TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dermac Archive

View 0 posts and 257 comments by dermac 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

This would make a good TIL.
/r/MensRights27/10/17 06:10 AM
1

I always pictured that somewhere in California.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 08:04 AM
3

That goes to show that they don't read their own "articles".
/r/MensRights23/10/17 06:08 AM
2

While you are at it google feminist snowplowing in Stockholm.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 07:26 AM
1

I apologize for the cheap shot.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 05:52 AM
1

Room, board, car, insurance, gas, etc... That was supposed to say "how much", my bad. Why wouldn't you say 95% is minor housekeeping? For the simple fact that it is (close to) all the housekeeping. Or do you think all housekeeping is minor housekeeping? lolololololololol... [source: Father of 3] makes me wonder what kind of father you are...
/r/MensRights06/10/17 02:18 PM
1

How do you know he spends on her? If he only makes 25k a year I doubt it's thousands, but I might have missed a part. And where does the minor housekeeping come from? I wouldn't say 95% is minor housekeeping. It is a lot of work to care for a child, whether it's your own or somebody elses.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 12:57 PM
3

Hahahaha, I was angry at first but then I read those really bad examples of "bad behaviour" and I could only laugh. Seriously though, this just paints women as little princesses who need special rights to get the prince they want.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 11:37 AM
1

she's being more than amply compensated. According to you. And I disagree with that.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 06:14 AM
1

It's not a false dichotomy, it's just reality. He needs somebody to take care of the child (if he doesn't want to do it) and she is offering the service.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 06:57 AM
1

What do you mean no? Where did I say something that was wrong? Please point it out. There are only two choices, either you take care of your kid or you outsource that work.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:17 PM
1

Again, assuming he wants kids he will need somebody to take care of them. He either has to do it himself or find somebody to do it. If he opts to find somebody to do it he will need to pay that person Can we agree on that?
/r/MensRights04/10/17 01:03 PM
1

But she is working, which I am sure I said numerous times already.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 05:56 AM
1

He isn't paying for childcare, that's my point, since she is putting the work in in that area.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 01:54 PM
1

You are missing my point. He will have to pay anyway for childcare, whether it is his wife or somebody else doesn't matter for his wallet. That's what leads me to saying that paying 0 (which is what he wants) isn't fair. I'm assuming you and your partner split all the costs evenly (as you claimed) because you had nearly identical paychecks. Don't see how that is relevant to the point we are discussing.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 01:46 PM
2

Their feelings are their problem I'd say.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 01:30 PM
0

Ok, so instead of clarifying you decided to take this route. I am sorry, I thought you were interested in a real debate.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 01:23 PM
0

Sorry, but I have no clue what you are getting at.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 01:17 PM
0

Me and my partner we share everything, but that might just be us.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 06:07 AM
0

No, it doesn't. Yes it does. I think this style of arguing doesn't get us anywhere. Yep, that's what her $100k per year job is for. So you mean she pays for that place alone, he doesn't pay a dime?
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:41 PM
1

Either she knew you weren't consenting or she didn't. She said she didn't know so I have a hard time counting that as rape. It's also the first time you mention force.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 11:50 AM
2

If she didn't know that you weren't consenting how can it be rape?
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:52 AM
3

do you really expect them to do anything other than the cheapest, quickest, laziest option? Yes, I absolutely do expect that.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:32 AM
4

To some degree? Wow. Don't know what to say actually, but that's exactly the problem with identity politics.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:24 AM
5

Sectioning off stuff for only women means you only need to police and monitor the access points so men can't get in, whereas bolstering all transport security would take more people, more training, more money. Why don't men get security while using public transport?
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:11 AM
1

At least in the beginning it means very much that. Sure, you can drop your kid off somewhere, but then you need to pay too.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 07:01 AM
1

It seems to me that she didn't really know fuck all about this guy before she married him and let him knock her up.... so poor choice for her. That's the only thing I agree 100% with. I just hope both sides get a deal they can agree on.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 07:00 AM
1

So she shouldn't have kids?
/r/MensRights29/09/17 05:59 AM
1

He also wants kids.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 05:58 AM
2

And why not pay her that money at least? I mean she is putting work in so she should at least be compensated somehow. Again, no to 50/50 but not 0 either. Let's say you are a lucky grown up and you get your 8h of sleep a night. You said the kid sleeps 3h during the day. That means you spend 13h " at work every day", once you get off you need to do housework. That sounds like a hard job for me. Once the kids are somewhat selfsustaining she absolutely should get a job! But even then she realistica…
/r/MensRights29/09/17 05:58 AM
2

No I wouldn't place myself into the complete financial care of another person. But that is because I can't get pregnant. Being pregnant requires that you can rely on somebody else. And again, in no way shape or form should she have access to his pre wedding assets or get 50/50. I am actually not sure how much I think would be fitting but I don't think 0 (which is what he wants to give her) is fair either. He wants kids (so does she, I know) and somebody has to gestate them and care for them. If …
/r/MensRights29/09/17 05:49 AM
1

I absolutely agree with that, the comments are horrible! Just wanted to point out that I kinda understand her.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:38 PM
1

