TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

equalopportunityaus Archive

View 2 posts and 71 comments by equalopportunityaus 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 think, that if their focus was really about stopping violence, it would be about violence and be non gendered. If it is really about female victim-hood and male demonisation, you get a sign worded like this which harms everybody. Saying nothing about female instigated violence or males being victims shows they do not care about dealing with violence at all.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 04:34 AM
2

I do not think that they think that far outside of themselves. They support their network and its goals because of the potential and power it brings "them". Purely selfish. Otherwise they would be more consistent to their stated principles. The daughter thing might line up with what they say they are for, but attacking other women outside their network shows that is not what they really stand for. This is just my observations. Just a quick question, how many hardcore feminists do you know that h…
/r/MensRights26/11/16 04:16 AM
3

Sorry, I was commenting on the "They want jobs for their daughters" part. You are right about the DV industry part though.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 03:28 AM
3

I never understand why the "AGAINST WOMAN AND GIRLS" is required. Without it, it would be a much better sign. At the moment I am having issues with my daughter's school based on the same thing. Why can they not just teach that violence is bad? Why does it have to be gendered?
/r/MensRights26/11/16 03:05 AM
14

I also think that if the victim looses his job and finds themselves less employable, the false accuser has to pay the difference. Also, if the accusation is to try and get leverage in a case like divorce or custody, then the accuser should automatically have all judgements go against them. This should be for all false accusations using law enforcement not just rape.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 02:44 AM
6

That would mean that they care about more than themselves. I have not seen any evidence of that (ie attacking other women that do not agree with them).
/r/MensRights26/11/16 02:35 AM
5

I agree that she should be charged, but the article is lacking any detail about her. So why the the jumping to conclusion? I know that history would show no consequence for the accuser in general and this needs to change. But this is not an "in general", it is a specific case and the information is not in the article.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 09:31 PM
13

As long as housework is defined as any unpaid work to keep the house in order. I am lucky that my wife sees mowing the lawn, house maintenance, etc as house work and is included in the split (as she does not want to do them). But most of my friends, they could spend a whole day working outside to keep the house/garden kept and their wife would complain that they have done none of the housework (but would complain if the lawn had not been mowed). I get this impression from a lot of articles also …
/r/MensRights23/11/16 09:11 PM
6

And if a man does it, it is Manterrupting or Mansplaining.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 10:48 AM
3

I'd certainly boycott a company for something they did directly Wasn't hiring her something that they did directly?
/r/MensRights22/11/16 08:05 AM
3

Is it ironic that years ago to be a feminist you had to be an activist, but to get more women in the club they had to lower the bar?
/r/MensRights22/11/16 07:57 AM
3

Reality speaks for itself and remains the same regardless of any illusions covering your eyes. That sentence contradicts itself. Perception IS reality for the person perceiving it. Science as an attempt to define reality. It requires independent verification which is an attempt at a defining a predictable shared/common reality. Compared to science, people and history are messy and complex. The lack of verification of your FACTS here, and your "It is Fact" mentality says more about you and possib…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 12:47 AM
1

Well said
/r/MensRights11/11/16 10:57 AM
4

His original statement and the statement of the two other guys were consistent with her behavior during a consensual encounter in which she took charge. If there were specific details that could not be generalized, then that is enough to cast doubt on her story.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:38 PM
1

Did they only know about it because she confessed to her parole officer?
/r/MensRights09/11/16 01:59 AM
2

A cross between "what the" and "stay away from my kids". I have even been to Gymnastic Comps with no male toilets at all at the premises (which is slightly different but shows a culture).
/r/MensRights06/11/16 08:47 PM
12

I hear you. Some of the looks I have gotten just from walking down the street with my daughter or dropping her off at dance class, you would be surprised. Always from women though.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 06:42 AM
7

I don't understand ... That means you are thinking. Feminism (in the west) does not like anybody thinking for themselves because then there would be no feminists.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 06:34 AM
7

Sounds to me like somebody tried to learn to code but did not have the mindset for it. Therefore sexism. Obviously her superpower is jumping to outrageous conclusions in a single bound and contradicting herself within three paragraphs.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 02:16 AM
2

"a grand idea" drips of facetiousness Potentially not with the so called expert in the article, but I take your point.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 03:59 AM
1

Mentioning that they never speak of those dangers is one thing. Saying that they think it "is a grand idea" is putting words in somebody's mouth (in the absence of a quote) and goes a little to far in my opinion. I like it better the way you said it earlier "they're indicating what they think is the more important issue" which is not a leap based on their silence.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 03:15 AM
1

I have no problem having anything I say examined and checked against the facts. I hope you were not thinking that I was questioning that in any way. I actually want to see the film. My point was that I think it is more than just the MRM standing against the feminists as their attempt to censor is indefensible by any reasonable person, irrespective of the content, because of my previous points.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 02:58 AM
2

