TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mavriksfan11 Archive

View 1 post and 129 comments by mavriksfan11 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)
7

mavriksfan11/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:28 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Umm, how do you know this means man in terms of gender and not just man in terms of human?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:20 AM
0

I don't know about that. They just aren't allowed to live in the house.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:31 AM
0

Quota's Those were already scrapped by the Supreme Court.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:13 AM
6

There are multiple sororities on campus. There are women's spaces. They are not required to meet with any men to talk about men's issues. In my state, they aren't allowed to live in their houses because a house with 9 or more women living in it is technically a brothel under law.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:11 AM
2

In school, we used to get to do an after school program sometimes, and it was called GuysRead, or something like that. They had contests and prizes depending on how much you could read and they had writing programs/incentives also. No girls allowed. Here is the website. http://www.guysread.com/
/r/MensRights07/01/13 10:49 PM
1

Not at all. Just because sharks have a gene which keeps them immune from cancer does not mean we have genes which allow us to be susceptible from cancer. We may simply not have the gene that sharks have which keeps them immune. They have a different genome, after all.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:03 AM
2

Have you never seen programs designed to get men interested in the arts and in writing? They exist you know.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:01 AM
1

Tell that to sharks who don't have the same susceptibility to cancer because their genes don't allow it. We are human beings, such things don't apply to us.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 12:26 AM
1

I have no idea because I don't know their primate sociological model. Ask Jane Goodall.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 12:25 AM
1

It's not genetic in that you don't get cancer passed down to you. Some mutation in a gene may cause the cell to be permanently in the dividing stage, but that mutation is most likely caused by external sources. An example is how smoke in the lungs causes cancer. The combustion of plant matter has free radicals as byproducts (byproducts = smoke). Free radicals mess with the cells and cause cancer sometimes. This is theoretical of course, based on what we know of chemistry. The difference in men a…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:54 PM
2

If it were lies, prove to me the generic correlation between male brains being geared one way and female brains geared another. Since the genes causing this must be on the Y chromosome and the human genome is fully sequenced, it shouldn't be hard to do this at all.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:43 PM
1

Of course, cancer isn't genetic. So that wouldn't work. Finding genes on the Y chromosome related to brain function should not be hard.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:40 PM
1

The MYH# genes are the ones involved in some muscle formation in the heart (MYH7, MYH4, MYH1, MYH2, etc). While there are 80+ genes pivotal to skeletal muscle differentiation here. I could find you all the genes related to all the processes you discussed above, but to save time, I'm simply going to point out that if men and women have different brains, the genes responsible (were this to be genetic) would be on the Y chromosome (where else could it be?) and so it should not be hard to show me wh…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:23 PM
1

Well genes which do the same things CHSY1 do in other animals make fins and other appendages analogous to fingers. CHSY1 is one gene that has a part in finger formation and shape. This is proven by the fact that all known mutations of the gene warp the formation of fingers and toes and the fact that it's main purpose is morphology of those appendages.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:58 AM
1

Across all cultures is irrelevant because gender roles also cut across all cultures. Of course, you have a point about brain function still being esoteric. Still, we know which genes are players in determining brain function. It shouldn't be too hard to find a correlation, if there is one, between the genes that causes such disparity because if it is sex-related, it will be on the Y chromosome, yeah?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:50 AM
1

So what? Einstein is one case. Maria Winkelmann did most of her husband's work in astronomy despite never being compensated for it and was not allowed to join the Academy of Science in Berlin despite having done most of the work produced by it under her husband's name. We can play the example game all day. Actually, we at least know the genes involved in morphogenesis, the process by which human beings develop their shape. With that being said, we know that the gene CHSY1 (which is essential in …
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:05 AM
2

It's the lack of biological source for these problems that makes us believe they are societal. We have the entire human genome sequenced, no genes on the Y chromosome have any effect on brain function. So how can sex be the issue there? Without any biological evidence, we must say that the resulting disparity is an effect of nurture, not nature. Does that make sense?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:55 AM
1