She has the potential to earn a lot now but not in the future if she doesn't keep up with the competition and new developments. Especially the data science field moves really fast. she can unilaterally decide to end the relationship and likewise leave him with worse than nothing, being a perpetual alimony slave. While I am obviously against that, isn't that exactly what he is trying to set to 0? I don't think it should be millions but something to give her time to catch up on lost development an…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:33 PM
1

I am not saying 50-50 of course, I even think pre-marital assets should not be included, but her whole life will be at another persons mercy since her assets will deprecate (work skills) and he can unilaterally decide to end the marriage, at which point she will have nothing. She will possibly work for years without any job security, salary or possibility for saving up. I mean who would take such a job?
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:21 PM
3

I'll argue from the standpoint that the child was conceived consensually and that they didn't talk about these demands beforehand (since it isn't the norm). If she somehow tricked him my points are moot. and all she has to do is [...] not leave him. If that was the case I would agree with what you wrote. But that's not all that is to it. He can unilaterally decide to leave her and that will leave her with nothing. I don't think she should be entitled to 50% but she should have at least some sort…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:34 PM
3

I think wanting to keep your pre marriage assets is fine, but it seems like he wants to keep everything ever for himself, or am I reading that wrong? 1) Fiance wants all his earnings, all items purchased with his earnings, and all increases in value to his assets to be separate property. Additionally wants an alimony waiver. I think that that is unfair to her, I wouldn't agree to that either if I was to stay home and take care of a child since I would be out of a job for a long time and would th…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:54 PM
24

“On the one hand you have the freedom of religion, which means a parent is allowed to have their son circumcised for religious reasons.” Why would it mean that? Freedom of religion is about your relationship with your religion, not your sons relationship with his religion!
/r/MensRights27/09/17 11:33 AM
1

Ah, I didn't realize you meant the statistics were taken after the fact. I agree then, sorry.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 08:41 AM
1

Agreed, that should be a given.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 08:39 AM
1

I would kinda agree if that you had to cover the whole breast and not just the nipples. But womens nipples, unless a woman is feeding her child, are equally as inactive as mens nipples.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 08:38 AM
9

There is currently exactly one issue I can agree with: Free the nipple. Not because I want everybody to be topless but because I think that it goes against equality that one gender has to cover up while the other doesn't. The amount of people I want to see topless though is so small that I'd rather want #NoNipples than #FreeTheNipple.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 11:15 AM
8

"Men get into more accidents" is exactly what looking at gender means.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 07:10 AM
2

This is probably the reason why it is still allowed in Germany. There was a controversy 3(?) years ago where a hold was put on the procedure and Chancellor Merkel herself said that "we have to take care of this, we are becoming the laughing stock of the world", shortly thereafter a law was put into place that explicitly allowed it for boys but not for girls.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:06 PM
1

So how did the interview go?
/r/MensRights20/09/17 12:15 PM
1

RemindMe!
/r/MensRights19/09/17 11:58 AM
8

Similar to some male managers I have known. With the difference that there is no push to get them into good positions.
/r/MensRights18/09/17 08:36 AM
1

I think this is a bit far fetched. Not that it doesn't happen but that this is a mens rights issue.
/r/MensRights15/09/17 06:30 AM
1

Take the european approach: Beer once you hit sixteen, everything else when you you hit 18.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 11:02 AM
0

How is this a mens rights issue?
/r/MensRights14/09/17 10:56 AM
0

Aren't we being told that religion and wearing the hijab are personal choices?
/r/MensRights13/09/17 06:25 AM
1

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but how do you want to improve peoples lifes?
/r/MensRights12/09/17 01:19 PM
13

Sorry, but nobody gets special treatment, especially not if your "problem" is a homemade one.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 06:31 AM
9

You can't be serious... Do women also have to ask for written consent? Before and after? That's ridiculous.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 07:45 AM
1

So all you can do is move your finger, which means you are really in a fucked up situation but you use your left over concentration in your really shitty situation to pleasure someone without noticing signs of pleasure or the lack thereof?
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:48 PM
1

I do, I have been and continue being one of them too. I know it's anecdotal but it's all I can base my opinion on and that's why I think that you can't not notice that your partner has checked out for today.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:42 PM
1

Absolutely no movement, absolutely no reaction and no moaning aren't suble actions.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:38 PM
1

I wasn't talking about him specifically, but to answer your question: I do think that his mental faculties were compromised but really not enough to not notice that his partner was passed out, at least not over a longer time.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:37 PM
1

I do believe that if you have the mental capability to do supposedly enjoyable things to your partner that you will notice that your doing doesn't have any effect, yes.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:29 PM
2

I have a really hard time believing that you can't notice when your moaning/enjoying partner becomes a useless sack of flour.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:27 PM
1

Especially when drunk, it is surely possible for not notice it for long enough, to be caught "doing it to a passed out person". That's exactly why I said "as soon as you notice". It actually seems we are in total agreement.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 01:22 PM
1

I don't think you can not notice that your partner suddenly stops moaning/moving but I agree that this is probably totally unprovable in court. Legally I think it should be a crime since I don't think it is possible to not notice the other person passing out.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 11:59 AM
3

