TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

omdoks Archive

View 3 posts and 175 comments by omdoks 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)
11

omdoks/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:44 AM
4

omdoks/r/seduction09/06/11 10:52 PM
1

omdoks/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:41 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The numbers are raising, but I would be surprised if the numbers were more than 3%.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 02:02 AM
9

Thing is, your spouse can contribute greatly to your success. you probably won't get that promotion if you leave early every time your kid has sniffles. However 50% + alimony + child support is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 11:53 PM
3

the woman is preparing to defend herself. It is clear to me that the man plans to kill this woman with kindness.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:06 AM
1

I don't really know what rape culture is supposed to be. I do know that rape is reviled by 99% of men and women alike. I do know that our society does not approve of rape, as evidenced by it being illegal. I don't believe victim blaming is nearly as prevalent as people think. Most people "victim blaming" are anti-rape, and offering advice they think will prevent rape. Further more I think very few of these people believe the victim deserved to be raped. Delving into a victims past is sometimes d…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 08:21 AM
3

seriously? You think talking about abuse is a feminist conspiracy? It's a healthy way to deal with trauma.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 08:14 AM
3

listen i was thoroughly abused by my mother. It's not a dogma, some people are just broken and evil. My mother was a man hating cunt, but she also hated and abused my sister, which I don't think was particularly feminist.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 08:11 AM
20

It's pretty telling that men will discriminate against women even when they are anonymous genderless screen names.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:58 AM
3

You'd never tell a young girl who was raped by her uncle "Well you shouldn't have been wearing that skirt". But you might tell her sister to stay away from him.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 10:34 PM
1

...or you could use internet and find the best urologist available.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:28 AM
10

Hopefully the next mod won't be ban/delete happy. Kloo2yoo showed great restraint and wisdom by keeping this sub uncensored.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 09:22 PM
2

Sodomy can mean any kind penetration that is not penis/vagina, including oral anal and maybe fingerbanging
/r/MensRights20/08/11 01:12 AM
3

definitely fake. I like the pizza counter cut-scenes.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 04:39 AM
1

im all for a financial abortion where during the first trimester you can sign away all financial and legal rights/responsibilities.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 05:36 PM
3

I think this is one of those areas where equality is impossible. It would be nice to give the father a say, but you simply cannot and should not force a woman to have a baby. Aside from the health risks, it takes away someone sovereignty over their own body
/r/MensRights13/08/11 05:23 PM
2

Until you have an artificial womb there is nothing you can do. I want you to really think about whatnot would mean to enforce your will on this one.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 04:43 PM
5

maybe you have different standards for equality. Truthfully yours sound more reactionary than well thought out. I can't even say that if a woman becomes pregnant, it is both the people's responsibility and choice on what to do-keep it or abortion or whatever. BECAUSE IT'S A WOMANS BODY U GUYZ IT SELF-GENERATED A BABY DUHHH. While it would be nice for everyone to have a vote, it's simply impossible to enforce without violating a (pregnant) woman's rights. Respecting a genders rights is kinda fund…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 04:44 AM
7

Alimony for life, which I think should be standard in cases like Terry's "HuffPo columnist thinks some women deserve lifetime alimony" would be much more accurate. I was disappointed in this article for a number of reasons. For one, your description was misleading. More importantly the article leaves out a lot of important (all) information regarding the divorce settlement.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 04:35 AM
1

they may also be mindless parrots with a bone to pick.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 11:20 PM
4

i dunno, for me it's a mixed bag. I think trauma and abuse definitely do make you stronger (assuming you survive/don't suicide). But I think it's probably super rare that it is a net benefit. Abuse does mess people up, and more importantly it prevents a lot of healthy attributes from ever developing. Anyone who is pro-abuse is an idiot.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 11:08 PM
4

rationalizing his own abuse. people who loved me did horrible things, but since they loved me those things must actually be good somehow.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 10:56 PM
1

Calculating for area makes a good amount of sense, while I have no alternative I can see how easily exploited that standard is. All you have to do is move to the most expensive zip code you can suing court proceedings.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 08:12 PM
5

Why? ultimately it's gender bias. but there are a few reasons I can guess. People think that barring extreme abuse the mother is always a superior parent. Odds are the father makes more money, so it makes sense to keep him working while the mother stays home. And finally, it's just the way things are done. Most people don't really think about why.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 09:02 PM
6

very good point which is not talked about. Should there be a cap on child support?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:26 PM
2

I suppose the issue is that your statement is not true for women. They can sleep with whoever they want AND choose whether or not to have children. Obviously giving men control over abortion is insane, but I do think it's reasonable for a man to be able to legally opt out of parenthood during the first trimester just the same way a woman can.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 05:15 AM
0

