TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

novice_at_life Archive

View 1 post and 184 comments by novice_at_life 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)
52

Social Issuesnovice_at_life/r/MensRights24/09/17 02:19 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

What state's Real ID doesn't prove citizenship, and how are those people supposed to fly now?
/r/MensRights13/04/25 03:39 PM
25

As long as you're willing to do another test to confirm, what's the problem?
/r/MensRights05/12/22 07:32 AM
5

It's kind of funny that you come in here trying to support and justify old data, like you're some kind of champion for women's rights, and then 90% of your posts are objectifying a woman, just because she's attractive.
/r/MensRights26/04/20 07:04 PM
22

"Because of the gender pay gap..." is as far as I made it through that BS
/r/MensRights18/03/20 11:14 PM
10

I think this is a big part of it, but not just what they've done, I think for some guys that were circumcised as infants, they can't admit that they had something wrong done to them.
/r/MensRights03/02/20 01:25 AM
9

The maximum is per support order, I had two separate support orders and my employer would withhold both in full unless I had a small check for some reason and one or both of them exceeded the maximum percent, and then they would pay up to the max withholding on the oldest order, and then withhold the rest for the other order, and I was still responsible for making up the difference
/r/MensRights14/05/19 12:44 AM
1

You seriously never heard this? It's a pretty old story, that she completely admits happened. Here's a link I found after a quick search where someone was talking about her speech. I don't personally think it's rape, but it's definitely similar to some of the stories you're hearing from some assault victims these days.
/r/MensRights08/11/18 04:17 AM
2

I prefer to say "money is the root of all evil" when i do this proof, then you end up with "women=evil", it usually gets a laugh
/r/MGTOW08/10/18 12:27 AM
4

Well if that is the case how many guys literally couldn't have sex with anyone? Exactly, there is no such thing as a true incel, which is why they tend to get looked down upon, for a guy to unironically claim to be incel is to admit they don't understand how the world works.
/r/MGTOW05/10/18 07:19 PM
40

If a guy is still a virgin because he has high standards, he is not involuntarily celibate, he is voluntarily celibate, incels act like they are being denied something they should be entitled to, which is just a ludicrous notion.
/r/MGTOW05/10/18 06:35 PM
10

Yeah, but that's because they start with the premise that "the patriarchy" has been behind every major decision since the dawn of time, so if the men have chosen to inconvenience men, that's on them, but if they're choosing to oppress women it has to stop. When you look at it that way, it makes sense, but any semi-intelligent person knows the whole "patriarchy" mentality is BS.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 07:04 PM
7

And a criminal charge with only one child isn't enough to warrant jail time?
/r/MensRights30/03/18 07:04 PM
4

Exactly, at which point you can adjust your hypothesis to try again, like the guy says in the first panel, or realize you were so far off that you just dismiss it entirely.
/r/MGTOW04/02/18 08:45 PM
6

I took the first one to be after testing; as in he came up with a hypothesis, tested it, and the data from the tests did not correlate with his initial hypothesis. At that point the only options are to adjust your hypothesis so they reflect the new data or dismiss it completely.
/r/MGTOW04/02/18 08:05 PM
29

So then, I'm sure, he's also in support of male rapists being granted visitation rights and even joint custody of children born from rape, right? Because that's obviously in the best interests of the child and should be kept separate from the issue of how the child came to exist, right? Of course he would
/r/MensRights09/12/17 08:21 AM
1

I've never heard of that, and would completely go against the concept of alimony if true. When alimony was first started to be used it actually made sense, since women couldn't earn as much money in the job market their easiest way to be provided for was to be married, so if a man married a woman and then a few years down the road decided to trade her in for a newer model, she didn't have many options, she was too old to attract a new husband easily and couldn't get a job to make as much as she …
/r/MensRights26/11/17 10:50 PM
2

Alimony is money that a man is ordered to pay his ex-wife after divorce so she can continue to live at a level of comfort that she had become accustomed to during the marriage. It is outdated and antiquated and has no place in the world of equality we are trying to make, yet is still ordered in some cases where the man vastly outearns the woman in a relationship. It can even rarely be ordered to be paid from the woman to the man in cases where a woman vastly outearns a man.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 09:32 PM
1

Is this a typo or sarcasm? Because there's no way you honestly believe that 98% of all African-Americans are criminals... right?
/r/MensRights25/11/17 09:54 PM
1

The new study, by professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol's school for policy studies and carried out on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, looked at 96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007. Does this make sense? If you had 692 potential data points, why would you only look at 96? Why not just use all of them?
/r/MensRights25/11/17 07:18 AM
6

You're missing the point that the casualties that she's willing to accept are not going to directly affect her, for example if we were talking about WWII: in your example you're talking about American generals willing to sacrifice American soldier's lives, whereas her statement would be more akin to: "I'm okay with us killing a million innocent Germans as long as we get all the Nazis"
/r/MensRights24/11/17 08:03 PM
3

for the the first term or so of the pregnancy the infant is part of them, its not a separate being. its a literal part, like a kidney we need to remember that for the early parts of parenting its not yet a child, its a part of the woman Yet if, God forbid, a woman is murdered in the early parts of a pregnancy it is treated as a double homicide. Seems like there's some confusion as to whether it is actually a separate being or not...
/r/MensRights23/11/17 05:52 AM
9

