TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kooryo Archive

View 0 posts and 138 comments by kooryo on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Inb4 THIS IS WHAT MRAs ACTUALLY BELIEVE
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:23 PM
-1

Aaaaand here come MadMasculinist again with more horseshit!
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:13 PM
0

I mention it because is relevant to the discussion.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:08 AM
0

Your completely unsourced, pulled out of your ass accusation of bias? No, I didn't bother to address your bullshit, specious nonsense. I have to source the obvious suggestion that your statistic has inherent bias and may not be a representative statistic? Lol, k. don't even fucking pretend you did any research or put any thought into it, you disingenuous piece of crap. It sure didn't take a lot to notice, that's for sure. That makes it all the more embarrassing for you to complain and expect a s…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:53 PM
0

No, you just can't accept evidence that doesn't support your preconceived conclusions. You are invested in the nonsensical idea that it is victim blaming to empower women with real facts about rape, and when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that self-defense is an effective deterrent, you flail in a pathetic attempt to deflect reality. This is because, at the end of the day, you want women to get raped. So, yeah, no, don't address my argument about the bias of the statistic you presente…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:25 PM
-15

No wonder women do this so often Lolololol
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:08 PM
0

then it is unarguable that violent resistance (which mitigates 81% of rapes) You fail at statistics. The 80% (or 81%, whatever) statistic is highly biased. Women who resist are likely women who have assessed their risk of resisting as relatively low (they believe they stand a chance). Women up against much stronger men just aren't going to resist if they're rational actors behaving in their own self-interest. It does not follow that 81% of all rapes, even in that study (let alone in reality) are…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:58 PM
0

Ooh, more emboldened dramatic statements! I imagine you use a really cheesy voice in your head when you embolden all those phrases, like you think it grants weight to your argument or give you an air of power or something. Let me try: It doesn't. Gosh, that is oddly gratifying. But I don't need it to make a successful argument, so I don't think I will use it as gratuitously as you are. I am responding to what you are saying. You are a confused imbecile who doesn't understand what the words you a…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:09 PM
0

Then male privilege cannot exist. See Joe the Homeless has less power than Hilary Clinton. Patriarchy refuted. Makes as much sense as you. Not necessarily. Male privilege certainly exists. But racism (white privilege) is certainly much stronger, presently. A black man will almost always be under-privileged relative to a white woman, despite there being a pervasive air of sexism against women in the current social milieu. This is what intersectional feminism is all about, and I think you misunder…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:37 PM
0

Oh boy. Not much to respond to here, because (again...yawn) you're not responding to what I'm saying but to what you want to believe I'm saying in the interest of having an easier target. So, by all means, argue with your straw man. You look like you're enjoying yourself. All women have a right to use their fists to defend themselves. All women should use their fists to defend themselves if they believe it is their best chance at survival and if they have the capacity. Not all women do, however.…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:27 PM
0

There definitely is a double-standard there. However, the fact that men are frequently stronger than women and that many women will not fight back because of a perception of futility (that may or may not be valid) is not trivial to the discussion. Again, I am not making the argument that the double-standard is valid - it is not. Men who put up little resistance to rape can still be victims, certainly. But it is important to remember that most people are aware of the fact that the average man is …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:40 PM
1

When I say female privilege exists, I'm comparing like with like, if example A is cis, straight, white and middle class, example B also has to be cis, straight, white and middle class, or I'm not talking about female privilege specifically. And comparing like with like is good for control purposes. Indeed, women of color losing to white men is probably an example of racism. However, if "female privilege" is dependent on race, it really isn't much of a privilege at all. It is still an example of …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:30 PM
0

No no no, see, you're misunderstanding (again). That I argue that it is not right to do something does not imply that it is instead wrong. Jesus Christ, this is not a very complex issue. I argue that there is no right or wrong way to respond to a rape, because one is going to do what they feel is in their best interest at the moment and that they likely did the best they could with the resources they had at the moment, so it is pointless to speculate. How you must hate life and the living to acc…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:20 PM
1

Good example. That argument is a rare one, but it is definitely true that some people hold that belief, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 05:57 PM
-2

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. It is easy to think of white mothers versus white fathers (in which case the women frequently win custody cases, and we can argue whether the majority of the rulings are fair or not), or white mothers versus fathers of color. But when we introduce women of color into the equation, especially against white fathers, we find that such privilege shrinks very quickly.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:30 AM
-2

Ah, I see. Either way, that does not follow. Further, this is not a common argument (feminist or otherwise).
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:02 AM
-1

And I responded by giving you "equal custody rights". Because that is something women do not have. What is so complicated about this?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:51 AM
-1

Respectfully, it is you who are twisting things somewhat. You asked me to provide an example of something the MRM demands that women do not possess. I provided equal custody rights, because that is something the MRM is very serious about despite women (especially women of color) not having that opportunity. I'm sorry if you don't understand your own question, but it is hardly fair to criticize me for answering it as you wrote it.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 12:45 AM
1

You have an oddly childish understanding of causality and how it relates to blame (which it does, but not in the way you think). they have a small amount of blame just for you being here arguing. Er, no. They do not. Their having sex and my arguing with you has a causal relationship, yes. Not the same thing as blame. the fact that george washington was the 1st US president plays a minor role in this conversation we are having. I suppose so. He also deserves no blame. Are you familiar at all with…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 12:33 AM
-6