The answer to both is: as soon as the person doing the deed notices that the other person is passed out it becomes at least morally wrong. Every indicator flies out of the window as soon as the indicator giving party blacks out.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 11:12 AM
2

I love this video. Thank you very much for sharing it!
/r/MensRights31/08/17 06:00 AM
21

Post a video of the procedure being done. It's about 9 minutes long and every parent who wants their child to endure it should be comfortable with seeing it in full length: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLhEoOQhsVw
/r/MensRights30/08/17 10:34 AM
1

If you don't mind, would you share how that whole situation played out? I assume you got some resistance?
/r/MensRights30/08/17 07:50 AM
1

No, going to a superior instead of acting like an adult and talking to the person you have a problem with is acting like children.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 06:02 AM
3

He... didn't really say the patriarchy made him cheat, did he?
/r/MensRights21/08/17 09:22 AM
2

Acting like children isn't the type of equality we are here for.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 09:02 AM
2

Lets not forget that doing elite special forces training has a huge chance of preventing a women from having kids. Look it up, the few women who managed to get slightly higher than the average man in the military lost the ability to have children. While I found everything before your edit very interesting and enligthening I don't see how what I quoted is relevant to the discussion. Put a big disclaimer up "PRobably no kids" and you are good to go. The decision whether she wants kids is hers.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 09:17 AM
6

It starts out well and then degenerates into the same rambling we are used to hear.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 07:40 AM
2

/r/dataisbeautiful
/r/MensRights11/08/17 06:39 AM
4

What's the sub?
/r/MensRights31/07/17 11:08 AM
1

I half expect him to be circumcised when we get there. If he is I'm lawyering up. Let us know how that went! !Remind me 1 day
/r/MensRights31/07/17 10:53 AM
1

a few thousand dollars That much for a single foreskin??
/r/MensRights31/07/17 10:52 AM
3

There are women campaigning for female circumcision to be legal, do you tell them the same?
/r/MensRights31/07/17 10:51 AM
16

I always use "Cutting off an arm is worse than cutting off a finger but we don't allow cutting off fingers because of that".
/r/MensRights31/07/17 09:01 AM
2

That's a very mature viewpoint, something I would like to see more often (on both sides).
/r/MensRights31/07/17 08:50 AM
3

TIL
/r/MensRights31/07/17 07:24 AM
-2

Him: "Should I talk to a lawyer?" Lawyer: "Yes" Sorry, I couldn't resist, I'll show myself out...
/r/MensRights28/07/17 07:41 AM
4

I agree, but your title says "feminists have put chemicals in the food supply to feminize boys". I am objecting to that because there isn't a shred of evidence for it.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 10:17 AM
3

This isn't proof that feminists intentionally put spermicides into food. It's at most proof that they don't care enough about boys to protest the use of those chemicals, which we already knew before.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 10:10 AM
4

While I think this is bad I think it's a bit far fetched to say it's feminists doing it.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 09:56 AM
5

Are there any counter movements to this? This is outrageous....
/r/MensRights26/07/17 07:51 AM
2

I have seen somebody else posted another video already, but make her watch this, prefferably with sound. If she can sit through it and still be adamantly pro circumcision you should consider not letting the baby out of your sight while in the hospital and not making another one with her. Or you can try to be sneaky and tell her that it's fine if she does it to your son but that you will want your daughter to be circumcised too if you ever have one. Maybe switching sides will change her mind.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 01:08 PM
1

Why is the father still solely responsible if the kid is under the age of six?
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:26 AM
5

I can't believe this even crosses the mind of somebody, let alone that somebody thinks it's a good argument...
/r/MensRights20/07/17 07:51 AM
3

This is the best username I have seen in a long time...
/r/MensRights20/07/17 07:40 AM
1

I am absolutely against this. Banning women in bikinis was already wrong and I would rather see that reverted than giving more control to people who think the only way to achieve something is by forbidding it.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 08:17 AM
1

Well I agree that they are acting out of love (possibly) but I think their efforts are misguided. The majority of children with gender disphoria lose their gender dysphoria when they hit puberty. If we wanted to help as many kids as possible we would ban children from hormone therapy until after they went to puberty, at least.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 06:01 AM
1

Why would I take anything you say at face value? But ok, let's say it's "fake news". Can we still agree though that injecting your kid with hormones isn't the same as being adored or just dressed up like a tomboy?
/r/MensRights18/07/17 02:05 PM
10

I'm pretty sure Shiloh Jolie-Pitt is adored by both her parents and just dresses like a tomboy. I am pretty sure that injecting your kids with hormones to change it's gender at the age of 11 isn't exactly "being adored" or "just dressed up like a tomboy".
/r/MensRights18/07/17 09:29 AM
1

That's the way it's done in Germany and afaik it has exactly the effect you mentioned.
/r/MensRights14/07/17 09:55 AM
1

