TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kickinwayne45 Archive

View 3 posts and 190 comments by kickinwayne45 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

The question it all comes down to: is gender 100% socially constructed or do you think there is any part of it that is nature/innate?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:58 AM
2

Rosie the Riveter is the WW2 propaganda chick making a bicep curl, not a reference to the Rosary.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:57 AM
2

Yet, while women were stepping up during WW2, it was the men who fought and died. At the very least, OP is trying to point out the unrealized contributions that men have made. It should cause us to think twice before dismissing the need for men entirely and think deeply about what kind of equality we, including women, actually want. You want 50% of workplace deaths and 50% of combat deaths? You can have it. If not, a little appreciation would be nice.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:56 AM
–

People view gender stuff way too often as absolutist "zero-sum." Like saying "men are generally stronger than women" in their mind = "all men are stronger and all women are weak" In my mind, gender things are more like 60/40 or maybe 70/30. Exceptions don't make the rule, they are exceptions to the rule.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:52 AM
1

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1 Cor 6:18 bro. You can see it on half their faces like, "I'm outta here"
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:27 AM
3

bossy
/r/MensRights17/04/15 02:22 PM
1

Read some of the abolitionists or Martin Luther King Jr. Seriously, do it. It was the strength of their moral arguments appeals to absolute Truth that changed the country. No absolute Truth, no change, that's just how history works.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 12:12 AM
1

So... when 51% of Americans believed it was totally okay and good to own slaves, that meant it was moral and good? I guess the abolitionists should have just gone with the flow, eh? But once 51% decided that it wrong, it became wrong? What about the states where 90% thought slavery was okay? Should we have allowed them to keep slaves? The problem with your subjective morality is that there is no place to stand on, no progress toward higher values. Martin Luther King should have kept to himself. …
/r/MensRights10/02/15 09:16 PM
1

So if someone's morals said that slicing their baby in half is okay, should they do it? Would you let them?
/r/MensRights10/02/15 08:54 PM
1

Just because Truth is complicated doesn't mean it isn't there. Yes, "Hitler was wrong" is an over-generalization. He may have been right about how to efficiently run a train system. But he was definitely, absolutely, objectively, ethically wrong that Jews are not human and should be wiped off the planet. More often than not, people don't use those phrases like you did. They use them like you alluded TwoX does. They say "agree to disagree" as a way to relativise and diffuse the situation without …
/r/MensRights09/02/15 10:33 PM
1

written by a woman too
/r/MensRights11/01/15 07:25 AM
1

Ah yes. Pride is the root of all evil, isn't it?
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:59 AM
1

how do you mean?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 11:59 PM
3

if our default is towards self-hatred, its okay to aim a little too far to the pride. that just means you're more likely to get it right.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 05:29 AM
2

not when you make your own truth. thank you post modernism, the prevalent philosophy on campus and bane in my intellectual existence.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 04:30 AM
2

but seriously, put your penis away. wavin it around at all these loose women, askin for trouble...
/r/MensRights03/12/14 07:47 PM
1

i don't understand what you re trying to say
/r/MensRights02/12/14 05:33 AM
1

I think this is a good thing for /r/mensrights. Boys learn differently than girls and this sounds like a great way to help with all of the ways that boys are falling behind and expected to act like girls.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 01:48 AM
0

It is actually not a rule that women cannot play in the NFL. A few years ago there was the first and only woman to ever get a tryout for an NFL team (as a kicker). She didn't make it. There have been all of 9 women to play in the history of college football at any level. One of them was not a kicker. Now, again, there are no rules against female players. So why are they not more prevalent? Because women are inherently physically weaker than men Why else would there be a separate Women's NBA? Or …
/r/MensRights24/11/14 10:23 PM
1

bro. i did not even realize you were the same person. hahaha.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 09:56 PM
1

double comment threat argument?
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:56 PM
0

Again, it's 60/40 (or so). Exceptions do not make the rule, they are the exceptions. So some women, with skill and training, may be better at fighting then some men. But if a trained man and a trained woman fought each other, the man wins every time. So man should be protector 60/40. Women tend to be naturally nurturing, let the women spend time with the child early in it's life, nursing, and being nurturing 60/40. So that she can spend time doing this, let the man focus on providing, 60/40. Wom…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:55 PM
1

Do you believe that men and women have biological differences which give them different strengths and weaknesses?
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:27 PM
1

Well cool! I guess i need to be clearer lol. You can understand some of my frustration, no? It seems so obvious and sensible, but people are often so encapsulated by rabid egalitarianism that any suggestion men and women are different people freak out.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:25 PM
1

Well cool! I will try and state it like that a little earlier next time! lol
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:23 PM
1

Yeah I'm not saying to force anyone to do anything. There is and should be freedom to pursue your passions and raise your family how you see fit. However, I think it makes sense that we learn about and encourage each gender to lean into their biological strengths. Exceptions do not make the rule, they are exceptions to it. We should allow freedom for exceptions while also encouraging the biological strengths each gender has.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 04:56 AM
1

Right, so I'm not for forcing anybody to do things they don't want to do. There is absolutely still freedom. But I think it is wise to learn about and encourage each gender to lean into their strengths.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 04:49 AM
1