No, and certainly no situation in which it is morally right. I concede that there are definite potential benefits to resisting rape violently, but there are also very many potential drawbacks (including but not limited to risk on one's own life), even when armed with guns or pepper spray. And, no, not even when there is overwhelming legal precedence in support of self-defense. There really is no right or wrong way to respond to rape, truthfully. People will do what they instinctually believe to …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:50 PM
1

The problem is that one can and one should expect not to become a victim of crimes merely because they acted naively. So, no, making the focus word "expect" changes little here. you can't expect to be able to dance on the freeway at midnight wearing all black and not be hit by a truck. If you can't see how incredibly incomparable and oblique this is to the issue of women expecting or not expecting to be assaulted for their actions, I cannot help you. A truck at night is not a willful actor. You …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:40 PM
1

that doesn't mean you can expect to be able to put yourself in a bad situation and not become a victim. that is a dumb expectation, and it is horribly irresponsible. This right here is what I'm talking about. This is victim-blaming. This whole "well, it's not your fault, but you can't walk around like that/do XYZ without expecting this to happen to you!" bullshit does exactly what you purport it doesn't. It removes the responsibility from the predator and transfers it to the victim. One can walk…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:26 PM
-7

I had not heard of the Miss USA thing, but if she is suggesting that fighting back against a rapist is a good thing to do, she clearly has the privilege of never having been assaulted before, has no idea what she's talking about, and should not be speaking as an authority on the issue of rape prevention/defense. Not only is surrender a perfectly understandable and viable response to being raped, but it's probably the most rational thing to do to protect oneself from further harm. There is no sit…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:15 PM
-1

I dare you to provide a single example of the MRM demanding something for men that women don't have. I can list off dozens of things feminists have demanded while preventing men from getting them. I can think of a handful of issues (equal rights in custody is a big one), but that's not the point, because MRAs indeed support a lot of legitimate men's concerns that we as a society need to pay more attention to. However, true equality has never been a goal of the MRM. Members of the movement compla…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:50 PM
1

The degree to which you are black-and-white on this issue is astounding to me. Obviously one ought to guard potential victims against predators. It's simply the pragmatic, intelligent thing to do. Women who go out drinking should not leave their drinks unattended ever, and should surround themselves with trustworthy people that can help protect them. This is irrelevant to the issue. The most important thing one individual woman can do, in fact, to avoid being raped in the current cultural climat…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:40 PM
0

Holy shit, you are incredible. Rape is seldom pleasurable. Of the situations in which rape is physically pleasurable (a paucity of them exist), it is emotionally scarring. Because, you know, it's rape. I don't know what it is about this that is so difficult for you to grasp. That women fantasize about being raped has nothing to do with how severe it is or not. It is well-recognized that even women that fantasize about being raped genuinely do not want to be raped. In fact, for many women the fan…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:30 PM
1

Maybe because suggesting that women are responsible for avoiding rape is an idiot position to take (and demonstrates a lack of understanding for how rapists work), and one that is hurtful to women to boot. ITT: I got banned for being a dickhead. DAE?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:19 PM
1

This lady is obviously nuts, but if OP is green he is clearly just as retarded and I'm glad he decided to publicly shame himself in this way. At least we don't lose our minds every month How incredibly wise of you.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:58 PM
1

Indeed, it's one of about a fucktillion reasons I have trouble taking this sub seriously.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:47 PM
-5

Strawman detected! Whoop whoop. Just because you can conjure up an argument you disagree with doesn't really justify making an empty circlejerking self-post about it. Now, for some serious discussion: Women shouldn't have to fight back for it to be rape, no. Freezing is a normal response. Male victims, too, may freeze when raped. It does not follow that people think male victims matter less because men aren't allowed to fight back. Unless you have examples of people blatantly espousing this very…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:37 PM
1

Here's the thing. MRAs practically cream their boxers whenever they see stuff like this because, at last, they have evidence for misandry! Look at all this man-hate, they say! But time and time again it is demonstrated that while there will always be anecdotal evidence for women who hate men (just as there will always be anecdotal evidence for men who hate women, especially in this subreddit), there is no such thing as systematic or institutional misandry. Individual women hating men is not the …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:26 PM
-4

OP, if your mother is a feminist she likely cares a lot about the equality of the sexes and men's rights. However, she is likely disappointed in you for joining a movement that the SPLC and many others regard as a hate movement (and if you doubt this label for a moment, you need to spend more time on this subreddit). The MRM is not about male equality, and never truly has been. It has some serious issues that it will likely never overcome due to the bitterness of the majority of its subscribers,…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:16 PM
0

What in the world are you taking about? I never once denied the frequency at which MGM/circumcision occurs (which, for the record, is quite a great deal!) Also, your blathering on about "did you know that just because babbys don't cry doesn't mean they aren't suffering? DAE?" is ridiculous, as I never once argued that babies do not suffer as a result of the procedure itself (they certainly do). My argument stands; circumcision is milder than FGM, but is still an atrocity. If you'd like to actual…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 08:48 PM
-1

user cannot supply direct evidence calls me a denialist K.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 08:37 PM
-1

Because I contest that, while subincision is pretty fucking extreme, it is still not as gruesome as types Ib, II and III FGM because: 1) It does not include pain as a feature (many voluntary subincision-havers argue that the exposed urethra causes more pleasure, in fact), although I recognize that pain may occur and 2) because it was not created to completely undermine the sexual pleasure of the recipient (still have a glans! Not to mention that exposed urethra thing I mentioned earlier). So tha…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:58 PM
-2

