TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dropcode Archive

View 10 posts and 113 comments by dropcode 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)
1

I don't care about the stats. You're presenting this wildly ridiculous concept that if a crime is uncommon, the court shouldn't allow anyone to report it. The court wont know whether or not there is clear evidence until someone presents it to that court. If people aren't coming forward to charge their rapists, that's not the fault of the law, that's the fault of the social paradigm. The law must take a neutral position that can protect all victims no matter how common the crime they've been vict…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:28 PM
1

I don't actually think that. But the legal principal of blackstones ratio holds: "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". The innocent must be treated as though they are innocent until it can be proven in a court of law that they are guilty. You have yet to address the fact that if a court can't convict someone of rape, there is a pretty fair chance that they're not guilty of rape. The innocent party should have the right to sue the accuser, as he has suffered…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:16 PM
1

Yes, that's exactly what I propose. Do you suggest that as soon as someone has been accused of a crime, that a court of law can't convict them of, we strip them of their rights? EDIT: And I don't care if it's less common than rape. Plenty of crimes are less common than other crimes, but how common a crime is has no affect on the fact that victims suffer at the hands of those criminals and the legal system still has to serve those victims. The fact that you think victims of false accusation shoul…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:00 PM
1

No, it leaves the emotional trauma of being a permanent social pariah, and don't you dare even attempt to judge the severity of that trauma unless you've lived it.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:52 PM
2

can you source this? You're assuming these studies don't take severity into account because it suits your bias. According to the data I posted, if you feel like reading it, severity is taken into account.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:50 PM
0

I don't care if it's traumatic. It's the process. You don't think it's traumatic for a man to have to testify against a false accuser? testifying is always a traumatic experience for a victim, but it's a necessary trauma for the protection of innocent people. The world isn't rose-colored, some things are difficult.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 07:10 AM
3

I do realize that women are far more likely to be murdered by their spouses, I meant only that if you hadn't seen the stat you might be surprised by it. I don't agree that "by any measure of severity" women have it worse. Women are more likely to use weapons, and they're more likely to be the sole perpetrators in nonreciprocal cases. This means that aggressive women abuse passive men, while men tend to only abuse women who are abusers themselves.I would call both of those things measures of seve…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 07:08 AM
1

if you ignore the actual research (and there's really not enouhg of it.) A study was done in the 90s at purdue university. There were 109 rape accusations, 45 recanted the accusation when they were told they'd need to take a polygraph. There were also people who took the polygraph and failed by they weren't counted as false accusers, only people who recanted. That's about 50%. Sounds like an epidemic to me.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:55 AM
1

I absolutely do not understand this reasoning. The legal principal is "the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies" and this goes both ways. If she can't prove he raped her, that doesn't instantly make her a false accuser. She would then be tried and it would have to be proved that she made a false accusation. So how, then, does this make it more difficult for victims to come forward?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:49 AM
6

the risk isn't as much higher for women to be killed as you might expect. Men are 26% of intimate partner homicides. Women are 70% of the perpetrators in non reciprocal cases of domestic violence. Women are far more likely to use weapons. Men are far less likely to report, because they feel they should "man up". The flier clearly states that domestic violence is "most often directed against women" which is a falsehood that results in the furthering of the myth that men are more often the aggress…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:36 AM
11

When what you believe goes against objective fact based on empirical research, then you're not about being objective. The evidence is available in the links I've provided above. Domestic violence is mostly gender symmetrical, and in the few places where it is not it seems to be the case that women are more often the aggressors. This has been misconstrued because of under-reporting by men that is a direct result of the kind of misandrist fingers in your ears thinking you're exhibiting here.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:31 AM
33

I replied with this Hi Bryan. I'm a voting saultite with a very important question for you. In some literature I received from your office yesterday, with your signature on the back, you've made the claim that women are most often the victims of domestic violence. My question, mr. Hayes, is what research lead you to that conclusion? I would think that before you began papering the city with your opinion you'd make sure that it was supported by some evidence. As it turns out, you're wrong. Resear…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 02:23 AM
3