Well, natural reasons would be genetic (probably linked to the Y chromosome if they're based on gender). Since we have the human genome sequenced, and since no gene has been found on the Y to relate to brain function, what we have is no evidence that such differences are natural. We then must conclude that these are the result of external stimuli.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:51 AM
2

I said already, and I'll say again, hormonal levels are subject to environmental factors, so they cannot be gauged as a natural source for differences in the genders' prevalence in certain fields or certain modes of thinking.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:49 AM
1

You thought that foreign investment as a large part of economic growth meant that the people of the region weren't doing the work themselves, and you think you have to educate me on how the world works? Get bent.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:48 AM
1

First of all, your assertion was ridiculous because cultures throughout human history have never allowed women the power and education they receive now. Of course back in the olden days men would invent things more than women. Secondly, now that we have a genome sequenced, if something is genetic, you should be able to show me which specific genes cause that trait. They didn't have the luxury that you have of having every single gene and it's function mapped and open to the public.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:47 AM
1

You could. I'd have to be the head of some university to do that though.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:22 AM
3

Have you never seen writing and art programs aimed at men? They exist. Anyways, the reason this matters is because these differences are an unfortunate result of social conditioning by marketing, advertisements, and society in general rather than a biological reason. Since there is no genetic reason why males should be inclined to these subjects more than women, there must be an external reason. It's in everyone's best interests to be rid of these stigmas on men in the arts and on women in scien…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:20 AM
1

Why even argue with you? Welfare applied to all people, not just women. Dictators in Africa have power because they filled the power gap from colonization. If George Washington had been a shitty person and ran the Presidency as if he were a Prime Minister, we'd be in the same boat. Lastly, foreign investment is not the same as foreign companies. African companies are providing infrastructure and a variety of services for people, but foreign investors fund them. Foreign investors have stakes in m…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:56 AM
2

http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/white-scholarship-guide.htm I know people who go to Tennessee State for free because they're white.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:51 AM
1

Interesting idea! UN fortunately, I feel that cosmetics is too small a field for such a thing, especially when it seems to require much more advanced (not only specific) knowledge of chemistry.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:49 AM
1

That's not genetic evidence at all. The human genome has been mapped completely, point to me the genes that cause this trend.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:46 AM
1

Because they're more attractive. I'm saying we don't give any leeway to unattrative women, despite the allegations that their reproductive organs give them value, so they have no need to prove it. I'm talking about indigenous people taking the initiative to start their OWN industries and build their own infrastructure. You're missing the mark by a million miles, that's why you're so confused. Africans are sitting on top of the largest gold deposits in the world, but they are so lazy and worthles…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:44 AM
24

Wouldn't humanity's greatest weakness be that they keep stereotyping people as if men are all "X" and women are all "Y"?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:07 AM
1

Women don't really have to do anything to 'prove' their worth because they already are valuable for their reproductive organs. Then why do we give more leeway to attractive women than to unattractive women? Both have reproductive organs. Not everyone can be like me - a free spirit - artist, musician, etc. I already said I was not advocating a 50/50 split in any job. If people accepted you for what you did, the necessary jobs would still get done. We don't have to get more men into arts and music…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:05 AM
2

If there are so many, link some of them please. Also, that's again not genetic. Hormonal levels are heavily manipulated by everything from weight to stress, all of which come from our upbringing rather than our natural gender. There is again nothing in genes that makes men more prone to scientific work and women more prone to fashion work.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:59 PM
2

I don't know why anyone would see make-up as a great incentive for doing a higher degree in chemistry. But that's not what it's about. It's about inspiring an interest. People need to do the work themselves. You said yourself it is not easy. But if they aren't ever even introduced to the possibilities or the base concepts (especially as children) then it will never happen, and they'll never form an interest that may have formed. Without interest, there's simply no way to get in a certain field. …
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:56 PM
1