I'll start here: Now, one more time, and hopefully you can muster up the guts to answer: Do you or do you not retract the assertion that feminists make a reasonable claim that MGM is not mutilation because it differs from FGM? I do not, and never have backed away from this assertion. Feminists, by and large, do not argue that circumcision is not mutilation. The OP is a circlejerk argument, a straw man crafted for the sake of agreement among MRAs. I contradict that assertion with "I've also heard…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:46 PM
-5

By all means, I'd love to see you demonstrate where I've logically invalidated one or all of my points.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:25 PM
-2

Probably the reason why you are so frequently misunderstanding what I write (and that you think I am misinterpreting your writing) is that your comments leave much to be desired when it comes to clarity. This is not a matter of "dumbing down" content, so to speak, but making it possible to parse and comprehend without mind-reading. For example, multiple times in this post you throw a fit over the idea that I'm not getting that "they're both mutilation" regardless of how severe one is over the ot…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:57 PM
-2

That's the problem. It regularly is. Yes, which is a huge problem. However, it is not considered within the purview of normal operation the way it is with FGM. In fact, for many cultures that practice FGM the pain and discomfort is by design. You cannot argue this is the case with male circumcision, except as recommended by (documented nutcase) Dr. Kellogg. There is no evidence (unless you can prove me wrong and provide some) that I have seen that suggests that there is lifelong pain with subinc…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:22 PM
-2

You're right that circumcision is worse in the sense that it is more widespread, but only in that sense. It is not true that "at the individual level, they are nearly identical". See here that type Ib FGM, the variety in which the clitoris is removed (certainly much more severe than male circumcision) is the most common classification, far more common than type Ia (no clitoral removal, just circumcision). http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199409153311106 So, no. Even if type Ia was more c…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:58 PM
-1

Full of hot air, as usual. Waxing poetic about how "confused" I am, with nary a clue about in what way. Carry on. "So, do you want me to bash you over the head with this here crowbar twenty or thirty times?" you'd say "Eh, whatevs, I've already been date raped, it's functionally irrelevant if you thump on me until I develop brain damage...well, more brain damage. You see, I took this really stupid position on the internet once on how date rape was no worse than kidnap-aggravated-assault-rape-mur…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:17 PM
-5

Again, incorrect. The most common form of circumcision is officially cited as "Types I and II" by most sources (please cite yours!), and field studies in regions where the practice is common cite that rarely is the clitoris left intact at all (indicating type Ib at least, if not types II and III). Further, claiming that removal of the clitoris is most analogous to male circumcision, which you did, is ridiculous. You do recognize that the glans penis and glans clitoris are counterparts, right? So…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:56 AM
1

You were dating extremists, and idiots at that.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:46 AM
-1

What you're saying is that based on no demonstrable medical credentials of your own, and in direct contradiction to the available statistics (without even calling into question the method by which the figures were arrived at) you would argue that type Ib FGM rarely happens compared to type Ia FGM because it suits your worldview and you can't handle cognitive dissonance. It is also impressive to me that you would argue that they're conflating two "very, very different procedures" when they actual…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:58 AM
1

To have a leadership position in a relevant group hold such a view is scary, would you agree? I would not. My best friend and I have the idea that, after a small number of allegations against the same person (say, the second or third independent, separate allegation) that the person's name is placed in a database of other multiple-accusees so that women can be aware of likely predators (even those who haven't yet been convicted). Because false rape allegations are so rare (estimated between 2% t…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:44 AM
2

Yes. According to Hanna Rosin (who is citing this study: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&), 89% of juvie inmates that reported sexual assault by a staff member cited a female staff abuser. Not quite the same as "wardens", so I apologize for my imprecision. But those boys who report sexual assault by female staff would comprise a minority of total male prison rapes that can claim a female staff abuser by a not-so-insignificant margin. I have not …
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:44 AM
-6

Oh? How is that? Please educate me. I think I know what you're going to say (and exactly why you're wrong) before you say it, but I'm interested.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:34 AM
-9

Ah yes, the ol' "act like an arrogant twat but get completely lost when dealing with a simple analogy" tactic. Oh? Did I get lost? I suppose I'm so incredibly lost that I've not even realized it! Please oh please won't you help me find my way? No? Alright then. I'll just have to take you on faith alone! Are you sure? That's not the argument you seem think feminists would make. After all, your claim was that male circumcision isn't as bad as female circumcision and thus it would be reasonable to …
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:21 AM
-1

I couldn't complete my thesis professor because I was too busy recovering from my false rape, hehehe This totally happens, amirite bros! Amirite? Bitches, man. This rape "epidemic" sounds more like a generation of spoiled princess brats who scream "rape" for revenge or to get their way. So an increase in rape reports = women are faking it. Niiiiice. Young women are being taught IN CLASS that crying rape gets you special treatment, gets rid of any boy you dont like, puts you on a pedestal, and gi…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:06 AM
-5

You're basically exactly right on the money about MRA.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:53 PM
-11

1) You are minimizing shit by saying you're tired of hearing about FGM, a widespread problem, just because your own junk was fucked up by your parents (which is a terrible, terrible thing, but by all means grow up and gain some empathy for other people). 2) You are spreading misinformation by claiming that the vast majority of female circumcision is less damaging than RIC, so there's a definite problem there, at least. I debunked your claims in the post above and yet you continue to act as if wh…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:24 PM
-14