I'm not sure about alimony, but you can definitely do some jail time if you don't pay your child support, which is what I think OP actually meant.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 02:13 AM
31

Well, that would be completely different, those would be actual-people men as opposed to the nameless-faceless-horde style men that it's okay to abuse.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 07:03 PM
3

Well, actually the other man was convicted of OTHER rapes that matched the patterns of these rapes, they were not both convicted of the same crimes.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:18 PM
4

Sadly, men just don't have access to the same types of resources or support when in an abusive relationship, and to make it worse, stand to lose more by leaving as more than likely the woman will have strong control over how much contact he has with his child if he leaves her.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 10:00 PM
1

Oh, that makes sense, and I totally agree with you, so no idea. LOL sorry
/r/MensRights04/11/17 11:47 PM
2

I haven't heard about the word 'egalitarian' being hijacked. Is it possible that since this is an anti-feminism women's group that they are in favor of the typical gender roles and are offended that you are implying the genders should be treated equally in the first place? Short of that I'm stumped as to why you'd be kicked over using the word.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 11:12 PM
2

Wow, what a bitch! And I'm not just saying that because I'm a privileged male being put in my place, but rather because anyone that would get offended over another person complimenting them is a bitch.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 11:49 PM
1

It's the ideology that supports all of the things you are saying we should do, it's the ideology that says since men are more powerful than women its our responsibility to take care of them, and with the modern views as to "equality" it's time to rethink it.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 07:20 PM
1

Obviously it was an erroneous auto-complete/auto-correct that was supposed to say chivalry.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 07:10 PM
21

men dominated society since the dawn of history When you start with a flawed premise any conclusion you come to will be flawed as well.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 04:50 PM
5

People rarely do, just scan for key words...
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:18 PM
7

Very much so!
/r/MensRights07/10/17 05:42 PM
8

You said "English high school teacher" "high school" would modify "teacher" and "English" would then modify "high school teacher" giving you a teacher of a high school class who is English. "High school English teacher", however would have "English" modify "teacher" and then "high school" would modify "English teacher" giving you a teacher of a high school level English class.
/r/MensRights07/10/17 05:30 PM
6

more than your English high school teacher None of my high school teachers were English, they were all American, but I did have a couple high school English teachers...
/r/MensRights07/10/17 05:19 PM
1

I agree, and when you take into account the breast has a lot less functionality than a penis and is much easier to recreate if need be, it makes that even worse.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 03:51 PM
17

I find it especially upsetting that despite the man being the victim his first name is given and the woman isn't identified at all
/r/MensRights24/09/17 02:20 AM
5

Except you don't give face lifts to people who don't request it
/r/MensRights21/06/17 12:21 AM
25

Is that... are you trying to make a joke?
/r/MensRights19/06/17 03:51 PM
7

I don't understand how anyone can actually believe that circumcision reduces the chance of STDs... These idiots need to just start having safe sex and stop spreading propaganda supporting mutilation...
/r/MensRights03/06/17 04:22 AM
3

Glad to hear it helped!
/r/MensRights01/06/17 03:12 AM
12

How often have you seen your dad's penis? I've never seen mine, so honestly don't understand the whole "look different from his dad" argument. In my school there were a couple kids that weren't circumcised, and I remember it being mentioned a couple of times, but there was no ridiculing going on. There is absolutely no medical benefit to routine infant circumcision. I'd say don't do it. I didn't circumcise either of my kids and they never even knew the difference until ninth grade health class, …
/r/MensRights31/05/17 11:22 PM
1

I'm not changing topics, I said it's both a show of force and to fight the enemy before they attack us here. Even if it's not an organized military, we've shown that our military is ready and able to sustain combat operations for a very long time. So it's still any effective show of force, but more so, if we keep the terrorists busy in the Middle East, it hinders their ability to pull off another 9/11 attack.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 10:12 PM
1

the goat fuckers in Afghanistan Is that the new name for ISIS? And does calling them that reduce the amount of damage they've inflicted around the globe?
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:58 PM
-2

But it is, by showing how effective our military is, it tells everyone not to mess with us, and by fighting the enemy "over there" keeps us from having to fight them here.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:44 PM
-2

Yeah, because of our military, if everyone had your attitude and we had no one serving in the military, it wouldn't take long for other countries to see us as easy pickings.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:39 PM
-5

I refuse to be conscripted for a country that doesn't deserve that sort of sacrifice So, which country have you applied for citizenship in? I mean, you obviously wouldn't want to live in and support a country you don't feel is worth defending.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:08 PM
3

I think you have a pretty good summary, the only thing I'd take issue with is your opinion in number 2 of the cons list. I think that if she were to ask direct questions and push back as you say, she would/could be accused of pushing her own biased agenda, whereas the way she did it, everything that was said was what the people involved wanted to say, and therefore more of an unbiased representation.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 12:32 AM
1

Yeah, I know, but I meant more of an immediate "what happened" like did the police show up, was she still there, that kind of stuff
/r/MensRights13/05/17 02:47 AM
1

Any idea how this turned out?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:37 PM
1