And many more who dismiss them out of hand simply because they're arguments against feminism.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:11 PM
7

you should check out Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers where she offers a thorough debunking of this claim. Female students are not encouraged any less than male students. The cousin claim to this is that female students have lower self esteem because of a lack of encouragement, and this is also an untruth. Feel free to read the book I've mentioned for proper sourcing but here's a little thought experiment. If girls are given less encouragement in school, and encouragement affects the…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:57 PM
1

I'm not a troll, I've seen a spectrum of understandings regarding the concept appear here, so I'd like to try to collect them in one place for the sake of more cogent discussion. Do you believe that patriarchy, as you've defined it, has ever existed?
/r/MensRights06/05/13 08:17 PM
13

While I agree the analysis of this drawing to be pretty ridiculous, I have to say I find it hilarious that "Bukkake_Monster" is advising us all that people who are into BDSM shouldn't be allowed to work with kids.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 01:29 PM
2

This is what stood out for me. The Kanin research is very interesting. This alone should have been enough to get research grants to study the issue of false allegation further. As soon as a polygraph is a part of the investigation nearly half the victims confess to having made it up.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 04:50 PM
0

"musical"
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:38 PM
1

I'm not even talking about that particular case anymore, you clearly read the post where I said that I'd retract if he was actually initiating it. I'm saying, in a situation where it's not initiated by the receiving party and the initiating party acts based on a presumption of consent then they're breaking the law. Consent is defined differently in the context of rape. Submission or acquiescence is not necessarily consent, look it up.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:36 AM
1

Consent needs to be given IN THE FIRST PLACE. For example, if I walk up to you, stuff my hand down your jeans and grab your dick I have sexually assaulted you. Nothing that happens after that matters, the assault as already occurred. If you're into it you don't have to charge me for it but that doesn't mean I wasn't presuming consent before actually getting it. I was.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:09 AM
4

neither silence nor assistance are considered consent.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 01:01 AM
2

I suppose that's something to think about. I'm not entirely convinced. As a tactic it's insincere and I feel that it's important to be earnest.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:07 PM
3

But outting feminists isn't the goal. The goal is to shift the paradigm, not tattle on bad feminists. Who are we tattling too, and how will it help in the big picture? We shouldn't be quibbling like children, we should be lobbying for research grants and attempting to appeal to a body of academics who care about the data showing false accusations happen not a body of finger pointers who want to out bad feminists.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:17 PM
4

I'm basing my reaction on what I read in the open letter, I have no more details than what are in there. If what you're describing here is true then I'll retract but I haven't seen the source for it yet.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:03 PM
2

Source? If she, as the open letter describes, rushed the stage uninvited and acted aggressively on the presumption of consent, that is rape whether he stopped her or not.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:57 PM
3

No it doesn't apply here, she acted aggressively on the presumption of consent. That is not ever okay. It was wrong before he ever even had a chance to react.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:55 PM
3

Who does it address? All women. It says "Hey girls, don't falsely accuse people of rape." which implies that they need to be told that, or that if they were thinking about falsely accusing someone after having read this they might change their mind. Similarly the "teach boys not to rape" bullshit assumes that all men are potential rapists and they need to be told that. It's the same tired gender stereotyping that is completely unnecessary. Men don't rape and women don't false accuse. Rapists rap…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:24 PM
2

Why? I think you misunderstood my point. Not all women false accuse, just like not all men rape. The problem with the "Teach men to not rape" concept is that it presupposes that men are potential rapists and that they all need someone to tell them to not rape, otherwise they will. That's a gender stereotype, and an unnecessary one. This message is telling women to not accuse people of rape falsely. Another unnecessary request, as most women don't false accuse.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:20 PM
1

Exactly. It is a more complex problem than people in either camp are willing to admit at this juncture. That's exactly what warren farrell was talking about when he got lambasted by the anti-mra camp. It's a complex problem that we need to be discussing rather than throwing DONT RAPE and DONT FALSE-ACCUSE back and forth. Consent is complex and we need to be working to define it for both parties, not one or the other.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:03 PM
9

Why are you glad to see this? This is the MRM equivalent to "Teach men to not rape". It presents the argument as though all women have a likelihood of being false accusers. This is just another gender stereotype reinforcing campaign that will serve only to polarize the movement further.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:00 PM
1

