TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

miborovsky Archive

View 0 posts and 105 comments by miborovsky 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)
61

^ That's what the article actually says. Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 12:38 PM
1

Horseshoe theory in full view, right here. Harassment can include “sexual harassment”. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature. Title IX is about sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 02:05 PM
1

Drawing a penis and then saying it is that of a someone that raped you, someone that everyone else happens to know the identity of, is definitely sexual harassment. Nope, pretty sure that's slander, but not sexual harassment. The laws of this country happens to agree with me, so keep your luck, buddy, you're the one who's gonna need it if you can't comprehend the difference between a slanderous accusation (with graphics of penises) and actual sexual harassment (i.e. unwanted sexual advances).
/r/MensRights16/03/16 04:40 AM
–

So, you think a small penis joke is sexual harassment. I thought this sub was against SJWs. Apparently it's just SJWs of a different stripe. Top kek.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 03:26 AM
–

Mattress girl and this guy are definitely not friends "do me in the butt" - said mattress girl, to "this guy" seem to be friends of the special kind. And besides drawing a penis is different than drawing your penis. good luck trying to prove that it's your penis. if you claim it's your penis, then i will simply claim that the penis drawn is actually 2'' long. still your penis?
/r/MensRights15/03/16 08:54 PM
-14

.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:51 PM
1

Umm, Shaun King STILL has a lot of supporters...
/r/MensRights17/02/16 02:30 PM
3

I'd hardly call FTB "atheist-friendly". They ostracize anyone who's not in the "atheism+" (i.e. atheism + "social justice") group. I mean, their favorite villains are Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett... because they're old (or middle-aged) white guys.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 01:31 PM
1

Baby, It's Cold Outside "The contentious 'pause' in global warming over the past decade is largely due to unusually strong trade winds in the Pacific ocean that have buried surface heat deep underwater," London's Guardian reports. This is supposed to explain away the absence of warming: The findings should provide fresh certainty about the reasons behind the warming hiatus, which has been claimed by critics of mainstream climate science as evidence that the models are flawed and predictions of r…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 01:27 PM
15

Fedora-wearing coffee-chugging shitlords, duh. Google "Elevatorgate".
/r/MensRights11/02/14 03:38 PM
5

That was a public comment, not a private message. If you post a comment, expect others to reply to it. A reply that disagrees with you is not invalid because of the mere fact that it came from someone you haven't already spoken to. Let me elaborate a bit. What the previous poster was pointing out what your use of the fallacy of female hypoagency - the tendency to automatically assume anything "bad" or "non-optimal" that women do, they do because they are forced to by men.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 07:08 PM
3

Confirming/disconfirming a pregnancy Done with a UPT (urine pregnancy test), not TVUS. A UPT is THE most sensitive test for pregnancy, better than any ultrasound. the nature of the pregnancy e.g. ectopic A TVUS is NOT the gold standard for screening an ectopic. That would be an TAUS or a serial b-HCG. A TVUS is not even the best confirmatory test, that would be a diagnostic laparoscopy. transvaginal ultrasounds are more accurate in determining conception dates When conception dates becomes an is…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 10:44 PM
11

"If you want me to fix your appendix, I will first have to stick a dildo up your vagina. Do you agree?"
/r/MensRights13/01/14 12:49 PM
1

That so? I thought 1/3 women are raped?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:45 AM
10

I'm not the OP you're seemingly responding to. She's being forced to stop. All the physician wants to do is treat patients. It's the board that's preventing her from doing so. We are in complete agreement here. What I'm calling bullcrap is the board's decision and the excuse they are offering for it.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 10:08 PM
46

"You've spent upwards of 400k and half a decade of your life specializing in issues of the female reproductive system. Focus on that. Let other medical specialties deal with men's anal cancer." Bullcrap. She also dedicated substantial amount of time to learn about treating anal cancer, which is just as applicable to men as to women, but she should stop doing that and let all that training go to waste because her MD is only effective when her patients are women? In my home town, there's an oncolo…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:29 PM
29

Your honor, I just threw a bullet at him with a gun, I wasn't trying to kill him!
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:17 PM
8

Lesbian women, mind you. With that in mind, there's no way she can lose. I'd bet money on it, if it weren't so objectifying.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 12:14 AM
7

No worries, I'm happy to clarify why I posted it, in any case.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 01:34 PM
16

I brought it up to illustrate that these so-called equality groups aren't mean to be equal, but to push the agenda of selected groups of the population to the detriment of others, and that this kind of behavior isn't an isolated incident, or problem.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 01:25 PM
47