Ohhhhh, I see. We're comparing apples to oranges again here. Post-surgical pain is to be expected immediately after a procedure. It's not acceptable, and should not be tolerated; Circumcision needs to be put to an end once and for all. With that said, comparing the lifelong pain of FGM (lifelong pain that circumcision patients do not have to experience more than a month after a successful and normal procedure) to temporary post-surgical pain is ridiculous. I recognize boys experience great disco…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:14 PM
-14

[pinches nosebridge] Ok, you're not getting it, so I'm going to have to explain this in very simple terms. Date rape is just as much rape as forcible sexual assault. Furthermore, no feminist would ever claim that date rape isn't rape. I thought your stance was that feminists cry rape at the drop of a hat? It just doesn't make sense. Along similar lines, Circumcision IS mutilation. But it's not of the same calibre as FGM. Was this simple enough for you?
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:03 PM
1

It doesn't matter that you'd also not let another man pick up something for you. It just highlights the fact that you are insecure and have something to prove, it seems to me. I read what you wrote. It's irrelevant. Yes, men and women often choose different career paths. Your point in saying this is not clear. Regardless of how egalitarian Norway is, there are still severe sexist issues at play that can certainly cause nursing to beconsidered too effeminate for men and engineering to be perceive…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 10:19 PM
-11

It's a terrible argument to make. What's a terrible argument to make? The argument that they are not equivalent practices? No, that's not a "terrible argument", it's a fact. While some people have a great interest in trying to cover up the fact that circumcision is mutilation, suggesting that it is often milder than FGM (and it is) does not equate to covering up MGM. It's the same thing as when any calling of men's issues to attention is equated with fighting against women's issues. It's disgust…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 10:07 PM
-13

Since you made essentially this same comment elsewhere, I'll just repost my comment: I'll just leave this here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199409153311106 Since you are unlikely to read it, I'll explain why I linked it: it indicates that FGM WHO type Ia, the type that you describe that involves only the removal of the prepuce, is rarely performed without at least partial damage to the clitoris, if not outright removal. Instead, most forms of FGM are far more extensive than mere "ci…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 09:49 PM
-7

I'll just leave this here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199409153311106 Since you are unlikely to read it, I'll explain why I linked it: it indicates that FGM WHO type Ia, the type that you describe that involves only the removal of the prepuce, is rarely performed without at least partial damage to the clitoris, if not outright removal. Instead, most forms of FGM are far more extensive than mere "circumcision", involving total or partial removal of the clitoris, mutilation to the la…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 09:37 PM
1

What you call "matriarchy" I would call toxic hypermasculinity that masquerades as "matriarchy" (as there is no such thing). Just as you are not comfortable letting another woman lift something for you (which is sexist and insecure as fuck, if I may be so blunt), a lot of men are not comfortable being in a position whose name and reputation is tied to the female sex. And that's a definite problem, but it's not a problem with women who somehow "aren't letting men enter the profession" or somethin…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 09:25 PM
4

Yes! This is really important and really problematic. When prison rape statistics are considered in general male rape stats, men are actually raped more frequently than women. However, men are by far the more likely of the two genders (if we're allowed to be binary for stat reasons) to commit rape, and most prison rapes are actually man-on-man, with a not-insignificant minority being female wardens against male inmates.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 09:07 PM
0

Just as women take advantage of the remnants of chivalry (which, one cannot deny, totally happens!), so do men take advantage of the relics of patriarchy by being embarrassed to have a woman do the heavy lifting. They take it upon themselves, because they sure as hell won't be seen looking weak next to a woman. Think about that next time you see a woman standing back while a man does the hard work; it may not have been at her insistence. But you're right that if the weaker person (be it a woman …
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:56 PM
-10

After perusing the comment sections of each of those articles, I have not seen any argument of the sort you are describing. Sorry. It just doesn't happen that often, and certainly not by prominent public figures or anyone taken seriously. I instead see comments pointing out that while circumcision is wrong or problematic, it is not equivalent to FGM (which is true).
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:42 PM
-15

That actually sounds like a fairly reasonable argument for feminists to make, to me. Circumcision is not the same thing as FGM, and it's frequently much less grievous. It's certainly possible to mutilate a boy in a way that is analogous to commonly-practiced FGM, but in practice it is frequently much less extensive and the effects less negative (there are cases of suspected mental trauma in the case of circumcized babies, which is terrible, but FGM often causes pain with urination and other heal…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:30 PM
-8

Not my intent. Circumcision is the most widely practice form of MGM, and it is far less extensive than the most widely-practiced FGM, so I didn't see the harm in referring to MGM as circumcision. This does not mean I don't recognize full well that it is possible for more extensive forms of genital mutilation to be performed on males, and I intend to compare FGM and MGM on level ground here. All forms of MGM are unacceptable, just like for FGM. My apologies for not being more precise.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:20 PM
-5

Bullshit, sorry. Blame it on the wimminz. Men are capable of their own goddamn decisions, including the decision to defer to the mother. I don't believe most men that circumcise their children do it because of women's opinion. I think they do it because they've been conditioned to think it's ok, or even a positive thing. My best friend is uncircumcised. His parents told him, when he asked why they didn't get him cut, because "they loved him just the way he was". All parents should be this way. F…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:08 PM
0

