TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

matthewjumps Archive

View 5 posts and 113 comments by matthewjumps 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

from your link: "The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example, 84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain’s frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively. The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout more of the brain. According to the researchers, this more centralized intelligence processing in…
/r/MensRights29/07/14 10:33 AM
2

i dont agree with the separation of 'gender' and 'sex' at all. i was merely giving a definition of 'gender', as used in different contexts, by people who do use the terms separately. i dont disagree that certain cultures have different expectations of males and females. for example, in some cultures it is not strange to see 2 men walking hand in hand. in others that is seen as weird. however, the core ideas of masculine and feminine are basically universal and have direct biological reasons. as …
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:46 PM
2

thank you for enlightening me, your wisdom is beyond my puny mortal brain.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:40 PM
2

i never said these roles were hardwired into peoples brains, or that brains couldnt adapt. many of the core gender roles are, however, based on physical attributes that are hardwired, and hence they are not, and cannot, even remotely be considered purely social constructs.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:35 PM
2

and i maintain that gender is not a social construct. using such an absolute statement, 'gender is a social construct', precludes the fact that a significant component of gender behaviours are based on biology.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:33 PM
2

what the hell are you on about, spare me your lectures. if you think that the fundamental basis of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are not solidly linked to the consistently observed differences in the bodies that males and females find themselves in, im about as interested in your perspective as i am in hearing the spiel from some crazy deluded kid mormons who knock on my door.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:06 PM
3

so, the anomaly is the rule? tell me, of all the mammals, how many species exist wherein the male is almost always the main source of breast milk, and the female only produces milk in rare cases? because honestly, that would be another outlier that in no way proves your point. and that still has no impact on the other very relevant areas of sexual dimorphism between males and females, such as size, bone density and upper body strength.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:00 PM
5

This backs up the gender is a social construct position. notice your very first comment claims this supports the position that gender IS a social construct. if you choose to use the term 'gender' to apply to roles, you are therefore saying that these roles ARE social constructs. or do you accept the obvious fact these roles are heavily based upon, and resulting from, biological necessity? if thats the case, then what the hell were you saying in your first comment?
/r/MensRights27/07/14 08:56 PM
3

anyone who is trumpeting the 'gender is a social construct' horn doesnt deserve to be taken seriously. even this study doesnt change the fact that men cannot nurse newborns. formula wasnt invented until very recently, until that point, for millenia of human history, and eons of mammalian history before that, females nursed the young. without exception. similarly, men are, and have been for millennia, significantly bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive and competitive than women. and this …
/r/MensRights27/07/14 08:27 PM
3

re gender: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity" so. either you are saying that: biological sex is a social construct - eg retarded social constructs are social constructs - eg a tautology, and retarded a persons internal identity and perception of themselves is a social construct, also retarded. there is no def…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 08:16 PM
6

sure. pregnancy and breastfeeding are totally things men can do, theyre just programmed out of it by 'social constructs'. and of course, the 40+% difference in upper body strength, muscle mass, bone density, and grip strength, thats all programming too. oh, and the massive difference in distribution of grey and white matter in the brain is totally just programmed as well. i see why i have you at -43 votes on RES. moron.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 06:47 PM
14

SporkTornado: Its fear mongering garbage. Every choice ends with being sexually harassed. This is not a reflection of the real world. TRPACCs response: A guy can't really make that statement, its like a woman saying how men experience something - when they can't possibly do it - we would need to do a study on attractive women's experience to get the answer to it. now TRPACC is saying: Designed by a fat, mentally ill woman who these things never happen to, and imagines it happening often to the p…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:14 PM
6

are you insane? you know how when you are a kid, when something even insignificantly 'bad' happens, at the time, it really upsets you? you know why? because the younger you are, the more sensitive you are. you have only lived a short life, so the 'worst' thing you experience, while objectively not that bad, affects you so much worse than if it were to happen to you as an adult. now imagine you are a newborn. so many of your senses are fresh, new, raw, hyper-sensitive. do you really think that th…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:39 AM
12

how do you continue to fail to grasp this. the fact that you have been circumcised, and dont think its that big a deal to do to other baby boys, is endemic of a society that devalues the autonomy and bodily integrity of males. a society that shows no concern for the pain that these babies experience when being cut, often without anaesthetic, and doesnt care that it removes 20,000 sensitive nerves from the penis. mens rights exists for the very reason that circumcision happens, namely the disposa…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:31 AM
2