But shouldn't it be that people have nature and are nurtured, rather than one versus the other? Surely both are at play. However, there is no evidence that there are more males in science because of this. And further, when STEM programs have been in effect for females for decades(targeted nurturing) we see that it doesn't change the numbers. Well, there's no evidence that males are in that position because of genetics either. Also, I'd argue that affirmative action policies targetted towards wom…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:52 PM
2

That's not genetic though. Brains are formed during human development and are highly prone to external pressures. I'm sure that if you took an educated human being and a non-educated human being and put them through an MRI, that they would have different parts of their brains light up when processing the same information because they grew up differently. So, again, what biologically makes men prone to being scientists and women prone to be fashino designers? All you've given is an undocumented c…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:24 PM
1

And that is entirely the point. If they have no way of enforcing a sociological model, then the gender differences in selection must have a biological origin. But they do, they just have a separate sociological model. Animal behavior has been extensively studied by lots of people, and primates espeically show signs of having their own structured socieities. Like I said: These alien objects in their monkey society may have totally different meanings and represent wildly different things than what…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:21 PM
1

You really think it might work?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:17 PM
1

It would be really weird if even half the male population was like me But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying STEM fields need 50/50 splits in gender. What I am saying is that we should work to eradicate the stigma which exists attached to certain jobs on gender lines. It's OK with me that they think I'm a little odd. I don't have to be out in the hot sun all day or risk losing my fingers working in an oil rig or risk being electrocuted working on power lines. So it all balances out. But …
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:17 PM
1

Internally driven processes can arise from external pressures. It's an instinct for parents to care for their children, but they may not have ever had children if they weren't pressure by society to do so. In fact, we see that in societies, as the option to not have kids is more readily available, people have them less. So that internal drive can be sparked by external influence, if that makes sense.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:04 PM
1

Fuck all if I know, but the reasoning can't be applied to human beings because monkeys have no comprehension or understanding of what they are playing with (while human children do). Children see pots and pans and cars. They know what those are and they see them in real life, on television, etc. Monkeys don't see any of that shit, so they pick things based on their own monkey society where sometimes they have sex as a form of greeting and everyone works together to ensure survival of the species…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:01 PM
1

I have one. -Why not have makeup companies sponsor scientific endeavors? They use science to make lots of their products, and it would appeal more to girls to learn how their makeup products are made, plus it wouldn't be discriminatory to men!
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:57 PM
1

But there are women's sports also. Men may be better at sports, but the point of Title IX is that women's sports should also receive funding and not be neglected simply because men are better at it. The reasons for sports as part of academics are various (they teach teamwork etc) and women shouldn't have less of a chance to learn those skills because men's sports receive more funding than women's sports.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:54 PM
0

This subreddit is a hoot. You all decry feminists, but then you overanalyze insults in the same way they do.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:52 PM
4

This is what pisses me off. I'm all for getting girls interested in STEM fields, but if what they've been trying doesn't work, why do they not seek alternate solutions?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:50 PM
1

My anecdotal evidence about myself also trumps general trends in large populations supported by statistics. Who would've thought?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:47 PM
1

LOL That's the worst thing that's ever passed for scientific evidence I've ever seen. How could anyone say that a sociological test done on gender roles with monkeys translates to humans. Monkeys aren't humans and their social networks and gender expectations are not the same as ours because they don't live in the society that we do.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:45 PM
1

What biologically makes men prone to being scientists and women prone to be fashion designers?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:43 PM
2

The idea is that since there is no natural reason why women are so largely underrepresented in scientific and engineering fields (no biological explanation etc), then there must be some social pressures etc acting in the place of natural pressures to make such drastic gender gaps. Does that make sense?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:41 PM
2

But if they allow guys and girls to attend the talks, then you'd see what happened in the end (many men and a few women attending) and nothing has changed. Earlier, all the girls wanted to go. I agree that there are better ways of going about this, but in the end, this is part of a directive to get more women interested in engineering, NOT an initiative to get all children into engineering, so that's why it works this way. How else do they get women interested in engineering?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:37 PM
0