By this definition, I'm a feminist. As are many other MRA's. yup, I firmly believe the two are not mutually exclusive. The best MRAs are egalitarian. Is this aimed at me? no, I am not trying to offend you, just explaining my position.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 04:54 AM
0

and in debating a troll everyone who watches may learn the flaw of their argument. btw, I commend you for not censoring StephenMurphy or the like.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:45 AM
0

First off, I think you misunderstand the word semantics. My issues are with the merit of people opinions and arguments. (although I did have an argument about the word sexism, someone insisted doctors are sexist because they recognize there are physiological differences between men and women.(this was used to justify sexism in all forms)) And truth be told, if you cannot convince someone who already agrees with you, you need to reevaluate your position. Feminist theory is belief in patriarchy, a…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:41 AM
0

i hear you, I'm on that list. I just think we can hold ourselves to higher standards. There was nothing wrong with the offending comment (imo), and no benefit in attempting to shut it down, or bias a commentator or readers opinion. To me the only thing that matters is the argument itself, and not who said it. Personally I welcome opposing outsiders because bystanders can read the conversation and become better informed.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:08 AM
1

I would say most of my time is split between defending MRA's in general, and pointing out logical flaws or irrational ideas that our crazies have posted. Thing is, I think it's important for us to have strong, logical, rational, and defensible arguments. We have a responsibility to analyze and strengthen our arguments before we take them outside. I think this subreddit often serves as an echo-chamber where every angry idiot cheers on every other angry idiot and very little actual discussion take…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:57 AM
1

come on, would you accept this argument if it was used against men?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:13 AM
3

and men
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:09 AM
-1

We fundamentally disagree with feminist theory. Do try to only speak for yourself.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:05 AM
-4

We fundamentally disagree with feminist theory. Do try to only speak for yourself.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:05 AM
-1

That's a douche move. This person has just as much right to be here, and is acting respectfully. P.S. You're a chicken if you are afraid to discuss the issue with your opposition.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:04 AM
5

It's clearly a troll. Notice the infallible feminist penis-bearing SCUM Vaginal Holocaust patriarchal flesh-sword is facetious. unless you think she was so angry MISOGYNISTS!!!1!!!1! she lost control of the shift key twice
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:55 PM
4

My point was that allowing a man to decide whether or not a woman should abort asserts ownership of the mother's and the fetus's body. Your refutation No, it would be to assert ownership of the body inside of the mother's body. is not accurate because both statements are true. unless you consider removing the fetus and growing it in an artificial womb. Was a condition where Brycey's opinion may be untrue where yours is.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:49 PM
3

As for men having to pay for a kid, even if they don't want it - keep your dick in your pants if you want to avoid this. Solutions that involve "don't have sex" are not workable. People will always have sex.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:30 PM
3

The two statements are not mutually exclusive, unless you consider removing the fetus and growing it in an artificial womb.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:25 PM
0

the female parent gets control of the child in cases where the child would actually benefit more from the male parent. Determining custody is a separate issue. The argument is on the merits of child support provided by the non custodial parent.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:24 PM
2

Absolutely men should have no say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. Although men should be able to relinquish all rights and responsibilities during the time an abortion is possible. Anyone who thinks women should be legally forced by the father to have or not have a child is INSANE.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:21 PM
2

So isn't the issue with health insurance and not automobile insurance? Two wrongs don't make a right.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:09 PM
1

Some may very well be, MR's is probably very attractive to people who already have issues with women. However most of us are reasonable rational people who take issue with gender disparity. Many of our issues are very cut and dry and in no reasonable way can be tied to "female independence"
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:05 PM
1

small misunderstanding then. It seems we agree on this issue.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:57 PM
2

I don't know if this guy should be a posterboy for MR. He is clearly a wacko & probably did rape the woman.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:45 AM
3

fucking paywalls. Upvote for being the only person to use science.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:40 AM
2

Now, I do not believe that is reasonable. I normally agree with you, but don't you think pay should be based on merit? It is not justifiable to claim that women should be paid less because they care for children, or that they have periods. Of course not, because the why doesn't matter. It's perfectly reasonable to pay less/promote less an employee who is less available/reliable.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:38 AM
3

and listed two reasons why again, are these reasons verifiable in some way? Or is it his opinion/speculation. Now if you do not believe that women take more time off than men that's on you. CoonTown did not claim this. You are trying to put words in his mouth. While on the other hand, we have women who joke about and celebrate a man having his penis cut off and nothing happens to them. Oh except for Sharon Osbourne "taking a break." Apple vs. oranges. It's funny, anytime someone someone here is …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:29 AM
3

not to mention it was an unnecessary and unverifiable position. He could have simply said women take more sick time/work less hours without speculating why.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:23 AM
5

lmao MRAs are literally retarded I'm sure you could find a more constructive way to express your opinion. You are figuratively trashy.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:21 AM
1

that's a good point, He would have been wiser to say women take more sick days. (if) That is a fact that cannot be debated. Speculating as to why complicates the issue and is of no benefit.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:19 AM
0