i believe orzx'a statement about bodily autonomy was a general one, not specific to pregnancy, so... how about slicing off a highly sensitive, 20,000 nerve ending rich, protective piece of skin from their genitals, when they are too young to agree to or consent to the procedure, in many western countries, and almost nobody thinks twice of it?
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:57 AM
12

never. and it means that my glans is still very sensitive, despite the excessive wanking i did as a teenager. and i never had to worry about lube for wanking, which i hear is an issue for cut penises. and now it makes sex feel great.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:36 PM
3

oh wow, you showed me. have fun murdering your children when they get on your nerves. im sure everyone will understand you were just disposing of your property, no biggie.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:34 PM
4

sorry, your children are not your property. they are in your care, but they are individuals, with just as much right to bodily integrity as you.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:31 PM
3

the fact that you dont understand this simple concept is mind-boggling. babies are not you. babies are separate individuals. just because you, or any parent, believes any religion, does not give you the right to interfere with the bodily integrity of someone else you have as much right to cut up your children based on your religion, as you would to grab a random person off the street and chop bits off their bodies, then say 'but this is my religion, you should respect my beliefs!' you, or anyone…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:28 PM
2

go to africa, you can find literally thousands of women who were circumcised (eg mutilated) as children or babies, who are happy with their circumcision, and intend on doing it to their daughters. you, and those african women, are both completely wrong in your attempt to justify an invasive procedure on somebody elses body because of your own personal experiences.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:18 PM
5

who is comparing it to removing the clitoris? it is 100% analogous to removing the clitoral hood, a very common form of female circumcision, that is rightly banned in every civilised country. and while removing the clitoris is clearly worse (a procedure which is analagous to removing the entire glans), that doesnt mean removing the clitoral hood or foreskin are both ok. they may not be as damaging, but they are still 100% mutilation, and totally not something that parents (or anyone else) should…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:15 PM
22

i support chopping off babies little toes or little fingers as the parents choice. its not like they need it anyway, i know people who lost their little toes or fingers and they are fine. i support carving chunks of flesh out of babies ass cheeks as the parents choice. of course, foreskins, with their 20,000 odd nerve-endings that add to the pleasure of sex, and their function as a protective cover for the glans so that it doesnt get dried or chafed or desensitized... well fuck, lop that shit of…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 10:03 PM
2

ok then, she is a bigot, not worth wasting time on.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 11:56 AM
11

kory said some women. crimson confirmed that some women do this whats your problem?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:01 PM
-1

no, dont project the 'man up' bullshit onto what im saying. im calling for consistency. we all know how irritating it is when feminists get in a huff about rape jokes, or violence against female characters in video games or movies or whatever. they try and say that even though these things are fictional, or jokes, they damage women because women are the 'oppressed class'. its all part of the victim olympics. in the real world people say many things which others find offensive. its inevitable. th…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:56 PM
-2

i dont want to see the same petty behaviour feminists are so renowned for here. unfriending someone over what appears to be a joke is right up their alley. if your friend sincerely believes this, sure. but it does seem like a tongue in cheek statement that she happened to find amusing. honestly, jokes can be sick, and anyone who starts telling you what is and isnt ok to joke about is much worse than someone who makes the sickest, most fucked up joke ever. i have no problems with people making jo…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 01:45 PM
4

when will people like you realise that 'equal' is a meaningless term. everyone is not, and cannot ever be truly equal. unless we are all the same race, gender, height, weight, age, with the same upbringing, skills, memories, personalities, tastes, sexuality, bank balances, assets... the list goes on. the only way 'everyone' can be 'equal' is if we lived in a world of clones. of course, back in the real world, we live in a world of individuals, all with their own unique personalities, bodies, exp…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:05 PM
1

youre done. you misapplied the word 'overt' again, you said 'trapped' again with absolutely no basis, and you misrepresented my point again by pretending im trying to call her a witch or a devil or whatever. it disturbs me that someone who supposedly has managed to procreate is so mind-numbingly stupid. considering how consistently you have lied and twisted my words in this conversation, i hold onto the hope that you were bullshitting about that too. theres nothing more to say to a brick wall li…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 08:25 PM
1

it would have been an OMISSION, not 'overt lying'. do you not even know what the words you use mean? overt means out in the open you illiterate retard. she never overtly lied to him. the reason i feel the need to insult your stupid ass is simply the fact you insist, you adamantly cling, to the pathetic excuse that she was 'trapped', when in reality she had a huge range of options over many years as to how to handle the situation, almost all of which would have been better than what she actually …
/r/MensRights01/01/14 07:28 PM
1