You keep talking about quotas and force but that's not what I'm talking about at all. You keep saying let people do what they want and I agree with that statement, but some outside, external, or societal pressure must exist to cause this gender gap. It's certainly not biological in nature. Even if men were slightly better at math and science than girls, that does not account for the drastic gender gap. Something must be causing it, and this means some social conditioning or other external force …
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:34 PM
1

Exactly! So you see what I'm saying then. Even though your art is masculine and you feel that it embodies manliness, for some reason everyone thinks "male artist" and you're suddenly not one of the guys. How unfair right? Social conditioning doesn't imply that it is effective in keeping men from pursuing "girly" things. In fact, that might not be the intent of whatever is pushing society that way, but there is an undercurrent in society that effectively packages certain things or pursuits as mal…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:11 PM
1

I think you're a little crazy. Social conditioning obviously exists, though it may not be malicious in intent. As a guy, haven't you felt at any time in your life that things such as poetry, dance, ballet, etc were effeminate things an not meant to be done by men? I mean, we all feel the pressures of social conditioning in different ways. Poetry is a beautiful form of art that takes skill, ingenuity, intelligence, and creativity, but men seem to think it's a girly thing. And of course we can att…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 09:39 PM
3

This is true. As a man interested in writing and the humanities in general, the one thing that has stuck with me for a long time until very recently was that it is considered a very un-manly thing to do. I took a poetry writing workshop at a university and I was the only guy in a group of 13. I do think there is a strong socialization aspect that makes men averse to these kinds of things.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 09:30 PM
0

Hitler analogies aside, I have not said we should force people to do anything, but first of all, we should wonder why there is a gender gap in engineering. It's puzzling. There is no scientific reason we can find in biological gender differences that make women less likely to be engineers, so is there a social reason? What is the reason? There is certainly some reason. Another commenter linked to an SMBC comic where a boy plays with Legos and tinkertoys while a girl plays with a doll to show how…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 09:25 PM
1

Thank you! Finally someone who isn't a baby and realizes that there is a significant reason that this was only for girls. Now it may not work, and we can discuss better solutions all say long, but there is a huge imbalance in gender in engineering and everyone is aware of it.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:40 PM
1

No you wouldn't. There have been funds like that in recent history, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities all have minority scholarship funds for white people.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:37 PM
0

Y'all are such babies. If the grant is for MIT to give a women's talk on engineering, what's so bad about that? It's been well-documented that men outnumber women in engineering and some sciences. If they want to get women interested in engineering are they so evil?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:36 PM
-1

What the fuck does this have to do with men's rights? Women get charged with false reporting all the time. It happened at my city's public university less than a month ago.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:33 PM
2

My claim in this threat has always been that societies value women over men and that's the only position I'm arguing. This is as true in Saudi Arabia as anywhere else. No. Your claim was that women have never historically been more oppressed than men. This is not currently and has never been true. They are more oppressed than men in Saudi Arabia because they are not as free as men are in Saudi Arabia.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 12:03 AM
2

So men go off to die in wars and on dangerous jobs, while women can choose to work or not work, to study or not study, and they have a personal butler? No. They cannot choose whether to work or not work, to study or not study. That is chosen for them because they do not have the right to make those decisions on their own. Also, nothing was said about a personal butler. Also, I'm not aware of what wars Saudi Arabia is currently in. Lastly, the most dangerous jobs in Saudi Arabia are oil rig jobs …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 11:32 PM
2

These are some of the more famous casualties of the French Revolution. Many women amongst the dead in this portion of the French Revolution. We all cannot forget the women's march which has been such a historical landmark of the French Revolution. Your question was "how many women get killed in wars, revolutions........?" and I am saying that in many revolutions and wars women were killed along with men. The other operation was the El Mozote Massacre in which innocent civilians (men, women and c…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 11:21 PM
2