On the contrary, nursing is proven to have a substantial impact on building relationship b/w child and mother, even with adoptions. Again don't think I'm suggesting people must restrict themselves to perfectly mutually exclusive gender roles. I think it's more 60/40 or so. Freedom "to do what you want" is a bad thing when what you want what isn't as beneficial as what you ought to do. What if I don't want to be involved in my child's life at all? What if the mom and dad want to work all the time…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 11:58 PM
1

I say they exist, you say they aren't necessary. Those are two different arguments. If you address mine I will address yours. Do you believe that there are distinct biological differences between men and women that give them different strengths and weaknesses?
/r/MensRights23/11/14 11:44 PM
1

I don't think that technology is a substitute for nature. What you may try and replicate through formula will never be as good as the real thing. Notice I'm not saying that women make better parents, but better nurturers. It makes sense that a woman, having a child suckling from the breasts for the first 7 months, would have a close intimate and delicate relationship with the child. The father's role comes in later as he helps teach kinesthetic knowledge, discipline, wisdom, and of course dad jo…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 07:20 PM
1

so women get to have a given, more natural, role but men don't? If we are willingly to say women are more naturally a nurturer we should be able to say men are more naturally a provider.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 07:14 PM
1

But you realize this "modern age where gender roles aren't necessary" has only existed for around 100 years in comparison to the rest of human history? I don't think that biological impulses are so easily overcome and to do so goes against our nature. It's ridiculous to say it's not important that women are the gender that stores a baby in it's stomach for 9 months and has natural baby food factories on their chest. That is a foundational biological truth about women, how does that not play a ro…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:49 AM
1

so the fact that men naturally have more testosterone and stronger muscles has nothing to do with why they did more protecting and fighting? The fact that women store babies in their stomachs and have natural baby food factories on their chest has nothing to do with why they did more nurturing?
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:45 AM
0

Our biological form carries with it implications for our societal function. Men have more testosterone, which creates bigger muscles, more aggressiveness, simpler thinking. Women have more estrogen, this makes them more nurturing and relational. These biological TRUTHS tells us about the roles men and women should fill. Men are better able to protect against physical attack. Women are better able nurture their children. A pregnant woman can't or shouldn't fight against attackers. She literally h…
/r/MensRights22/11/14 09:03 PM
1

Do you agree that, in the past, there were different roles for man and women based on their biology?
/r/MensRights22/11/14 08:56 PM
0

So you agree that we have different biological roles for each gender? I would agree that intelligence and especially technology have made the roles less necessary. But I think it is foolish to pretend our entire biological history never existed, to suppress and push down the natural inclinations of our sex, and to ignore where they still be relevant in necessary. For me as a man, it is helpful for me to define my manhood not as whatever I want it to be (what the heck do I know?) but based on the…
/r/MensRights22/11/14 07:02 AM
-1

Gene variation was not the point of my example. It was to show where women and men's value comes from in community based on their biological strengths. I would love to hear a response relevant to my point. Why is that sexist?
/r/MensRights22/11/14 06:56 AM
0

Any time you have a standard, people will have shame who don't meet that standard. I don't think shame is an effective motivator but I don't we should remove all standards because it might create shame.
/r/MensRights22/11/14 06:53 AM
-1

The biological function and imperative of a man is to protect, procreate, and provide. I haven't done enough reading to comment extensively on "womanhood" except to say that it compliments manhood while they are also not mutually exclusive. Women tend to be more nurturing, relational, and emotional. This actually balances men out who, without women, become brutish, harsh, and obsessed. That is not to say men can't be nurturing or women can't be protective. It's more 60/40.
/r/MensRights22/11/14 06:50 AM
-1

/r/mensrights has an unfortunate trend of resisting feminism in it's neglect of men but still embracing it's general rejection of gender. We talk about men's rights but have no idea what it actually means to be a man.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:33 PM
-3

no, they are the equivalent of men being productive in society. However, she is not fulfilling her full potential contribution. A woman can produce children (thus fulfilling her biological function) and help society by producing and protecting. In fact, society is better for it. But when a man neglects his biological function of protecting and providing, and is not bearing children, he helps fulfill the role of neither man nor woman. I know people are down voting me but if you would actually pau…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:25 PM
0

it takes women 9 months to go through the birthing process, a man 20 minutes to be ready to go again. You could have one man and 40 women and populate a village just fine. That village, however, would be extremely vulnerable to attack and malnutrition. Hence, men's primary value in society comes from producing and protecting. A village of 40 men and 1 woman, however, might be quite strong but stands no chance of reaching the next generation because they can't repopulate fast enough. Hence, a wom…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:17 PM
-3

its biological.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:15 PM
-15

I can't say much about the status of "woman," simply because I haven't studied it, except woman's value is much less earned and more inherent because of her inherent ability to produce children. Their largest generic contribution to the society is the propagation of the species. Men, however, cannot produce children and so tend to be more expendable. They have to earn their status because their value is in using their strength to provide and protect to society. A woman's value largely in her "be…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:42 PM
-16

