretty cringe... I'm not denying there isn't something like this involved in human interactions, but when it's used seriously like it's a major driver of human behavior or a legit way to classify people it just raises a bunch of red flags. This high-testosterone male stereotype is just a convenient scapegoat for all of society's woes. There isn't anything deep about the american democrats bashing of that stereotype, it's just an easy way for them to get points …
/r/MensRights23/08/24 12:59 AM
-11

What do you mean by suppressed?
/r/MensRights22/08/24 10:02 PM
4

Those who do this think of identity activism in terms of hierarchy of oppression and in terms of oppression from other groups. Within that view, one cannot acknowledge that men are victims without acknowledging that their oppressors (which in their mind would be women) are lower in the oppression hierarchy. The mistake is: a group being disadvantaged or oppressed doesn't always mean there is another group responsible for it systemic issues are a thing, and people from within a group can cause th…
/r/MensRights22/08/24 04:40 PM
27

I'm not confortable engaging in that level of dishonesty - I'm not a woman and I don't have gender dysphoria.
/r/MensRights22/08/24 01:29 AM
2

What's interesting depends on the context. If you're an activist pushing for change or a policy maker implementing some changes, then yes absolutely you should look primarily at the barriers and try to level the playing field. I also agree that bootstrapping arguments often come with an implicit judgement that if you don't succeed then it's because you're not working hard enough. And these judgement are not only wrong but also damaging. But the context I was reacting to was a so called life coac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/24 11:18 AM
1

I spent way too much time thinking about this infographic for what it's worth but here goes. These things stood out to me at first: - the term rape culture in itself - most of the structural stuff, while bad, are unrelated to rape (how is xenophobia or ableism related to rape?) - rigid gender roles and dress codes also don't belong under that title - grouping talking and following together And the more I try to make sense of it, the more I keep to the same conclusion: this thing is trying way to…
/r/MensRights19/08/24 01:03 AM
1

But the interesting comparison is you working hard VS you not working hard - where this criteria applies.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/24 10:13 PM
50

"Look ma, I put a bunch of bad stuff in a pyramid - I'm a scientist!"
/r/MensRights18/08/24 12:48 PM
1

In any relationship where there are non trivial obstacles to leaving the relationship for one partner, and that partner has little recourse in case of abuse then abuse has higher likelihood of happening. That goes both ways and abuse can take many forms. In an actual patriarchal society (i.e. one where women have restricted or no access to education and jobs, and where the legal system grant their husband some form of authority over them) women are under these conditions so most likely there is …
/r/MensRights18/08/24 06:26 AM
-1

I mean... all else being equal, those who work harder do have greater control over their destiny, don't you think?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/24 05:44 AM
4

You don't have to say a thing, its not like the socialism VS individualism or communism VS capitalism debates are relevant to this sub If you do say something the options are not limited to praise or insult I don't think many people change their mind through personal attacks. It usually makes them less receptive to what you have to say, and it starts the debate on an aggressive tone which just sets things up for unproductive arguing
/r/MensRights05/08/24 05:24 AM
3

Well, you sure appear to have strong feelings on socio-economical structures. I'm not sure what that's about, but honestly I'm not interested in the answer. I'm also not interested in debating you about economical systems - and if I was /r/mensrights hardly seems like the place to do it. I was merely trying to draw attention to the lack of potential positive impact your original comment had - on the off chance it could improve things on the sub.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 04:38 AM
4

So you're one of those who get upset by people voicing their opinion, i.e. you just have an axe to grind - got it.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 04:02 AM
1

Because double standards are a thing? Not saying women-children don't exist - it just didn't seem relevant to bring them in my previous comment to make my point.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 03:47 AM
4

What do you think calling someone an idiot for a political belief accomplishes? What good do you expect to come out of it?
/r/MensRights05/08/24 03:38 AM
1

In this context what qualifies as left leaning or right leaning? Do you care if the pro-men people you follow are anti-unions? What about anti social services? What about anti abortion? What about climate change denial?
/r/MensRights05/08/24 12:28 AM
24

Deadbeat boyfriends and man children exist. It's far from the majority but it's a significant enough %. That being said, I think in many cases women put the burden on themselves. It's not like her partner would call her out if she just stopped taking care of something. It's that she decides unilaterally that the standard for some aspect of the household is X, and then she expects her partner to be automatically on board. Not saying all women do this or that this behaviour is exclusive to women, …
/r/MensRights04/08/24 05:41 PM
1

I don't think I'm qualified to have any useful thoughts on socio cultural currents in a foreign country, let alone a non western one.
/r/MensRights22/07/24 01:23 PM
3

The sub definitely has issues and it has its share of bad faith haters. But at least to me it feels more genuine / less fake than most. I find it refreshing.
/r/MensRights16/06/24 05:43 PM
5

Also, it's coming from someone who specifically uses her appearance to monetize the male gaze. News flash: if your appearance is attracting attention online, it'll attract it offline too.
/r/MensRights11/06/24 12:35 PM
4