you are trapped by the rock that resides in your skull in place of a brain. explain to me this you laborious shitstain: why, oh fucking why, could she not have told him she was pregnant the second time, without mentioning the first abortion?
/r/MensRights01/01/14 07:04 PM
1

for the last fucking time, she was not 'trapped'. she was dishonest, and chose to continue being dishonest unnecessarily 2 more times. and she was an adult, so she is entirely responsible for her choices. shes not the devil, and i never said she was. in fact i clearly stated she was not the scum of the earth, just stupid and dishonest. over the years she had countless opportunities to come clean, and, again, was not trapped in any real sense, despite that being your favourite word. you cannot de…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 06:47 PM
5

hi, im TURDACC. here is my argument: poor her she was trapped boohoohoo she was trying to take responsibility 1 in a million freak pregnancy they made a deal she was respecting his decision shit happens, men do this, women do this did i mention shit happens? rinse, repeat, what a fucktard.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 07:58 PM
4

even if that drivel is true, why the fuck did she wait till after getting the abortion the third fucking time you insufferable moron? shit like that does happen. to men too. but when men do it, especially at the age of 26, 28, or 31, they are held accountable for their actions like adults, and they dont get pathetic sycophants like you making excuses for them. which, honestly, is how it should be. reminds me of cases where a woman claims she is 'trapped' in an abusive relationship and decides to…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:58 PM
3

so why couldnt she have owned up to the middle pregnancy? she didnt even have to tell him about the first one. she could have told him she was pregnant the second time, 6 years after their conversation about children, at the clearly adult age of 28, and never even had to have dealt with owning up to the first pregnancy. despite that still being incredibly dishonest, its a shitload better than letting 2 more pregnancies and abortions occur, at the age of 28 and 31, before finally telling him. in …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:28 PM
5

she got pregnant 4 years after they had their big discussion about children (which happened a year before he proposed). thats a long enough time in anyones books to fucking check if their partners views have updated. like i said, her initial decision to hide it was probably just stupidity or immaturity. her subsequent 2 pregnancies were definitely stupidity. but her sustained years of dishonesty and violation of trust are still her entire responsibility, and she, like any man who so severely bre…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:47 PM
5

even if i accept your new 'she was younger back then' defense, she still got the third abortion just before she finally told him. so, unless she magically matured in the short time after getting the abortion, she was the same, conscious, accountable agent. and again, nobody had a gun to her head, and there is no mention that she was threatened with a breakup if she got pregnant. you really are trying every trick in the book to get her off the hook. if a man did anything comparable, he would be h…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:36 PM
3

children are 'trapped' in lies. adults deal with their mistakes. idiots defend adults who behave like children.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:22 PM
5

well meaning has nothing to do with it. especially after the initial mistake. honesty is a non-negotiable part of a relationship. whether she was really stupid (the repeated pregnancies seems to indicate this), or actually malicious, is irrelevant. when you are 'caught between a rock and a hard place', you can make mature, honest decisions, or you can make immature, dishonest decisions. she was nowhere near as 'trapped' as you make out, and whatever ways she was, was entirely the result of her o…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:07 PM
3

another important point: by continually attempting to hold him to his initial stipulations at the onset of the relationship, you are basically saying whatever someone says first is what they must be held to. its like saying that if someone consents to sex, then halfway through decides they dont want to continue, they have to be held to their initial state of consent. youre basically saying that if someone initially consents to sex, after that, its fine to never bother checking again with them if…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:57 PM
4

you conveniently ignored the fact that i have repeatedly stressed. he stipulated that at the onset. to ensure they were compatible. this doesnt apply to extenuating circumstances that occur years afterwards. throughout the years of a relationship, people and circumstances change. mature, reasonable people understand this. its not like he was repeatedly telling her 'if you ever get pregnant i will dump your ass in a heartbeat', but you continue to dishonestly imply she was under that impression. …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:51 PM
4

you have to be trolling. respecting his right to choose? are you fucking serious? by your logic, i could be in a monogamous relationship with a woman, and sleep with another woman three times, and not expect a reaction when i finally confess to my dishonesty and violation of our trust. that would still be considered me 'respecting our monogamous arrangement' according to you. theres nothing more to be said. she was dishonest, untrustworthy, disrespectful to her partner in the extreme, stupid to …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:30 PM
6

he mentioned children were a dealbreaker at the onset of the relationship. in order to ensure that they didnt embark on an incompatible relationship. but this escapade of deception and dishonesty went on for years. peoples opinions on starting a family often change. and nowhere does it say she was under the impression, that after years of them being together, he would just dump her, no questions asked, if she got pregnant. mature, rational adults who are not completely out of touch with reality …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:21 PM
7

youre so ridiculously out of touch i think you may seriously be insane. you know what would have actually have been "going to great lengths" to respect her partner? especially after the first pregnancy? telling him that she got pregnant unexpectedly, and allowing him to voice his opinion on the matter. if she was willing to get an abortion (which she clearly was), and he wanted that too, then everyone wins, and she doesnt have to live a lie for years. if she was willing to keep the kid, and he h…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:05 PM
1