I don't like her sentiment. But I do think historically and culturally there has and should be a difference between being a male and being a man. Culturally and historically being a man is a responsibility to be earned or lost. You can't sit around and do nothing your life and still be considered a "man" in my book.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:15 PM
2

this is pretty common, unfortunately. it's newspeak. i refused to say first year.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 11:55 PM
1

bhahahaha brilliant
/r/MensRights19/11/14 09:52 PM
3

Good sources. Women are told they don't need men, that they can have the career and children, and so they end up taking the role of man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother. This leaves men without any value, agency, or worth. Of course, this is all against our nature so no matter how much they try, women still feel uncontented, dissatisfied with their marital arrangement. They must fight their natural urge to be a wife and let the husband me the husband, for fear they're a "bad femini…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 05:15 AM
1

I'm saying that class isn't the sole answer to every social problem
/r/MensRights10/11/14 11:32 PM
0

It seems like you are looking for an objective, pragmatic standard for marriage and sexuality, but ultimately make it subjective because of your own personal experience and pin down an objective basis for the social mores. Now it seems we have two options: 1) Either morality is entirely subjective and no matter how pragmatic or utilitarian we want to be, the denial of traditional, transcendent morality will inevitably lead to chaos and breakdown of society. Or: 2) Society's dependence on a trans…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 03:01 AM
2

there you go again, bringing class into it
/r/MensRights10/11/14 02:49 AM
3

I always think, yeah at 15 that was my dream and I would have, but now I'm glad that never happened because of how it would have messed me up. Consent doesn't mean it's right.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 05:38 PM
1

do we know how long she walked around for? I can already hear this being discredited
/r/MensRights05/11/14 05:14 AM
1

I wasnt insinuating that we know for sure this is what was edited out, only what i said, that it was edited.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 10:01 PM
6

full interview from CC, clearly edited Man, she even ends with the "feminism is equality for women" definition. Kills me.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:55 PM
1

Man, an hour is a long time.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:36 PM
4

That's a pretty good analysis, I hadn't thought of it that way. Weird they would actually be against men providing for them. Like if gov't provides it has the appearance of providing for themselves?
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:25 AM
1

i am very much in the conservative circles and thats usually what neocon means. Maybe in the social conservatives issues that talk about feminism? neocon is like big government for war and some social programs, like dick cheney or karl rove come to mind.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:24 AM
1

Is that the usual definition of neo-conservatism though? I've never run into this sentiment enough to hear a title for it. It seems like more an opporunist conservatism.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:58 AM
1

I mean, i suppose. I don't think it's a gendered thing as much as a statist thing. They wan't gov't provision coming from barry or hilary, either way.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:56 AM
3

yep, that's exactly it. It is incoherent for their own convenience.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:54 AM
8

They were clearly not conservative in any use of the term politically or socially, except in his concluding push for traditional male gender role. Like, what? I've never seen anyone hold such beliefs simultaneously.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 01:21 AM
48

What a strange article. It's on "Americans Against The Tea Party," does nothing but crudely slam MRA and push feminist talking points, then concludes with a call for men to "Protect and Provide," a sentiment that is completely rejected by feminism, liberalism, most MRA, and usually pushed by conservative Christians. Weird.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 12:24 AM
0

AHA you used a CONTRACTION!!!!!! THATS NOT PROPER MLA FORMAT IN A FORMAL PAPER THAT WOULD BE MARKED OFF. Your vexation on vocabulary is very vigorous but vacuous and vain. Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 04:26 AM
1

What on earth about my statement made you think I said "men" and "women" are absolute categories of mental traits and never overlap I clearly explained they are not absolutes and there is gray. But, again, exceptions do not make the rule, they are exceptions. Just because gender is complication, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our XX/XY genes and our hormones have a fundamental shaping of our development. Manhood and Womanhood are cultural expression which hone and give form to our biology. It is…
/r/MensRights27/10/14 08:56 PM
0

that its the internet, get over yourself
/r/MensRights27/10/14 08:53 PM
0

sorry my brain gets stuck on all caps when i see foolishness
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:31 AM
1

Men can be different but still adhere to same principles of manhood, albeit expressing it differently. I would argue that most people who did not fit "traditional manhood" are actually rejecting a fake distortion, like the womanizer or the workaholic. They have been given no principles, or have been taught to ignore them. Furthermore, exceptions to not make the rule, they are exceptions to the rule.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:30 AM
1

THATS SUCH A DUMB THING TO SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. GOD GOD GOD GOD GUESS I CANT USE REDDIT ANYMORE.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 03:53 PM
1

Men and women are different, get over it.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 05:01 AM
1

(ignores the top comments)
/r/MensRights25/10/14 05:00 AM
3

The word "Jesus" is never used. He mentions God once. The person who wrote that comment is dumb. You should check out the article.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 04:58 AM
5

The word "Jesus" is never used. He mentions God once. Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 04:57 AM
2

I completely I agree and think that those who would eliminate obvious gender distinctions have bought into the post-modern deconstructionists bs and play into feminist's hands. Like, men have testosterone and semen. Women have uteri and bags of milk for their young children. You're telling me that tells us nothing about our biological function? hogwash. You should check out this site, especially the roadmap to manhood. Three facets: protect, procreate, provide. artofmanliness.com
/r/MensRights11/10/14 08:07 AM
1

that just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn't means the conclusion is false
/r/MensRights13/09/14 08:24 PM
2

don't forget the fallacy fallacy
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:34 AM
1