If you do have an issue with VAWA, the first step to modifying it is to make it gender neutral. As it stands you cannot criticize VAWA without the argument being framed as sexist or misogynistic.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:56 AM
1

My bad eyesight, poor cardio system, and below average eye-hand coordination meh, that sucks. Of course in your world you ma very well not have been born.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 09:59 PM
2

this is the retarded reasoning we should be against. Equal in opportunity not outcome. If women were tortured more would that make it a non issue for you?
/r/MensRights25/07/11 10:48 PM
1

there are definitely a few very vocal nuts here, and sadly, I think it's in contention just how much they represent us. These are some quotes by three of our more prolific members. Women are naturally abusive people, men are not. . I think that men have one role in society and women have another. Those roles are complimentary and together they advance society I think it works best when both men and women have an expected role My theory is that sexual control of men, through elimination of prosti…
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:09 AM
1

This is exactly how we should handle ourselves. It's so simple to attack someone as a misogynist when they call for the repeal of VAWA. But in calling for a biased law to become gender neutral the opposition is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They cannot argue against it without exposing themselves as fools or sexist. After VAWA is gender neutral you can go about modifying or amending it if there is some legitimate reason to.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:31 AM
1

don't forget men also compensated for working more dangerous jobs. 90+% of workplace fatalities are men.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:20 AM
2

first off, no one had to do anything. There is no authority here which dictates what is going to be on tv Secondly, being that the damage was already done, it was in the milk councils interest to pull the ads & put an apology in the media. This is more advertising.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:09 AM
5

Women absolutely have to take time off when they have a child. There is no way around this. This will obviously put women at a disadvantage career wise. The only possible way to equalize this effect is to give fathers equal paternity leave. I'm sure it sounds crazy to many here, but fuck it, give both parents a legally protected paid leave. Everybody is equal and everybody is better off.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 12:45 AM
6

It's imaginary that men and women get paid differently for the same job (which is a common misunderstanding of the wage gap). women advancing less because they spend more time on child care and pregnancies Certainly true, however women on average work significantly less hours then men. It's hard to say for what other factors may be involved. (my solution to evening out the wage gap would be to give both paid maternity and paternity leave.) Another variable you did not mention is overtime/hazard …
/r/MensRights21/07/11 12:37 AM
5

Is there any doubt guys that women are planning your demise, I am still not convinced that there is a gender wide conspiracy to eliminate men. If you actually believe this you should consider some professional help.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 11:49 PM
4

there is nothing wrong with people wanting actual evidence of an assertion. People are rightfully questioning your methodology, it's not a conspiracy. P.S. this is the method MRAs should use to vet their arguments. You can't just say something and expect everyone to believe it.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:19 AM
4

No, the point is you dont know that if men spent as much time with children, there would be the same level as neglect And we also don't know the converse, that there wouldn't be the same level of neglect. so my point was that you cant make that argument. Unless I am wrong and that was not your intent. Maybe you meant to post this as an interesting piece of trivia and not evidence mothers being more neglectful than fathers. However being this is a subreddit about gender disparity, I believe it is…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:14 AM
1

I've heard men joke about it too. This is not really a defense. Just because other people are also wrong, that does not make it okay.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 10:47 PM
1

Personally I want Equality in opportunity Equality in protection Equality in punishment Equality in acceptable social roles After that I don't care much. I don't really care about equality in outcome. If one gender gets paid more due to merit, that's okay. If less men want to become nurses (after social stigma is removed) I don't care. If more women want to be obstetricians I don't care. None of it matters to me so long as every individual had an equal chance of reaching their goals.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 10:18 PM
5

So if you don't know anything, what point are you trying to make?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 09:59 PM
2

If we really need to mention feminism at all, why not point out it's hypocrisy. MR: Feminism for everyone. MR: Feminism done right. We are both supposed to be egalitarian movements right?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:42 AM
1

The argument is that one spouse sacrifices their career/education in order to support the other (financially or in homesteading). In this case alimony is acceptable in principle. Also your argument assumes that it is the wife that initiated divorce. My employer only has to pay me whilst I agree to work and do my assigned duties. false equivalency. Your spouse is not your employee. Your analogy would be more accurate if you described both spouses as business partners. As an example. Two people me…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:15 AM
1

I'm not sure I understand your argument. How many pharmaceutical companies make birth control between generic manufacturer of pills and IUDs, and exclusive manufacturers of rings, shots, patches, subcutaneous pellets etc there are a lot. how do you think that would affect their margins? this argument assumes there are a small number of producers, who will lose sales of female birth control because they are selling less profitable male birth control. These are both incorrect assumptions You can s…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:01 AM
2