What the so called expert said in the article is absolute bull and I would question anybody that calls her an expert. Her views here have no evidence to back them up and (if taken seriously) could be quite damaging to families that are already in a fragile state. You could be right and she might have those extra views. I personally believe that the article is s*** on its own merit, and that introducing other things (which in the context of this article could be considered a straw-man) is not hel…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 07:13 AM
8

I think it is more than just MRMs vs Feminists in this case. I am an Egalitarian and I oppose the feminist position here because: I have the right to see it no matter what the content so that I can make my own mind about it I do not have to take anybodies word for what the content is or what somebody has said, especially when I can look at the evidence for myself If the feminists in this case are so sure that their position is right, then should it no hold up to any counter arguments I get the f…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 01:53 AM
18

One that might soon come out as Michaela Moore. You know, Freudian slip.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:21 AM
3

Would she not exist if is was not for a "White Straight" Man? Oh s***, I think I just made her case for her.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:09 AM
1

Experts also think having random men sleep over is a grand idea - that's why they never speak against it. Did I miss something because I did not see that in the article and I do not think it is relevant to the issue at hand. Completely separate issue.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:04 AM
4

You beat me to it.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:02 AM
8

Interesting! I have never understood the whole forcing someone into the life of a child when they do not want to be there (financially or any other way). The resentment that lingers in the environment would have to cause some harm to the child and put an unhealthy relationship in the face of the child. Even though it is not the child's fault, they still pick up on the tension between the adults. The other thing that surprises me is that this issue is always put in the context of abortion, but th…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 11:57 PM
2

I don't know if allowing women is the issue. I think it is that to meet quotas, the standards have to be lowered. If they meet the same standards as the men had to before, that is equality.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:44 AM
5

I just saw woman so self important that they are oblivious to their surroundings. Could also be taken as, look at the shit men have to put up with being surrounded by delusional women.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:40 AM
1

She is obviously a strong woman to have overcome all those bonding hormones.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:21 AM
1

If a person chooses the submissive role, is it really submission?
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:14 AM
1

You are right Equality should be all encompassing. But advocating any forced ratio is not Equality, it is Equity.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:08 AM
2

I do not know if this would apply to war in the same way. But I remember reading how the lowing of standards in fire fighting in America to allow more women to pass the physical requirements was putting the men's lives at risk. It was looking at the stats of the increased injuries in male fire fights where a woman was in their group. It said that in general, for every woman added to a group, the men had to take up the physical slack of the jobs the woman could not handle like carrying an unconsc…
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:00 AM
2

All I can say is "How dare that B**** not let me make my own mind up about it."
/r/MensRights31/10/16 11:56 AM
3

This is the reason this was started https://www.change.org/p/malcolm-turnbull-please-officially-define-equality-when-used-by-legislation-and-government-programs If we can force the government to use the word Equality correctly and not use Equality when they really mean Equity, then all their printed material and lesson plans will be invalid. The current funding would not be allowed to apply to the course as it is also.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 10:53 AM
0

I did not say that he did or did not want to deny Milo. Just that it is seen as an informal club.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 09:31 PM
2

I thought EricAllonde starting with "Milo isn't an MRA" was quite apt for my point. If there is no informal club for the MRA title, then how can it's cause be hurt?
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:49 PM
1

You are not wrong, it is only one way. We survive with a combination of not everyone knows it and so do not take the legal steps to start the process, and it takes a special kind of bitch to do it and they are a small percentage. But if you roll the dice and get the wrong one, your are royally f*****. So we try and stay away from crazy ones and self identifying feminists. I have only heard of the above case with the 75% rule. Where guys get screwed more here is when the government departments ge…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 10:50 AM
1

The true rule is de facto relationship = 75% and a de facto relationship is anywhere it can be proven that you cohabitated as a couple for at least 3 months. This could include evidence you were a couple and both of your phone bills going to the same address three months ago. In nearly every other way, a de facto relationship is equal to a marriage according to the government. My next door neighbour's grandson owned his own house. Meet a girl and let her move in. Three months later she moved out…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:17 AM
1

I do not know, i was just asking a question because you might have known something that I did not.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:04 AM
1

Genuine question: what other type of recognized marriage is there?
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:48 AM
1

Not here in Australia, not taking into account children Marry her, she gets 50% of your shit Live with her for 3 months, she gets 75% of your shit A magistrate here said "that is the cost of not making an honest woman out of her" so here marriage can actually reduce your exposure.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:42 AM
1

Here in Australia we do not have alimony, so can it go both ways or only to the woman?
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:27 AM
4

Also, most men are not in leadership roles, so by feminist logic does that mean most men are also oppressed?
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:09 AM
5

Put them on the back foot!! Here in Australia, it is illegal to pay somebody different for the same job except where the wage was negotiated. When somebody tells me that the wage gap is true for the same job, I point them to the Australian Beau of Statistic which has a warning on their wage data that it cannot be used like that. Then they try and give an example (which is never like for like) but I just respond with "then why did you not report it, does that not make you complicit in the problem…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:05 AM
8