I think a problem we have is using the words feminism and feminist to criticize the problematic part of feminism. It's too easy to be strawmaned as a women hater or anti women freedom when you start from there. There needs to be a term that's more precise/targeted.
/r/MensRights30/05/24 12:16 PM
1

How many man/woman interactions are there in the world every year? How many human/bear interactions? If you want to compare apples to apples you need the % of bad interactions, not just absolute numbers.
/r/MensRights23/05/24 12:57 PM
9

He died because he lacked a support system.
/r/MensRights16/05/24 05:26 PM
0

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/713x5y/timelines_of_womens_rights_frequently_include/
/r/MensRights10/05/24 01:29 AM
1

A large % of jobs are somewhere in between very subjective like acting and very objective like train driving. Engineering, sales, customer service, management. You can't make an absolute ranking of people within these jobs. Just tier lists. But anyways, that's just not how hiring works. There's a minimum competency threshold that's usually objective. But beyond that, managers and teams hire based on impressions and heuristics.
/r/MensRights02/05/24 01:10 PM
-4

It's closer to tier lists I think. We can probably split people into tiers, but who's #1 within a tier - that's subjective. Who's a better actor between Tommy Wiseau and Robert Downey Jr? Of course there's an objective answer to this. But who's better between Robert Downey Jr and Tom Hiddleston? Highly subjective.
/r/MensRights01/05/24 11:25 PM
-6

They should hire people based on their merit, and let the demographics fall as they may. I think everyone agrees with that. The problem is how to define "merit" objectively. Most people are biased towards people who think/behave like them. How do you correct for that?
/r/MensRights01/05/24 07:22 PM
2

Which of these answers drive the most clicks and shares?
/r/MensRights29/04/24 01:49 PM
7

I'd say there are two major root sources of resentment which are then amplified by wider societal problems. First root source of resentment is the history of traditional gender roles: For a while gender roles were more narrowly defined on both sides On the women side, it lead to them being treated as 2nd class citizens (being legally closer to a child or property than an adult) However, since people like simple narratives and culprits, "men oppressing women" won over "society at large enforcing …
/r/MensRights29/04/24 01:36 PM
-5

It's a human thing.
/r/MensRights23/04/24 11:31 PM
2

If you only say "women" without any qualifier about specific culture, political affiliation or generation there isn't much that can be said. They are human beings with a wide variety of personalities, opinions, challenges and quirks. They are generally more agreeable, conscientious and neurotic. They generally are more aware about and care more about optics. They follow groupthink and political correctness more than men. They are generally more likely to identify as victims and recruit outside h…
/r/MensRights22/04/24 08:56 PM
2

Why ask specifically to debunk instead of asking whether it's true? (not saying it is true, but it's just a weird question to ask)
/r/MensRights14/04/24 02:48 PM
1

why we are we allowing the vast majority of babies to be aborted as a form of birth control?? Because in older times, lawmakers listened more to people who understood biology and how it relates to morality.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 12:41 PM
1

I was trying to say my theory for the downvotes is that a significant segment of the sub is more anti-left / anti-feminist than pro men. Therefore, since feminists and leftists broadly reject traditional values (christianism included) they feel like they have to disagree. Personally, I think feminism itself is not in conflict with men. It's just that many misandrists hide under the feminist banner to spew their hate. Disclaimer that it's not some deeply thought out theory, just a general feeling…
/r/MensRights06/04/24 05:13 PM
1

Cause how can you be pro men if you agree with the feminists on something? (/s)
/r/MensRights06/04/24 03:39 AM
-3

It has value as a collection of stories showcasing a value/morality system that's conducive to a sane and sustainable society. However, it is mixed with too much outdated ideas that have to be adapted to modern times or simply ignored. These can be used (even with best intentions) to justify behaviors which are damaging for both individuals and society. Also, I'm not comfortable with the way it puts blind faith on such a high pedestal. It creates too much tension with science, which leads to ten…
/r/MensRights05/04/24 11:05 PM
1

The more overt forms of bias, sure. But you can never get rid of it entirely. It's not about intelligence or good intentions. It's about perspective. Any narrative has bias.
/r/MensRights31/03/24 01:42 PM
11

So you're telling me that your multiple friends in HR are getting only two types of applicants - unqualified women and highly qualified men who they can't hire due to a "quota system" This can be true even if you assume both gender have the same competence level - it can simply mean that the quota isn't correctly aligned with the job market demographics. If competence distribution is equal in both gender, but only 20% of people in job market are female - then requiring 50/50 quota means you hire…
/r/MensRights27/03/24 04:32 PM
1