You can argue that age is an arbitrary measure of maturity, or that 17 is too old to argue statutory rape, but certainly you must agree in principal that some people are too young to fuck. Do you really think a 30 year old should fuck a 12 year old?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:29 AM
2

So to clarify, Merck and GSK make money off HIV, cancer, AIDS and etc inhibitors. To ensure a steady cashflow they are going to prevent male contraceptives from coming to market. If their motivation is to get and keep people sick, wouldn't it be wise to market male contraceptive? Male contraceptive will decrease condom use and increase STIs.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:26 AM
1

This case falls somewhere between coerced sex and rape I really don't see the ambiguity here. This is clearly rape.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:19 AM
1

You saying that they would buy the patent & not distribute it? What is the motivation in this scenario?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:13 AM
1

I believe you, but I do wonder how often this happens. Was this guy crazy in other ways?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:12 AM
5

I've got to give you props for providing evidence along with your accusation. However there are legitimate MR issues, and (I hope) only a minority of people here are wackos.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:10 AM
0

Yup, it's even arguably a disease because you are incorrectly attracted to people who are not yet showing signs of sexual maturity. Although the logical extreme of this argument would also qualify homosexuality as a disease.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 01:33 AM
2

This is an excellent idea. I'm happy to see that they have high standards for verification because otherwise they would lose their moral high ground. I do wonder if not accepting entries for male perpetrators will effect their credibility. Excellent link kloo2yoo.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 01:30 AM
1

Well no one is trying to bargain away anyone's rights because you already don't have the right to abandon a child you have accepted as your own. And shaming mothers is in no way mutually exclusive with educating fathers or any other strategy I proposed.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:00 AM
1

Sure, but if you walk away from a six year old who thinks you are their father, I don't think Sorry kid your mom is a liar Is going to be a reasonable argument for him. I don't know how you think walking away from a child who has only known you as his father is not punishing.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 08:41 PM
-2

You are paranoid.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:32 PM
1

By walking away you are punishing the child, who has done no wrong. It's not okay to raise a child as your own & simply abandon it. That's why I want early paternity testing to ensure an informed Decision. Simply put, once you tell a child you are it's father, in my eyes you are the father.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:42 PM
0

Lol, you claim to care about men's rights, but you don't. You want the true father, who may not even know about the kid to reimburse you for your effort? Sounds like you care about YourRights not MensRights. PS. It's not feminist brainwashing. At some point you have to take responsibility for not verifying. It's too late once you are raising a child that is attached to you. Do you really think you should be able to walk away from a 13 year old you raised as your own?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:37 PM
6

I'm skeptical because the OP claims to be recently traumatized but is making self deprecating jokes about his rape within 24 hours. also this response makes me believe he made this story to point out the disparity between genders in this situation. Doesn't sound like Rape, you didn't verbally consent (by the sounds of it) but it may have been taken implicitly and since you didn't explicitly state you didn't want to have Sex the situation may have been an incidence of horrid drunk sex. what if i …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 03:05 AM
1

I think #2 is the ideal solution, However you can test the baby without consent (in most circumstances)w/ a cheek swab or any part of the afterbirth (not a doctor) Anything outside of these two emotionally blackmails guys into not asking for one. You could advertise it as a test for hereditary diseases, with paternity verification being only a necessary side effect.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:59 AM
1

yeah I think it's a vocal minority, keep track theres probably only 10 active wackos.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:55 AM
8

While this may spark interesting conversation... you "fattybanger" are definitely trolling.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:46 AM
2

I don't understand your exact point, but I think legally you are misunderstanding. You are not responsible for another mans child. However once you accept responsibility (even without full knowledge) you are legally responsible. There are reasonable solutions to this problem, like encouraging men to test for paternity disincentivize paternity fraud with legal repercussions requiring verification of paternity when filing birth certificate
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:32 AM
2

didn't read article I agree that men should have the ability to absolve themselves of parental responsibility during the first trimester. However I hope no one here thinks they should be able to force a woman to abort. Now as far as legally preventing an abortion? tough shit. There are some subject where physiological differences will prevent equality. If you guys are talking about legally forcing an unwilling mother to carry a baby to term... your crazy. It's a bad analogy, but imagine you have…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:25 AM
1

that's just how it is here, there's a few guys who can't back up their opinions and instead shift the argument.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:10 AM
1