I asked the same question why my school's Diversity Office was 50% black and 50% Hispanic when there were Asian and Indian American students whom they were not representing. I was told that these races exceeded their representations based on population and were not disadvantaged to begin with. I asked if the were doing to representing any Burmese students in the population (a very poor group in the community with a surprisingly large size - and I knew the answer was no). I asked what their quota…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 12:47 PM
1

This is exactly right. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix the fact that it's not a efficient way of practicing medicine.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:35 PM
1

Google "PSA screening controversy". TL;DR: It's not a very good screening test.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:17 PM
2

The fact that she sent it to Barack Instead of Michelle proves that patriarchy is to blame for this.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 04:19 PM
0

No question about that, it ain't right. I just don't like to have my empathy toyed with by some rich asshole who talks about losing a part of his million dollar inheritance like he's literally losing the shirt off his back. It makes me angry because there are people who do lose everything up to the shirt off their back and go to jail or worse because they are screwed by the child support industry, and OP is not one of them yet wants us to sympathize with him as if he were one of those people.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 01:59 AM
-1

Lol, and here I was thinking you were some poor oppressed plebian who's getting nailed by the child support cottage industry. It turns out you're a millionaire who just doesn't like to part with money. You have 1.6 mil in savings. Even if they nail you for half of your 80k "income" per year for the next 18 years, that's still less than half of your savings. And you have 30k income a year which is way more than enough for a comfortable living.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:56 PM
1

I mean both. If I didn't want something stuck in my mouth, I would consider sticking something in my mouth invasive. Would you agree? For you? Yeah. For a newborn? Nope. Is this mandatory (as in government forced)? I understand that many things are taken and done while in the hospital, but not because they are legally mandated. It is my impression that this is common practice in hospitals, not that is required by law. And it's not legally invasive until the state is involved. I am trained in Ind…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:35 AM
1

Newborn screening is mandated by the state in at least Indiana and carries the weight of law.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:44 AM
1

Ah, so you mean the other kind of invasive. Legally rather than physically. Again, routine newborn screening already collects blood (and therefore DNA) from the kids. So it's already quite legally invasive, but justified under improving public health. There's also no mandate that the PHI (protected health information) will be turned over to the government, in fact there are numerous laws protecting against just that.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:26 PM
5

Cheek swabs. With something like a q-tip. If you didn't know, babies are mandatorily tested for things like PKU by poking them with a needle in their heel so that they bleed. Cheek swabs are extremely uninvasive.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:05 AM
8

Being politically incorrect for the sake of being politically incorrect makes you sound like a petulant and rebellious child.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:40 AM
5

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/lessons-gay-marriage But sure, call a regular r/mr poster biased if it helps you hold on to your ignorant preconceptions.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:36 AM
11

(don't they always split? I wonder if homosexual marriages are more likely to break up then hetero) no. and no.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:19 AM
2

Another US satellite: Liberia. But then again it's difficult to say how much of it comes from the breed of fundamentalist Xtianity in Africa.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 04:33 AM
2

Except... /r/atheism has nothing to do with the atheismplus movement. You will notice that /r/atheism does not link to /r/atheismplus. In fact, the two are fundamentally incompatible. Say what you will about /r/atheism, but the fact is that this is a subreddit with extremely minimal moderation and censorship, which causes butthurt to its detractors to no end. On the other hand, we all know that, being part of the Fempire, /r/atheismplus wields "moderation" and banning with the finesse of a thous…
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:44 AM
-2

> implying that eugenics is not legitimate
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:54 PM
1

;)
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:08 PM
1

Still waiting...
/r/MensRights06/06/12 03:42 PM
6

Skepticism doesn't mean what you think it means.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:44 PM
9

Copy text, invert genders, post on r/feminisms, count number of minutes till you're banned.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 07:24 PM
0

It seems you are having a hard time following this, so I'll repeat myself: At no point during my initiation of the conversation with you did I mention that medical benefits should be based off of gender bias. Secondly, I not once stated that anyone should be allowed to dictate what medical health provisions should be provided to anyone else on the basis of religion. Again: You made a statement about it being a bound agreement through the employment contract and I questioned that. And I explained…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 08:26 PM
0

They are not required to provide any medical benefits. Correct. But when they do, they are required to do so in a non-discriminatory manner. Their options are either to: 1. not provide any insurance benefits to anyone 2. provide full insurance benefits to everyone The whole debate is because they want to take a third option, namely, 3. provide some insurance benefits to everyone, but not the ones which they have a religious aversion to, which also incidentally only affect women And the new feder…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:57 PM
0

