TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

llogiq Archive

View 0 posts and 85 comments by llogiq 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)
1

Not going to lie: we had some crises, but we overcame them. And of course having three kids won't exactly help keeping an active love life, yet I still have no reason to complain. With that said, I too have seen marriages end in my friends circle, so I may still be a lucky outlier.
/r/MensRights19/09/23 09:17 AM
1

Germany is 'led' by Chancellor Angela Merkel for some time now. The results are...let's go with inconclusive.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 04:28 AM
5

They already are, sort of. But mostly for women.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 05:27 PM
2

I sense a false dichotomy here. Why shouldn't both men and women be oppressed? Edit: just wanted to add, this does not need to be a zero-sum game.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 07:41 PM
4

Yeah, I do that, too. As I commented elsewhere, I once got berated, but I managed to shut that person up.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 07:49 AM
11

I just asked her whether she thinks the reason for the parking space is so one can get the kids to the shop without chasing them through the cars, or that mothers cannot park in a normal-size space. That shut her up. (Edit: spelling)
/r/MensRights28/03/16 03:41 AM
4

The worst that has happened to me so far was being scolded as a chauvinist pig in front of my kids. Since those parking spaces are on private property, the owners could conceivably have me towed, but I doubt they'd do that – imagine the shitstorm.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 03:17 AM
16

Similar parking spots are in lots of places in Germany, too. I actually don't have a problem with that. However, I will park on the mother-and-kids parking space when I go shopping with the kids.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 07:29 PM
1

Am I on the wrong subreddit? We should be discussing Men's Rights, not household chores. OP, please stop trolling.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:57 AM
1

Try being a nurse for a change. I know a few (of both genders) and it's hard unglamorous work. That said, the whole health sector is messed up. As is education. But that's hardly the fault of those choosing to work there anyway.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 06:36 AM
4

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:33 PM
1

That was just rational people steering clear of potential arguments. Then folks like you decided to make a big stink about it. Please note that I'm a MR supporter, but I think we should set our sights on more serious issues than a single 'o' in a mime type.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 10:47 AM
1

Actually I don't have a problem with respecting stupid people's contributions. I just don't add them to my codebase.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 10:44 AM
2

This is not all that uncommon in Germany; especially with 50's-60's generation. Let's not use this blunt a hammer, shall we?
/r/MensRights10/03/15 04:22 PM
0

She may be all that and more, but that doesn't invalidate her argument. Being wrong is what invalidates her argument. And I don't even disagree that she may call sexist whomever she likes or that it's OK for a game to be sexist. If she finds a game sexist, well, nobody forces her to play it. But she should not expect anyone (neither gamers nor professional game makers) to listen to it, much less whine because she calls them names.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:52 PM
1

I say currently agreed definition, not some rad-fem's definition. Speaking to someone does not constitute rape.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 06:30 PM
9

Yes, it's the same false dichotomy. I am a man. By the currently agreed definition of rape, I have never raped anyone. Asking me not to rape won't accomplish anything but make the asker look foolish.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:13 AM
1

We're at Gandhi-con 3. Keep it up.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 04:45 AM
3

Their agenda - at least in the western world - is driven by the desire for struggle and victimization. So they resort to trolling (shirtgate) and intellectual dishonesty just so they can justify their arguments. They should be helping their sisters in countries where 'patriarchy' isn't the watered down feminist definition, but instead they oppress researchers for their fashion choices. It's a pity.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 09:19 PM
3

Again, their arguments may be off, even to the point of sounding irrational. Their agenda clearly isn't.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 08:43 PM
2

No, it's the concept that women are to feeble to commit crimes (or when they do, there must've been a man pushing them to do it). Remember: Men act, women are acted upon. Which is obviously wrong, but it's the principle of objectification at work. Note that this is the same principle that feminists have fought against for a few decades now. Let's wish them luck with this endeavor.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 11:48 AM
1

Please folks at least get the facts right before dismissing the term (there are enough feminists who get it wrong, no need to aid them). Patriarchy – in the feminist theory sense – comes from the second wave of feminism (amongs other Simone de Beauvoir), and has very little to do with actual men sitting at actual levers of power. It's a blanket term for the historical system (or the remnants of said system) to subjugate women (edit: and other men, for that matter).
/r/MensRights14/11/14 08:44 PM
2