Actually, after closer examination, you're right. I was running off of an older (before 2013) definition of rape and molestation. It seems now penetration is the only thing that distinguishes the two. Sorry for the pointless comment!
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:57 PM
-19

this argument does come up over and over and over again, usually some white knight showing off what a champion of women he is. Oh? Please, educate me. None of these "circumcision is not mutilation because everyone does it"/"because it's hygienic"/"because Jewish tradition" bullshit arguments, though. I wanna see some "circumcision is not mutilation because FGM" shit, just like you say. Please, educate me. I don't think it happens with any regularity. And if it doesn't happen with any significant…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:46 PM
0

If you've seen a particular instance of this, it's meaningless. Person who happens to be a woman stands by and expects someone who looks stronger to do the dirty work. What the fuck ever. Men do it all the goddamn time. If she's doing it because she expects male nurses to do the dirty work like lifting a patient, she's sexist, yes. Somehow I doubt you'll actually call her out on it, though, as you probably don't want to out yourself (most MRAs, as I understand, are closeted about it).
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:34 PM
0

including a great many feminists By all means, please supply examples of "a great many feminists" claiming that men cannot be raped by women. I think you'll find one or two, but I challenge you to find there to be anywhere near a significant chorus of feminists saying this kind of thing, as you imply. By all means, educate me. Show me that this is not just the fringe. I'm dying to know.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:23 PM
0

while the little nurse plays candy crush Sexist made-up example is sexist. Try again.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:11 PM
2

I am definitely not one to argue that molestation is more mild than rape (it frequently is just as traumatic - I'm not sure why we even make such a distinction except because of the possible pregnancy angle, I guess), but fingering someone is not rape, it is molestation. EDIT: I'm wrong! It is rape, according to the US definition as of 2013.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:00 PM
10

No, I don't believe a father gets to choose whether or not to mutilate his son's penis. It's not just evul feminist mothers that circumcise their boys, you know. Fathers do it plenty of times, too, in the interest of conformity ("lots of guys are circumcized! wouldn't want him to get picked on in the men's room!"), because it "looks better", or because, at times, having a foreskin is damned inconvenient. (You know when the last drops of urine get trapped under the reservoir of the foreskin and t…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:49 PM
-16

Would be a good post, if anyone said this kind of thing with any regularity. But they don't so...yawn. Circumcision is mutilation. FGM is also mutilation. FGM is definitely worse than circumcision in all but the most botched cases of circumcision, but that doesn't make circumcision any less wrong or horrible. End of fucking story. Argument over.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:37 PM
3

Men who are nurses are nurses, period. They need to be referred to as "nurses" and not otherized with such terms as "male nurse" or "murse". I am alright with trying to coin another term that is gender-neutral to refer to all nurses (one that is not semantically connected to the idea of breastfeeding), but referring to male and female nurses by different terms does nothing to promote equality or intersectionality.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:25 PM
1

You do realize that the term "cad" is gender-specific and means nothing like what you're using it as, right? Ok, just thought I'd check with you. Dismissing dissenting opinions as "trololol" because you can't handle arguing with them is definitely something not unique to you - your MRA brethren are more than happy to do so when they feel cornered as well. But you're continuing to engage me, so if I were a troll you'd be doing me a favor. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? sorry about yo…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:42 PM
2

Nothing makes my patriarchal man meat harder then the shrill shrieks of a wrong feminist choking on my big black logic cock. I could pretend that this offends me, but it doesn't a whole lot. Mainly because you sound like a /b/tard trying to elicit the cheapest of emotional responses, but also because I'm unimpressed and unsurprised that an MRA such as yourself would blatantly admit to enjoying committing rape, even in jest. Can't back out of it now, buddy - there's literally no other way to inte…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 08:43 AM
1

What is "immodest" for a work or school environment is based on what society deems "immodest", so that is to say that it would be, yes. However, whether it should be deemed immodest or not is a separate issue.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:13 AM
2

Let me try again! Argument ad absurdum! You know what, let's just start saying all kinds of nonsense out loud. Banana! Expelliarmus! You better step up your programming game, AsteRisque, because your fallacy algorithm is really out of whack.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:46 AM
0

they have a word for people like you, but it's not used in high society Oh! Oh! What is it? You're such a gentleman for not using it in my fragile presence. You've spelled out approximately nothing. You aren't understanding the subtlety behind the issue no matter how I explain it: enforcing rules "equally" without regard for the disproportionate effects it may have one one demographic versus another is not fair, and while life isn't fair, just people are. Just 'cause fashion trends are such that…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:00 AM
1

Oh, boy. This is rich. This guy actually thinks he know what the fuck he's talking about. Requesting backup. I repeat: requesting backup! Nope, it doesn't make me right. It just makes this a whole lot more interesting when it would otherwise simply be boring and dry. So, if you don't mind, I think I'll continue, as your arguments are definitely begging for a little denouncement. Sorry to be condescending, but you're being that ridiculous right now. I wish I could show you exactly how sixteen-and…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:06 AM
1

Ahaha! No, silly. Reiterating what I was asking for is not a non-sequitur. Please re-calibrate your automatic fallacy database from which you are pulling, as it's not running according to specifications. No one in their right mind thinks that women are incapable of raping boys. Posting a link that demonstrates that a woman raped a boy and got a slap on the wrist for it, now that I think of it, is a bit of a non-sequitur since it was clear I was asking for something else. Now, do you have a link …
/r/MensRights20/06/14 01:05 AM
0