No dude, I was trying to be nice... and not dwell on your overly pendantic insistence on using the legal definition of "contract". Substitute "agreement", and my point remains, while yours is completely built upon the premise that there is no legally binding "contract" in at-will states. Merriam Webster: con·tract noun \ˈkän-ˌtrakt\ a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services a…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:38 PM
0

Yes, thank you for admitting that you have no logically-based arguments and have now resorted entirely to ad hominem attacks. You have proven my points completely.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:18 PM
-2

How much research funding something gets depends on many factors that have nothing to do with mandatory health coverage for reproductive health. It is a separate issue, entirely irrelevant to the current discussion. You are just trying to muddle the pondwater by interjecting an emotionally-based argument to provoke anger from MRAs who believe that prostate cancer gets too little funding compared to breast cancer.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:17 PM
-4

Don't pedantically dwell on my use of the word "contract". I am not a contract lawyer. I mean "contract" in the generic sense of a quid pro quo exchange of labor for wages and benefits (including medical insurance). If an employer does offer health insurance, they are obligated by various laws to do so in a non-discriminatory manner. Denying certain medical procedures based on religious differences is discriminatory. The fact that said medical procedures are only for women is incidental, but has…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:15 PM
-4

MRM was not involved because it is at best a fringe movement. I believe men and women deserve the same access to healthcare. But I doubt you have the intelligence to comprehend the difference between that and "women are better than men".
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:04 PM
-5

Postulating an absurd scenario is quite meaningless...
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:01 PM
-1

That's a separate and unrelated issue which you are attempting to interject. Also, I am a healthcare professional. I know this stuff. ;)
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:00 PM
-2

Lol, it is not possible to have a rational argument with you. Ad hominem / guilt by association. Appeal to motive. If I so choose to share the burden by choosing an insurance company that provides me the benefits I desire at the costs I am willing to pay, WITHOUT the government mandating that I have to pay more just so women can have coverage for abortions. The world does not revolve around you. If you use employer-sponsored insurance, the employer is legally obligated to provide that insurance …
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:58 PM
-3

Gender is a protected class. Employment discrimination based on gender is illegal. If an employer provides full healthcare benefits to men but not women then they are in breach of the law.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:52 PM
3

Uh no, read again. I advised MRAs to not join forces with conservative old men denying healthcare to women. Also, sharing the burden of insurance costs is how insurance works. Sorry about that. If you get prostate cancer, should women be allowed to opt out of paying for your medical bills?
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:42 PM
-7

Then wallow in your ignorance.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:37 PM
2

Then I hope you never work for a boss who's a Jehovah's Witness (no blood transfusions for you!), or a believer in homeopathy (Down with Big Pharma!), or Christian Scientist (God will cure you!)
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:35 PM
-4

Except that if you had paid any attention to the whole debacle at all, you'd realize that there's currently a huge hulabaloo about the Republicans in Congress denying the Democrats' request that a woman join the current "expert panel", which is made up entirely of old men in clergy, and almost entirely made up of white men. The fact that they're old white men trying to deny healthcare to women is extremely relevant.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:29 PM
1

It's not "free" healthcare, it's healthcare money that they already receive as part of their employment contracts. The mandate makes it clear that employers cannot cherrypick what medical procedures they will allow and what they will not based on religious grounds.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:23 PM
-11

MRAs, pick your fights well. Don't go down in history with the likes of conservative old men denying healthcare to women. Downvote away.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:18 PM
1

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:14 AM
1

You're really pushing all the right buttons to get yourself banned...
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:05 PM
1

Eagerly anticipating your ban...
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:28 PM
1

Yes darling, we know you are. We just didn't want to say anything.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:26 PM
2

Watching your butthurt is hilarious. http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights30/10/11 08:59 PM
2

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights30/10/11 04:53 PM
2

It's hilarious watching you try to sound intimidating. Oooh, I am so scared, have mercy when you conquer the world, oh great and vengeful one! http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights30/10/11 02:45 PM
1

Well, you have much to be humble about. Like not being able to tell a seal from a cat.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 02:15 PM
1

That is your autobiography.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 09:16 PM
1

The part where you whine about being oppressed by EVUL WIMMINZ, while simultaneously proclaiming how men are superior to women. http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights29/10/11 09:11 PM
1