Taste the meat, not the heat!
/r/MensRights08/05/17 11:19 PM
12

I didn't say anything about children Maybe you didn't, but if the poster said "no uterus, no opinion" it's most likely about reproductive rights which shouldn't just be considered women's issues. That's where the problem comes in, the attitude usually put forth is that the child grows inside the woman so she gets all of the say, and that's not right. Here are four scenarios to illustrate the issue (all four deal with a man and woman who had sexual relations resulting in pregnancy): 1 Both woman …
/r/MensRights06/05/17 04:31 AM
17

I notice the triggered student even wrote the debunked stat of "1 in 4 women being sexually assaulted in college" in the margin. Some of these people just like acting like a victim, I think.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 03:13 AM
1

I answered your question four posts ago, and you still have not answered mine, so I'll answer it for you. IF the entire document agrees with your claims and he did not misconstrue the portions he quoted, how could he quote your document to disagree with you? The answer is he could not. And I'm sure if we ever got to this point of the conversation you'd bring up the fact that your original claim was only that she didn't give oral sex to an unconscious man, which means that only could he not quote…
/r/MensRights05/05/17 03:27 AM
1

spinless wimp, pathetic, wuss, douche bag... that's what I see on a quick scan through this thread, not sure if there are more and don't really feel like putting any more effort into this
/r/MensRights05/05/17 02:42 AM
1

ROFL you guys are so adorable, it's always so funny how far you take it to stay in character. I really love how you say I'm triggered and full of hatred yet you're the only one of us that's stooped to name calling.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 11:17 PM
1

But I'm sure you will still refuse to answer this simple question Not reading a word of it Called it!
/r/MensRights04/05/17 10:34 PM
1

OMFG ROFL You are the one refusing to answer my simple question based off the claims you have made in this thread, yet you're saying I'm avoiding the question... smh... But whatever, the portion of the quote you originally gave that you chose to bold said: "Jones's complaint does not allege that Jones willingly performed oral sex on Doe before withdrawing her consent." One of the parts that he quoted said: "Jones stated that she “fucked ” Doe and proposed lying to others about what happened" So,…
/r/MensRights04/05/17 09:51 PM
1

How am I avoiding a question? I've never even made a claim to defend in this thread. All I've done is compiled claims you have made and asked you to explain how they can all be true. To recap your claims: 1 u/menarenotpigs cherry picked some quotes from a document you introduced to this thread. 2 u/menarenotpigs did not truncate or misconstrue the content he was quoting 3 You can not be accused of cherry picking, because the entire document agrees with your quotes So I'll ask again... IF the ent…
/r/MensRights04/05/17 07:36 PM
3

That's possible, but I just don't see how any intelligent free-thinking person who looks at the evidence against circumcision could not agree that it's unnecessary, and I like to think of my parents as intelligent free-thinking people, so the fact that they still don't agree with it I like to chalk it up as internalized guilt and trying to come to grips with their own actions.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 05:55 AM
3

I'll ask again... IF the entire document agrees with your claims and he did not misconstrue the portions he quoted, how could he quote your document to disagree with you?
/r/MensRights04/05/17 05:34 AM
8

I didn't bring up my own circumcision either, but both of my parents brought it up the first time I started talking about the fact that I thought circumcision needed to be stopped. My dad asked me if I was going to be like one of those "loonies" that sued their parents for being circumcised, and my mom immediately started making excuses for why she had it done. Both times I had to point out that I was not talking about my own circumcision and didn't hold it against them, but I really wanted to s…
/r/MensRights04/05/17 04:07 AM
12

My mom also can't admit how bad male circumcision is, I think it's just because she doesn't want to admit to herself how badly she messed up when I was born, even though I've told her many times that i don't blame her because of all of the propaganda that was around in those days. I still think in her mind it comes down to, "I didn't know better, therefore I didn't mess up, therefore circumcision isn't bad"
/r/MensRights04/05/17 03:34 AM
4

I'll ask again... IF the entire document agrees with your claims and he did not misconstrue the portions he quoted, how could he quote your document to disagree with you? You are not making any sense.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 01:58 AM
5

I read his comment and I see that he found parts of the document that don't agree with you, and then I see you accuse him of "cherry picking" and when you get accused of also cherry picking you say you couldn't have because the ENTIRE document agrees with you. So I ask you again to explain how these statements you are making add up.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 11:18 PM
3

But, then back to my other post, how could he possibly cherry pick quotes from a document that IN ITS ENTIRETY agree with your claims?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 11:12 PM
5

Hope this helps! Not at all, because I don't see any quotes that he seems to have truncated or modified from their original intent. Can you show me which ones he did that with?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 10:57 PM
6

If the ENTIRE document agrees with what you said, then how can you possibly accuse someone else of cherry picking when they took quotes from the exact same document?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:40 PM
8

I specifically said you "cherry picked" three specific quotes and THEN didn't name your source, so people could only read what you provided without seeing what else your source had to say without doing further resource. THAT IS CHERRY PICKING!
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:11 PM
6

If you think I did, show me where so I can admit you're right and I'm wrong. Right fucking here, you took three specific quotes that supported your claim, and refused to link to the source that you took those quotes from for others to get the full context. That is definitely "cherry picking".
/r/MensRights03/05/17 04:12 PM
2

Just sickening, who cares if he "wanted it" or not... there is a reason we have an age of consent and the adult should be the one to know it is wrong and not engage no matter how willing the child is.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 04:32 PM
15

barring the entry of adults over the age of 17 if they're not with a child. As long as they hold to that as written and aren't just excluding grown men while letting grown women in, it's not really a Mens' rights issue, though, right?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 09:06 PM
1