Tell me, if women don't have to drive, and women don't have to work, then who is it that does all the driving and all the working? It's men. Men have to work both for themselves and for the women. These laws favor women at the expense of men. You are assuming that women are content to not work and be lazy. Not being able to work and to care for yourself means that you are unable to access wealth or power. You've also completely ignored most of what I'm saying and have taken some bizarre stance t…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 11:12 PM
2

That is simply not true. While feminists go on about how women are disadvantaged in those countries, they say nothing at all about men. You can't say women are oppressed by only looking at one sex. In Saudi Arabia, women are not free to learn what they want to learn, are barred from many professions men are allowed to practice, are barred from driving (which men are allowed to do), are barred from disobeying Islamic hijab (which men are allowed to do, and yes there is a hijab for men also), are …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:55 PM
1

Typically in those societies men aren't free either. They're just not-free in other ways. I agree, but women are more oppressed than men in those societies. If this is not the case, point out to me how men are oppressed in these societies in worse ways than women. That isn't true. Really? Al-Farabi and Avicenna both wrote about the prevailing logic in the Arab slave market that certain ethnic groups were inferior and made good slaves (Turks and Africans). According to al-Jahiz, an African Muslim…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:45 PM
0

But, there are the socieites today which prohibit women from practicing law or being engineers or architects etc. There are socieites where men can drive and women can't. There are societies where women can be killed for not adhering to a certain dress code and men are never killed for not adhering to their respective dress code (talking about hijab here). In the Arab world, Arab men were never slaves but Arab women could be slaves. Labor slaves were always non-native. Also, women's suffrage. Al…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:26 PM
1

Many women were killed in the French Revolution. Mostly women and children were killed by a CIA backed operation in Latin America.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:13 PM
1

Men were not sex slaves in Saudi Arabia, also, Arab men were not slaves in the Arab countries (usually Africans or other non-natives we're slaves), while Arab women could be slaves, especially sex slaves. Being an Arab man was better than being an Arab woman. The education split is 36.1% female and 24.7% male, but women are prohibited from learning engineering, journalism, architecture, and law. Also, women's education is of a poorer quality than men's education. Despite being more "educated" wo…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:10 PM
1

What about the fact that they couldn't vote in democracy for most of history? Even in Greece, slaves got to vote before they did. What about harems and sex slaves? What about currently, in countries like Saudi Arabia? What about the Pre-Islamic Arab world where daughters were buried alive as standard practice? What about ancient Indian society where the same things took place? What about Islamic history where men could marry four wives but no woman could marry four men? I think it's quite a stre…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:51 PM
1

could have gotten a more lucrative job and been in a better situation. If this were really that easy, don't you think everyone would do it? Remedial teaching jobs are going to be more available in inner city schools than in affluent areas, and that job doesn't come with the type of salary that allows one to live in an affluent area. She couldn't just go to the job tree and ask for a more lucrative job. That's not how anything works.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 08:48 PM
2

How do you know she could afford to have moved out or could have gotten a job teaching anywhere else? Remedial teaching jobs are probably more available in the inner city than in affluent, wealthy neighborhoods. Also, remember that a teacher's salary wouldn't support one well in an affluent neighborhood. It's not like she could have moved whenever she wanted.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 08:44 PM
2

You know, those totalitarian politics also kind of help with their crushing of the "free" West.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:04 AM
10

Why does it mean that she doesn't care for her own children? I'd wager that she fed him, taught him how to live, loved him, provided everything she could for him. Just because someone teaches remedial classes and isn't rich doesn't mean they don't care for their children.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:03 AM
1

eugenics changed and it moved away from all coercive eugenics and focused on voluntary eugenics (more commonly known as choice) for the poor. Well then the center was never in the mainstream of eugenics in the first place. It did not practice coercive eugenics.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:31 PM
1