Exceptions to the rule do not break the rule, they are exceptions.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:27 AM
1

Exceptions do not make the rule, so to speak, they are exceptions to the rule. The cultural reaction to Ray Rice tells us a lot about the general differences between men and women and their roles and responsibilities. If we cannot sensibly talk about the differences b/w men and women b/c of a few exceptions, you fall into feminism's argument against MRA. "You don't need MRA b/c feminism is for equality and men too!" Except there are issues unique to men, there are topics men need help talking ab…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 05:37 PM
0

he was making a joke
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:51 AM
1

Because a law gets struck down tells us nothing about how genuine the politicians were in passing the law. If anything, politicians sometimes pass laws they know will likely get shut down so that they can get an appeal and get a chance to go before the supreme court. That a law goes too far and gets turned down points to their passion and sincerity. In fact, that is where a lot of these laws appear to be heading: a re-examination of Roe, which could be a HUGE victory. The fact is, your statement…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:10 PM
1

Go search 'Rotherham' on Jezebel. It's not there. You want us to say that rape is innate within immigrants or Pakistanis or something No one is saying that. We are saying that your silence reveals your hypocrisy because you care more about political points and sticking with the multicultural agenda than preventing rape and sexual abuse. The corruption and complicity by the progressive english politicians doesn't fit with your narrative of the enlightened liberal. I could care less if the rapists…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 09:57 PM
4

No one is saying that we should string them up and hang em. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty and deserve due process. However, the point we are mad about is the hypocrisy of a feminism that would get mad about anti-date rape nail polish supporting patriarchy but not even make a whisper about 1500 girls in sex trafficking in England. It exposes their sick, twisted political agenda. Feminism doesn't care about women at all, it cares about power and control.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:20 AM
2

I agree but challenge your comparison to abortion. from 2011-2013 Republicans in the state legislatures passed more abortion restrictions than in the previous decade
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:16 AM
3

PREACH. I wish more NAFALTs would understand this.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:13 AM
1

You don't have to choose between being right and having friends. If you speak calmly and logically, and ask good questions, people will respect you and still want to be friends. If they don't, they're a jerk and you don't want to be their friend anyway. It is wise, however, to pick your battles and know when it is appropriate to prod further or let something slide. I say this as a conservative christian at a similar liberal arts school, taking identity politics classes. I have made many friends …
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:05 AM
0

1) Stand up and call out their BS, politely yet firmly and logically. 2) Have the vocal minority hate you (but the silent majority agree with or at least respect you) 3) ?????? 4) Profit (grow as a courageous and wise human being while speaking the truth in the midst of a lot of lies) As a recent college graduate, this was my basic technique (mixed with a lot of prayer and deep breaths). No regrets.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 05:52 AM
1

I wish we were friends IRL b/c I think I would enjoy talking to you. Three things: 1) If you make the statement "there is no truth," you are claiming that statement is true. Therefore, there is truth. Do you see how you've contradicted yourself? Any statement must be able to withstand it's own test. It would be like I said "I am currently typing in French." It is self-defeating. So it cannot be true that there is no truth anymore than there can be square circles. There must be truth. 2) We actua…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 11:35 PM
2

lol i didn't know you were gunna get so deep on me. You're right, a table is real or imaginary but a table is not true or false. We give truth value to statements about reality. "There is a table" is either true or false insofar as it corresponds to reality or not. Furthermore, "there is a table and there is not a table" cannot be a true statement because you have made two contradictory statements about reality that cannot both be true at the same time. In the same way, if I said, "there is no t…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 08:14 PM
1

truth is that which is real, that which conforms to reality. Truth is true.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 07:12 PM
1

incorrect, opposite of right, evil, not in accordance with truth or reality
/r/MensRights31/08/14 07:11 PM
1

I've got an idea; how about women be women, men be men, and women stop trying to be men and women at the same time.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 04:55 AM
1

yeah... but the 2nd definition is "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" which excludes any sort of notion of equality, but only wants to support women. Furthermore egalitarianism is more true to that definition of equality Perhaps a distinction should be made between feminism, the broad philosophy supporting equality and support for women, and Feminism the sociological ideology and political movement. It's like the difference between democrat (a supporter of democracy) a…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:18 AM
1

Although very common, they would define it as "equality" or whatever and they would be incorrect. The history and definition of a word doesn't change because you want it to or because everyone thinks it has. 2+2=4 even if everyone believes it =5.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 02:16 AM
1

Fighting for voting rights = suffrage. Fighting for equality = egalitarianism. Fighting for the marxist/socialist/liberal overthrow of patriarchy, capitalism, the family structure, and white male privilege = feminism.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 06:48 PM
1

No, I think you're right. When there are no boundaries, no rules, when even words are made-up social constructs, then the depravity of man goes on full display. The transgender thing is the most blaring example (and will only grow). That reality can be so internalized that you would look in between your pants and say "no, that's not really me," and even mutilate yourself to support your delusion, should be considered insanity. That a parent would support and encourage a confused young child to b…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 04:12 PM
1