/r/MensRights/comments/1su1zh/github_removes_a_parody_of_a_proposed_feminist/ someone went and made an excellent parody of a feminist programming language, C+= (C plus equality), and it was removed from github with no explanation... what a surprise. its still on bitbucket tho: https://bitbucket.org/FeministSoftwareFoundation/c-plus-equality
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:38 PM
14

Booleans are banned for imposing a binary view of true and false. C+= operates paralogically and transcends the trappings of Patriarchal binary logic. No means no, and yes could mean no as well. Stop raping women. this repo priceless, that bit was the first literal lol on /r/MensRights ive had in a while. whoever did this is a genius. if you can i recommend you fork it on bitbucket, clone it to your local hd, or just download the zip, in case bitbucket also caves to the anti-free speech asshats.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:19 AM
1

oh btw, nice working taking me to task on 'stupider' (which has become a more accepted modifier over time), and then using 'aloud' instead of 'allowed'.
/r/MensRights20/11/13 01:29 AM
2

i didnt say all feminists are the problem, there are many, like i said, who say they are feminists but dont do much of anything, good or bad. im saying the movement itself, and its core ideologies like the myths of patriarchy, rape culture and the wage gap, and its penchant for largely blaming men for these manufactured issues, is the problem. and these underlying, toxic dogmas often express themselves in such a way that when someone is actually immersed in feminist activism, and is given a bit …
/r/MensRights19/11/13 01:00 AM
7

dont make assumptions about my politics, it makes you look even stupider than you already do. how about you look at the feminist protests at mens rights lectures in the university of toronto. or the feminists who are pushing to throw the presumption of innocence and standard of proof for rape cases out the window. or the feminists who claim that if a woman is drunk and has sex she got raped, but if the man was drunk too well he is still a rapist. or the feminists who continue to peddle the myths…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 04:04 AM
5

you really havent been paying attention have you. feminist got womens rights in the west years ago. now they fight to promote womens privileges, entitlement and comfort, without the associated responsibilities and risks, and at the expense of men. one of the biggest cultural and political forces standing in the way of fair treatment of men in the family court, in domestic violence cases, in sexual assault cases, in education and the workplace, and many other areas the mrm cares about... is femin…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:24 AM
1

its true, and im wary of anyone who strongly identifies as a feminist (or a religious person for that matter), and take what they say with a pinch of salt. but unless they demonstrate that they are themselves actively hateful or bigoted, i think hating them is premature.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:15 AM
17

i hate the ideology of feminism, because it is dishonest, irrational, misleading and currently saturates our culture. sort of like religion. i dont hate people automatically for subscribing to it, just like i dont hate someone automatically for being religious. they were likely raised to accept it, and havent really had any motivation to step back and question their worldview.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 10:26 AM
1

as machalismos said, i find your attempt at baiting rather deceptive. also, even if i happened to have some uninformed or bigoted opinions about racial differences, that in no way affects the validity or invalidity of my statements about the differences in the sexes. you attempting to draw out racism is merely you setting up to commit an ad-hominem fallacy. racists can be right about other topics. just like religious people can be right about certain things. i think religion is complete nonsense…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 03:44 AM
5

now i think youre trying to bait me into some form of bigotry... the biological differences in race are almost always superficial compared to the differences in sex. men of almost every race are bigger and stronger than women of almost every race, on average. women of every race have breasts and wombs, and men of every race do not. i believe the first evidence of sexual reproduction is billions of years old, so theres been a lot more time for sexual dimorphism to play a part. the races of today …
/r/MensRights15/11/13 12:31 AM
4

so the fact that men as a general rule have a significantly higher upper body strength and bone density, as well as higher levels of testosterone which can fuel higher aggression and competitiveness, has aboslutely nothing to do with the 'clear social norm' that for the last few, oh, i dunno, tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of human history, men have been expected to fill the role of protector, laborer, provider... and of course the fact that women are the only ones that can actually…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:56 PM
14