I know there was a eugenics movement. i don't link it to the progressive era. If you can provide sources, I'm willing to accept that notion. It did actually. Let's make something straight here. Contraception obviously is a natural outgrowth of eugenics (simple way to control population). But to say that the feminists who pioneered planned parenthood were connected to or grew out of the eugenics movement is fallacious. The idea of contraception may stem from there, but the connection to feminism …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:29 PM
1

Yeah but the connection is only that both movements started in the same center. The racial hygiene stuff died with the owner, who was never described as a feminist. Once that happened, the center came under new ownership (obviously) and changed its purpose. It's not like the same people were promoting eugenics also created the planned parenthood movement, yet that's the logic you're trying to lead people down.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:19 PM
1

I showed that progressive family planning/planned parenthood grew directly out of the progressive racial hygiene eugenics movement. It fucking didn't. Stop this shit. That New South Wales Racial Hygiene Center was started by some crazy lady (who you equate with a progressive feminist even though she was never described as such), and when she died, the center came under new ownership and adopted a new position. It didn't grow directly out of racism and eugenics. I showed that progressive era prog…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:17 PM
1

Rape hysteria is the only connection you've made between the two and other political parties in other countries have used similar tactics. It's a thin line of comparison, and not one that connects the two closely enough for a direct comparison to not be hyperbole. As for the liberal education, I was born raised and taught in Tennessee at Private Southern Tradition Money and Jesus School.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:00 PM
1

Mobbing the accused and declaring them guilty before a trial?! That happens in nearly every country with any high profile cases! Hell look that even happens with the fucking internet over K-Pop stars. Lots of things have that in common. PEOPLE have that in common! rolling back civil rights on the strength of paternalist protectionism for women Yeah that's not what they did back in the day. It had nothing to do with women. That South New Wales Racial Hygiene Club or whatever is a very obscure exa…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:53 PM
1

All political parties share that in common.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:42 PM
1

Okay, but they differ in so many aspects that nearly everyone with history knowledge knows that the two groups are separate and usually opposites.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:42 PM
1

And that last part is true. However, that does not make feminism and the KKK comparable things.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:42 PM
1

As I've said multiple times, progressives back then and progressives today are not the same. The term progressive encompasses much different pursuits today than it did back then, and everyone knows that. If they were progressive feminists, can you please point out where they were part of the feminist movement? Wikipedia only has information on them pertaining to this establishment. As for family planning budding from the racial hygeine movement. The woman in charge of the racial hygeine center (…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:39 PM
1

Did the two women in the article go on to be progressive feminists?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:27 PM
1

But those laws also disproportionately incarcerate black men, for example drug laws.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:26 PM
1

Everything in the US has a "shared history" The term progressive took on a whole new meaning between then and now. Having the same name is more coincidence than a similarity. Progressives then were nothing like (and in most cases the opposites of) progressives now. Using rape hysteria as a political platform is quite a reach as the only thing you've mentioned so far that these things have in common. How was feminism openly racist? Can you show me the link between the planned parenthood movement …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:25 PM
1

Just because racists in the past were women progressives does not mean they were also feminists, especially if they didn't contribute to the two waves of feminism in the US (we are talking US mostly here). I think equating women with feminists is pretty shitty of you. Who said they were all one and the same?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:22 PM
1

If there is any argument necessary to convince you that the KKK and feminism are not comparable, then there's no point is there?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:07 PM
1

But VAWA is not the only law on the books that is enforced in such a way as to wrongly incarcerate blacks. Many laws on the books do the same thing, and they are all not sponsored legislation by progressives.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:05 PM
1

AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED BECAUSE THAT IS HYPERBOLE. Am I getting through to you yet?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:52 PM
1

This is not nearly on the level of violence or the scale that the KKK had. I am sick of repeating myself. Enforcement of laws has always disproportionally affected blacks because we live in a racist society. That doesn't make feminism akin to the racism of the KKK because this is not done by feminists but by police officers.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:52 PM
2