That wasn't 'feminism' that was 'suffrage.' 'feminism' as a term didn't become popular until the late 1960s.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 04:06 PM
5

I actually appreciate the nuance you bring and these comparisons that we normally wouldn't make. I hope you don't think me declaring a few definitive truths means I don't recognize how immensely complicated and gray the world can be. Many Germans were good people who had no idea what Hitler was really up to, duped into a nationalistic zeal. Hitler, for his war crimes, got the trains running on time. Totalitarianism tends to be very efficient. However, fascism and tyranny remains wrong, even if i…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 04:04 PM
3

(gets an hourly job at Target)
/r/MensRights29/08/14 07:46 PM
3

You are correct, sir. My greatest weakness? Perfectionism. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. shakes hand
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:30 PM
1

BUT YOURE CLAIMING ALL OF THAT IS TRUE. When abolitionists risked their lives fighting against slavery, it was based on what they believed was True. When Britain went to war to defeat the Nazis, it was based on what they believed is true. Everyone believes that what they believe is true, otherwise they wouldn't believe it! Great evil is committed based on strong beliefs, that is true. But only equally strong values can oppose such evil! Vague, wishy washy notions of common humanity is not what d…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:21 PM
1

You have made the mistake of mixing preferences with ideas. Preferences or tastes like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla are largely amoral and inconsequential. But ideas, ideas have consequences. If enough people believe a lie (anti-semitism, racism, 2+2=5, etc) it can equal disaster. The Truth is really important. You say "believe whatever truth you want," but there is only one Truth, that which actually is. Our perceptions may differ, I may see the mountain from a different angle, o…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:35 PM
2

you're right, that's why need to clarify the difference between "taste" and "belief." Most people don't understand the difference. For the relativist, there is no ultimate difference between liking chocolate ice cream and believing a girl believing she's a boy on the inside. It's their opinion, they're entitled to it, and that's their truth. Tastes are largely amoral (unless you have a taste for human flesh), beliefs can be right or wrong and wrong beliefs have destructive consequences.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:25 PM
12

I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever I reddit I wear a tie with resume in hand.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:46 AM
25

It's relativism and social constructivism. It's bad for the brain. It all started when we told kids "everyone is entitled to their opinion" like we just "agree to disagree" and move on. No, they aren't and no we shouldn't. There is Truth. Hitler was wrong. 2+2=4. If you believe otherwise you should be corrected.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:44 AM
1

If feminism's great achievement is that it eliminates the taboo around gendered delegation of chores, it is a silly thing.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:37 AM
-1

Who cares? He's quoting a book that is a biography of the author of the feminine mystique, one of the primary pillars of "feminism." That the site is partisan doesn't change the facts of that person's life. But since you ask, i googled it for you a socialist website. or here from colorado university. Amazing what a quick google can turn up. I keep hitting on marxism but I should note that I use it in the popular usage, a socialist, anti-capitalism ideology bent on tearing down current social str…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:30 AM
1

Yeah well you're a douche (ad hominem)
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:05 AM
-1

I'd be interested in what you think I'm getting wrong? Again, modern feminism has revised history so that anything to do with women's rights gets called "feminism." But the best I can find, the word didn't exist until the late 1960s and was, from the very beginning, tied in with marxist liberal ideology, not just equality. source on the origin of the term in popular usage source on dates and attitude of the early feminists source on the marxist roots of feminism All you have to do is look at con…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:37 PM
1

you should really try this thing called google sometime
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:03 PM
1

Like that's going to happen? If you ever want to get to the heart of the issue, ask them if there is such a thing as Truth. If they say no, ask them "is that true?" Their whole ideology is fundamentally contradictory and it is extremely widespread, making it very dangerous. If people cannot think coherently and logically they cannot be free.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:51 PM
2

Words are important. If you call yourself a feminist, thereby identifying yourself with, an unknowingly supporting, an ideology bent on tearing down men, capitalism, etc. you should know that and you should stop.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:48 PM
-2

The thing is though, that's actually not what the word 'feminism' originally meant. It was originally defined as the marxist "men are evil, all sex is rape, men are oppressors, we want to have sex without consequences, etc" people. Instead of Tumblr, they did marches. These people had basically nothing to do with any so called-feminist victories like the Civil Rights Act, Equal Pay Act, etc as those occurred in 63 and 64 before "feminism" and "women's liberation" caught any steam. Basically, wom…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:43 PM
2

is was about 50/50 sarcasm
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:06 PM
12

The word you're looking for is "egalitarianism." Women need to stop being obsessed with the word "feminism." It's been highjacked for too long by crazy outspoken, marxist ideologues, yet they've somehow guilted you into believing that it is essential for your womanhood. It's not like "feminism" as a word started good and went sour in certain particular instances. It started, from the very beginning in the 1960s, as man hating, bra burning lesbians. Oh the right to vote you say? Had nothing to do…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:38 AM
-3