So yes, I would like to say that life isn't fair when a young lady is told to not wear short shorts to school. Translation: you're bitter because life has handed you the short stick, ergo you don't give a shit (or you even think it's justified!) when a lady is policed on her wardrobe. It's the least the world can do to make you feel a bit better! Save some of the injustice for the wimmins, please! I'm actually truly regretful that all those horrible things have happened to you. Nothing you could…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:56 AM
2

And, of course, acting fair is totally the same thing as "letting people think that the world is fair". Being just is the same thing as luring people into a false and naive sense of security, making them think the world is naturally exactly the way moral artifice has rendered it. Of course. There's NO POSSIBLE way to teach children that the world isn't fair but that they should behave fairly and try to even the odds as much as possible. No, surely not.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:45 AM
1

Ooh, let's play a drinking game! Every time DarkCircle uses a misogynistic trope take a shot. May the odds be ever in your liver's favor. Oh jesus great power their bodies have over men. [shot] lol, wimminz cuntroll the mens with their bodies. Helpless mind-slaves. [Insert additional ridiculous blame-shifting argument here to resume] Boys are typically given a bit more autonomy with what they wear, especially after high school, because of the modesty issue. Many parents do not care that their so…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:35 AM
1

If this is your argument (which I didn't realize it was), you live in a different reality than the one in which most girls go to middle and high school. Anecdotally speaking, many girls can attest that if their bra became visible to an authority figure at any point they have been asked to change or at least told they're out of compliance. I certainly did not prove your point when I argue that there is a difference between clothing that is designed to show off private parts and clothing that acci…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:17 AM
-1

You might be surprised to find this out, but all of those "appropriate" shirts can easily reveal cleavage or bra-straps (or even a midriff if you raise your arms high enough) given the right position. There is a difference between clothing that is designed to show off and showcase private parts and clothing that accidentally, by poor design, reveals then from time to time. Still not seeing your point.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 08:06 PM
1

No, no no. Examples of The Guardian defending women that rape boys.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 07:25 PM
-10

Boys dress codes are at least as restrictive as girls Only on the surface. If you look at the effects of such dress code policies, this is definitely not the case.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:07 AM
-14

Obviously there is. I fail to see your point.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 02:21 AM
-16

Perhaps not a prep school boy, but I do think you're a bit of a short-sighted snob, especially after you made the tired "life isn't fair" argument. So I suppose notions of justice and equity should go out the window?
/r/MensRights19/06/14 01:35 AM
-18

That is pretty comprehensive. And it actually seems pretty fair (except where bras are considered underwear - at that point it becomes disciminatory against girls because of how incredibly easy it is for bra straps to become visible through the neck of a shirt). But if you think this is how most school dress code policies are enforced, you were probably very sheltered. Instead, boys rarely get in trouble for wardrobe that is immodest; instead they primarily have to change for clothes that glorif…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 12:29 AM
-13

That would be reasonable, except it's exceedingly difficult to find clothing at most clothing stores that in in compliance the way dress codes dictate for girls. Even a plain girls' white undershirt (not a cami, but like a tee) often has a neckline that allows cleavage or bra straps to be visible given the right position. Add a large bust to this and you've got a formula for lots of violation for wearing what society deems "modest" for the average girl. And no, outside private schools it is very…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 12:16 AM
-31

Sigh. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Your argument would make sense if the situation described was always the sort of school wherein you are expected to tuck in vests and tee-shirts. However, that is not the case for most public schools. In most schools in the US, bra strap visibility is punished (something that can happen if one merely bends or turns the wrong way) whereas tee-shirt visibility is not. So, sorry, your argument is ridiculous. Now, I'd say if schools were punishing boys …
/r/MensRights18/06/14 11:55 PM
0

Well, I appreciate you at least trying.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 11:42 PM
-3

Links?
/r/MensRights18/06/14 11:19 PM
-12

Gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Never met a feminist (and I've met a lot of fucking feminists) that "aggressively push the narrative of female victimhood...in any and all circumstances regardless of the details". I'm pretty sure if most feminists are pushing the narrative of female victimhood, it's because after a careful analysis of the situation it is clear that the woman is the victim. Or so has been my experience. To be clear, no reasonable feminist would argue that what this woman did was…
/r/MensRights18/06/14 10:31 PM
-18

Oh boy! I love strawmen!
/r/MensRights18/06/14 10:21 PM
1

Absolutely on that last point, doctorpwn. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even people with PTSD who treat all men with suspicion are in the wrong, but it is understandable and the situation needs to be treated with patience.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 12:31 AM
-4

You're mistaken that if a school policy is going to have a disproportionate effect on only one gender that there needs to be a good reason for it to exist. Plenty of policies are going to have a disproportionate effect on certain demographics as opposed to others, and that may or may not be a bad thing. But you're right that policies need to exist for a good reason, and I'm really not sure there is a good one for this zero-tolerance stuff.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 12:21 AM
-13

Could it be...you think...possibly...because boys are more likely to do such things as make finger guns? Maybe? You act like this is some conspiracy "against boys", but the fact is that it happens to discriminate against boys because boys are likely the more frequent perpetrators. Now, whether we argue that expulsion or suspension for these behaviors is justified is beside the point. But are you seriously going to pretend this is some grand plot to "emasculate" males? Really?
/r/MensRights18/06/14 12:02 AM
0