Another no true Scotsman fallacy. Apparently I must be female, for I greet everyone in the streets in the German town where I live.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:54 AM
2

I (father of 2) always changed my kids in the restroom with the changing table. Only once have I been thrown out (at Frankfurt Airport, by an apparently misandrist toilet attendant).
/r/MensRights09/11/14 04:50 PM
0

Don't feed the troll.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 04:04 PM
5

But, folks? We do have a similar policy in place, just that it doesn't hinge on gender, but ignorance/failure to reason. You'll get shouted down if you start trolling in any direction. ;)
/r/MensRights25/08/14 04:15 AM
1

In case of OP, it apparently has worked at least as far as exposing a potential rapist feminist. Arguing that rape should be legal even in jest certainly isn't helping to show our movement as reasonable. OP could also say something like "Remind me to avoid walking in dark alleys with you", should the legal road fail. I like to say we're at Gandhi-Con 3 (they fight you). Don't resort to violence, anger or other negative tactics. Let their anger betray their true motives. Win in the minds of those…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 01:51 PM
13

Don't do this. Two wrongs don't make a right. Trolls like you are the reason that feminists get so riled up when Men's Rights are mentioned. We're Men's Rights Advocates, not Men's Wrongs Advocates. Those who really stand for our cause are above trolling, instead arguing with reason. OP: You did expose someone who apparently lacks empathy against men. You did this by fair and adequate reasoning, not by trolling. You've done well. For the next time, look up your local laws. Many jurisdictions hav…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 12:26 PM
1

I think the problem is that MRM followers usually don't get into discussions with the less extreme feminists - it's the nutcases that have swallowed the conflation of the term and spew nonsense like "But you are a MAN! You ARE part of the problem!" (cue frothing). Now don't get me wrong - this is not an excuse to stop there and take this stupidity as the official definition of patriarchy. On the other hand, feminists dismissed the MRM in de Beauvoir's time, when it was clearly based on the same …
/r/MensRights07/07/14 01:12 PM
2

Thanks for pointing out my error - yes Simone de Beauvoir could be described as a 2,5th wave feminist. And you hit the nail on the head with your description of patriarchy as de Beauvoir saw it. My problem with feminist misappropriation of the term is that in a historical patriarchy, it was the patriarch(s) who called the shots, and were directly responsible for the oppression of others (regardless of genders). As I stated before, there are countries where an actual patriarchy (in the original s…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 11:54 AM
1

Simone de Beauvoir, a 70s first-wave feminist made exactly this case. In her book, "The Second Sex", she discusses among other things, the gender binary. She also argued that the patriarchy, by her time still more than a remnant, was responsible for the gender binary. If I recall correctly, she also stated that the gender binary hurt both men and women, an opinion that is pointedly not shared by many current-wave feminists. I think, historically this argument may have merit. Of course the then-f…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 09:30 PM
1

Yes, I mean specifically in America an other western developed countries. Sorry that wasn't clear before. We seem to all agree that patriarchy is malarkey in this specific context, so how do we frame the causes of our problems like the equality issues you bring up? Careful here. It may be incorrect, but it's also feminist dogma. You don't argue dogma. Argue facts and if absolutely needed, opinions. If it isn't patriarchy like they claim, wouldn't the feminists be responsible? Not necessarily. It…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 07:08 PM
1

Of course patriarchy exists. In countries like Saudi Arabia, it's alive and kicking (presumably women). However, in western countries the so-called "patriarchy" is an intellectually dishonest construct to ascribe victimhood to women in general. However, if your audience is delusional about the intellectual dishonesty they have subscribed to (and cognitive dissonance can go a long way before kicking in), your "but it doesn't exist" argument will carry little weight. The best thing is to not bring…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 10:55 PM
1

This also harms male children who may be better off with their father than their mother but are given to their mother based on this rigid gender divide. Strike the "male". All children who would be better off with the other parent in a divorce are harmed, regardless of gender. You should probably make the distinction between the current wave of feminism and the original ideal from the 70s. It's not the same, and using the same word could confuse your audience. The last point as stated could easi…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:40 PM
29