It's my responsibility to not drink more than I can handle and I can't put that responsibility on anybody else. Just to be sure I will say it again: I am definitely not talking about people that are black out drunk, but if you are drunk and you decide to fuck you can be held accountable for it.
/r/MensRights14/07/17 05:53 AM
1

like alcohol influence nullifying the ability to consent How much are we talking about here? As much as in "couldn't walk or talk" or the feminist amount of one beer? Because I don't support "Alcohol makes you unable to consent".
/r/MensRights14/07/17 05:41 AM
1

The people at /r/torrent recommend VPNs and seedboxes I also don't think it's legal, but that depends on your country of course Legally speaking, seeding and leeching copyrighted material fall into different criminal categories. Think of it like buying illegal drugs: purchasing the drugs for personal use is definitely a crime, but a relatively minor one. Turning around and selling those drugs to others is a much more serious offense. Source
/r/MensRights13/07/17 01:17 PM
2

What do you mean by it? Uploading is still very much illegal, isn't it? And if beginners just start torrenting they will also upload stuff, that's why I didn't recommend it.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 12:59 PM
2

Well yes, but with torrent you upload automatically while downloading. Or isn't that true anymore?
/r/MensRights13/07/17 12:56 PM
0

You'd need a VPN and make sure that no packets leak. Sure, it's doable but there are easier methods, like OCH.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 11:33 AM
2

Every other notion is just stupid. Sure, there is a point where you are so wasted you can't talk but that's not the case for most people who go out and drink and then fuck.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 08:19 AM
-2

I don't think torrenting is the way to go. It's way too dangerous.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:54 AM
1

Wrong thread?
/r/MensRights11/07/17 10:34 AM
10

What impresses me the most is that you took 138 screenshots.
/r/MensRights11/07/17 09:54 AM
2

Did anybody try sharing these on /pics?
/r/MensRights06/07/17 09:00 AM
2

So first off, it's only a plan, it says nowhere that they are concrete. Second, it's not the Bråvalla, she says she will organise her own, as far as I can see and I doubt it will turn out huge.
/r/MensRights06/07/17 07:19 AM
1

Touché...
/r/MensRights06/07/17 06:00 AM
1

">"6
/r/MensRights05/07/17 11:38 AM
13

We are still discussing the matter, as some sub-committee members consider that freedom of religion should prevail What about cutting girls? Why isn't that allowed?
/r/MensRights05/07/17 10:33 AM
10

I always wonder what type of hygiene people have that seriously think that's an argument.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 09:24 AM
17

Just for reference: I am intact and I never had any issues with hygiene. It's like an ear, due to it's form it takes a second longer to wash but that doesn't mean I would cut off my ear.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 09:17 AM
6

The "for equality"-part only applies to womens rights. They want equality to men.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 08:44 AM
13

I really doubt her little story is even real. If she had done research she would be against it or at least not do it to her son.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 08:42 AM
2

What does their gender have to do with anything? Either you are right or you aren't.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 12:42 PM
7

Get out, this movement has already been off to a rocky start due to people screaming sexism, we don't need you idiots undermining a serious point.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 09:00 AM
1

Third world country?
/r/MensRights29/06/17 08:42 AM
7

Any way to give that person a piece of my mind?
/r/MensRights27/06/17 08:19 AM
5

"Dear Trader Joes: We don't want to touch it either."
/r/MensRights26/06/17 06:42 AM
3

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
/r/MensRights22/06/17 08:26 AM
4

I watched about ten seconds in the middle of the video. I am sure I won't be able to sleep this night.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 10:44 AM
6

I think something got lost in translation. The way I read the original source is that she said "it's different when it's done to men because men can (as in: have the possibility) to defend themselves (not retaliate)." She went on to say that that isn't the case for most women and that violence committed by men is therefore worse. Classical double think.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:14 AM
3

I think that that is the most honest stance you can have when you think that people can't consent when they drink (which is stupid!). The real idiocy is people who think that if two are drunk the woman was always raped, imo.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 10:48 AM
10

These statements are both non-sequitors. You can read the Quran (a book muslims hold sacred) though and have a look at it yourself to see whether it is murderous. Some people did and therefore concluded that Islam is murderous, not because most terrorists are muslim.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 08:42 AM
5

On the risk of being strangled: I think it's only fair to say hypocrisy if it was the same person(s) saying "yes" to the wonder woman screening and "no" to this.
/r/MensRights09/06/17 10:36 AM
3

1) Apply lube to lips 2) Create vacuum seal anyway 3) stick out tounge 4) Place hands firmly on your sides 5) Rotate whole body until woman is pleasured 6) Profit?
/r/MensRights09/06/17 07:16 AM
1

I know it's not what you wrote, I just reversed the genders to show how sexist that statement is.
/r/MensRights09/06/17 06:20 AM
2

Ok, you might have a point there but who does it for that reason and then has it broadcasted everywhere...? That really smells fishy.
/r/MensRights08/06/17 10:56 AM
1

So female victims of DV are also just fucking pussies, castrated by something? Or how does this work in your world?
/r/MensRights08/06/17 10:27 AM
1

Shouldn't this be simple to fight in a court of law?
/r/MensRights08/06/17 07:44 AM
1