i dont even know if 'theory' is the right term for male disposability. its something that is so blatantly obvious, something that is so common in not just humans but countless other species, both mammalian and non-mammalian, that we just dont notice or think about it. there is literally no escaping the fact that throughout human history, males have been consistently called upon to die in wars, break their backs in hard manual labor, protect their families and property, fight wild animals, and mu…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 10:16 PM
1

im not making anyone suffer from anything, nor saying that bullying should be allowed. however if you want to imply that 'get back to the kitchen' jokes are more harmful than, say, the bullying i experienced as a nerdy weird kid, which included being punched/beaten up on several occasions, as well as verbal insults, then youre totally out of touch. and again, the whole point is not that childhood bullying is acceptable, its that its not fodder for feminist conspiracy theories about women in tech…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:26 AM
1

fucking hell im not defending bullying. im saying its NOT a gendered issue. boys bully boys. boys bully girls. girls bully boys. girls bully girls. and in each case they pick on each other for different reasons, and in each case they always go for what they think will get the biggest reaction. and clearly, by this girls reaction, the bullies realised that those simple, empty, stupid jokes worked, so they kept saying them. the fact that the mother is using this childish nonsense to justify her pe…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 01:49 AM
1

have you not seen the recent bollocks about linus torvalds being too rude or insulting to people commiting to open source projects he manages? geeks are still human, and still bully other geeks, as well as receiving much more bullying from non-geeks. men haze each other, its a common practice to pressure the newbies to see if they have the grit, fortitude, passion and stamina to stick it out. if feminists want a 'completely safe path from cradle to cubicle', if thats their platform, they are jus…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:15 PM
0

oh, of course, thats what its all about. and the fact that most boys who are interested in computers/tech are usually regular targets for bullies verbal AND physical assaults, and yet still pursue their passions and geekery, that has no relevance to this idea that girls are just so bullied and harrassed that they cant bear to get into tech. the point is, bullies and trolls will be bullies and trolls. they will target the things that get the most reaction, and this is not a gendered issue. in fac…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 07:04 AM
0

also her signoff was ridiculous: 'In one semester, my daughter learned why there are so few women in IT' sure, its all about the fact that men are ALL chidlish bullies who cant help harrass women. of course the fact that study after statistic shows that women largely PREFER other jobs, that give them more flexible hours, or that involve more direct social contact, has absolutely nothing to do with it. no, that couldnt have anything to do with it. and of course it has nothing to do with the fact …
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:03 AM
1

one thing. the mother says her daughter was harassed. she then mentions the ONLY form of harassment that actually relates to her daughter, being told to 'get in the kitchen and make sandwiches'. however then she sidetracks and relates how she personally received threats of rape and violence for publicly broadcasting her opinion that men are nefariously trying to exclude women from tech. then she concludes with 'So, you see, I was all too familiar with what my daughter was going through'. yes. be…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 11:41 PM
23

and we could go to africa and find a significant number of women who say the exact same thing about the circumcision procedure they had done to them as a girl or baby, and who think there is nothing wrong with continuing the tradition with their own daughters. as someone else mentioned, if you think its NOT acceptable to cut chunks of skin out of your babies back or arm simply because he wont remember it, or if you think its NOT acceptable to tie down an adult man and chop his foreskin off witho…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:14 AM
0

this is exactly like the fact that women make up a massive percentage, if not the majority, of people who shame other women for their appearance. if a womans makeup isnt perfect, or her dress is unfashionable, or she has curves, most average guys dont give a flying fuck. the ones putting the pressure on her to conform to certain fashion standards are often other women, and the authors of all those ridiculous fashion and lifestyle magazines are largely women. but of course feminists will tell us …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:58 PM
3

who decides what is and isnt mens rights talk in here? to many people here, feminism is a massive cause of mens rights violations. the direct results of feminist dogma have caused many men significant pain, loss and mistreatment. many of them are hurt and angry. pointing out the inconsistencies in feminism helps in many ways. it can even be therapeutic to laugh at the stupidity. this is similar to recovering cult members such as ex-JW redditors who often share and laugh about the stupidity, inco…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:11 PM
3

ye, but feminists wouldn't be up in arms over the censorship of penises, they would likely agree with or even push for it. the point is feminists want everyone to accept their bodies and sexuality, but rarely extend the same courtesy to male bodies and sexuality. highlighting the feminist double standard towards male and female sexuality is definitely relevant.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 03:08 PM
33

whatever happened to that feminist favourite that women dress themselves up, wear fancy high heels, pushup bra, slather themselves in makeup that is designed to mimic fertility and arousal etc... all "for themselves", and if any guy thinks they might be doing it to attract a partner then how fucking dare they!!! if a woman is doing this to herself, for herself, she can pay for it by herself. of course its no surprise to see a feminist woman demand special treatment and subsidy for her own (rathe…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:51 PM
3

