TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

omfgsrin Archive

View 1 post and 220 comments by omfgsrin 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)
61

Generalomfgsrin/r/MensRights18/05/24 08:39 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
13

Some 'equality' that is.
/r/MensRights13/08/24 09:48 AM
1

As if your own bullsh-t wasn't a personal attack? F-ck off with your self-righteous display. What triggered you so badly? The italics? The fact that religious nutjobs are religious nutjobs? Were you not italicised enough as a child? Or were you italicised too much? Which is it? Or could it be that it wasn't the italication of your un-italicised self that is the issue? Were you, god forbid, underscored? If you actually bothered to understand the difference, you'd know why the anthropological defi…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 12:19 PM
4

'Your own words show that patriarchy exists.' Taken and understood outside of context. The anthropological definition of 'patriarchy' and the feminist reading of it are two separate things. Whenever one asks 'Does patriarchy exist' under the context of the critique of feminism, the answer is 'no', because their reading is b-llsh-t. For someone who's essentially just the backup account of another anonymous wannabe intellectual, you sure display a similar kind of incapacity to understand context. …
/r/MensRights10/08/24 11:14 AM
5

Just because something 'exists' according to your estimation, doesn't mean it 'exists' exclusively in the context you or the femin-zis imply it does. You're free to disagree with my take on the matter, 'mate', that's what 'democracy' is about, but your disagreement doesn't make me 'wrong'.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 10:50 AM
5

The anthropological definition of 'patriarchy' isn't the 'patriarchy' femin-zi scum are blathering on about. Also, 'homes' are now no longer cast in the heteronormative mould. Anyone who is capable, or who steps up to the responsibility of the well-being of others, especially under-age dependents, whether this be one individual or one hundred, and who prioritise their care above individual want, are the 'head' of a 'home'. 'All the data showing women earning <x> cents in the dollar compared to m…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 10:30 AM
3

There is no such thing as a patriarchy, everyone is oppressed. There isn't a gender pay gap, but there is an oppression of the working class. There isn't systemic violence against women exclusively, but there is systemic violence against people who have to suffer the wars and machinations of the rich while they sit in relative safety untouched by the horrors of the world. There is no sex war. There is only a class war. And until we realise who the real enemy is, we're just going to go around in …
/r/MensRights10/08/24 09:47 AM
0

'i barely care that they're using it at all with each other.' What you care about or don't isn't the determiner for what is right or wrong. You aren't arbiter of the world, OP. If you feel so strongly that people should be free to 'casually' use certain words that can and have been used to vilify others, and that words have impact which can be detrimental to certain groups of people should be free-for-all to enunciate at their slightest whim, then fight against the lawmakers. 'you want to contro…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 09:36 AM
1

Because men have choices and preferences and aren't cardboard cutout Ken dolls that all follow a singular cultic conformist mindset? If they want to date a sex worker, let them. If they want to date a capybara, let them. If they want to auto-fellate themselves for the shits-and-giggles, let them. So long as it isn't against the g-ddamn law, who the f-ck cares what other men do with their lives, their time, their money, or their d-cks? Last I checked, we aren't some monastic order sworn to follow…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 08:26 AM
-1

The bigger question is 'Why use racial slurs at all?' What is the point of it, and why else is it designated a 'slur' had it not been for the intent of the word and its attributed meaning? Whatever happed to 'words have meanings, you can't just change them to suit some propaganda'? I guess that's out the window now that it isn't 'those kinds of people' that are being policed, eh? Tell me, what exactly is the point of having an exchange among friends revolve around words like 'n--g-r', 'f--g-t', …
/r/MensRights10/08/24 08:18 AM
-10

Slurs against minority groups leads to hate, hate is a byways to violence, violence will eventually escalate to the point where you have murder. As for drugs, well, with how slang has evolved, it more than just drugs you can peddle online in such forums, if you just use code words, or have you people not read the news about how certain online forums have become the breeding ground for child p-rn-graphy and other black market shenanigans all thanks to code words? Yes, it is about control, but it …
/r/MensRights10/08/24 07:32 AM
1