Is Wonder Woman actually a good movie or just a good movie for a DC movie?
/r/MensRights08/06/17 06:38 AM
1

The eerie thing about even having to discuss this is that, as an uncut man, I have first-hand understanding on how sensitive it is - I'd compare it to my lips or fingers, and would as soon lose a fingertip as my foreskin, and to have to cite studies to show this is, quite frankly, a bit surreal for me. It's like having to cite studies that eyesight helps you navigate the world, and is essential to humanity's understanding of it. I am asking because you said it holds more nerve endings than the c…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 06:04 AM
1

Sorry, I butchered my own comment. I edited it and I hope it makes more sense now. I didn't say "the foreskin has XXX nerves", either. But you said it has more than the clitoris so you need to have numbers to compare it. Or what makes you say that? I am just curious. Do you think that nerves create "bumps?" I meant that you said that the foreskin reduces friction (which I agree with!) but then say that "ripped for her pleasure" is modelled after the foreskin, but those little "bumps" on the cond…
/r/MensRights06/06/17 01:46 PM
1

If I might offer some advice: Don't pull on the foreskin and just clean what you can see. It's really not hard to care for a natural penis, just don't use force when doing it.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 12:56 PM
1

My dad is intact, and he had me cut. I hope you don't mind me asking, but: why?
/r/MensRights06/06/17 12:49 PM
1

During intercourse, the foreskin also provides an additional moving element that further cuts down on friction that's what "ripped for her pleasure" condoms are modeled from But aren't those little bumps increase the surface size and there will thus be more friction. I am not saying you are wrong, I just hope you can elaborate a bit on this :) Further, the foreskin is densely packed with nerves (more so than the clitoris) Also, careful here, I couldn't find a single study that said the general f…
/r/MensRights06/06/17 12:41 PM
2

What are the possible outcomes if this goes through?
/r/MensRights02/06/17 11:23 AM
2

Did you try throwing them at non-whites too?
/r/MensRights02/06/17 10:30 AM
0

if she can't say yes sober So she has to be sober and it's your responsibility to find out if she is and if necessary go against her will? If that's what the army told you that's fucked up.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 08:25 AM
1

Shouldn't it be easy to drag them to court and sue them for discimination?
/r/MensRights01/06/17 10:34 AM
2

If all of america is circumcised, how do you know they have normal lives? Where is your control group? And where is the study you are citing?
/r/MensRights31/05/17 08:42 AM
4

Men are welcome as visitors if they remember that they are just visitors, and if they don't bring in cat shit on their shoes and tread it all through the carpet. You mean facts?
/r/MensRights22/05/17 10:19 AM
2

Sure, your sister...
/r/MensRights22/05/17 09:30 AM
6

It's not an alien, half of it are her genes. You are correct here "need to rely on the father for resources thing", but that doesn't factor in here attractiveness was solely judged by looks and looks don't care for your baby.
/r/MensRights22/05/17 08:09 AM
11

Isn't that Canada?
/r/MensRights19/05/17 09:37 AM
9

Could eastwardarts be more condescending (and wrong)? I can tell you why without any guesses about what was going through his mind. He failed because the principle of dealing with a crisis is comfort in, dump out. On the other hand, I don't have a crystal ball that tells me about how other people on the internet are feeling...
/r/MensRights18/05/17 07:52 AM
3

No opinion, no paying.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 05:10 AM
3

I am with you and I know your argument is sound, but: You make the claim, you have to prove it.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 01:05 PM
1

You can't make this shit up....
/r/MensRights04/05/17 12:21 PM
25

defendants would not be entitled to a public defender uhm... what? That's a joke, right?
/r/MensRights04/05/17 10:26 AM
2

Silly you, feminists don't do research.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 05:58 AM
2

Who is they? Feminists?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 05:46 AM
3

No need to apologize, you are 100% right, this is at the expense of people who actually should benefit from such movements.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 10:48 AM
3

Social justice, where genders are made up and definitions don't matter.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 10:35 AM
1

So if you choose to work in a coal mine, well you are aware of the risks, so it's okay? Same would go with working in an office where you would be required to wear high heels. If the condition of employment is up front, I don't see a problem. Again, you can work in an office without high heels, but you can't work in a coal mine without being in a coal mine. The question is exactly whether the employer should be allowed to force you to damage your health. Of course, some people would say it's dis…
/r/MensRights24/04/17 02:10 PM
1

Again, working in a coal mine damages your health, that's just that. But working in an office doesn't per se damage your health. Those are very different things. Suit and tie don't damage your health (I personally don't like them even went after jobs where I wouldn't have to wear a tie) and you can't therefore compare it. That study that says that a tie might cause glaucoma only says that they might cause glaucoma if they wear worn too tightly. You can also break a finger if you use a hammer inc…
/r/MensRights24/04/17 01:29 PM
1

There is one study from 2003 and it's about wearing your tie too tight, I don't think that compares.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 09:19 AM
1

IF they are bad for your health I would probably be for it. Do you have any sources that say that they are bad for your health?
/r/MensRights24/04/17 08:42 AM
1