I quoted where you said that women certainly do not feel as sympathetic towards male rape victims as female ones.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 07:47 PM
2

As much as female ones? Certainly not. And that's the problem. Why not? Are you saying a man being raped is not as serious as a woman being raped? THAT IS THE PROBLEM!
/r/MensRights23/04/17 05:35 PM
10

I wonder in how many states a male rape victim can be forced to pay child support to their rapist?
/r/MensRights22/04/17 06:16 AM
21

Were you at fault, in any way in causing her violence? This question serves two purposes. First, to assess whether he did anything that caused her to act in self-defence, or to retaliate. Second, people who are genuinely the victims often excuse the perpetrator to some degree and blame themselves for the violence. This sounds like straight up witch trial shit, either he excuses his abuser or he must actually be the abuser himself... wthf?
/r/MensRights15/04/17 03:07 PM
9

It is a very well done video, but I honestly don't think there is any way to kill this myth at this point. Over the past several years I've seen many reports and whatnot done on this subject and at first would often think, "Well, this should finally kill that myth" then after seeing Obama quote the myth in his last state of the union address I realized it would never die.
/r/MensRights15/04/17 02:45 PM
5

Dude, you're going to break Reddit if you keep up this calm logical thought processing during online debates, you need to immediately insult his mother and attack his character for posting an opinion contrary to yours!
/r/MensRights13/04/17 06:13 PM
15

I said "hopefully" I don't think it will, but it would be nice if some of these extremists would wake up and see the damage they're causing.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 04:00 AM
84

I'll have to keep an eye on this case, hopefully it brings changes to the system to stop these atrocities.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:31 PM
2

But before you push to have men call the police on their abusers you have to get the police to stop using the duluth model, otherwise they're more likely than not to be the one that gets arrested.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 02:24 AM
2

Should show him this video, it gives me chills everytime I see it.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 08:44 PM
1

See my reply to the other guy, I covered that.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 04:05 AM
-2

I just don't agree that this is a fight that needs to be fought. I'm all for pursuing mens' rights. I agree that custody laws should be reworked so men can get equal parenting time much easier, I agree that we need to get rid of alimony, I agree that we need to end routine infant circumcision. Selective service I think is best left how it is. There are two options to "fix" the inequalities of the selective service system. Option 1: we just get rid of the system all together; sounds great, we hav…
/r/MensRights06/04/17 03:55 AM
2

The draft ended on January 27, 1973 which is 44 years ago. I estimated, as I wasn't in a position to find an exact date when I made my original post.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 03:38 AM
-5

Despite having to register for selective service, there has not been an actual draft for about 50 years. So, it is kind of a moot point.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 02:02 AM
36

Exactly this, which is why it's worded that "More men DIE of prostate cancer than women DIE of breast cancer" It doesn't talk about number of cases diagnosed, just deaths. If men were as diligent about checking for and catching early and then following through with treatment, who knows what the numbers would look like.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 12:22 AM
2

You know that site is satire, right? Funny article, I just don't want people thinking it's a real story.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 05:06 PM
1

Cool, good to know
/r/MensRights18/03/17 05:01 AM
0

Lol you know nothing about me, but you're going to call me a cuck, nice. Why doesn't she do the same? Because there's a difference between doing something on weekends/holidays and doing it full time, which is why I've said in other posts that if I had custody I'd have to spend much more money on my apartment.
/r/MensRights18/03/17 05:00 AM
1

I'm not sure where you think I said the father should be paying 100% of expenses for child care. My ex does pay part of the expenses and I pay part of the expenses. I've never said the mother shouldn't be financially responsible for caring for her children, I just don't think she should be solely financially responsible for raising the children.
/r/MensRights18/03/17 03:32 AM
-1

Actually I let my kids share my king sized bed when they're here and I sleep on the floor. Is it the most ideal situation? No, but I chose to move out of state after the divorce so don't have the option to split physical custody. I'm not bitching about my situation because my choices put me here.
/r/MensRights18/03/17 01:18 AM
0

ROFL When I had kids I was in a two income family, and we had more than enough money to raise the kids, your argument is invalid. There is no reason why divorce should mean that one parent has to raise the kids alone. There are two parents. Two parents to split the expenses and two parents to split the responsibilities.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 08:10 PM
0

Well, if she relinquished custody to me I don't think I could afford the increase in my living expenses without receiving support from her, so I should relinquish custody back? And then we just keep sending the kids back and forth every week? Or should we just hand them over to CPS since neither of us can support them without help from the other? Or we could just do it how we do...
/r/MensRights17/03/17 07:48 PM
1

When did I ever say she can't afford rent, I said her housing bills are higher having kids than they would be if she didn't have the kids. A 3 bedroom domicile costs more than a 1 bedroom one. If I were to get custody of my kids I couldn't stay in the studio apartment I'm in now, and my housing bill would increase dramatically.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 07:22 PM
-5

But it does, I do not think in any way whatsoever that the pittance I pay every month is going to cover any and all expenses related to the raising of my kids, I still help out with unexpected expenses. Just like I also know that if I were to gain custody and the mother were paying me exactly what I'm paying her my household expenses would still go up by more than the $1,800/month extra I'd have in my budget.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 07:12 PM
0