Do you not think it would be objective to say that there is a social narrative that fosters unnecessary gender stereotypes for men and women and that this is an example of both?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 04:30 PM
1

I don't disagree with your premise. Christina Hoff Sommers spoke in her book about why gender feminists have such an easy time transforming curriculums. To paraphrase: The schools are incensed by an ideology that seems rather like storming the bastiel. Equity feminists have nothing quite as exciting. The problem for me is that the audiences drawn in with these tactics are not reasoned thinkers. If an academic sees Earls death in the media, learns that there is so little help for battered men and…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:48 PM
1

GWW has talked about this far better than I can explain it but male disposability has a lot to do with an antiquated necessity of protecting females, and that obviously implies that they are weak. Society has progressed now to a point where women don't need men to throw themselves to the hazard to protect them, but we still see our disposability in these news articles. That disposability goes hand in hand with the idea that women need protection and that it is a greater tragedy when they die.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:39 PM
1

so to your mind, we can complain about that phrase but women can't, despite the fact that it clearly reinforces unnecessary stereotypes for both genders?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:26 PM
1

Sure it does. The weaker sex doesn't want to be considered the weaker sex, that's the whole point.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 06:32 AM
4

It promulgates the gender stereotype that it is a greater tragedy when women aren't protected from harm. Or that we should all feel worse that we failed in our social duty to protect women and children. It puts them on par with children in that sense.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 04:20 AM
6

disposable and immaterial. But this is a problem for both genders, as it paints women as weak.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:11 AM
5

From Fire with Fire written in the mid 90s by Naomi Wolf, famed feminist: "In fact, when aspiring lawyers, doctors, and university professors at elite East Coast schools were asked whether they saw themselves as feminists, the common response was "I'm not sure what that word means anymore." One woman said, "The last wave of feminism in the seventies had a profound influence on me…However, like a lot of my friends, I hadn't read a 'feminist' book for many long years, because the movement stopped …
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:26 AM
2

If there's truth to what GWW said in her latest video, he has made a great sacrifice to shine a light on what is being done in this movement. And under that spotlight we can either light a fire with impetuous harangue, or we can do what we've been doing by using it to illuminate the paradigm that disenfranchises and discriminates against men and boys. To my mind, if you believe in what we're doing you shouldn't feel the need to use coercive tactics to draw membership or motivate existing members…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:16 AM
2

The civil rights movement was full to the brim with ideologues. Neither their membership nor their participation affects the validity of the movement, only it's image. It could even be said that sensational rhetoric is galvanizing and you wouldn't be wrong. This is an important thing to consider going forward though, that the quality of membership suffers when their impetus is anger rather than information. That is my opinion, and I understand that I'm not the only voice here. I'm just afraid th…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:46 AM
3

If an argument is reasonable there should be no need to appeal to anything but the argument itself. Appealing to emotion is what radical ideologues do. It's what gender feminists do. It's coercive. What we need is a strong tie movement of people who believe in the cause because they have reasoned to, not a weak tie army of the persuaded. This tragedy provides us a soap box upon which we can stack either study after study or or tirade after tirade. One will attract a scholastic audience, the othe…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:16 AM
2

I agree with you here. I don't mean to be critical in a condescending way. I understand this is a tragedy that hits closer to home with some than it does with others, I'm just hoping a little perspective can be maintained. I was appalled to see GWW's comments on that video wherein she defends an appeal to emotion over rational discussion because "it's what works". As a big fan of her work that shook me more than anything JTO or Elam said on the matter.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:38 PM
7

Now, can we stop sensationalizing this into a caricature, and treat it with the sound reasoning it deserves? These tirades are very lyrical but they patronize the seriousness of the situation.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 09:15 PM
2

I agree with your valid concern, I have since the first time I read it. That is so far outside the scope of my complaint that you've lost me on why you repeated it.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:03 PM
1

You're definitely the one projecting. You came into a discussion about a charity and started projecting your anti-avfm message into it. It doesn't fit here. You're shoehorning a square peg into a round hole. If you have a problem with AVFM feel free to express it, but derailing this discussion for the opportunity to voice an unrelated grudge is misplaced. Take it elsewhere.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 07:23 PM
2

Would you think it the right move to delete a post calling for feminists to donate to a battered womens shelter?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 07:16 PM
1