Lol it's cool. Sometimes the Internet is serious business.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 08:19 PM
1

usually when you refer to a group, it's assumed that you are referring to a group and not a subset of said group. There are obviously exceptions, and it could very well be that you did not mean "Seeing as how all women can murder whomever they want, be it their husbands, boyfriends, or even their children and not spend a day in prison for it..." But it did read that way, and context implies this also I'm gonna have to go with yeah she'll get away with it. because this random woman is more likely…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 05:25 AM
3

yup, our bell curve is wider but flatter.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 05:09 AM
1

lol this post is empty because no one has anything to get angry about.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 05:03 AM
1

lol at least you manage to reply to a specific point.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:59 AM
3

populations of the most disadvantaged are men. anecdotal evidence only, but a worthy example to use because it speaks to everyone experience. But have you ever noticed 90% of homeless are men?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:53 AM
1

Think about all the rich kids you know. They all grow up to be spoiled, weak & miserable little fucks.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:50 AM
1

Out of curiosity how did you reach this opinion?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:48 AM
2

Let's just pretend for a second that this gentleman did not understand your post, does this: you are so fucking stupid that you should go fucking kill yourself go take that jump off a cliff. The rest of the world won't miss you. help educate him in anyway? I'm sorry, but I'm tired of dealing with morons today. What kind of man are you that you can't even outright insult someone. You have to prefix it with some disingenuous apology, and then blame all the other "morons" who make you sooooooo angr…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:45 AM
1

my deficiencies Specifically your inability to understand the language which I assume you were raised with. Although to be honest you are quite a pleasant person to insult.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 02:49 AM
1

You are the worst kind of fool, you are not even smart enough to recognize your deficiencies. i'm sure you'll make no more meaningful contribution in life than you have in this thread.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:44 AM
1

You are right. It does insult gays to be associated with you.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 09:51 PM
2

You say no one was talking about these shows untill I brought it up? yeah my point is that we are talking about maury & you accuse him of calling MP, Jeremy Kyle(UK) fake. It's like he said "that girl is stupid" and you said "Are you seriously saying all these other girls are stupid?" You tried to put words in his mouth and base an argument of off them. And what on earth has Arnold Schwarzenegger the actor playing a robot in a science fiction movie got to do with it?? lol I was trying to explain…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 12:52 PM
1

Masculinity has a definition biologically and has value. no one said otherwise and this doesn't really respond to any of my comments. I have no love for them, no more than I do for any other banes on society, such as feminists and child-killers. Sounds like a pretty personal issue for you. Why do you think you care so much about how some men express themselves. I'm assuming you don't like gays either.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:55 AM
1

A lot of the discussion here is about trolls. Thing is, if we are smart we can use their posts as an opportunity to distance ourselves from their crazy opinions. It's going to be really detrimental if we allow our crazies and true believers to control our public image.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:41 AM
7

yeah... Isn't part of men's rights the freedom to look and act like yourself? Or is GI joe the only character we care about.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:24 AM
1

I would like to hear your explanation for the pic. I think everything about it is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:57 AM
3

Are you seriously suggesting that the stories are fictional, and engineered by the shows themselves Yes, it's theater. Are you seriously suggesting that shows like MP, Jeremy Kyle (in the UK), no, and he didn't say that. No one was talking about these shows until you brought them up. are things that never happen in real-life, and so, cannot possibly be true? like paternity fraud? no, and he did not say that. Arnold Schwarzenegger really was in the movie terminator, But he is not actually a time …
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:41 AM
2

or they fall in love and everyone wins
/r/seduction06/07/11 04:25 AM
3

fair enough, but isn't that just speculative? I'll withdraw my question if there is evidence of this.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:26 AM
1

I wouldn't call it a patriarchy, but gender equality still has a way to go in both directions. individual women still have disadvantages in business in that there are fewer entrenched female role models to learn from and be mentored by. Also adult male bosses/professors are often legitimately weary of forming appropriate plutonic relationships (mentoring/tutoring/networking/championing) with young females because they fear accusations of misconduct & impropriety (and lack protection from false a…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:12 AM
1

clearly we do not live in a literal patriarchy. It should be clear though that the OP was asking about patriarchy as defined by feminism.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:10 AM
1

here is a conversation I just had over in TwoXChromosomes
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:55 AM
2

What does this have to do with MR?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:46 AM
4

it's classier, discourages a downvote brigade
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:41 AM
1

We normally disagree, but yes this is the ideal. We should use legal means to deter false accusations. Perjury & filing false reports are already crimes, They should be prosecuted when the case is adequately strong.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 09:10 PM
1

okay so to reiterate. Based on the information that I provided I like some pets you think I am like the KKK
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:59 PM
2