Well, I don't know how much your child support payment is, but mine's around $900/month, and my point is that the mother is spending over $900/month on my kids just by paying her mortgage and groceries every month, so I don't expect her to go out and buy $900 of clothes and school supplies every month to justify me giving her that money. Yes she would have a mortgage and groceries bill without the kids, but she buys more food having the kids than she would if she didn't, and if she wasn't raisin…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 06:11 PM
-18

I see what you're saying, but more than likely the mother's rent/mortgage alone is more than your support payment, and the child lives there so she automatically is spending more than you're giving her on taking care of the kid. Throw groceries in the equation and there's absolutely no reason for her to have to prove that she spends what you're giving her on specific things for the child.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 05:46 PM
24

To avoid sexual harassment claims, it is indeed stupid, but it's gotten to the point that if they don't have female security to check female personnel they tend to just focus on the men, because all it takes is one woman to start saying the security touched her inappropriately and they have a big lawsuit on their hands.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 02:54 AM
11

I agree, it's happened to white boys as well, it's a gender issue, the boys are prosecuted the girls aren't, same as other issues. This particular boy just happens to be black.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 02:17 AM
15

His accusation wasn't retaliatory, the college just said it was so they could dismiss it.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 09:15 AM
12

The part I don't get is: if she admitted to initiating the sex, how was he expelled for rape? Even if they choose to dismiss his accusation, how does hers stand up if she initiated? I need more details...
/r/MensRights02/03/17 09:14 AM
29

Because there is absolutely no medically sound rationale for routinely circumcising a healthy infant, and therefore to do so is nothing but mutilation. It's very hard to have a rational conversation with someone if they refuse to see that.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 11:12 PM
18

Yeah... cause it's like a band-aid, right? Do it quickly and it won't hurt... smdh...
/r/MensRights21/02/17 08:21 AM
2

Hey, she's just following the example set by the American people, a choice was made fairly and she didn't agree with the results of the choice so she's throwing a tantrum, just like the Trump protests.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 12:14 AM
4

I feel like you are arguing with me but you're not saying anything different from what I'm saying, I said it was a screwed up situation, I said it was sad that the boy was circumcised, I'm just glad that at least she's not facing jail time anymore. Would you be happier if she was thrown in prison for a few years to top everything off or what?
/r/MensRights20/02/17 10:45 PM
7

Yeah, the whole situation was screwed up, but at least she's not facing jail time for it anymore, even if she had to take a class that she didn't really need.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 10:36 PM
36

So he was eventually circumcised? So sad... I remember reading the updates when that was going on, and the last one I remember seeing said that he still had not been circumcised. I'm glad the charges were dropped against the mother, it's just so sad that people have to fight so hard in an effort to protect their children in this day and age.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 10:29 PM
11

Exactly, so therefore it's easier for a woman to get out of parental responsibilities than it is a man. If a father took a child from a woman that wants to be a mother and dropped it off at a safe-haven he would be looking at kidnapping, abandonment and reckless endangerment issues as well as still being on the hook for child support. If a mother had a child with a man who wanted to be a father and just never told him she was even pregnant and then dropped off the child after birth there would b…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 08:09 PM
15

A father could also abandon a child like this Only if they already had custody, which is the point. Right at birth if a woman decided they just didn't want a child, and the father did, the mother could go drop it off and be done with it. If a man decided he didn't want a child, and the mother did, and he walked away, the mother could sue him for child support and he would be obligated to pay for a child he didn't want for the next 18+ years.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 06:51 PM
17

It's a leftover perk from the days when women actually didn't have equal rights, and if a man were to marry a woman in her prime and then divorce her after she was of an age where another man would readily marry her, it would be unfair, so they made the man pay the woman to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to. And in all honesty in this day and age it's nothing but an archaic system.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 12:27 AM
1

I didn't say anything about abuse, I just called him a "bastard ex" in quotes, indicating that was what she called him.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 11:05 PM
9

Yeah, I seriously contemplated whether or not I needed it, but didn't want to have to come back and edit it if I started getting downvoted... lol
/r/MensRights13/02/17 10:04 PM
27

In one ran by a filthy patriarch, you shitlord! Why are you trying to oppress the womynz by making them support themselves when they were already smart enough to trap a man into a marriage and divorce? ^ /s btw
/r/MensRights13/02/17 09:55 PM
3

if they published the whole obituary in the paper, that cost them a pretty penny. In the article it said: "Below is the entire obituary that was originally posted on the website of Carnes Funeral Home" so it probably didn't actually cost them anything.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 08:59 PM
1

That's exactly my point! Woman with postpartum depression kills newborn baby: Not evil, but definitely wrong and woman needs mental help because she's proven to be a danger to society. Woman without postpartum depression kills newborn baby because she doesn't want "bastard ex" to get joint custody: Evil and needs to be locked up for life. Just because we may not have been aware of the mental illness at the time of the actual atrocity doesn't negate it's existence.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 08:15 PM
6

I completely disagree with that statement, evil isn't evil without comprehension and intent, if you have a mental illness causing you to do "bad" things, then you probably either don't comprehend or intend to do what you're doing and therefore aren't evil. This is why we don't put "crazy" people in prison, but rather in a mental institution where they can get the mental help they need. You may say it's just semantics, but I disagree. I think evil is a word that is way overused.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 08:03 PM
6