I always just lower my voice and say: "Yes, you're right. But please don't tell my kids."
/r/MensRights05/07/14 08:40 AM
2

Gough times? We're at Gandhicon-3. Been for some time, actually. Keep it calm and keep it up; next level is victory.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 03:00 PM
3

Here in Germany there are many such parking spaces e.g. in public garages. Also many bigger shops have 'mother-and-kid' parking space. Btw. when I was shopping with my daughter, I used such a parking space (because they're wider, it was easier to get her into the stroller), and one woman told me she'll ask the shop manager to have my car towed. The manager in question told her to get lost.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:08 PM
1

I agree that they are not only wrong but hypocritically wrong. But what does that gain us?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:01 PM
4

Yes, but them being young white Americans does not invalidate their argument. The facts that in most western countries men are rather disadvantaged in matters of law we pay for our 'privilege' with selective service and not getting a job if a woman with comparable faculties is available we've been the majority of war- and crime-related casualties do.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:14 PM
2

It may be valid, but I'd rather argue that "privilege" is a) not evenly distributed and b) comes with a set of obligations, which most feminists are loathe to discuss (e.g. military service).
/r/MensRights24/05/14 04:29 PM
15

This is a classic ad hominem. Come on, we're better than that. Their arguments are quite weak anyway. We should attack their bullshit, not them.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 03:26 PM
2

Anyway it's perfectly possible to have an active sex life in University perfectly safely, Men and Women just need to be sensible The problem is that you need to be sure that your potential partner is sensible, too. I've got my degree (CS with a bit of Psychology thrown in) for more than a decade, and I've met a lot of people, crazy and sane, in the meantime. I'm not sure I can decide which is which. You think a College freshman can do that?
/r/MensRights15/05/14 11:34 AM
0

Thinking this to the consequences leads to the following: Just to be sure you should avoid being with any woman alone at all cost. Tell them you have femiphobia if they ask. Always be within a bigger goup. If you happen to be alone and see a woman, run away. Try for a degree in electrical engineering or computer science. Those subjects tend to have less women, thus should be deemed less dangerous. Thus the gender politics at universities actually reinforce gender division by subject.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 11:31 AM
1

Ghandicon 3 achieved. Keep going.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:31 PM
1

"These are the wise, who travel through error to truth. Who stay at the error, are the fools." -- Friedrich Rückert (+ my admittedly mediocre translation)
/r/MensRights15/07/12 12:40 PM
1

Despite being sexistic, the issue I had was the explicit assumption that the mentioned sentences must be, by definition, lies. What if my battery really runs out? Wait, that won't happen. What if I'm really on my way? Or stuck in traffic - a not too otherworldly occurrence for people who commute daily? No, it's all lies. The other thing it misses is that the questions the "lies" may answer are by themselves judgemental, distrusting and belittling. So the sexism goes both ways: Men have to lie be…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 10:18 PM
9

German here. I've just read of this "German custom" first - though I wasn't married until 29, I've never been shamed for not marrying earlier. Perhaps it's a local custom to some more rural areas.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:17 PM
23

The metaphor is bad, but the base idea is sound: For guys: If you want a "friend", get friend zoned. Otherwise, just go find someone who appreciates you as more than a sheep. For girls: Don't date jerks who mistreat others. No offence taken here.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 09:30 PM
2

Good points, all of them. However, point 3 suffers an existing problem - that courts can (and in many cases will) find in favor of the mother, regardless of the facts at hand. I don't know of any fix, but maybe point 19 should be extended to require gender-neutral court rulings.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 07:58 PM
2

I'd hammer out of danger,
/r/MensRights21/08/11 10:09 PM
12

Don't tell us how to dress, tell rapists not to rape FTFY. Note that only a tiny minority of men are rapists.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:57 AM
2

As has yours, alas. I wish MRAs to be seen as cheerful and determined, not vengeful and demoralized. We are already at Ghandi-Con 3, so let's just keep up fighting the good fight and we'll win eventually. Crying "Wominn are baaaaad!!!" gets us nowhere. I'd rather discuss what is wrong with the system and how to fix it.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 08:35 PM
3