if he is paying child support to a woman with no children, the only logical explanation is the state thinks this woman is a child.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:06 PM
6

i find the choice of music in this scene very telling also. if the genders were reversed, it would be dramatic, sombre, macabre music, or bleak silence. the visual treatment would be different too, all effort would be made to ensure that this event was emotionally portrayed as horrible and evil.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 11:57 PM
6

the stats for both female techs and female contributors to open source (which is very pertinent/telling in regards to altruism if you ask me), seem to back up your generalization, though it does sound pretty broad on the surface.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:01 AM
15

wow, she actually read the whole quote instead of pulling a religious fundamentalist style quote mine like pretty much every other feminist reporting this. even more amazing, she grasped that he was in no way advocating rape, merely a confident and natural approach to initiating sexual activity, while always being prepared to back off if required. seriously, one of the most level-headed, and hysteria-free feminist responses to a 'social justice' kerfuffle i have ever seen.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 07:50 PM
14

you do understand its a sarcastic reframing of the pathetic feminist "teach men not to rape" campaigns?
/r/MensRights08/06/13 01:07 AM
3

this post needs to be a thread of its own. and upvoted a shit-ton
/r/MensRights07/06/13 03:53 PM
19

so wait. if the menstrual cycle is deemed so overwhelming to women that it can be used as a legal defence when commiting serious criminal acts such as assaulting a police officer, what does that say about women in the workplace when they have their period? doesnt that just make them a liability? why would any employer want an employee who 1 week out of every month could pull some serious criminal shit, go bonkers and assault fellow employees, and then get away with a slap on the wrist? if the la…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:00 AM
11

Thunderf00t nails it yet again
/r/MensRights07/06/13 04:25 AM
3

honestly, id take one serving of rape, over 20 years of being locked up for a crime i didnt commit with actual murderers and rapists, probably being beaten, raped, and maybe even killed during my stay. 20 years of abuse, assault and rape vs 20 minutes. no comparison.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:22 PM
2

why not? if a clear legal precedent is set that if you invent a false accusation of crime with the intent of getting someone else incarcerated, that you get the same penalty you tried to inflict on an innocent, surely that is a great deterrent. if you think the sentence should be 'fit for the crime' then how do you figure that? 'the crime' is the same whether they lie about a murder or lie about theft, but clearly the implications of falsely accusing someone of murder is MUCH greater than the im…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:24 AM
1

clearly they are different crimes. but i think it makes sense that the penalty for knowingly fabricating ANY accusations of any type of crime against an innocent with the intent of getting them locked up, should result in a prison sentence equal to the sentence the innocent would have received had the false allegations stuck. how does that not make sense? if you are willing to use the legal system as a weapon against someone innocent, it should turn back on you, and give you exactly what you tri…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:34 AM
1

if you lie and fabricate a story to get someone you dont like locked up for ANY crime, a fair punishment should be the exact same prison time for the crime you tried to pin on the innocent person. if someone maliciously tried to get an innocent locked up for murder, they are disgusting, sociopathic scum and deserve every minute of the standard sentence for murder. same goes for trying to get an innocent locked up for rape.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:31 AM
18

oh, so all those cases of women insulting and belittling men who are unable to sexually perform on demand, or claiming that a man who cant keep up with her sex drive in a relationship is somehow being abusive, or chucking a hissy fit if a man isnt ready to commit, get married and breed, or being unable to deal with the kind of brutal rejection most men are used to on a regular basis, or using sex or even just the whiff of sexuality to control and manipulate men... none of THAT is women being sex…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:17 PM
1

we are going around in circles. the gay example is different, the word gay does not apply to everyone by definition. and gay people often refer to themselves as gay anyway. i wasnt saying the dictionary said men are innately sexist rapist pigs, i was saying a lot of people claim that. im really kinda sick of repeating myself. ill say it again and leave it at that: the word sexist is gender neutral. adding a clause about it being applied to men only serves to reinforce an incorrect bias. and yes,…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:30 AM
1

i grant that 'sexist' is an accusation commonly levelled at men, but can we agree that this imbalance reveals a bias that has been socially attached to the term? you are basically making an argument from popularity. you are saying that if enough people apply a bias to a term that by definition should apply to everyone, then it is ok to highlight and reinforce this bias. if thats so, how do we draw the line? a certain number of millions? a certain percentage of population? in case you hadnt notic…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 12:08 AM
1