Holy savage-ness, Batman! It says in one line he had mental illness, I wonder if they ever tried to get him help for that rather than just hate him for having a disability.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 07:42 PM
1

Cutting off some skin which makes it neater and easier to clean Umm... Cutting off some skin Sure, I got you, okay which makes it neater and easier to clean Ummm... neater is a subjective opinion and easier to clean is flat out wrong. Running a soapy rag over the head of your penis is not any easier or harder with or without a foreskin. Cutting of a shit ton of skin, the clitoris, some more shit, the labias, and then sewing that shit up and leaving a small whole that has to be torn open later Th…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:28 PM
1

It's common sense to realize that the two are obviously different things. Actually, no it isn't, the "common sense" would be to realize that cutting off a healthy portion of an infant's genitals is the same regardless of whether the infant is a male or a female.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:07 PM
1

I ask again: "are you honestly telling me you've never known when someone was intending something other than what they were saying based off how they were acting?"
/r/MensRights02/02/17 06:21 AM
1

I'm not sure when exactly I "trotted out any science", are you honestly telling me you've never known when someone was intending something other than what they were saying based off how they were acting? I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's impossible to fool anyone, including women, PUAs prove it is possible every day, but the thirsty "nice guys" don't, because they try to hard.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:22 PM
1

So women are magical mind readers? Yes, because there's absolutely not a thing such as body language... there is absolutely no way of being able to tell a persons intent without reading their mind, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one!
/r/MensRights01/02/17 06:56 PM
139

Funny thing is that's also usually a common reason why people get boys circumcised, they "don't want them to look different from the other boys", like boys sit around comparing genitals.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:09 PM
1

You seem to be conflating different opinions, if you're "acting nice" just to get laid, then you are a "nice guy" i.e. not really a nice guy, just putting on an act so you can "earn" sex, and these are typically the types of guys that get upset when they don't get the sex and then get shamed on subs like the one linked here. If you are truly a nice guy, you just treat people with respect and show proper manners and maybe even have some archaic/chivalrous mindsets where you treat women with more …
/r/MensRights31/01/17 01:08 AM
8

Well, I looked through that sub, and it looks like they're not shaming nice guys, but "nice guys", the ones that act like nice guys but then get an air of entitlement to them. I personally think people like that are creeps as well. It doesn't matter if you're a nice guy or an asshole, if a woman isn't interested in you, that's her call. Move on to the next one.
/r/MensRights30/01/17 07:51 PM
3

I'm not really sure what this has to do with Men's rights, but really enjoyed reading that.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 07:42 PM
1

It happens at 42 seconds, and I think it's because she keeps her fingers together rather than spreading them slightly. I don't know, it just seems "off" is all I can say.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:53 PM
1

Was there more than one girl making air quotes in the video? I only remember one.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:48 PM
1

Why does it seem like that one girl doesn't know how to do air quotes? Something just doesn't look right when she makes them.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:25 PM
12

If you were to get a job over someone else, despite them being better qualified, because of your autism, then yes that is discrimination. It's saying that one trait of your identity makes you more deserving of a job than someone else who has more training/experience in the field of the job. Which is affirmative action in a nutshell, they look at demographics over qualifications. They're more concerned with having a diverse work force than having the most qualified people get the positions.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 06:35 PM
17

It's just funny to me, because for decades they've been pushing the narrative that women can do anything men can do. Now that it actually looks like they're close to replacing the women in the bedroom, it's all about "making women obsolete" which is basically saying women are only good for sex and reproduction.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 05:07 AM
40

It's obvious by the tone of the article, that what she's really upset about is losing the power to control a man by rationing sex as a reward.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 04:40 AM
5

Men are privileged. There's no denying that. I stopped right there, I have no interest to see what you have to say if that's where you're starting from.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 08:39 PM
0

Wow, you're totally right, we need to revamp every video game in existence so that we are not pushing the wrong ideas anywhere. All video games should just consist of walking down a street doing good deeds for everyone you come across, and collecting hugs as rewards. If we absolutely need to make a video game with violence in it, we'll have to come up with a genderless version of a character so that no violence can be done by or to either of the actual genders. I totally did not see how much dam…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:30 AM
0

(not sure why you edited your original post to add more content, rather than just make a new post, but okay) If a woman hits her boyfriend repeatedly and all he does is say "stop it, I don't want to hit you back", she'll keep hitting him because she's getting away with it. Until he hits her back, she'll think she's entitled. It's not like the only two options for the man is to either be abused or become abusive. He can cut ties with her, pursue legal action, etc. My point, however, is an item li…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:20 AM
0

That may be a valid point if it were all women saying the shit in the first place, but it's not, it's the SJW's and white knights standing up for a cause that no one wants them to, just like they always have, so the best course of action is to just ignore them and do what we want, not validate their points by making it look like we are just as upset about it as they are.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:07 AM
-1

Wow... so because the SJW's get offended over stupid shit like this, we need to as well? We don't need to stoop to their level and make the same retarded points as them. This item in no way says that "Activision-Blizzard thinks domestic violence against men is funny" It just means they made a fun little item and added it to their game. I mean, the whole point of the game is to run around with weapons killing things, does that mean they also think murder is acceptable? Of course not! It's a fucki…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:51 AM
4