Doing all of those things 50/50 sounds exhausting. Do I make a schedule? Keep your feminism, I'll do it all for simplicity's sake.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:34 AM
1

intellectual anarchy stemming from sociology and the social constructivism philosophy that there is no Truth and everything is socially constructed.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:25 AM
4

Something men are taught to do, and thus needs to be unlearned Given that feminism stems from sociology and the social constructivism school, this actually checks out and explains a lot. Like, there is nothing in mankind like sin, that would dispose you toward negative behavior, it's all just education that can be fixed through re-education (and signs I guess). Thing is, it should obvious that no one is being taught that rape is okay. That's what's so silly about a "don't rape" sign. You're prov…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:23 AM
1

i know... that was a hopeful statement. I still think she's not being serious. Her references to dystopian literature are too precise.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:02 PM
1

/r/nofap and I would disagree.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 09:35 AM
2

"The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species." It's like she's trying to quote Brave New World. I don't think this is serious. Even if she claims to be, I don't think she really is. I think she is using the literary technique of utopia to cast criticism on current society. No one could be that stupid and naive. But then again there's Marx (clearly a heavy influence).
/r/MensRights15/08/14 09:11 AM
4

nope, things dont go both ways like that, just like sexism and racism
/r/MensRights14/08/14 06:09 AM
9

It's a positive media portrayal of manhood/fatherhood in a culture saturated with negative/nothing for men to cling to.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 06:17 AM
3

It's amazing how they say that "feminism means equality" and "feminism means fighting for women's issues" in the same breath. Which is it? I believe in equality but don't call myself a feminist because (among other reasons) of all of the sociological/marxist ideology tied up with it. Not bringing that into the discussion is intellectually dishonest.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 06:11 AM
3

Props to you for getting the root of the word games. Post-modernism is intellectual anarchy.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 06:08 AM
1

It's not service it's exploitation. More often than not prostitutes are slaves to their pimps, controlled by threat, violence, manipulation, and drugs. Wherever prostitution, like Amsterdam, this continues to be true but is done by business owners and organized crime. Check out a movie called Nefarious about sex work around the world. They even go to Las Vegas where it describes the same thing among high brow legal escort girls: pimps, violence, drugs, etc. There may be a few with positive stori…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 04:59 AM
-4

I'm disturbed by seeing MRM ppl for prostitution. That's not what I'm about. Prostitution exploits women who hit rock bottom and have nowhere else to turn. Often, they were abused as children and groomed as young women.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 05:39 AM
1

Ever? So even in this instance about Nancy Pelosi?
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:10 AM
3

As a conservative, I usually find Fox News vain and sensationalized. I usually enjoy Meghan Kelly though, not always. Her interview with Dick Cheney? Brilliant. Her interview with Bill Ayers? Stupid. She kills it here.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 06:26 PM
3

sounds about right
/r/MensRights11/07/14 06:22 PM
4

MRM is a pretty diverse bunch so i would be careful about terms like "you guys." I personally am against all types of abortion but this video seemed relevant to here because of the irate feminist throwing around "privilege" and "misogynist" like it was her job, something we are not fans of.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:09 AM
1

yeah, i would have just posted the original. the original was, as usual, self-righteous and demeaning. idk man, sometimes i just want to say get over yourself and stop telling me what to do. Isn't that what women have been fighting for? For men to stop telling them what to do? And now they're doing the same thing to us?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 08:19 PM
9

i get what you're trying to do but i found this confusing. can i read the original text?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:15 AM
1

dafuq?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:11 AM
1

Gremlins?
/r/MensRights09/07/14 07:06 PM
1

I worked with kids for several years. Even when your intentions are perfectly good, you just have to remember perception and how nervous people get.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:54 PM
2

Sucks man. More and more as I've gotten older I think my dad may have been right : "nothing good happens after midnight." Maybe not nothing good, but you're much more likely to get caught in a compromising situation that you probably shouldn't have been in to begin with.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:53 PM
3

I just remembered a time, back in my youthful sinnin days, when I drunkenly hooked up with a girl and, although she was quite awake at the time, did not remember in the morning. All we did was make out but she woke up with an unhooked bra and thought I molested her or something. Of course, I had no idea at the time. Some time later, I'm talking to one of her friends at a party and she very seriously comes up and says "do not talk to him" all pissed. Needless to say, I'm confused. I pull her asid…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:07 PM
3

Don't get too close, speak loudly so others can hear what you are saying, narrate what you are doing as you do it, and recruit someone else to go find help or walk with you. You just gotta be wise and protect yourself.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 03:50 PM
3

73% of black children are born out of wedlock and 67% grow up in single parent families
/r/MensRights08/07/14 03:45 PM
4

Please, for the love of sanity, just read the case. Taxes aren't relevant because nonprofit or religious organization don't not pay taxes for religious reasons. The gov't willingly gives tax exceptions to encourage religious and charitable behavior that benefits society. You can't object to taxes on religious ground because there is no less restrictive means to implement taxes. This was settled in the 1960s over Social Security. This decision is actually quite limited in scope but is based on th…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 03:40 PM
1

Except under the ACA religious and nonprofit organizations were given exceptions to the contraception mandate. The court ruled that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Dictionary Act, there was no reasonable distinction to be made between nonprofit or forprofit corporations. Therefore, applying the exception to forprofit as well would be the least restrictive means to implementing the law. You may want to make a distinction between "public" or "for profit" businesses and others, …
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:52 AM
3