yes, it relates to gender. but its not applicable to one gender or the other. neither is lying or stealing, thats the point. ultimately you could argue that lying or stealing couldnt exist without race. because in order for there to be lying or stealing the person doing it would have to have a race, cause everyone has a race. surely you see how thats fallacious.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:08 PM
1

ye, i only want one ;)
/r/MensRights15/05/13 11:25 AM
2

i agree, a lot of people think the word sexist applies only to men. just like there are many people who only think white people can be racist. these people, however, are WRONG. and ill say it again, reinforcing this incorrect application in a supposedly objective unbiased dictionary is stupid.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:55 AM
2

there is nothing inherently gender specific about sexism. again, to muddy the definition like that serves to reinforce a pointless bias.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:35 AM
1

and there we go. the word sexism is used in a bigoted manner to refer to men. this is not the correct use of the word, since misogyny is the gender specific term, so the dictionary should not be reinforcing this mistaken use. thats like saying "pacific: an ocean. (commonly used to refer to something specific)"
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:33 AM
2

yes, but the point of this post is that to claim ANY of those things in what should be an objective, unbiased definition of a word, IS sexist/racist etc, and only serves to reinforce an incorrect stereotype. misogyny is gender specific. sexism is not. and even if people use it as such, they are wrong to do so, and dictionaries should not add to this.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:31 AM
-2

"thief: a person who steals things (usually said of black peoples behaviour towards white people)" - is that not racist? "liar: someone who is dishonest (usually said of womens behaviour towards men)" - is that not sexist? to anyone defending this definition as 'not sexist', it doesnt really hold up when you reframe it like that, does it now? the definition of sexism should be gender neutral, appending 'usually said of insert group here' reveals a totally unnecessary bias.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:13 PM
1

did anyone see the gender-swapped version at the end and just feel... kinda... so what? i would not care one bit if ads were like that. oh wait. i wonder how hard id have to look to find ads where men are portrayed as bumbling idiots, or sleazy scumbags, or selfish assholes, and even sexual objects. oh yea, not hard, cause they are fucking EVERYWHERE. the thing these professionally offended feminist idiots dont seem to get is ALL advertising is retarded, its ALWAYS been retarded, and anyone usin…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:07 AM
9

if someone comes here and resorts to fallacies, ignores facts and then nafalts out of their ass when people call them out on this, feminist or not, downvotes shouldnt be a surprise.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:37 AM
3

no, shes saying that people seem to care more if a pet is harmed for the sake of cosmetics, than a human baby boy.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:33 AM
2

what a surprise /s
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:41 PM
1

judgybitch is definitely not a feminist
/r/MensRights25/03/13 02:16 PM
5

good ole thunderf00t :)
/r/MensRights15/03/13 09:35 AM
1

ugh. this is my last attempt to get you to see that its very easy for those 2 statements to be directed at men globally, as a group, for either enacting this system, or enabling this system to perpetuate. a brutal global system of misogyny would mean that in every country, in every city, everywhere, brutal woman hating and violence was PREVALENT. this is utter bollocks, but if its true, it means that it is completely obvious to everyone. if there was a brutal global system of child rape, we woul…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:33 PM
1

perhaps youre attempts to vindicate that simple phrase wouldnt be such empty, disconnected apologetics if you didnt consider the VERY NEXT SENTENCE. global system of misogyny. TOO MANY MEN. if that simple phrase didnt already imply men as the main cause (which i think you'll find, while feminists may 'acknowledge' women to be part of the supposed problem, take a guess which sex they consider the MAIN problem... have YOU read feminist literature?), the juxtaposition of the next sentence makes the…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:08 PM
3

apologies, i didnt realise it was. i was unsure, then noticed your posts in nofap, which sort of made me think it was more likely it wasnt, perhaps because there was a xpost in r/MR about a particularly man-hating, self-loathing post in nofap. whats the deal with nofap anyway, to me it seems like a circle-jerk (without the jerking) for something as meaningless to eliminate from ones life as watching tv or eating icecream.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:18 PM
1

did they, or did they not, use the term 'global system of brutal misogyny'. i think youll find they did. now, do you think that implies women are the ones creating and perpetuating this system? no, didnt think so. so who does that leave? men. wow, amazing how simple a bit of deduction can be, isnt it. if there really was a global system of brutal black hating, this would indicate that non-blacks were either supportive of, or at least accepting of and complicit in, this system. if there is a glob…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:46 PM
4

check your skull, i think it might be empty...
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:38 PM
3