I'm just about wholly in agreement with you on point #1. I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say, there. "I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to be afraid of men for a time after the event, but then they need to get professional help in order to help relieve the mental issues caused by trauma." Exactly. It's not healthy or good to be afraid of or hate men because one has fallen victim to them, but is is understandable, I argue. It need not be condoned, but it should b…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 11:52 PM
1

That's a great comic by SMBC. I hope you would interpret that in a way that allows you to view feminists as mostly civil, reasonable people with a different opinion than you. Although it has not been my experience that MRAs are mostly civil and reasonable, I know that it is likely to be true and try to assume that that is the case when engaging one. So, here's the thing. One shouldn't be afraid of men just because they're disproportionately violent. But that's exactly how people are re-wired whe…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 10:55 PM
0

Is your question "why does it matter whether or not women are or are not victimized more than men?" It does matter, because men are disproportionally the perpetrators of violence against women as well as violence against men. It matters because people like you are often wondering out loud why anyone cares. But in a discussion about a specific incidence of gender inequality, it should generally not factor into the discussion.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:33 PM
-1

FFS, thank you.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 06:12 PM
2

Ah, Nietzsche. You know, he was a documented misogynist, that Nietzsche.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 05:58 PM
1

You do realize that your proposed definition excludes transmen, right? A real man is anyone who identifies as a man, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 05:46 PM
0

You can't answer your own question yourself? Because although it negatively affects both, it more frequently and more severely victimizes women. Also, while the patriarchy aims to aggrandize men and often succeeds in shallow ways, it also undermines those efforts in many subtle ways. That is, it has a habit of backfiring and damaging the very people it sought to empower, through unfair expectations and double-standards.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 05:35 PM
1

Hey! Nice job engaging me respectfully and civily; I appreciate it and have RES tagged you. I also admire your empathy and reciprocity when it comes to using loaded terms - the fact that you're uncomfortable using "female privilege" because you don't like it when people use "male privilege" is not something I can totally relate to, but I respect it. Yes, it seems we disagree on patriarchy theory. Your "problem" with patriarchy theory (that it is a system wherein women are oppressed and seen as s…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 05:25 PM
-1

/r/Feminism doesn't ban posters who have /r/mensrights posts in their history, they ban posters who stir the pot who have /r/mensrights posts in their history. It's a subtle but important distinction that you fail to recognize.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:30 AM
-4

Of course men's issues shouldn't be disregarded because "patriarchy". If anything, men's issues should be paid attention to because "patriarchy". But it is important for men to recognize that the "patriarchy", although a rather inelegant term, is a real thing that hurts men as well as women and that they should make the effort to combat it as well as women. Many MRAs fail to recognize that, instead of insisting that because they themselves do not recognize their power that they must be powerless…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:19 AM
-2

Something which I never suggested. But nice zinger.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:09 AM
-7

You jest, but it is likely sexist or "patriarchal" attitudes that contributed to the deaths of the men (which are by no means deserved). Men are frequently treated with greater violence because they are believed to either be deserving of it (wrongly) or because they "can take it". Women are seen as fragile, and a commodity besides. It makes perfect sense that they would kill the men and "spare" (I say this ironically, of course) the women, when the women are perceived as less of a threat.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:57 PM
-2

Waitwaitwait, suggesting you have a victim complex (which it is evident you definitely do) is a QED for your claim that I am administering verbal beatings to you? Yikes. You might wanna stay inside from now on. I'm simply trying to illustrate that I am sorrowful that calling you out on your bullshit makes you feel wounded and hurt. I pity the kind of person who cannot handle that -- I do not intend to beat you with my words, however. I'm sorry if I've made you feel that way, 123vasectomy. I'm ha…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:47 PM
1

demonizing our sexuality Because feminists definitely do that on a regular basis.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:37 PM
-1

"verbal beatings" Man, you've got a huge victim complex. It's saddening to witness.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:23 PM
-1

No, no, you've got it wrong, though. I didn't come here to confirm any sort of bias. I've been involved with (although not in agreement with, for the most part) men's rights circles for half a decade as well as feminist circles, and have no biases to "confirm". However, it is undeniable that r/mensrights has patent biases that it needs to deal with, and therein is my point. I'll also point out that while I'm not a "femmetroll", I am intrigued that you're still here even though you said you were …
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:38 PM
-2

If a refusal to take you at your word makes you feel unsafe, by all means stay away from any and all objective circles in favor or places where people will accept whatever you say as fact "just because". Actually, that sounds an awful lot like r/mensrights, now that I think of it.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:21 PM
-24

You know, usually I hear MRAs argue that the patriarchy doesn't exist in the first world, where most armchair feminists exist, which is one thing (something I still disagree with, but at least that's an argument I'm used to dealing with). But to outright deny it completely is kind of novel to me. Read a little bit about the milieu in India, China, Nigeria, or Saudia Arabia and get back to me. Femicide is real. FGM and acid attacks, even in countries that do not widely practice male circumcision,…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:11 PM
-2

You've never felt less than safe on either sub because you have the privilege of not being threatened by "sarcasm" and rude behavior. The bottom line is, 123vasectomy, that if you approached r/Feminism with a curious, humble and respectful stance rather than one in which you're constantly calling into question whether someone is being sarcastic or a troll, you'd probably have done a whole lot better on the subreddit. I am not someone who would ever think to ban someone on sight or based on opini…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:01 PM
-4