Am I the only person who sees points in both versions to be flawed? That thing about the President calling the shrinking number of men in colleges a great success. That's obviously taken out of context and supplanted in different context. What he most likely said was that the rising percentage of women in college was a great success, and while that may be due to the shrinking total of men in college, linking the two is unfair and wrong. Why make fun of the feminists when we do the same stupid sh…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:30 PM
1

Okay, so if the comparison you are looking to make is to a kangaroo court, then say that rather than comparing to the KKK because that garners up images of burning hanged men, extreme violence and torture, and cruel ethnic cleansing. None of those things are evoked in the Men's Rights Movement or in the case of rape hysteria. If you want to call it a kangaroo court, do that! Remember though, the media has no say in actual court, so it's still not the same as progressives did back then. Also, rem…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:23 PM
1

No. They didn't do the same things. The KKK would carry out its own sentencing and punishment. The media has no push in the courts nor did they carry out any vigilante justice in organized mobs. They are not the same, nor are they similar in scale or scope or violence (the three main things about this historical figure or group that people associate with it), so stop the comparisons as they are severely faulty.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:11 PM
1

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you? The media surrounding a high profile rape case IS NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING AS DEALING WITH THE KKK AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS PRIME.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:55 PM
1

looking to metaphorically lynch anyone that's accused of rape That's why there is enormous hyperbole in the simile. Metaphorical lynching is in itself a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't call my struggles with virulent racism in the US as an Arab a "metaphorical genocide" because while it has been difficult, it has been nowhere near that scale of horror.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:35 AM
5

No it's not the same. Black people got lynched and burned and race riots have occurred. Nothing on that scale has happened with this "rape fear mongering" rubbish you keep going on about.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 03:19 AM
7

I think comparing the Men's Rights Movement to dealing with the KKK and the topic of lynching is obvious hyperbole.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 08:47 PM
2

Hate group or not, the study and the scientist have been widely discredited by academics the world over. Men's Rights can't really be "discredited" academically because it doesn't purport to be scientific or academic.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:39 AM
0

Unfortunately, the comment directly above you is probably one of the most racist ones I've seen on this website.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:48 AM
1

There will be no black men in the medals for swimming events. There was a guy on the US Olympic Gold Medal swim team in last year's Olympics who was black.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:46 AM
1

Plus, he spams this same comment everywhere which uses one study by Rushton, a known and discredited Nazi "scientist".
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:45 AM
1

...if the entire site runs on opinion pieces, then isn't it a blog or something?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 10:42 PM
1

Then their "editorials" consist of a lot more than what most editorials are, don't they?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 10:06 PM
1

Hmm, so what do they officially list as hate groups then? And why are they hacks if they work with the DOJ?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 09:21 PM
1

Is everything on their site an editorial then?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 09:16 PM
1

Are all three of the articles editorials? Not at all.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:58 PM
1

But they clearly put them in a report amongst other hate groups. They've written about them as a hate group multiple times, including this article which calls the movement a war on women. Just because you got an email, doesn't make what they posted not something they posted. They posted it on their website. I linked you to where it was posted. How is an email proof that that doesn't exist? I can't send an email if I'm the CEO of Apple saying "No, we don't sell a product called the iPhone." and t…
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:40 PM
2

But they clearly put them in a report amongst other hate groups. They've written about them as a hate group multiple times, including this article which calls the movement a war on women. Just because you got an email, doesn't make what they posted not something they posted.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:38 PM
2

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women Hate group listing.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:19 PM
2

Hmm, I ignored it because it was listed as a hate site...
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:19 PM
3

And people wonder why this site is listed as a hate site many places.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:18 PM
5

Only to counteract a world in which black people are discriminated against every day. Black people are less likely to be hired than white people despite having the same credentials. Come on now, you know Affirmative Action exists for a reason in modern day society.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:36 AM
6

But you havent shown any time in which you experienced racial discrimination for being white.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:03 AM
9