I can appreciate what you're saying but lets not sink to their level by shaming. It's a tactic beneath our purpose. Let's focus on the movement and ignore the riff raff.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:14 PM
1

Of course, none of this speculation as to the reason matters. It's his money. As long as he's doing his fair share to keep his family comfortable, she shouldn't feel entitled to a surplus of what he has earned. If she would rather be in a relationship with someone that shares finances then that's entirely her prerogative but she's not owed an equal access to his accounts simply because she married him.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:36 AM
1

I guess if I were to accept your definition of oppression I would agree that there has never a time that women were subjugated completely, in the way that other subjugated groups, like slaves for example, were. Is it your argument though that women as a gender have never been at a general disadvantage? I would argue that historically women have been, at times, disadvantaged while men were empowered. I don't believe this to hold currently. Maybe oppression is the wrong word.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 01:37 AM
3

I thought big red explained this proficiently.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:55 AM
1

In the future I'll say group instead of class in this context. To my mind, while an oppressor is implied, it is not necessary that the complicity of the oppressor is deliberate. I would agree that gender roles are the result of natural processes rather than the result of any effort on the part of men. This does not change the fact that women had to actively seek equality under the law. That simple fact tells us that in the past women held lesser political and social capacity than men. The oppres…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:29 AM
2

However, if you concede that women were an oppressed class at any point in history (and some of us do) then it stands to reason that young women should be given the opportunity to learn about that. The alternative, which is occurring all over the US and has been for a long time, is transformationist feminists reforming text books to be gender symmetrical even where gender symmetry does not exist. Political history text books strive to balance mention of men and women despite that political histo…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 11:52 PM
-1

Personally I have a problem with the idea of these lists in the first place. I don't see their purpose. A list of people with whom AVFM disagrees, or a list of people with whom SPLC disagrees, are useless to me unless I identify with these groups in perfect parallel. And even then what use is it to have a list of people I don't agree with?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 11:45 PM
1

I'm careful to use the descriptor anti-mrm feminists. I've also heard them described, and to my mind this is accurate, by christina hoff sommers as gender feminists rather than equity feminists.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:56 PM
-2

Look closer, there are plenty of individuals. Click any group to get data on members.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:28 PM
2

hear hear. It truly interests me how powerful the reddit feminist echo chamber is. They honestly believe that mens rights has no leverage, and that most feminists oppose the movement.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 02:08 AM
3

There is no reason to do this. The argument would stand even if he was a devil worshipping neo nazi. To judge the issue based on the man is argumentum ad hominem.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:59 PM
5

legitimate concern, this exact phrasing was misinterpreted as a call for violence when paul elam used it. Let's learn from that mistake.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:58 PM
3

This needs more Canadian news sources. Here is a contact page for Avery Haines of CityTV, she has been sympathetic to the movement recently RE the warren farrell speech debacle. http://www.citynews.ca/topic/the-inside-story-with-avery-haines/
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:41 PM
4

His suicide was last friday April 26th. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:35 PM
1

If you think my intention was to persuade you then you're mistaken. My intention was to point out the fallacy of your logic. Take that or leave it, I'm sufficiently satisfied with the result.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:26 PM
2

I don't necessarily agree. It wouldn't be acceptable for two talk show hosts to make a joke about man on woman rape on television, but there are still fringe pockets where rape culture exists the way feminists see it. Some parts of the military, for example. Among many of the people complicit or apathetic in the steubenville case for another. It's important to be pragmatic about the scope of our fight and the battles we choose. We don't always have to create a dichotomy of which gender has it wo…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:39 PM
2

that a joke about raping women would never be made casually between two popular talk show hosts, and if it were there would be hell to pay.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:57 PM
1

Right, but my argument is persuasive whether I repeat it or not. :)
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:55 PM
2

I don't know if it's actually true that men are more likely, but I do also wonder why it's done in general. Personally I don't have a problem with making jokes about dark subjects.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:24 AM
1

No, it's an expression of frustration because she expresses her frustration by saying very specifically that she's frustrated using the world "frustrated". You're definitely the one stretching.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:21 AM
1

No, I've been making the same point the entire time. That her position is an expression of frustration and that those of us who are unfamiliar with the climate of behavior at her school are unequipped by analyze whether or not her frustration is justified.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:39 AM
1