That's bullshit, sorry.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:49 PM
-32

3edgy5me. Like the term or not (and I certainly do not like the term - I think it's entirely too focused on men and the wrongs they commit), what is known as "patriarchy" does hurt men and women alike.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:37 PM
-2

And yet in the first page of your comment history there are examples of you being antagonistic rather than polite and amicable in response to feminist thought (including some that appears in r/Mensrights). For example, here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/28b17f/a_woman_smashed_my_head_with_her_high_heels_while/ci97npr?context=3 What you don't understand is that r/Feminism is pretty open-minded when it comes to dissent, but it doesn't tolerate people that harass other people. If you…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:27 PM
-3

Sorry, that's just patently untrue and a gross misrepresentation. Of the anecdotal evidence I've seen of people who have been banned from r/feminism for "asking a question", they have done so in a sarcastic, inflammatory, antagonistic, or otherwise hostile manner. Given that fora like r/feminism are intended to be safe spaces for women (and men, as a matter of fact), it is completely understandable that such communities would have no tolerance for that.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:13 PM
-2

I'd love to see your (if not deleted) comments that got you banned. I'd be interested in seeing whether or not they purely espouse a different opinion or if they are inflammatory and antagonistic in nature. That shit just isn't going to fly in a space that is intended to be "safe for women", so if you thought you can be crass and jerkwaddy in such a sphere, you were clearly quite wrong. But correct me if mistaken.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:11 PM
-2

While the people upvoting this are unlikely to recognize that the "silence" around men's health is by and large a result of (for lack of a more elegant and less loaded word) patriarchal attitudes, this poster can only be a good thing. I wholeheartedly support greater awareness of and attention to men's health, although not at the expense of women's (which this poster does not at all suggest).
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:09 PM
-4

Yes, I am quite familiar with both, and have been for about four years or so.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:57 PM
-1

You clearly do not understand what it means to abolish gender roles. It's not about imposing a neuter status on people in the name of acceptance, as you seem to believe. Nice strawman, though. 2/10.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:28 PM
-5

You're being intentionally disingenuous. r/Feminism is a lot more accepting of people with contradicting opinions than r/mensrights, although this thread is definitely a credit to r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:25 PM
6

Ain't that some bullshit.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:19 PM
2

Very sorry to hear that. That should never have been taken from you. I agree with many of the comments here that a tattoo is significantly more mild than circumcision.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:15 PM
18

Not an MRA (feminist), but I think the most important men's rights issues are: 1) Fair treatment on the issue of child custody 2) Acceptance of non-adherence to masculine gender roles by men 3) Recognition of and outrage toward violence against men (including DV and rape)
/r/MensRights16/06/14 08:13 PM
-1

Victim-blaming? I don't think you know what the term means. See, stating a statistical fact is not victim-blaming. There is nothing a man could do to deserve getting raped or deserve getting the blame for a rape. That's just that. But do men rape more than women? Hell yes. Not victim-blaming. There.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 04:13 AM
0

Feminists generally believe that women cannot rape men. Lol. I know you said that with a straight face. I know you did. Props to you. Again, not a troll account, but I am increasingly amused at the lengths you have gone to delude yourself. You even claim that I'm victim-blaming, but can't seem to point out where. Please insert 25 cents and demonstrate where the article implies that the author thinks women can't rape men to continue.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 02:38 AM
1

Ok, you're strawmanning hardcore here. No sensible person argues that male rape is somehow "impossible". The laws of physics somehow prevent it, I suppose? You're being intentionally disingenuous by claiming that people argue that. Male rape, is, however, consistently demonstrated to be, if not less prevalent than female rape, at least way way more frequently perpetrated by males. In any case, the definition "to penetrate or make to penetrate" is the fairest definition of rape yet.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 10:47 PM
-2

What you meant to say is that you can't put together a coherent argument and wish to bow out in as least humiliating a manner as possible. I am no troll, but you almost look like you are. Almost.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 10:29 PM
-1

Whoa, buddy, no need to get offended. Your use of caps lock is a little unwarranted and frankly renders your argument all the more unreliable, so sit down, have a cup of tea and relax. Focusing on the act of penetration means that if a person penetrates or forces another to penetrate them (or coerces, because it clearly states that the 2012 FBI definition does not specify force), that person has committed rape. This metric does not discriminate against men. You will need to furnish evidence that…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 10:19 PM
2

Ok, I think there's some confusion here. To be fair, there really isn't a clear explanation for whether "penetration-based" discriminates against men or not. It is evident, however, that that 2012 revised FBI definition does not discriminate against male victims, and they are valid victims even if they are the technical "penetrator". If you think she's anything but sympathetic to the idea that male rape is under-reported and under-estimated by limited guidelines, your reading comprehension needs…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 09:18 PM
4

"Eventually localities began to rebel against that limited gender bound definition; in 2010 Chicago reported 86,767 cases of rape but used its own broader definition, so the FBI left out the Chicago stats. Finally, in 2012, the FBI revised its definition and focused on penetration, with no mention of female (or force)." She very clearly describes the definition of rape by penetration as limited and implies it is backward. Pay more attention next time.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 09:08 PM
5

Jesus, did you even read the article? She points out that that definition is faulty.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 08:57 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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