What's the difference between a lynching and an arrest other than the hanging from a tree part? magna carta miranda rights right to council 5th amendment right to speedy jury trial. Depending on the charge, the guy's life is pretty much ruined anyways. sure, and that's a problem. However after a lynching a guys life is literally over, it is not the same.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:51 PM
1

ok, so the KKK is like feminism because "Plenty of KKK members liked some black people", and plenty of feminists like men. OK GOOD JOB. they are definitely the same I like some pets, maybe thats why i'm like the KKK.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:41 PM
1

jesus, it's like you are incapable of responding to the content of my post. Plenty of KKK members liked some black people. They were fine with 'good Negro's' it was just those other ones they lynched. what makes this statement relevant?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:08 PM
2

exactly how could you justify calling me a bigot? because I challenged a ridiculous assertion? I guess I'm as bad as the KKK because I think fogu's comments was dumb.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:58 PM
1

so wait, the police are lynching people? the state is a tool of the FFF?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 07:05 AM
0

The goal posts have not moved. To make it clear, you need to prove your original assertion that: The Violence Against Women Act indoctrinates this policy as law. "this policy" being if a woman "believes she has been raped" then she has been raped. SO to be clear, you need to show where the VAWA codifies into law a women being the exclusive and sole arbiter in deciding wether or not she was raped. erm... they didn't? - Granted, they apparently don't have the paper online seriously? I feel like yo…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:07 AM
2

hey instead of focusing your efforts on futile and meaningless goals, Why not focus on something that matters even a little bit. Or at the very least something that is not detrimental to the efforts of everyone else. Or if you want to do something stupid, at least try something you could actually conceivably succeed in doing.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:27 AM
1

sure, you can argue they are similar in that regard. but where is the meat and potatoes. Where are the burning crosses, lynchings, corrupting local governments, domestic terrorism etc. it's a ridiculous comparison.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:24 AM
3

can you really believe this? the KKK literally lynched people. Even if you argue feminism is somehow directly causing people to die, you must see that these are not the same. The fact that you believe this calls into question other things that you believe. It makes it seems like you (and the rest of us by association) do not have logical and sane thoughts.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:22 AM
0

You may be right about indoctrinates, but I don't see it. the VAWA has many provisions for the automatic guilt of the male party. you claim this, but you don't demonstrate it Even if they're shown to not have committed rape, the VAWA provided restitution to "victims" anyway because even if they didn't they still did. This then had to go to the [2] Supreme Court where it got struck down. Interesting, but misrepresented. It Provided the possibility for restitution by adding a second layer of civil…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:08 AM
2

sadly a lot of feminism is misogynistic. Ironically a lot of the issues discuss here like ridiculous alimony laws are born of sexism against women.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 03:30 AM
-1

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Mostly because it does not reference or refute any statement I made. I'm also going to assume you mean The Violence Against Women Act establishes this policy as law. And if that's the case I disagree with you. Even if The Violence Against Women Act said anything remotely similar to "if a woman believes she has been raped, she has been raped" You are STILL wrong, as you have the protection of a jury trial.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 03:07 AM
1

Thanks for posting this, I'm bookmarking this to point out how different the standards for victim blaming are between genders.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:11 AM
0

This is interesting and all, but of what value is it? Yes, it is sexist, poorly thought out, and a dangerous / oppressive viewpoint. But it is also A single (cherry picked) reply to an article, posted by an insignificant anonymous individual, on feministing.com It's hard to see how you can justify advertising this as "Feminist Theory 101"
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:04 AM
1

Awesome comment, I wish /MR could be a place to try and collaborate on solutions to some of these tricky problems.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:41 AM
3

feminists don't really take a stance on this too often (if ever). It's judges who set the precedent (that once you accept a kid, you are responsible for it.). It's ultimately done to protect the child, not to benefit the mothers.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:33 AM
3

you should actually read the article, or even better this article written by the same girl, of which this was a follow up debate.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:09 AM
7

did you read the article?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:08 AM
25

I hope some of you actually read this, it's a debate between a 20 year old female and a 40 year old male. The 20 year old argues for going dutch, consistently and continuously and only at the very end grants that Agreed. Men should offer on first dates. Not because I think they should pay, but because it’s the safer option. Offering and then agreeing to split won’t get you into trouble the way that expecting to go dutch might with a certain group of ladies. this girl is not an evil feminist, she…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 01:02 AM
6

possible, there are alternative explanations also. Traditionally men are forced to be the primary earner (sexism), as such I could see why they might be more motivated to work towards a promotion (societal pressure & hungry kids). This is of course in comparison to a married (statistically not primary breadwinner/sole income) or single female. Gender bias is definitely an issue in the (over estimated) wage gap, however I don't think it's currently as prominent as people believe. In 90% of the ca…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 06:19 PM
13

don't forget men are much more likely to work dangerous jobs & night work which are paid at a premium.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 05:40 AM
1

clearly discriminate has different meaning based on context, treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment Archaic . something that serves to differentiate. if we can't agree that in reference to age/race/gender discrimination we are talking about 1 not 2 or 3 it's going to be…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 05:34 AM
1