Yeah, I shot myself in the foot with that argument.... I am not opposed a high heels ban per se since high heels are bad for your health, a hijab isn't.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 08:34 AM
1

What if they meet clients who view women without hijabs as informal? Should the women be forced to wear the hijab?
/r/MensRights24/04/17 06:54 AM
1

We all know people do stuff they wouldn't normally do for money. Take bumfights as an example: You pay some homeless people to beat each other up. You could say the same about them: They choose what is an acceptable risk. Yet bumfights is forbidden. I agree with you on the dresscode thing actually: Everything that doesn't damage your health is legal. The issue here is that high heels do damage your health. A hairnet doesn't damage your health.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 06:53 AM
3

if they say you have to wear X clothing, then that's the terms of the employment. And that's exactly what this is about, should you be able to force people to wear things that are unhealthy even though they are not necessary to do your job. Danger is in the nature of working in a mine, but you can work in an office without high heels.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 01:59 PM
16

That's hardly a fair comparison, you can do your office job without high heels, you can't work in a mine without being in a mine.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 01:21 PM
5

How did you get white nationalist from that???
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:30 AM
1

Don't let them win! Be a man, women want that, it's just feminists that want you to be shy and quiet!
/r/MensRights12/04/17 07:49 AM
11

"what about meee"-ism How to silence your critics 101
/r/MensRights10/04/17 07:14 AM
1

Which one? And why? If I may ask.
/r/MensRights07/04/17 05:52 AM
1

I really like their Marvel shows.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 08:49 AM
7

The patriarchy is killing you, but apparently that's fine because it's not the draft or child support. So patriarchy is bad because women get no "representation" which means they can't push laws that they need. So men should be of perfectly since they get all the "representation". That isn't what we see at all. That either means representation is a made up non-issue (since we see it doesn't work) or the patriarchy doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 09:51 AM
6

Men have been conditioned not to go to the doctor as often. I really don't like this notion about a "unknown higher force that conditions you to do stuff". It doesn't exist for men and it doesn't exist for women. We don't feel bad about going to the doctor, at least no man I know does.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 09:47 AM
6

It affects the company's bottom line. I think OP should definitely bring this up to strengthen his point.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 08:18 AM
2

Thank you, I didn't know that. Fucking sad that there was a protection for boys (that nobody cared about) that has been taken away.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 12:27 PM
3

I am sorry your penis has been mutilated. I wish you all the best.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 08:35 AM
6

Until that religious nut is removed we will continue to allow parents to mutilate their boys in Germany. There was actually some controversy about this 5 years ago where a court put a temporal ban on it. Merkel said that "we are becoming the laughing stock of the world" and pushed for a law specifically allowing the mutilation of boys.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 08:34 AM
2

Please don't insult my religion.
/r/MensRights28/03/17 05:17 AM
4

Look, it's fine that your parents mutilated your dick as you seem to be fine with it. Just let others point out that mutilating others peoples genitalia without their consent is a crime.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 10:48 AM
9

Trudeau and company proudly told us they produced the “first ever gender statement” alongside this year’s budget, which they told the Globe and Mail was Canada’s first “gender-based federal budget”. Doesn't this go against discrimination laws? A part of the population is being discriminated against due to gender.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 08:58 AM
2

Religion. The perfect God made the perfect human. Except for the foreskin, that needs to come off.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 02:41 PM
4

Would you make the same argument if the kid was a girl?
/r/MensRights21/03/17 02:39 PM
1

The worst part about this is that , according to Twitter, the light sentence is due to white privilege.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 07:13 AM
3

That's seriously fucked up.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 07:24 AM
3

Male politicians aren't doing male reproductive rights any favours so pointing to their sex is completely useless.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:37 AM
1

If no women work in a company, do they still need to produce that report?
/r/MensRights13/03/17 03:12 PM
1

The one from Dagens Nyheter isn't enough?
/r/MensRights10/03/17 07:20 AM
1

but it was not because the city had "gender plowing" because this prioritation had not yet been implemented. I can only judge by the articles that say it has been implemented.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 07:00 AM
1

So Dagens Nyheter is fake news?
/r/MensRights09/03/17 02:52 PM
1

By other muslims who just follow their religion.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 02:46 PM
1

But they aren't in the highest positions of government in the US.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 02:45 PM
1

Well that feminist snowplowing thing certainly wasn't harmless.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 02:45 PM
1

you do nothing to debunk the arguments the "professor" makes FTFY
/r/MensRights09/03/17 09:49 AM
1

That will certainly make it harder for women to find donors in the future.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:19 AM
10

How much can you mature if your system is artificially being changed with hormones and other things?
/r/MensRights28/02/17 08:41 AM
3

I like the guy otherwise.... But I guess you can still be a moron on some topics.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 08:27 AM
1

I said that I don't agree with that religion is a reason to deny a handshake? Where do you see an argument there?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:48 AM
1

That.... isn't even related...
/r/MensRights21/02/17 07:24 AM
0

How stupid. Ad hominem. It's fine, but not if the reason is religion? A repetition of what I said. Do you need a safe space and a hug? Condescending non sequitur. I give that comment 0/10.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 06:37 AM
0