Christianity is a religion of hypocrites, and their 'pro-life' act is a bunch of b-llshit that doesn't translate into real-world involvement with people who actually struggle with / in life. You get off it. If your wife or sister or mother or whoever doesn't want abortions, that's their prerogative. That doesn't mean you have to shove the rules of your cult down everybody's throat. Don't like the gays? Don't be gay. Don't like other ethnicities or cults outside of your own? You ain't one, and do…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 07:25 AM
-4

If the man on said games are, oh, I dunno, spewing Zeig f-cking H--l's and demanding the 'eradication' of minority groups or other groups of people his manly McManliness finds offense at, that right there is a danger to society. Same sh-t stands if the one doing it were a woman. Same sh-t stands if the one doing it were a crossbreed between a Charmander and Patamon.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 06:43 AM
0

Didn't even specify that the target is exclusively men. Also, good on these gaming platforms for ensuring that their chat forums don't become a breeding ground for criminal activity, hate speech, or whatever other heinous activity.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 06:42 AM
14

Lawyers aren't your friend. Lawyers, prostitutes, pastors / priests, and politicians all share one thing in common: they only want your money. If they think they can't 'win' a case or if it runs the risk of being unprofitable or potentially ruinous to their 'career', they aren't going to bother.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 01:46 AM
4

'My boyfriend saw me through the eyes of a customer,' probably because they treat their boyfriend like they would a customer. I'm the last individual that would denigrate sex work. It's one of the world's oldest professions, followed only by 'hired mercenary' and 'mortician', but if one wanted to 'normalise' something, bombardment is hardly the way to go about it. Clearly, from the get go, the 'boyfriend' is already 'skittish' about her line of work, so bombardment is hardly the way to go about …
/r/MensRights09/08/24 06:52 PM
1

As there is today. Because monogamy is enforced by religion and isn't exactly 'natural' among humans.
/r/MensRights09/08/24 02:22 AM
1

Likewise.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 09:37 AM
0

Who's 'we'? If anything is 'punishing' them, it's their ideology. Why should it be men's responsibility to make people realise the error of their ways? That never works. The only time any true 'realisation' occurs is when the ones who have erred come to the realisation themselves. When I said that 'trad wife f-ckery' is just a byproduct of women realising the unforgiving nature of being a wage slave, that is not me saying, 'They've seen the light,' because like I indicated in the latter part of …
/r/MensRights08/08/24 05:40 AM
18

This whole 'trad wife' f-ckery first began to rear its ugly head when some women realised how difficult, gruelling, and unrewarding being part of a workforce is. Now they're trying to shift the dynamic to 'it's a woman's job to be the householder and nurturer,' so escape the workforce drudgery in exchange for a less arduous form of labour. Men still lose, because now the man becomes sole provider for a single-income household in a sh-tty economy. Some 'equality' that is. As for 'tradition', f-ck…
/r/MensRights08/08/24 03:24 AM
1

Yes, it is. Because only humans are allowed the 'privilege' of self-expression. Tools don't deserve such privileges. Tools exist to get sh-t done. Tools exist only to be used, and once they have outlived their usefulness, they should be discarded. A tool is judged only by its perceived strength and usefulness. A tool doesn't need to 'feel' good, or 'look' good. All it needs is to be good at the job it is designed to do.
/r/MensRights08/08/24 02:26 AM
18

Just give them a dose of their own medicine. 'All heterosexual women are gold-diggers. All that women want from a man is money. Not company, shared interests, or a conversation; not even sex. They want money. That's the final intention. That's why they stay 'friends' with multiple men, because if Male A can't give money, they will use or weaponise their sexuality and attempt to trade sex and / or attention for money with Male B or Male C. Outside of money, women will use men to stroke their own …
/r/MensRights08/08/24 02:18 AM
1