I loved this article! Put to words so many feelings I've had but never articulated. It makes sense as the inevitable outworking as postmodernism, I suppose. They want to words to carry a certain meaning and weight when it serves them, but then change the definition when it does not.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:39 AM
1

But he's a man so nothing he says counts, right?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:17 AM
2

someone took a sociology class, lol. You forgot hegemonic. I swear, those people invent more words than dr. suess
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:08 AM
1

##waronmen
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:06 AM
0

They are human beings made in the image of God. You should weep at these statistics.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:03 AM
0

bro - that's a harsh truth right now. #downwiththematriarchy
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:02 AM
1

holy crap. god have mercy.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:01 AM
2

Seriously, she just assumes every claim she makes is true and pro-women, therefore anyone who disagrees with her hates women.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:00 AM
-3

idk what the consensus here is, as MRM is varied politically and there's a lot of misinformation out there. As for me, after reading the case, it's really not about women's rights being denied at all. The business owners shouldn't have to pay for something that is against their religion. Women are still perfectly free and able to buy their own contraception or get a different job. Here's a good summary of the case that most people are missing
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:58 AM
3

How sexist. It's amazing how if you say things in the right tone, it seems totally undeniable. "So-and-so woman even challenges the pay gap!" gasp Never mind that the pay gap actually is BS. She starts by equating all anti-feminists with being against a woman's right to vote and ends by saying that Sarah Palin, a female governor and VP candidate is a "faux-feminist."
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:53 AM
1

cool, guys.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:30 AM
11

If feminism would be that all-encompassing, we shouldn't call it feminism, we should call it "equality." Sigh... this is why this discussion is so confusing. "feminism is this.""no, feminism is this." It's all very tiring.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:19 AM
1

by referring to yourself as an actual feminist, you implied that TERFs were not feminist. You contrasted yourself with them by calling yourself actual.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 12:37 AM
4

Except in the wide range of religions and transcendent beliefs in the world, Unitarians and Fred Phelps actually have a lot in common. If you wanted to say one was "Christian" and the other not, as you do with feminism, you would need a standard of orthodoxy (usually using sacred text) by which to judge. The problem is, I don't think feminism has a standard of orthodoxy. It's just a word which, for some, means "I'm for women! :)" and for other carries all sorts of marxist and often violent ideol…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:39 AM
24

Anytime any woman does anything good -> "feminist" Anytime a feminist does something bad -> "not an actual feminist"
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:07 AM
2

It depends on your context. A one who gets sympathy has social power, legal power, and institutional power. The college campus, for example, is a place where women thrive and are celebrated to the detriment of others. We've all talked about on here the danger of extra-judicial tribunals that may expel a man just for being accused of rape with no finding of guilt necessary. That is a lot of power from victimhood. On the other hand, women are still generally physically weaker than men and so face …
/r/MensRights17/06/14 06:46 PM
13

This hits it on the head. It's a race to victimhood. If you can claim victim status you get sympathy and power.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 12:48 AM
2

Seriously? Nickelodeon? What the hell...
/r/MensRights16/06/14 12:46 AM
2

I don't think feminism is a "political group" at all. It is an ideology made up of many different ideas that often lead to political action. To say what ideas are feminist are not requires a definition of the foundational ideas of feminism. If you subscribe to certain main pillars but not periphery ones that extremists do, you could still reasonably call yourself a feminist and be full of hate. Where I get bothered is by female friends who call themselves feminists but merely define it as being …
/r/MensRights30/05/14 02:24 AM
3

woooowwwwwww. the fact that we continue to talk about rape and sexual exploitation against women and make it a bigger deal, yet talk ZERO about these facts, is the greatest injustice I have seen so far on this subreddit. wow.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 02:05 AM
1

Idk about society but here's what you do in your sphere of influence: Hang out with other men and talk about important stuff. Get a beer, get coffee, get breakfast with your neighbor, your brother, your friend, and don't talk about sports, or cars, or work; talk about your relationships, your fears, your hopes, your struggles with porn, women, MRA, or whatever else only another man will get. The alternative to the macho facade is not to be vulnerable and crying to the world. Be strong, be a prov…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:42 PM
2

Men who kill each other to win women's approval.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:35 PM
1

I agree with most of what you're saying but it's ridiculous to say that strength has nothing to do with how much of a threat someone is. By definition, strength is a fundamental indicator of threat. Think about it societally. The poor, the orphan, the widow, and the foreigner are vulnerable groups, prone to oppression and injustice. They are less able to defend and provide for themselves. Even though people outside those groups are plenty likely to face injustice, it makes sense that we would pl…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:54 AM
-8