If you are speaking from a legal point of view I can't disagree, sadly.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 06:28 AM
0

I prefer cleaner bathrooms over un-gendered ones. And all stalls makes no sense in that the lines can be potentially very long if there aren't any urinals for men.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 11:42 AM
1

ANYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE A HANDSHAKE. While I agree with that I don't agree with the notion that religion is a reason to deny a handshake.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 09:16 AM
2

Ah, that's where you are coming from. I have to agree, sadly. I thought this was more like a "drunk people can't consent" type of comment.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:58 AM
1

To what extent? As long as you can indicate that you want it (and as a man can get it up) there shouldn't be any legal limitation.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:45 AM
1

Orthodox Jews are, for the most part, happier on average than other people. Source?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:42 AM
2

I actually disagree with the drunk part. You can absolutely be drunk and bone.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:42 AM
14

The majority of the people in this country think that circumcision is act of mutilation. Which is correct. By definition.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:29 AM
5

They also harm themselves, which is their right.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 08:23 AM
2

Thank you for your answer. /edit: Do you have a link I could read up on?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 11:15 AM
2

So neuroimaging could show that a brain is in the wrong body? Does that mean male and female brains are a thing and that they are distinct?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 11:01 AM
2

and they genuinely are born one gender and identify as the other. Not trying to pick a fight here but I am wondering how you can proof that? I mean does genuinely born with the wrong gender mean that you have a the "wrong" body but the "right" brain? How do you determine somebody is genuinely born with the wrong gender?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 10:32 AM
1

Anyone else found that article incredibly whiny? The men of our society, when not performing the role of stay-at-home parent themselves (as so often is the case) need to be taught to see the worth of the parent who stays home. Who doesn't get taught the value of a stay at home parent? It also really smells a lot like it's still men's fault
/r/MensRights15/02/17 10:22 AM
3

He's loving every second of it. Do you mean he asked for it?
/r/MensRights14/02/17 09:16 AM
1

tbf, he also said he supplied actual evidence.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 11:32 AM
1

I am not saying you are wrong, if petitions aren't closed while they are being checked normally then you are probably right. I just wanted to know what makes you think it's the feminists at work here.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 01:27 PM
2

Protect and provide for the ones you love.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 11:57 AM
3

I am not sure where the censorship comes in here, but maybe I am missing something. Isn't the petition only being checked and not dismissed atm?
/r/MensRights08/02/17 11:48 AM
3

That would only lead to HR managers hiring exclusively men. Why pay somebody the same price for their work if they work less hours?
/r/MensRights08/02/17 09:07 AM
0

here is why wage gap cannot be fixed in our current economic system. Is the answer the same as to the question of why the easter bunny can not be caught?
/r/MensRights03/02/17 02:56 PM
2

Can I see a source for that? I am not saying you are wrong, I just haven't heard about it. It wouldn't surprise me though, that country is... special... I liked feminist snowplowing especially. If it is true it will backfire spectacularly though. Imagine you are in an HR position and you have to decide between a man and a woman, both do the same work but one costs 10% more. Who would you hire?
/r/MensRights03/02/17 02:55 PM
7

50 shades of Dora
/r/MensRights03/02/17 02:52 PM
1

What does this mean legally speaking? Is this "just" a single case or is this binding for every country in the EU?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 09:15 AM
1

I wouldn't even dare to open a business with under those kind of laws. Thanks for sharing, that's really incredible.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 08:04 AM
1

women are represented in government positions to a lesser degree than they should be I think there is a big issue here. Government should be comprised of the best individuals for the job, regardless of anything else. If you start issuing quotas for women you risk having an individual in a high position just because of their gender, not because of merit and that means you possibly dismissed a better candidate just because he has a penis. And if you start giving out quotas for women the next will …
/r/MensRights12/01/17 12:04 PM
6

That's seriously one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. How can there still be bars in those areas?
/r/MensRights12/01/17 09:39 AM
2

Can we stop the feminist bashing on this sub? As soon as they stop crying for more privileges for the group with the most privilege.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 11:43 AM
1

So Feminism is far left and MRAs are alt-right?
/r/MensRights29/12/16 12:12 PM
1

What if you just say that you identify as a woman?
/r/MensRights21/12/16 12:13 PM
1

I still think that isn't Amy Schumer but Shia LaBeouf
/r/MensRights21/12/16 07:39 AM
2

Isn't the right one Shia LaBeouf?
/r/MensRights19/12/16 09:00 AM
0

God, that man is such a whiny idiot....
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:09 AM
2

As you have already received so much good advice I would like to add only one single thing: If they get shit for something they did/said: Have their backs. Let them feel that what they did/said was ok and that you support them. Of course only if they didn't cross a line.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 10:11 AM
6

men complaining about it. Complaining about that the city doesn't uses it resources to plow the most used routes because of what is between the legs of the people who use them is idiotic, got it.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 01:28 PM
1

Weird, I don't pay and I can open it just fine. /edit: I couldn't see the paywall before, sorry. See my edit in the initial comment.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:06 AM
4