While it may hold true for some, this analysis sure sounds quite bitter. Yes, there are spouses who abuse the system (or leverage sex) for their personal gain. At least with the people I know those are in the minority. I agree that the system is erroneous and should be changed (the economics around sex most certainly won't), but this kind of ranting has little impact to affect change. If you look at it from a utopian angle, in what world would you utter "I love you" and mean something else than …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:50 PM
1

Full Ack. Let's all keep our cool, wait for the peer review to come out and in the meantime fill the fora with intelligent discussion.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:43 PM
1

4 years. We know each since 1999 and live together since 2001. So while the chance remains that our marriage could turn sour in the future, we are fairly settled and know what to expect from each other.
/r/MensRights17/09/10 07:00 AM
9

In a much better situation then most men who are married and do not get laid more then once a month maybe if that... I'm married and can't complain in that department. But I may be just the lucky outlier.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 09:44 AM
1

That's why I always point out that whenever whe argue for MR, we have to be careful not to become misogynistic. Swinging the pendulum in the other direction will gain us nothing. And misuse of terms is a powerful thing. You cannot undo it by stating the original definition still stands. Quote Wikipedia: "Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing greater, equal, or, among a minority, superior rights and participation in society for women and girls." This…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 02:27 AM
1

I used to have the same idea when I came to the MR subreddit, but was soon brought to the conclusion that today's "spearhead of feminism" is actually a big kettle of man-haters. Yes, it is not "real feminism" in the original sense of the term. It's a shame, but the term feminism has been hijacked by misandrists. MensRights is in opposition of these "feminists" in the modern sense, not in the 1970's sense.
/r/MensRights14/08/10 09:30 PM
7

Of course it's not black and white. There will always be cases in those shades of gray. That's why we don't leave justice to a computer. Still, innocent until proven guilty is the standard here. Anyone who wants to have more or less is trying to bias the law against one or the other side.
/r/MensRights11/07/10 11:23 PM
0

Calm down, folks. The equality watchdog just said that helping the poor (regardless of gender) would be better than helping boys (regardless of socioeconomic status). Since the main "problem kids" are (citation needed) poor boys, the change in objective will not be too big. EDIT: See jay76's post, he's obviously more eloquent than I am.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:04 AM
1

I would, but it wasn't available. And "tautology" is technically correct, but not accepted by everyone.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 10:51 PM
1

I think that's called institutional cannibalism.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 10:35 PM
2

Please not another meaning of an already overused term.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 04:06 PM
1

Yes.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 01:52 PM
1

Maybe I'm being too subtle. {Men, Women} are people. Note that the original feminism (not the male-bashing neo-feminazis) was about the same thing, only for women. With the implicit claim that people (should) have rights.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 11:15 AM
2

So what would you call the belief that people are people?
/r/MensRights02/07/10 10:39 AM
7

Ok, so here's a refutation of all the points: "If the World Cup featured women" - who would have thought, this sport is played by female teams, too. And they too have a World Cup. So this is not a what-if. 1) This basically means that ogling at women makes them "meat", while men are for some reason impervious to this effect. It also insinuates that women are being told their worth is based on who wants to fuck them. Really, who of you has been telling that to women? :-) 2) Can be summed up as: T…
/r/MensRights26/06/10 06:28 AM
1

Also 33. Dead? Not quite. :-)
/r/MensRights05/04/10 07:53 PM
1

Not at all. Mind you, I had the exact same discussion with my wife yesterday and she now agrees with your argument (Well, I had to make it more personal for her by suggesting that I should pay the child support). Thank you.
/r/MensRights27/12/09 07:46 AM
0

I am not sure if I understand your question. So you state that "women seem unable (in the mass) to vote independently of their selfish reproductive-economics needs". Why should they vote independently of their selfish reproductive economics needs? I am aware that men != women. I however have yet to find needs in men and women that are irreconcilable. Could you elaborate? "...campaining for the right to have an abortion" - for whom?
/r/MensRights26/12/09 08:36 AM
2