The whole reason this was started: https://www.change.org/p/malcolm-turnbull-please-officially-define-equality-when-used-by-legislation-and-government-programs The fight has to start somewhere.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:49 AM
3

Warning: Sarcasm Included!!! Because the participants personal views could not affect their views on the candidates policies. It has to be only gender based.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:41 AM
1

Do you know more than me about MGM? Are you right about MGM? There is a high possibility. Not really relevant as my point was about the logic of the statement and I never said or implied anything about MGM. You could be 100% right but nobody will listen if you invalidate them and set a platform where they could never be right. Your logic seemed to be: If you are circumcised then you are "suffering psychologically" and your opinion is not valid unless it is the same as mine. To me that sounds lik…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 04:43 AM
1

I said "To me that sounds like" which is an opinion. I did not say you used a term. I implied that the logic seemed the same as used by feminists when they use "Internalized Misogyny". You are the one making a judgement about his mental state with no evidence. I think it was even mentioned here somewhere that he is not circumcised. Ad Hominem - put irrelevant point here therefore his views are not valid. You are the one showing your ignorance. I said nothing for or against MGM, just that using a…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 04:05 AM
1

But it's possible that because of his Jewish connection (his mother would be technically Jewish) that he may have been subject to MGM as an infant, and thus is suffering from the psychological effects of that; i.e.: he will defend MGM. To me that sounds like an equivalent to the feminist bullshit term "Internalized Misogyny" and an Ad Hominem. Not a statement of any merit.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:18 AM
2

good point
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:05 AM
0

How does asking a question about a question not relate to the question? And no I am not. (see my other response to you)
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:57 AM
0

I do not think that criticizing Milo is the same as censoring/silencing him. You could be right that I am reading more into the question than is intended by the OP. But that is exactly my point. Not everybody will see the question as the OP intended. In my opinion if the question was "Do you think that Milo hurts Men's Rights?" then the OP is talking about the views he sees as conflicting. Saying "MRA cause" sound to me more like questioning his membership to a club, and the result could be cens…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:52 AM
-4

Conflicting to you because of your information and point of view. His point of view and information maybe different to yours. Right and wrong is not always straightforward. That does not change the fact he has the right to talk about it, and you have the right to counter it with your views, take his points on board or ignore them. Just like we are doing here.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:27 AM
0

Then why ask the question? (Maybe look there)
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:20 AM
1

It is funny because in a lot of cases it is true. I have even taken my daughter to Gymnastic Competitions that did not even have male toilets on the premises. For her to get ready, I had to send her into the female toilets with a mother that I knew. And I was busting the whole comp.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:18 AM
6

Hold your horses there mate, you are acting like a feminist!!! How do you know that this is not the owners way of protesting a situation that he felt discriminated in. He might just be shining light on what he sees is the issue. I don't know and neither do you. A picture like this without context is just a picture. Your reaction is all about you and you could be attacking and alienating an like minded person if you sent "a shit storm".
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:12 AM
-1

Why is this a question? He has the right to speak even if you do not agree with him. Anything else and you are becoming what I assume you hate.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:00 AM
6

Is this a test to see if we actually go and read the article? The article "Amy Schumer Show producer gets called out on racism at podcast taping" has nothing to do with the above title.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:51 PM
2

Why is it that everything now days has to be gendered? Initiating violence and sexual assault/rape (for example) is bad no matter the gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, race, religion or any other factor that the victim or perpetrator is. Introducing irrelevant facts are to create a false moral scale which enables people to justify a heinous act sometimes or call the exact same act a hate crime at other times, based on a non objective relative perspective. Child birth and contra…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:21 PM
2

Glad you like it, but at the moment we are having trouble getting people aware of it.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:49 PM
1

She is an asshole, but because of her crime. Her defense is by her lawyer, not her. So who is the asshole now?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:33 AM
1

No, it is her lawyers job to do that. The Judge only needs to take into account the things that are brought up in the case. That is why the quality of the lawyer can make such a difference.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:27 AM
2

It is because of bullshit like this that in Australia we are starting to try and fight it by making the Government define what is meant by Equality https://www.change.org/p/malcolm-turnbull-please-officially-define-equality-when-used-by-legislation-and-government-programs
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:20 AM
23

Based on the way the teacher is talking, I don't think his grade will be applied without bias.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:13 AM
1

I thought that sexual predator = serial molester.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:36 AM
1

This is a very dishonest article. They get Gold for their Mental Gymnastics. How the **** is equality (of opportunity) oppression?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:23 AM
2

Also did this: https://www.change.org/p/malcolm-turnbull-please-officially-define-equality-when-used-by-legislation-and-government-programs to try and fight back against the SJW/feminist ideology sneaking in to Australia (as it already has started to).
/r/MensRights29/10/16 07:55 AM
1

This is a very dishonest article. They get Gold for their Mental Gymnastics. How the **** is equality (of opportunity) oppression?
/r/AntiFeminists29/10/16 07:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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