Just want to make a small point before sharing my thoughts. Sorry if it's long. What you call masculine/feminine can be described without gender. Stoic, assertive, confident, driven, leading VS empathic, listening, nuanced, cautious, supportive. I think it's not controversial to say men generally fit naturally in the first group of words and women in the second. That being said, I think everyone should spend some time trying to work on their weaker side. Both side are important (in different sit…
/r/MensRights15/03/24 05:58 AM
1

I would argue that pre-judging someone negatively requires an error rate much lower than 49%.
/r/MensRights13/02/24 04:08 PM
3

I've had a bit of success by using the example racism & crime rates because it avoids the "men vs women" can of worm. Something like: if it's not ok to assume a specific black person is a criminal because statistically more crimes are committed by black people* then why is it ok to assume a specific man is prone to violence because men are statistically more violent?. * note: obviously I'm not saying that black people are criminals - it's just useful to use this since the race subject is pretty …
/r/MensRights13/02/24 04:05 PM
0

The uglier side of the sub...
/r/MensRights12/02/24 05:06 PM
3

I feel like that's only true if you're a unable to see things through someone else's POV
/r/MensRights05/02/24 05:24 PM
6

Learn to cook by making your own meals - doesn't have to be fancy. Force yourself to go to a few social events per month.
/r/MensRights05/02/24 05:21 PM
5

You're so mysterious.
/r/MensRights20/01/24 08:33 PM
-4

Agreed. And I think men would do the same if they could get away with it. It's not a biological thing, it's a social thing.
/r/MensRights17/01/24 07:10 PM
1

Oh for sure the double standard is very real.
/r/MensRights21/11/23 07:31 PM
1

I know there are always extremists in political subs but subjectively, I think there is more hate here than in others I've seen (except some of the saltier feminist subs). I guess it's normal given the subject, I just wish discussion would raise above tribalism more often (it does, but not so often). Anyway, the point remains: if you look at the sub through the eyes of someone thinking "this place is a misogynist club", it's easy to confirm your opinion. 2nd top comment of the "Another One Bites…
/r/MensRights21/11/23 04:54 PM
2

I can see why a foreign power would use bots to manipulate public opinion on a controversial thing they are doing. I don't doubt this happens, and I wish we had better ways to prevent it. I also understand that fringe movements attract unhinged crazy people. And I suspect this is the "far right freaks" you are referring to. Assuming this "attraction" exists, it makes sense violent political groups would use it to find potential recruits. I also don't doubt it. The foreign bots - I honestly don't…
/r/MensRights21/11/23 04:39 PM
3

Can you find a thread where you see this happening? I never saw it but I also don't follow the sub very closely. Just curious )
/r/MensRights21/11/23 12:22 AM
2

The point of the post, as far as I can tell, was to rejoice in the failure of an (ex) woman CEO, and to use the specific case + some study as proof that women aren't fit to lead. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't - either way it's not related to mensrights, it's just basic US vs THEM tribalism. Feel free to check for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17zke8m/another_one_bites_the_dust/
/r/MensRights20/11/23 11:12 PM
1

Agreed, and it's silly to say "but the feminist subs are the same" - we don't have to go to that level.
/r/MensRights20/11/23 07:30 PM
5

Because the group is seen as profoundly misogynist. And while I don't think it's true, it's not hard to cherry pick items from the sub to reinforce confirmation bias. For example one of the top posts of the sub right now is about a woman CEO being fired - this isn't a men's right post, it's a "woman bashing" post.
/r/MensRights20/11/23 07:25 PM
3

I think it might just be a "natural selection" problem - seems to me that, at least today, having a strong gender identity is necessary for a girl to become a professional athlete. So the people who get there necessarily have a very women VS men mentality.
/r/MensRights17/11/23 12:50 AM
0

For the record, there's debate about whether either of those (ADHD and Autism) are disabilities. They can be, but not everyone from those communities think they are themselves disabled. But yeah, on social media I guess in 90% of cases women are at a signifiant advantage, so still its punching down.
/r/MensRights11/11/23 04:30 AM
1

Do you really think a man saying that to a woman would have no consequences? Maybe there would, maybe there wouldn't. We shouldn't base what we do on hypotheticals. And you can't justify bad behavior by saying others do the same.
/r/MensRights02/11/23 12:56 PM
3

You don’t believe the children should maintain the same standard of living? "Lesser" is a very large range. They "should" stay above some poverty threshold, assuming the paying parent... originally wanted the child (abortion was decided against because both wanted to raise the child) doesn't want to raise the child anymore (if he/she does, just give him/her the child - no child support needed) has a high enough salary to do it
/r/MensRights01/11/23 11:47 AM
19

Sure, but strong has many flavors, and not all of them are toxic.
/r/MensRights12/01/23 03:13 AM
1

Women are not immune to internalized misogynism.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 02:16 PM
18

I was thinking the same thing! Also if a women is pregnant, people around her will help her avoid potentially dangerous physical tasks, reducing deadly accidents.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 02:04 PM
1

So basically AI chatbots are fancy echo chambers
/r/MensRights07/01/23 04:34 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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