No (at least not much) harm done, I guess. At least she did not use this to get revenge on anyone, just to cry wolf (which is bad enough). If this gets as little attention as possible, good (because more attention will invite copy-cats). And as I read it, the girl is going to get therapy for her issues. Which is good, too.
/r/MensRights26/12/09 08:23 AM
1

I define misogyny as hating women because they are women. You may hold a grudge against every third-wave feminist on the planet and still not be a misogynist. Hating an oppressor makes you a revolutionary, not a misogynist. On the other hand, if you think that women are second-class citizens that should not have the same rights as men, yup, you're a misogynist. It's not about chivalry. It's about doing the right thing. We rightly accuse the foam-around-the-mouth-feminists of oppressing men. But …
/r/MensRights25/12/09 08:50 AM
6

I think our biggest accomplishment by today is not giving up or descending into misogyny (apart from a few trolls, but they tend to get told to troll elsewhere quite fast). Apart from that, we managed to make some female supremacists foam around the mouth (MR was nominated for worst subreddit). This means we have reached Ghandi-Con 3. @strangersadvice: It might seem like we are loosing ground, but the truth is we are just one step away from winning. The laws at the moment may be against us, but …
/r/MensRights23/12/09 11:44 PM
1

In fact, Germany allows the parents to take off 14 months "Elternzeit" (parental time) total. How they split it is their decision, however, one partner can have at most 12 of the 14 months. During that time, about 2/3rds of the salary of the last year gets paid by the state. So you could divide the parental time evenly and end up with 7 months together with the kids. Usually the mother takes 12 months off during the breast-feeding time (and because she earns less than the father) and the father …
/r/MensRights23/12/09 01:58 PM
1

Why not? Do you have a grudge against women? I welcome any woman who wants to meaningfully contribute to MensRights. Trolls on the other hand should be excluded, regardless the gender.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 01:03 PM
1

Good reasons, that. Well, good luck then and don't let it get you down.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 12:36 PM
1

Ok. I will no longer pretend that the set of feminists and the set of douchebags are distinct. There is some overlap and here we have a great example.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 08:54 AM
2

Well, yes. I was presenting that argument as it was presented to me. At that time I did not know how to counter it, so I took that position here to learn how it might be countered. I thought maybe there would be a third way of reconciling this dilemma, but apparently there isn't. In any case, I agree with you that the law should treat fraud as fraud.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 08:28 AM
1

Sad to hear you are jobless. Have you tried commuting or moving to a town where you /can/ get a job? Sorry, I don't mean to be condescending here, but what keeps you from looking further? I wish you luck with your job search. EDIT: Why the downvotes? I'm absolutely serious. I meant to tell EvilGamerKitty not to give up.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 08:16 AM
0

Please stop labeling female douchebags as feminists. Thank you. Aside: Sure, fathers are really useless. As any child that grew up without one would testify.</sarcasm>
/r/MensRights22/12/09 08:09 AM
1

Thanks. This refutes my straw-man completely.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 12:58 AM
1

Is this what we want? Yes. Fair enough. I absolutely agree with your analysis on the question of guilt, and I do not dispute that the laws are anti-male. Still, I think you overlooked the central point of the argument: What about the child? Given the scenario I pictured above, would you want to be that child being, in effect, punished for the wrongs of your mother? Note that I've presented the counter-argument as a straw man. I'd like to find a solution that would make the scenario better for th…
/r/MensRights21/12/09 01:33 PM
1

The counter-argument to fixing the law is that the well-being of the parents must be balanced with the well-being of the child - if the not-quite-father rejects his not-quite-child, the child will be worse off. So in most developed countries, paternity tests require consent from both partners. Here in Germany there is even a law against surreptitious tests, though I haven't seen it invoked as of yet. Let us play a little game of what-if: What if the law was changed to treat paternity fraud as th…
/r/MensRights21/12/09 10:12 AM
4

Another troll on MensRights. Also the subject is wrong, it should read "Man-hating blogger deems herself feminist". If we want to hold women to higher standards in this debate, we should subject ourselves to them, too.
/r/MensRights18/12/09 06:41 AM
4

This is obviously an attempt to paint the MensRights members as women-haters, who would resort to, or accept, excessive violence against women. Please stop trolling on MensRights.
/r/MensRights28/11/09 10:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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