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:38 PM
1

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/26/2c951a8d-4ca6-4508-8a8c-afd446f9ef44.jpg
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:37 PM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer#Epidemiology Worldwide, cervical cancer is twelfth most common[70] and the fifth most deadly cancer in women.[71] It affects about 16 per 100,000 women per year and kills about 9 per 100,000 per year.[72] Approximately 80% of cervical cancers occur in developing countries[73] Worldwide, in 2008, it was estimated that there were 473,000 cases of cervical cancer, and 253,500 deaths per year.[74] In the United States, it is only the 8th most common cance…
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:32 PM
2

... Yes, and? Cervical and penile cancers are sex-specific, which seemed more relevant to mention in light of OP's "I am a white male, I am so oppressed" whine.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 11:08 AM
3

We don't live in a police state... yet :D
/r/MensRights28/10/11 02:46 AM
5

Yes. As long as either you or your insurance will pay for it and you make it clear that you understand the limited beneficence of this vaccine as it is calculated for your population group. Though, obviously, I can't say this on behalf of all medical practioners out there, some of whom may have a more fundamentalist interpretation of CDC/FDA bulletins.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 02:33 AM
1

And this relates to HPV... how exactly? Need I remind you that HPV affects women disproportionately more, by way of cervical cancers, which are extremely prevalent, as compared to penile cancers, which are quite rare? There is a reason it took the medical community some years to build a consensus on whether the vaccine is useful for men, and it's not because we get jollies from denying vaccines for them.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 02:26 AM
4

There's plenty of information showing the HPV vaccine is dangerous. But as a courtesy you, I showed you why it isn't really even relevant. Cite it. That's the very first thing I've asked you to do, and yet you've continually declined to do so. Until you do, you're just pulling bullshit out of your asshole.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:49 PM
4

You are now ommitting a logical fallacy called "moving the goalpost". First you claimed that the HPV vaccine is dangerous. Upon being shown contrary evidence, you avoid addressing those charges and switch to another line of accusations, equally as unfounded. I can show you more evidence, but I think you'll just continue the pattern. I ask again: Where is your evidence that the HPV vaccine is dangerous? If you have no evidence, why did you adamantly claim that it is dangerous?
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:31 PM
4

By all means. You go to a doc, tell him you want the vaccine, cough up $500, get all 3 shots. Cost-effectiveness only applies to a population. "Not cost-effective for >26yo men" just means that if every man >26yo had this vaccine, the combined cost of getting the vaccine would be more than the combined cost of all health problems (in this case, mostly penile, head, & neck cancers, and transmission to women and their cervical, mucosal, and epithelial cancers) that the vaccine would prevent.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:17 PM
5

Because it's not cost-effective for older men. Also, your tax money is not paying for HPV vaccines. People who want it will pay out of pocket or through their own insurance. This is just a recommendation to the healthcare industry that this vaccine has been deemed effective and cost-effective for men below 26 years old.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:05 PM
7

Translation: I am unable to show any substantiated evidence that the HPV vaccine is dangerous, despite being very convinced that it is, and harping about it being dangerous in several identical comments in this thread. it's the responsibility of those pushing the vaccine to prove that it does NOT: And they have not done so, not even close. There are literally hundreds of papers on this. I'm literally linking to the first article that appears on a search of PubMed. J Adolesc Health. 2011 Nov;49(5…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:59 PM
10

Citation needed. No, not from anti-vaccination rags. Published case reports, showing statistical significance, please.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:46 PM
1

So, instead of teaching you basic hygiene, which would take a 6 year old and his mom or dad at most 10 minutes every week, your doctor or your parents thought it would be a fantastic idea to cut off your foreskin instead. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 09:54 PM
1

OP wants to show the world that his bigotry should be acceptable because it's got standards.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 09:47 PM
-2

Who cares, no number for Jackucha.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:45 PM
1

By linking to "malestudies" in the sidebar under "shout-outs", you are endorsing the entire subreddit. If you just want to link to that particular submission, then link to that article (with the appropriate article title) in a FAQ.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 08:13 PM
1

:)
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:46 PM
3

the word "mutilation" has connotations associated with it that appeal to emotion, and gives circumcision a negative connotation that comes from other, more severe, forms of mutilation, not circumcision. Again, who determined that circumcision is a 'lesser' form of mutilation? I'd venture a guess that most people use their earlobes much less than their dicks, yet a parent who wants to snip their child's earlobes off will get CPS called on them, while a parent who wants to snip their child's fores…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:52 PM
6