I see what you're saying and agree with your conclusion that we ought to protect anyone suffering abuse regardless of gender. But your extreme example of Bruce Lee is an exception to the fact that men, overall, are physically stronger and biologically and chemically more prone to anger and violence. Testosterone tends to breed fights and violence. When perceiving injustice, it is right to instinctively protect the weaker and more vulnerable. If I saw a gang of teenagers and homeless man fighting…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:03 AM
5

agreed.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:53 AM
-1

I don't think it is a bad thing to defend/protect women. They are often physically weaker than men. It is a bad thing to be irrationally violent like beating someone up without asking questions.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:05 AM
2

wow
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:03 AM
3

This might be my biggest concern with MRA. They fall into the same game as the feminists, joining the chorus of SJWs crying victim, except for men. I would rather raise above that kind of rhetoric and game.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:58 AM
2

This seems very reasonable and I think I agree with it all. Cool!
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:48 AM
2

Well, thank you for your respect and for even receiving my apology. I didn't think you were condescending at all. Can we try and deal with this "words have meaning" thing though? The word "dress" is defined, in the dictionary, as "a one-piece garment for a woman or girl that covers the body and extends down over the legs." How do you deal with that? Does the dictionary/cultural definition matter or can a word mean whatever I want it to mean?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 09:26 PM
1

I sincerely apologize, I'm really not trying to be condescending, just blunt. By saying that word "dress" has is entirely dependent on the subjective individual is to say words don't really have meaning. When you say, "I'm a man and a I wear dresses, therefore the definition of dress has changed," you are making the definition of words entirely subjective.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:42 PM
1

Rule, principle, standard. Whatever word you want to use. You're missing the point. Please re-read my post and give me a legitimate response.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:39 PM
0

From the dictionary: Dress (noun) - a one-piece garment for a woman or girl that covers the body and extends down over the legs. I'M SO STUPID FOR DEFENDING THE FREAKING DICTIONARY I APOLOGIZE. Or think of it this way: Premise 1: Dresses are made to fit boobs (of many shapes and sizes). Premise 2: "Boobs" are defined as "either of the two soft, protruding organs on the upper front of a woman's body that secrete milk after pregnancy." Premise 3: Women have boobs. Conclusion: Dresses are made for …
/r/MensRights26/04/14 09:28 AM
0

Some random, unnatural, artificially altered hypothetical exception does not change the rule. Premise 1: Dresses are made to fit boobs. Premise 2: "Boobs" are defined as "either of the two soft, protruding organs on the upper front of a woman's body that secrete milk after pregnancy." Premise 3: Women have boobs. Conclusion: Dresses are made for women. Just because an individual woman has unnaturally had her boobs removed doesn't change that dresses are fundamentally created for women. Here's th…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 09:19 AM
0

So dresses are not designed for women.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 08:28 AM
1

I would agree with that. The political right to do something with your freedom is different than, "people should do whatever they want because gender means nothing." I believe that being a man means something and ought to tell us something about how we should behave and interact with the world around us.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 08:25 AM
1

But all of them are made for boobs; not pecks or so called "man-boobs" which are called as such because they look like the female form.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:52 PM
1

So the solution is getting rid of gender roles altogether? That's rediculous. I see the history of feminism as this: gender roles were abused and twisted, therefore let's get of gender roles altogether. But just because gender roles were abused and perverted doesn't mean they are bad in all cases! Men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses that play off each other in beneficial ways. It is true feminism has mostly taken shape in the form of "tear down gender role exp…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:51 PM
0

"I have nipples Greg, can you milk me?" But seriously, the physiological differences between men and women should be obvious. Give me a break. Women have boobs because they produce milk so they can feed their children. Men have have boobs because they're fat. Perhaps the occasional really fat person dress could fit a man or woman interchangeably. Otherwise, men and women are shaped very differently. Perfect example: maternity clothes.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:38 PM
2

SO that's what Men's rights are fighting for? The right to wear dresses? And then all else will follow?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:13 PM
-1

THEY HAVE BOOBS. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:07 PM
2

So much this. People tend to deconstruct themselves into insanity.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:05 PM
2

Don't deconstruct yourself out of relevance. Yes, there is nothing absolute about only one gender wearing garments without pant legs. But we live in a culture. Gender exists. In our culture gender contains in it certain rules about clothing. There is nothing oppressive about following those rules as long as they're morally neutral.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:04 PM
2

good sauce
/r/MensRights21/04/14 08:07 PM
1

haha I didn't see that your link was a hypothetical but just clicked it... you'll laugh at what is there haha
/r/MensRights21/04/14 08:02 PM
1

After having read both of those articles, I think both are correct in their own way. There is female privilege and female disadvantage, often within the same context or situation, depending on perspective. The injustice is viewingonly your perspective as the correct on and anyone else is sexist or fictional. That the greatest harm feminism does. Instead opening up a conversation, it exalts themselves at the expense of others.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 07:48 PM
0

It seems that both men and women need to be appreciated for both what they do and achieve as well as for their own sake, for being. However, as she points out, each is born with intrinsically strong in one or the other. When we are not appreciated for our strength, we feel rejected and unloved. Like when feminism rejects a woman's need for a man to produce and take care of the woman, or when a jerk doesn't appreciate and treat a woman right for her own sake. In many ways, our differences are wha…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 07:02 AM
-1

It's hard to believe sometimes that someone can appear so intelligent but be so utterly insane.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:24 AM
-1

Ever heard of Mike Adams? He would approve
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:17 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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