So I've pointed out parts of society where people are mistreated solely because of the color of their skin and the best you could come up with is "Well, nature makes me more susceptible to skin cancer." Bye, troll.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:04 AM
12

Oh. So tell me about the big bad discrimination you face then. Is it anything like the time a brick was thrown through our mosque, our property vandalized and destroyed during construction, and our adherents threatened by people living in the neighborhood we had our mosque in? Is it anything like Pigford v. Glickman? Is it anything like Wells Fargo dumping bad subprime mortgages on all it's black clients first? Is it anything like the fact that having a "black-sounding" name makes you less likel…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:32 AM
26

I'm an Arab male (so yeah, Asian) and I can tell you that being white is nowhere near as hard as you wish it was. "At least you're not white..." My god, you're an imbecile.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 02:53 AM
1

I live in the South. That's right. Everything you hear about hillbillies and creationism isn't as true as you'd like to believe. My city has the largest number of churches in the state, but no one picks on anyone cause they're gay. It's all about the kind of person you are, not who you fuck at night. If you look out for people, they'll look out for you. And if you're out for numero uno, well then don't expect people to respect you on your quest. I work in a hospital with a few gay men who are be…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 12:46 AM
1

Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. None of the things you wrote were generally accepted rules. Especially this: In fact, we go so far as to call men's sexuality (gay) or virility (metrosexual) into question when they actually do decide to take fashion into consideration.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:53 AM
1

As the article pointed out, shaming tactics are misdirection designed to negate the truth value of a particular statement by claiming it was emotionally motivated Right, thus exonerating the speaker of ever being emotionally motivated to speak. If you were truly being emotionally motivated to say what you did, I couldn't call you out on it because of that article. In fact, we go so far as to call men's sexuality (gay) or virility (metrosexual) into question when they actually do decide to take f…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:47 AM
1

Your article defeats the possibility that anyone could ever be bitter through it's classification of all such statements as "You're bitter" as a shaming tactic. It's possible that someone could be bitter over past problems, in fact it's a human instinct. Regardless of that, you surely realize that all (and not even most) women demand to be told they're beautiful without ever returning affection.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 03:12 AM
1

Whatever kind of girlfriends you had must have sucked man because this whole tirade: men are so rarely flattered at all by their partners--either for our dress, our hair, our choice of cologne, or anything about us--that we would be happy just to be noticed. Whereas women not only expect, but often demand to be noticed, respected, lusted after, and flattered all in the same breath: got a new dress? Better comment on it, but only on how pretty it is, even though the neckline plunges to her belly …
/r/MensRights07/08/11 12:05 AM
1

I'd think a lot of American guys would just be happy that any woman took so much interest in us. You're thinking of Redditors. ANY woman taking interest in you isn't always great, and it's usually disgusting and awkward because of the extent some people seem to push the matter.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 12:59 AM
0

What I meant was, judging by the comments on YouTube, our English friends seem to find this behavior acceptable and a part of "British humour". It's still just as unacceptable as the original post.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:19 PM
0

Our English friends seem to find this appropriate (possibly because she is encouraging the behavior), but yes this is pretty gross as well.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:46 AM
1

Really it's way too desperate.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:53 AM
2

The getting hard bit has much more to do with his own age and less to do with her. But it is good that he wasn't decried as being some kind of pervert for his statements, much like no one speaks up about that woman's comments on the show either.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:51 AM
1

I did no such thing. Someone's been jumping to conclusions.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:50 AM
4

A little different than comments like "Put it anywhere you'd like." But yes, in a perfect world, either no one gets mad over this shit, or everyone gets mad all the time about it.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 01:04 AM
3

True. That's what I'd like to see in this world.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 01:01 AM
0

Not at all. I have a white, blonde (dirty blonde, really) girlfriend. She's really nice too. I stumbled upon this subreddit using the random reddits button, but it's really not that hard.
/r/seduction19/07/11 06:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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