She doesn't owe it to you to demonstrate anything. It's op ed, and you're not the intended audience. You can't know for sure how the climate of behavior at that school is viewed by it's students and therefore you cannot make the claims you're making honestly.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:32 AM
3

no, but you should be offended by the double standard.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:27 AM
1

Not really, the letter is simply an expression of her frustration that the student president is tying all these positive qualities to the team through this new logo while, to her mind, the players on the teams don't actually have those qualities. You seem to be really reaching for reasons to punish this woman, but there really are none. If anyone looks like they have a bone to pick it's the author of the original article and the people here who are condemning her for expressing her frustration w…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:32 AM
3

I could be wrong but I think collective82 is a plant or a troll, either here to make us look bad or to annoy us. he mostly posts in this subreddit and 90% of what he says is blatantly misogynist or worse, like this one, pernicious.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:32 AM
6

Which is precisely why soundbites are useless in critical discourse.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 12:31 AM
2

true. youth does, however, beget inexperience, immaturity, and impressionability.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 07:08 PM
2

define your terms, what do you consider consent? There is the issue of coercion. A 15 year old doesn't consent in the same way or for the same reasons that an 18 year old consents. Ideally, an adult has a grasp of this concept and won't take advantage of it.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 05:52 PM
3

IDK, how do you feel about the assertion that the measure of a mans "best" is his ability to impress a woman? It's a mild problem, but OP isn't really wrong about it being a problem.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:38 AM
2

To my understanding, getting the short end of the stick means coming out of some kind of engagement on the losing end.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:01 AM
-1

hear, hear.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 01:57 AM
4

yup. And they're a "friend of the fempire"! :) http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSMeta/comments/r6h1s/the_srs_fempire_directory/
/r/MensRights07/04/13 03:23 AM
2

I still fail to see what your point was with this post? It's like you missed all the irony.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 02:53 AM
3

yeah, I guess that kinda proves the existence of misandry in a really ironic way.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:41 PM
2

Chrome recognizes it.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:02 PM
1

It does exist here, but it exists everywhere. Those comments are all buried under downvotes because most of us here aren't bigoted.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:53 PM
7

I wasn't bashing any of those things. I was implying that just because misandry doesn't show up in google chromes spellcheck doesn't mean it has validity as a term. Just like all those other things.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:41 PM
7

members of that subreddit were making a snarky joke about misandry not being real, so I made a snarky reply showing them a bunch of things commonly used in feminist theory that "aren't real" according to their logic. They're all actually valid terms, though some here might disagree.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:32 PM
0

equally valid positions? or equally invalid positions?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:40 PM
4

It's not really a hate group. They're against the movement, not actually against mens rights. They consider those to be different things.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:28 PM
4

looks like this comment is also being brigaded :P
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:25 PM
1

The name of the subreddit is purposely meant to annoy you, but really they're just against the mensrights movement, not necessarily against mens rights as the name implies.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:58 PM
2

shit man, to the fucking top with you. I wish I had more upvotes to give.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:56 PM
2

First, how would it count upvotes on myself from an alternate account? second, I have another account but I've never upvoted myself from it. For some reason it's just always been that way.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:45 PM
20

I was trying to imply that, while those are all relevant terms, chrome spellcheck doesn't think so.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 04:20 PM
87

I actually posted it last night and got banned for it this morning. I snapped a pic right after I posted it because I had a sneaking suspicion I'd be banned.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 04:19 PM
3

I disagree with both the OP and you on a few things. The whole rape culture narrative seems to conflate victim blaming with simply giving advice. If you were a tourist in my city, and I advised you to not walk down grace and elgin alone at night because there is a high likelihood that you could be mugged, this is not victim blaming. Similarly if I advised you not to have casual sex with your good friend harry cause harry has the herp, this isn't victim blaming. Similarly if I advise you not to f…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:35 AM
2

He asked her to get on her knees, and she did. How is that not saying yes. It might not be verbal, but it's clearly compliant. I don't know what kind of sex you people have where every step of the way is mother may I.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:24 PM
1