In case you can read swedish I recommend reading this article: 9 alternatives to feminist snow-plowing /edit: Sorry, the article is behind a paywall, I wasn't able to see that before because I am using the plugin NoScript
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:03 AM
10

Not swedish politicians.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:02 AM
1

The Catholics would get pretty upset if someone walked around wearing priestly garb and symbols without being officially given a position by the Church. They would get upset, but why would that hold any value? Being offended isn't an argument.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 10:13 AM
2

I send them a link to the no-true-scotsman-fallacy on wikipedia.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 09:38 AM
11

Or will non-rape become an offence seen as well? First I laughed, then I cried...
/r/MensRights19/10/16 07:46 AM
3

I am not disagreeing with you, but things will never change if we just agree to being pushed over. I am open for better suggestions on how to change this.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 01:43 PM
9

Enough people have to do it to show that it isn't ok until it sparks a controversy. If we back down we well be stepped on.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 01:18 PM
2

I have been training martial arts for 19 years and I have been the attacker in one of those courses (once). The programs I have seen range from once a week for four month to two hours on a saturday and sunday. This isn't enough time to drill stuff into people. Not even that they should run away (which they already knew beforehand anyway, I hope) let alone some complex grappeling counters. If there are longer courses I would argue that it's not a course anymore but actual martial arts training. T…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 06:01 AM
4

These programs are dangerous. They teach people to "fight" when they should run. People get out of these courses with a higher confidence, they are less likely to run while they can.
/r/MensRights27/09/16 09:19 AM
2

I must say I am surprised... I have never gotten a coffee anywhere near that hot...
/r/PussyPassDenied26/09/16 08:10 AM
1

So it hasn't been for hot enough for 22 years now?
/r/PussyPassDenied26/09/16 06:47 AM
1

Since when is fast food coffee hot enough for that?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/16 01:35 PM
4

What?Really??
/r/MensRights22/09/16 01:29 PM
6

I love how men should pay more instead of women paying less. I wonder why that is...
/r/MensRights12/09/16 08:47 AM
1

Yep, you were right, I was thinking I was commenting on a different thread were the premise was that armies will always exist. I am sorry for wasting your time.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 07:34 AM
1

I said the whole premise is that there's no draft. The whole premise of this discussion was whether armies are needed or not. You said little resources. You wanna get arbitrary? There is a difference, isn't there? Also, having few resources in one area doesn't mean you don't have plenty in another. Are we not talking about the US? No Yeah... You're definitely confused. Just answer the question.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 06:33 AM
1

The whole premise here is that drafts don't exist Maybe my military speak isn't too good, but why would you have a draft if you don't have an army? one of the countries has no resources Where did I say that? to take over the most powerful country in the world Where did I say that? no one being willing to defend themselves and no one joining a voluntary military In which case you would still need to train them and have the military equipment ready at all times. What's the difference to an army th…
/r/MensRights31/08/16 07:11 AM
1

You're assuming that in a society without armies that country B would have an army Why would country B not have an army? That is your assumption. And that the citizens in country A would just keel over. Ah yes, the unarmed citizens of a country that peaceful that they deem an army unnecessary would win against the army of another country.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 09:07 AM
1

Country A wouldn't need a big army (or even an army at all, mercenaries would do) to win over country B if B has no army at all...
/r/MensRights30/08/16 08:43 AM
1

And on what grounds do you base that? Let's say country A is a neighbour to country B. Country B is doing very well, lots of good land and stuff like that. Country A is not doing well and doesn't have good land. Do you think it is likely that country A will try to take the good things from country B?
/r/MensRights30/08/16 06:09 AM
3

Because, as sad as it is, armies are needed and always will be.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 11:33 AM
1

Do you mean you just repeated what the link said or that it is your opinion?
/r/MensRights29/08/16 06:57 AM
1

If you're wasted, then you're not in a stable state of mind, and therefore can't consent. I didn't reply to the letter of the law, I replied to you. And if you think that drunk fucking is rape than you are trivializing real rape.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 06:45 AM
1

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that we should change our standards. Drunk fucking isn't being raped, no matter the gender.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 02:09 PM
3

If you can get drunk you can decide whether or not to fuck. As you have been made aware, drinking doesn't get you out owning up to your own mistakes. How ludacrious that line of thinking is is easily proven by that you would have to charge two drunk people fucking with rape. Because neither was able to consent. I think it is very worrisome how you trivialize rape here...
/r/MensRights18/08/16 02:07 PM
2

very bad argument. Whether you passed out or not before, during or after sex isn't ascertainable by the police anyway. What you are using here is exactly the same as "BELIEVE EVERY RAPE ACCUSATION!"
/r/MensRights18/08/16 02:04 PM
0

The other 50% used their brain, apparently.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 07:20 AM
1

While I like this very much in terms of gender equality I must say that I am opposed to women serving in the military if the bar has to be lowered to accommodate them. Studies have shown that mixed sex units perform worse than all-male units and I think the military should function at maximum capability.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 08:35 AM
12

In some areas gyms aren't as frequent as others so this gym could be his only choice. But even if there were twenty in the same block, why should this gym getting away with breaking the law?
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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