So i'm starting to believe your genuine, I'm guessing you're a dude in your 50s or so? That might explain why I can't relate to your understanding of language at all, The meaning of discrimination does seem to have been extended and fine tuned when used in relation to racial groups, sexual orientation, or gender. When in this context 99.99% people are talking about bias, unequal, or unjust treatment. I get that you are apparently so old school that to you discriminate is exclusively a verb meani…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 05:05 AM
1

Is english not your first language or are you trolling? do you realize that words can have different meaning based on context for example, we were talking about: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex You are talking about: Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another Do you actually think giving doctors are sexist for not giving men pregnancy tests? If you are actually serious it …
/r/MensRights03/07/11 04:08 AM
1

It is not always discrimination to treat people differently, It is discrimination to treat people unequally.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:17 AM
1

Your right, It is not always discrimination to treat people differently, It is discrimination to treat people unequally.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:17 AM
1

It is not always discrimination to treat people differently, It is discrimination to treat people unequally.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:17 AM
1

I think you have really overcomplicated this issues based on a misunderstanding. It is not always discrimination to treat people differently, It is discrimination to treat people unequally. For example Two friends are coming over my house, they have different points of origin so I give them different directions. I have in fact treated them differently by giving them different directions By your logic I have discriminated against them based on their point of origin. However By my logic I have tre…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:14 AM
1

It is not always discrimination to treat people differently, It is discrimination to treat people unequally. For example Two friends are coming over my house, they have different points of origin so I give them different directions. I have in fact treated them differently by giving them different directions By your logic I have discriminated against them based on their point of origin. However By my logic I have treated them both the same and equally by giving them both accurate directions. To b…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:09 AM
3

I don't really understand your argument. Wait.. so people write doctors off? I mean, if a guy is throwing up every morning, the doc won't give him a pregnancy test, right? thats not sexism. Sexist means you still have a grasp on reality. When being sexist is a bad thing, society has effectively killed reason within itself. Being aware of differences between genders is NOT sexist. Sexism is discriminating based on gender. You're aware that saying men have to be the breadwinner/ can't stay at home…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 06:17 AM
2

I firmly believe that we are politically at a disadvantage and are not taken seriously (in the rare circumstance we are considered at all). Our only chance at gaining any capital is by exclusively promoting logical and well reasoned arguments and ideas. Small missteps this early can be devastating. You are essentially saying 'shut up and go away.' Yes, actual bigots and actual sexists SHOULD fuck off, they are the two steps backward for every step forward we take. The people who dismiss /mr are …
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:58 AM
7

Wait, is our goal here to help men or attack feminists?
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:41 AM
6

that's a really good point, I missed that one. It should be said that rewarding someone for physically abusing you does not make you a man, and is in fact misogynistic as it portrays women as weak and incapable of actually hurting a man.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:39 AM
2

excellent post, this is the type of rational discussion with citations that should be in our sidebar.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:37 AM
6

I think we all agree quotas are dumb, when they are brought up (outside) we should present something like a blind audition, where the potential for gender bias is removed or minimized. It's going to be easier fight against this type of sexism when we force the other side to argue against a meritocracy.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:35 AM
10

sorry if I'm thread-shitting, but this anonymous author of a not entirely serious tumblr post is not really notable enough to discuss. However it should be said that defining what it is to "be a man" exclusively by how they interact with women is itself sexist and arguably homophobic.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:25 AM
2

I know this is interesting, but I don't see it as a mens rights issue. The two examples are cherry picked and not related, this is comparing apples to oranges. The fact that there is no disincentive to falsely accuse someone of rape (and sometimes incentives to do so) is a legitimate issue & doesn't need to be clouded with examples of other laws being poorly applied.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:17 AM
2

I wan't to think its just a few bad apples, but the vocal minority seems extremely well represented here. It's sad because even with legitimate issues and grievances to discuss we are currently a fringe movement. When the legitimate misogynists and bigots control the conversation it becomes so easy for outsiders to write us off. Even worse is that the nastiest people here don't seem to want to effect change, they just want camaraderie and a shoulder to cry on. There is no point in bringing issue…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:10 AM
1

Are you seriously pissy because he said false accusations are bad for the accused & for legitimate victims? I read some of your post and I don't get how you can't see this. Whats your goal in this? If you want to see false accusations addressed why do you care if someone thinks its bad for one reason or two?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:17 AM
5

men’s rights activists (or MRA’s) remain strongly opposed to feminism. Wait a minute, is this true? Do I have to oppose feminism to support men's rights? Basically we think that women used to face legal and governmental discrimination and still face social discrimination,... why exactly do you use feminism to define MR's. Isn't enough to say men are discriminated against in certain ways & we seek to bring change and attention? Maybe i'm wrong but I think women are our allies, sexists (and discri…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:12 AM
2

sometimes the ends justify the means, is it really so bad if a law you don't like is improved for reasons you don't like? ps it's an op-ed so maybe you can write in too.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:28 AM
4