Nah, I agree that they did, and I'm not hating on TYT, I'm just talking about how uncomfortable they seem to have to say it. Both of them keep stammering and clarifying.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:21 PM
1

She did say yes. Very clearly. She said "I want to have sex" She could have just as easily said no, or "I don't want to do this".
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:49 AM
2

It's difficult to even look at these issues carefully because of the hypersensitivity that exists in our culture toward feminist issues. These concepts, like what consent really means to all parties involved rather than what it means to victims of rape, aren't new, but are still foggy and need to be discussed openly in forums such as this. I really do appreciate the back and forth because we can both come away with a new perspective on the issue. So thanks to you too :)
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:15 AM
5

I take your point, and I haven't given it enough thought yet, but my instinct is still to disagree. There's a difference between someone threatening to take your life and someone threatening to fire you from your job. If your initial analogy with the boss threatening to fire her if she didn't have sex with him was instead her boss threatening to kill her if she didn't have sex with him, I would call that rape rather than compliance under duress, the reason being that she actually cannot reject a…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:24 AM
2

don't get me wrong, It definitely wasn't a good situation. I'm only arguing that it was not rape. She was clear enough when she initially consented. She was unclear when she changed her mind. The onus is not on him to pick out her signals, it's on her to tell him she doesn't want it.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:47 AM
2

If consent, in this case, is defined as giving permission to engage in sex then I would contend that compliance under duress is still consent. If a boss threatens to fire her for losing her job she can still reject. If she complies the crime is blackmail, not rape. If she rejects and sex still occurs, that is rape.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:28 AM
7

I agree. I just thought it was kind of interesting how hard it is for someone to publicly state the obvious when it might offend feminists.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:09 AM
-1

Every man has the potential to be a rapist, therefore a good man will take the onus upon himself to make sure that he isn't one. Saying that a woman has to be clear, or blaming the woman for not being clear, is the same as blaming her for the rape that has already or will eventually happen to her. Don't teach women to not be raped, teach men to not rape. poes law, this was meant as satire.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 12:45 AM
3

Compliance to a sexual request is consent.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 12:38 AM
-1

Well who's stopping them? By all means, stop complaining about the wage gap and actually do equal work if you want wage to balance. And let fathers raise their children, rather than lobbying the government to continue legislating sexism by gender stereotyping.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:43 AM
1

I don't agree, not because I'm bitter but because I reject the concept. Patriarchy presupposes that the social construct was created by men to oppress women. I don't buy it. I agree with everything you're saying, but labeling it patriarchy grants hypoagency to the women who are complicit in it's creation. The way I see it, based on my careful study, is that the gender roles that have been constructed were fostered as much by men as by women, and the result negatively affects both men and women.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:24 AM
1

Lemme see if I'm following you here. It's male privilege that fosters a culture of violence against men and boys. Privileged male oppressors have constructed a social paradigm that grants them the privilege of being victims. I think I'm following you here. "Oppression" under patriarchy is when a man works to support, and risks life and limb for, a woman. The victimization she suffers is the cultural perspective that women are weak, which is a direct result of their oppressors doing all the work …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:25 PM
5

It's the 3rd edition of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-River-Anthology-Composition-1st/dp/0697776328 I have no idea if the same article is in the one linked.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 04:39 AM
11

HMMMM I wonder if he might be projecting insecurities he has about his own masculinity onto men who don't feel like they have to crawl around on all fours to appeal to women?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:08 AM
1

There is far too much evidence stacked up against her character for her to go free.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:39 AM
12

This might be an unpopular opinion but I feel like there's a subtle lesson to be learned about humanity between the lines in this facebook post. He was insulted but his reaction, while maybe a little bitter, he still wanted to offer help. We need to look at all people, especially the ones conditioned to be cynical by radical ideologies, as more than their attitudes. Rise above it by understanding that they are a product of a social paradigm that fosters these ideas and treat it as a symptom rath…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:12 PM
3

Did you read the second banner? It was the second banner that confirmed it for me. It could have went either way before I had read that.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 05:28 PM
-1

I see what you're trying to do, but I don't see how this one is any better than the other. It's sexist in the same way.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:51 AM
3

The fact that they don't feel the need to state it outright is symptomatic of the problem. Have a look at the other banner posted below for further proof of this.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:45 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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