The line still doesn't make sense. It's like saying "People who fall asleep have a greater chance of being unconscious." If a teenager is sexually active, there is statutory rape happening. It's not a greater risk, it's a certainty.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 11:46 PM
3

I don't get the line where they say: "TEENAGERS THAT ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE ARE AT GREATER RISK OF STATUTORY RAPE" Greater risk? Teenagers that are sexually active by definition are committing statutory rape, so how are they at "greater risk"?
/r/MensRights24/10/16 11:11 PM
1

I can see it now: A young man get's irrationally angry at his SO, starts to raise his hand to strike her, and then thinks to himself, "Wait, I pledged to never hurt a woman, I should probably just go for a walk and calm down" Yeah, that's totally going to happen! Let's make all men/boys take this pledge! /s
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:26 PM
1

While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think most SJW's would mind if our entire military was dismantled.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:24 PM
6

The title is a bit misleading, as they don't know and never tried to prove whether the babies were actually born alive. Hence the light sentencing. If she had undeniably killed living infants, the sentencing would be much higher, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 09:26 PM
3

No, no it wasn't
/r/MensRights07/06/16 12:10 AM
3

To be fair, there was one comment in there that basically said this is a Social Justice sub and therefore we're all SJW's...
/r/MensRights06/06/16 11:59 PM
2

That's kind of my point, though, if the testicles were involved I could sort of see how it's possibly an issue, but if it's just the penis, I don't see any issue at all.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 10:02 PM
3

I'm a little confused, was it just a penis transplant, or the entire genitals? I ask, because if it was just the penis, the line: "while sexual function is a goal, reproduction is not, because of a concern surrounding the ethical issues of who the potential father may be." makes no sense to me.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 06:41 PM
2

There's a difference between women not being at the top and women not being able to get to the top. As you say, it's not because of discrimination but because of life choices, so there is nothing keeping the women from the top, therefore the "glass ceiling" doesn't exist. Just want to clarify, because you say it does, and then explain why it doesn't...
/r/MensRights11/05/16 04:22 PM
5

Exactly, or as I usually say when trying to make a ridiculous comparison, "let's chop off all babies hands, to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome"
/r/MensRights10/05/16 03:36 AM
18

I just don't understand why it should be a parent's choice at all. Why allow parents to authorize surgical removal of a healthy part of a child's body, with no proven medical benefit? If this were any other body part, it wouldn't even be a discussion.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 12:00 AM
2

I'm assuming that by using the phrase "your future husband" she's referring to the entire pool of potential male mates, not a specific man.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 05:09 PM
1

I'm really confused by the "you fucking jews" part. Are you not aware that Jewish people are the ones that circumcise for religious reasons, or do you just really hate Jewish people, and use that for a general insult?
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:04 PM
2

Even if that claim were true, there's still no medical benefit to warrant the surgical removal of healthy tissue from an infant. Cosmetic surgery should not be routine, especially on patients that can not consent!
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:26 AM
6

the poster doesn't even list the symptoms the 'lay person' should be looking for in their spouse. In many cases prostate cancer is found by the doctor during a check-up rather than by the patient identifying symptoms, so this is probably just encouraging regular screenings. That's probably why it's a bigger killer than breast cancer, women can do regular self-checks and catch a lump early, but it's kind of hard for a man to regularly check his own prostate for lumps. The other symptoms tend to s…
/r/MensRights10/04/16 07:13 PM
1

Retract your clueless idiocy Yeah, because God forbid we warn young males of potentially fucked up laws they might get in serious trouble over, without even knowing they're doing anything "wrong". With the direction rape laws are going, college aged guys are better off not engaging in sex, where there is any potential for it to come back on them.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 05:28 PM
1

Under the current laws, it technically is, the courts have ruled that consent can not be given if the person is drunk. Sex without consent is rape. It's not your college, it's the legal system.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 05:22 AM
1

I'm just saying you have to look at it from the mindset of the people who haven't seen the corruption in the feminist movement. A) The women of the world were oppressed, and had less rights than the men. B) Feminism emerges to make sure that ALL people are treated equal regardless of gender. D) MensRights comes out saying feminism is bad! If you aren't aware of the missing step: "C) Feminism pushes for female superiority over males". It appears as if MensRights is against equality. You and I kno…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:14 PM
5

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a lot of "bad" advice being given. Sure, there are a few people bashing this sub on principle, but you have to remember that there are still a lot of people out there that believe feminism is actually about equality, and the feminazis are just extremists that don't really follow feminism. To these people, obviously a group like "MensRights" is going to sound misogynist in principle. "If feminism is about equality, MensRights must be about male superiority". …
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:49 PM
16

LOL This whole argument is predicated on the belief that women bring nothing to a relationship, but sex! LOL If you're going to hold this view, then stop saying the whole "women aren't just vending machines, where you put in nice tokens and get sex" line... You can't have it both ways. Either women bring more to a relationship than sex, in which case robots won't jeopardize anything, or women only bring sex to a relationship, in which case they shouldn't be so stingy with it. Just saying...
/r/MensRights21/03/16 07:52 PM
1

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in America, part of the problem is that there are usually multiple family law firms that will take the mother's case pro bono, and not very many that will take the father's pro bono. At least that's how it was when I was going through this, the law clerk literally told me as she was giving me the list of local law firms that handled family law, that there was only one on the list that typically took father's cases pro bono, but if the mother contacted them b…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:42 PM
1