However, my issue is with calling male circumcision "genital mutilation." Who are you to decide it's not? It's not like you offered a compelling reason for it to not be considered mutilation. It doesn't ruin a life? If your parents amputated your pinkie when you were born, that's probably not going to ruin your life either, so that wouldn't be mutilation, then? You should look up the definition of 'mutilation' - it's any physical act that changes the appearance of function of a body part drastic…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 07:38 PM
8

So you don't care about an issue, and so we shouldn't either? Some of us care about things, get over it.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:41 PM
8

Why is there so much hate over this. Is a girl's life ruined if she is circumcised? As with any medical procedure act of genital mutilation performed by a medicine man in a hut there will always be a slight risk involved, but I don't think that risk is high enough to warrant this level of reaction. If you are concerned over an issue of consent, then I must say "tough shit" to you, as everything done before you are 7, when logic kicks in for most people, could be considered to have been done with…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 05:20 PM
-5

The Taliban would like to offer you a job as their spokesperson for championing female genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:53 PM
1

This is why I will never go into ob/gyn or peds.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:03 PM
1

Which won't help in the case of "common law marriage".
/r/MensRights02/06/11 02:57 PM
2

Med school/doctoral/ legal or other corroborating credentials that privy you to make such a declarative ultimatum Why yes. I do have the credentials you are asking for. Believe it or not, establishing patient-doctor relationship is bilateral. The fertility clinic never said they'd provide a workup of your reproductive troubles, if any, so why do you expect them to do that for you for free? They would be providing a service they will not get compensated for. If the simple act of trying to donate …
/r/MensRights04/05/11 12:23 AM
1

No you're not. If you donate blood you are not a patient. They will run labs on what you donated - for their benefit, not yours. Same thing with sperm. And oh yeah, reddit is not your personal army, no wrong has been committed, and you're a overentitled whiner, not a little guy who's being oppressed by the gynarchy.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 12:51 PM
1

You are not a patient and they are not a medical service provider (to you).
/r/MensRights03/05/11 04:25 AM
5

Breaking news: Nobody is obliged to accept a tube of your spunk. Can you get any more butthurt than this?
/r/MensRights03/05/11 12:19 AM
6

using a box cutter as a scalpel and a pair of pliers as a tournique BARF
/r/MensRights08/04/11 10:55 PM
0

I know right? Pirates and global warming, and all that. It's an idiotic reactionary rant against something they don't like, nothing substantial. Said as much on the OP's little pet subreddit r/MaleStudies, and got banned. Fuck yeah!
/r/MensRights07/02/11 09:52 PM
1

Inventions which include labor-saving devices such that men and women can pretty much contribute equally to physical labor. What is your point?
/r/MensRights03/12/10 09:34 PM
1

Dude, read what I wrote. A small percentage of them will be pregnant at one time, kind of like how it works right now. They won't be working. However, all the women who aren't pregnant will be equally capable of working. The only limiting premise is a choice between 50k vs 1k of men or women. You're (aside from not even reading what I wrote) adding all the other complications yourself.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 09:24 PM
0

There is no rule saying all 50000 women will need to be fertilized at the same time. In fact, that is a distinctly foolish way to repopulate. Not to mention that it is unfeasible since 1000 men are incapable of fertilizing 50000 women at the same time. To maintain optimal use of obstetric and pediatric resources, only like... 10% of women should be pregnant at once. That's an insignificant dent in productivity.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 01:01 PM
1

Yes, it's complicated. However, given the OP's constraints of 1000 of one and 50000 of the other, 1000 men is clearly the superior choice, if we only consider biological (as opposed to moral) reasons.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 12:59 PM
-1

There is no rule saying all 50000 women will need to be fertilized at the same time. In fact, that is a distinctly foolish way to repopulate. Not to mention that it is unfeasible since 1000 men are incapable of fertilizing 50000 women at the same time. Women can do men's work. Men can't give birth. The total reproductive potential of the 50k XY, 1k XX scenario is capped at 1000, while the reproductive potential of the 1k XY, 50k XX scenario is variable and can be adjusted based on resource avail…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 10:59 PM
-1

Starvation would only be the result if the combined work output of 1000 men + 50000 women is less than that of 50000 men + 1000 women. So, you are essentially saying that women can't work as well as men. Which I'm pretty sure is not the position you want to argue for.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:51 PM
1

Sick question, but how would someone in this situation decide on which daughter to save first? I can see merits (if you can call it that) to saving either daughter, but, given the pressure he might have felt, was there any sort of analysis process in his head at all?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 12:23 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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