So it's okay to be a shitty person so long as no one cares about your opinion? Aside from every other problem they distract from real issues and make us look stupid by association.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:48 PM
4

Thank god for the level headed. I wish level headed men and level headed women could work together better towards our common goal. Maybe our first step should be to get the irrational MRs and irrational feminists to fight each other to the death.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:36 PM
1

you might benefit from re-reading this thread, here are some of my points explained. Don't forget this isn't exactly a double blind study. Everyone involved knew the reactions they wanted to get, The actors knew what reactions they were supposed to incite, and played to that role. not to mention the potential for selective editing. the producers knew what reactions they wanted, and edited to that effect. yes most people consider men more suspicious, doubly so for dark skinned men, and yes this i…
/r/seduction19/04/11 02:20 AM
1

in fairness i did not watch those videos, but isn't it still possible those other two actors were remotely credible? Don't forget this isn't exactly a double blind study. Everyone involved knew the reactions they wanted to get, not to mention the potential for selective editing. that being said, yes most people consider men more suspicious, doubly so for dark skinned men, and yes this is racist/sexist. But that woman was clearly not competent enough to be an actual credible bike thief. No more c…
/r/seduction18/04/11 07:40 AM
52

does no one mention how unconvincing this girl is as a thief? Is it reasonable to assume that a thief would know how to use a hacksaw, and that a hacksaw is the slowest way to break a chain in this circumstance? if I saw someone trying to break into a house with a hair dryer and bag of popsicle sticks I would assume they are retarded and not a burglar.
/r/seduction18/04/11 05:22 AM
1

17/20 oddly enough i only got the first 3 wrong.
/r/seduction26/03/11 09:41 PM
1

fashion week
/r/seduction29/08/10 09:55 PM
7

this is so wild i think it must be facetious.
/r/MensRights30/03/10 01:28 PM
1

yeah it was pretty out of line. Probably sexist, definitely not classy. To me, the only person guilty of admonishment is the guy who posted the pics, that was WAYYYYY out of line. The girl fucked a guy, big deal. If thats enough to make someone a whore, we all are. ps. I typically argue against the assertion that reddit is sexist, but this case is hard to defend.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 08:59 AM
7

pretend it's just your massive testicles weighing your down.
/r/seduction22/03/10 07:51 AM
2

no, but I am not willing to accept either scenario.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:08 AM
4

12v could kill someone, meanwhile a static shock is probably 10,000 volts and will never kill anyone.
/r/MensRights14/01/10 12:11 AM
8

okay lets go over it quickly, go fuck your self you patronising cunt. you are vulgar and classless, it is embarrassing to be associated with you. hurrr, i'm a feminist, that means if you don't like me you're sexist you are condescending, it is embarrassing to be associated with you. No, we scared away the feminists so we didn't have to keep reminding them of how repulsive we find the movement they represent. you seem proud of your ugly behavior & Proud of preventing discourse. it is embarrassing…
/r/MensRights20/12/09 09:07 AM
7

nope, still you.
/r/MensRights20/12/09 08:44 AM
2

being slapped hard across the face. It didn't leave a mark (not a physical one on my body at least) maybe i mark easily, but i cannot imagine a slap that leaves no mark being considered hard
/r/MensRights09/12/09 08:37 AM
-1

I never misunderstood, I disagreed. The food is not for women, it's for mothers which is a subset of women. Even then, the mothers are just delivery mechanisms for the infants. From any conceivable angle, the name is wrong. edited for tone
/r/MensRights28/11/09 10:04 AM
0

I'm sorry, is english not your first language? You don't seem to having the same argument as anyone else in this thread. I am a father who has used WIC to purchase formula for my first son. so then as a man you should understand that Women Infants Children is a poor name, Being that you are none of the above, but still participated. but anyway, good trolling outsider.
/r/MensRights28/11/09 01:25 AM
-2

no offence but you are a low class and dishonest arguer. lets go over this quickly, It's a child nutrition program that covers formula. I hope that we agree on this point, because it is true. Now moving forward there are two possibilities ONE: Fathers and mothers can purchase formula under this plan. In which case it is POORLY NAMED. TWO: Only mothers can buy formula. In which case it is SEXIST. * If you are unaware of how the program works you need to STFU and learn about it instead of jumping …
/r/MensRights28/11/09 01:11 AM
1

If women are included because they are parents, Women(mothers), infants, children, specifically excludes fathers. It may be the case that this is not true, but then the name is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights27/11/09 11:38 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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