My original comment was in direct response to your post: By your analogy this is a case of two equally drunk (but willing) people having sex and only one being prosecuted based solely on their gender. I'd love to hear how you justify your logic. but whatever...
/r/MensRights18/03/16 10:33 PM
0

To be totally clear, the only point I'm trying to make is that rape itself is a gender specific crime. Since penetration is required for the crime to be considered rape, a woman can NEVER be convicted of rape when traditional sex is involved. If our actual rape laws are that fucked up, why would you actually expect our statutory rape laws to be any less fucked up?
/r/MensRights18/03/16 10:01 PM
0

I wasn't talking about statutory, I was talking about the analogous situation you described: "two equally drunk (but willing) people having sex and only one being prosecuted based solely on gender"
/r/MensRights18/03/16 07:54 PM
1

Wow, I'm feeling the hate. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that the way the laws are currently written, in the situation described (two equally drunk, but willing, people having sex) the man could be prosecuted and the woman could not. Don't shoot the messenger...
/r/MensRights18/03/16 05:24 AM
-12

Actually, the way the law is written, to be raped you must be penetrated, and when you are intoxicated you can not give consent, so therefore it's really not that big of a stretch to say that if a drunk couple have consensual sex, afterwards the woman can accuse the man of rape, because she was drunk and therefore could not give consent, but the man could not accuse the woman of rape, because he was not penetrated.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 04:27 AM
1

Yeah, that is kind of messed up, especially when it seemed like they went out of their way to stay gender neutral in their opening line: "Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior, used by one person in a relationship to gain and maintain power and control over the other person." And many of the provided examples of abuse are easily done by either party, regardless of gender: Isolation Emotional & Psychological Intimidation Stalking Economic Control Destruction of Personal Property Ver…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 07:31 PM
2

Well, everyone knows violence against men doesn't exist, or is an anomaly, or is something the big strong man can just shrug off, it's not like it's a real problem. /s
/r/MensRights28/09/15 10:18 PM
9

The UN wants to censor the entire internet to save feminists’ feelings?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 09:27 PM
16

"She was vilified throughout the trial and was blamed by everybody to exculpate themselves." Translation: I'm a woman, obviously I'm just a victim here as well. This whole thing is just sickening... Where did the kids even come from, I didn't see any kidnapping charges included, where these all children of people involved?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:28 PM
0

I didn't say he was a bad guy, just that he's doing the same thing that she is, he's valuing what she is over who she is, and then getting upset at her for doing just that. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 06:05 AM
-2

I didn't "jump to that conclusion", I read the posts where he was apparently "accosted".
/r/MensRights22/09/15 12:38 AM
8

To be fair, he wasn't accosted for breaking up with her, but because of his hypocrisy. He's upset that she's more interested in his money than him as a person, when he is far more interested with her appearance than her as a person.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 10:59 PM
2

Well, if she is granted educational decision-making, you will have no power to contest her decision, so if you do not want her choosing to homeschool, make sure to fight that condition of the settlement. If you are granted joint rights to educational decisions, you will still probably have a lengthy battle, it'll more than likely start with mediation and if not able to come to agreement, end up going before a judge in family court. All this time the children will need to be receiving education a…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 07:49 PM
48

"I didn't force anything. I didn't manipulate. I didn't take advantage," Ummm... you were an adult with a minor, yes you did take advantage.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 09:03 PM
8

I just read through the other thread you were posting in when you came across the defensiveness. It is truly frustrating trying to talk to these people, I don't know why they are like that. I think it has to do with the medical experts shoving their rhetoric down our throats for so many years, that those of us who had this done just want to believe it's the right thing to do. I personally always felt it was, because it was done to me, and you hear about all the "benefits" from it. It wasn't unti…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 10:42 AM
0

and?
/r/MensRights31/05/15 07:42 PM
3

Only if you say, "wanna have sex after work?" If you just say, "Hey, wanna catch a movie this weekend?" there is no sexual advance there.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 05:17 PM
3

They specify sexual, I agree, you should not be trying to get a woman (or anyone) to be having sex in a work place, or even be trying to engage in sexual activity of any kind (i.e. groping, fondling, etc.). You can still ask if they'd like to get together outside work, and if things go well, progress from there.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 04:18 PM
2

This has already been posted.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 12:50 AM
1

I don't see any mention of sexual bias in this story, I also don't see any talk about arrests, it says fines will be imposed.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 11:43 PM
1

Phimosis Which should not even be attempted to be diagnosed at 4 years of age. A Danish survey found that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:07 PM
1

That would be coercion, forcing someone to do something to avoid further repercussions
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:04 PM
3

I'd assume there are a lot of people out there who have never even had the inevitability of circumcision challenged, they've never even considered the alternative. I think you are so right with this statement, ironically, I myself had never questioned the act until the mother of my oldest son (not married) brought up the subject, then i looked into it and realized that this was not only not a necessary practice but a barbaric one. She ended up circumcising him anyways, but my two younger childre…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:31 PM
16

I agree, but there doesn't seem any way to change the general public's opinion on the matter. I've argued 'til I was blue in the face with many people, but they still say it's just the "normal" thing to do. Society has been too accepting of this atrocity for too long.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 07:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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