i was under the impression affirmative action was legislation, not a funding initiative. does affirmative action involve funding universities and business so they can create these new, non-zero sum seats/jobs? if affirmative action does not incorporate funding to create new jobs/scholarships etc specifically set aside for these 'diverse applicants', then it most certainly is a zero sum game. also your argument that they 'earn their spots' by competing only against other minorities is rather stra…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:28 PM
1

nice job on managing to miss the point entirely. as typhon made abundantly clear, global system of misogyny implies that males are by default considered to be part of the problem, or at least complicit in its existence. if there is such a system (there isnt) and men have allowed it to perpetuate, and even benefited from it (they havent), then they are all lumped in as responsible for this global system. the title is pointing out that the feminist is implying that its mens fault this global syste…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:09 PM
3

thats a sad statement about the average woman. it may well be true, and from my own personal experience it seems it is, but that doesnt change the fact that any woman who has an issue with a paternity test is being unreasonable.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:09 PM
3

my partner of 7 years completely understands the point i am making. she is rational, logical, aware of the legal system and the implications of paternity within said system, and understands that i would be the only one to stand to lose anything in this situation. in view of all this, she sees no reason why a paternity test would be a cause for an emotional response. one of the reasons i love her and live with her is she values logic over emotion almost all the time, and doesnt act as though HER …
/r/MensRights21/02/13 07:55 PM
1

no, its a simple precaution, because in most countries, once its on the birth certificate, even if the baby turns out to be someone elses and the man decides he is unhappy with raising someone elses kid, he will likely still be pinged for child support. women have no right to be upset about pre-nuptials either. in the real world nothing is perfect, marriage included, and in view of the way men can be ass-raped in divorce court, its entirely reasonable to put precautions in place in case 5 or 10 …
/r/MensRights21/02/13 07:31 PM
0

its really simple. in a culture where paternity has HUGE legal implications, paternity should be tested. theres no reason not to, and if any women is offended by this, SHE has the problem, and needs to grow up. saying it will cause problems is nothing more than a testament to your assumption that women will be irrational, unreasonable, selfish and emotional when faced with an entirely reasonable and valid test.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 05:17 PM
14

women can be abusive in exactly the same ways men can be abusive. some women tend to favour one type of abuse over another, but ultimately there is nothing unique about the way people of either sex abuse each other.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:42 AM
2

one of my biggest issues with this stat is it makes so many assumptions at each milestone as to why the accuser didnt report, or go to trial, or get a conviction. the way the term 'rape' is often so misapplied and broad these days (thanks feminists), could it be that some of the accusers honestly thought they were raped then after beginning the criminal process realized it was kind of a grey area? seems highly likely a lot of cases could be in that grey area, seeing as the majority of cases were…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:33 PM
-3

and we probably never will be able to tell, the chances of a feminist making a fact and evidence based argument are about as high as the chances a creationist could do the same
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:47 PM
1

thanks i was hoping someone dealt with that. the claim seemed obviously absurd but i was hoping someone had already addressed it.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 10:47 PM
0

she is not posing in any erotic fashion, its a very standard front on nude shot. she isnt making any typical erotic gestures or facial expressions. neither person is simulating any sexual stimulation of genitals. hell, even her nipples are obscured. his hands are merely on her breasts. its a very tame photo, if this offends your opinion of 'appropriate sexual innuendo', so what. to label this as 'abuse' is about as hysterical and repressed as feminists labelling a drunk man sleeping with a drunk…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 09:25 PM
1

the closest equivalent would be a girl touching his chest. what IS wrong with that? is static contact with the uncovered flesh of another human being REALLY that damaging? how about all those nudist families that play sports and games with their kids? or even non-nudist families that bathe, or bathe with their children? oh no! skin touching skin! the horror! the abuse! again the sensitivity here is very reminiscent of the clucking and spluttering of feminists when any non-feminist-approved sexua…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 09:21 PM
3

the idea that a child touching a breast can be considered 'child abuse' is absurd. next you will be telling me breastfeeding is child abuse, especially considering some women enjoy the sensation... what is wrong with society, where sexuality, and even just our bodies, are viewed as so repulsive and damaging to others, that it can be considered 'abuse' for an 8 year old to touch some breasts. last time i checked, touching breasts didnt cause ANY physical damage to peoples hands, regardless of the…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:07 PM
13

if thats how feminists want to define rape im a proud rapist. seriously, by twisting the meaning of words like this they actually weaken the relevance and significance of the term 'rape' when it refers to ACTUAL rape. like the girl who cried wolf (or rape)
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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