Abortion, if done due to valid reasons (i. e. medical condition, early detection of abnormalities that impair or impede a child's future, incapacity to raise a child in a safe environment that guarantees that they thrive) is a mercy to the would-be infant. There is no greater evil than to raise a human in hardship simply for the excuse of being 'pro-life'. If you know your history, you'd know the answer is a resounding 'yes'. The earliest evidence for circumcision was as a ritualised rite of pas…
/r/MensRights08/08/24 02:04 AM
1

Well, that's not exactly the fault of females. That's the fault of religious nutjobs.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 10:26 PM
17

The concept of 'marriage for love' is a quite possibly a Western invention popularised by romantic novels which gained traction during the late 1700s until well into the 1900s and beyond. If we think about 'marriage' from a socio-cultural vantagepoint, 'love' was a secondary or even tertiary element to a marriage. It was more about security, finances, and the propagation of a lineage on the one hand, but also the slight assurance of the 'parentage' of potential offspring, especially within the E…
/r/MensRights07/08/24 07:40 AM
115

So much for 'marriage is designed by the patriarchy to oppress women'.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 06:52 AM
12

Bodily autonomy and 'beauty in diversity', until we're talking about men. Some 'compassionate' entities these snakes are.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 04:15 AM
8

If we're talking equality, then no.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 03:59 AM
10

So, basically, what they're saying is, 'Can't be lonely and depressed if you're dead.' Wunderbar. I'll save them the trouble and just do it myself.
/r/MensRights07/08/24 02:44 AM
1

There's 8.1 billion people in the world. You're never alone, and yet everyone is alone simultaneously. If you need a listening ear, community, or just a safe space, we're here for you.
/r/MensRights06/08/24 04:46 PM
1

'Toxic maculinity' takes on all sorts of forms. To be perfectly fair, stereotypical 'hypermasculinity' is 'toxic'. Creating 'strict gender roles' which police how men 'ought to be' (i. e. 'men shouldn't cry. Men can't wear a specific colour. Gay men are p-ssies. Liking this specific genre of entertainment isn't 'masculine', 'men who take on the 'child-rearing' role rather than the 'provider' role are 'p-ssy-whipped c-cks', 'men who share a polyamorous arrangement with another man and their share…
/r/MensRights06/08/24 10:12 AM
26

The bigger slap in the face is when you hear that phrase coming out of another man's mouth. If there ever was a case of 'toxic masculinity', it manifests itself clearly when men who have been numbed by hardship insist that the same numbness be the 'default' for all other men. That has to change.
/r/MensRights06/08/24 04:54 AM
1

The 'patriarchy' is a post-modern Western invention. It exists only because of feminist readings of old Abrahamic customs that have been projected into the Western collectivist psyche due to the pervasive corruptive influence of religion. Even those societies which feminism claims are 'patriarchal' are only ever actually that 'on paper', but in real-life scenarios, their 'patriarchal leaders' really don't have the singular say in all things and in all walks of life. It is often contrasted with h…
/r/MensRights06/08/24 02:12 AM
30

They wouldn't have that problem if they also went to combat. Can't lose something if you die first.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 11:18 PM
18

War is big business. If big business wants war, it should send the rich bankers, politicians, and all the privileged scum of the earth to go fight those wars. Why would I 'fight and die' for a country and a system that can't feed its hungry, provide treatment for its sick, house its homeless, and help its disabled while its 'elected leaders' grow fat with the commonfolk's labour? F-ck that sh-t.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 11:17 PM
27

Because a man is only a 'parent' when money is involved. In all other respects, a man is 'another child to take care of', 'another mouth to feed', 'a pervert to put up with', and 'a potential r-pist in the household'. Welcome to manhood.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:50 PM
4

They wouldn't have such a difficult time with sh-t like this if they went out and showcased their 'strength' and 'empowerment' by becoming cannon fodder like everyone else.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 10:48 PM
3

If they [women] consider doing household tasks 'mentally taxing', then they have no business being part of / having a household.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 06:28 PM
3

My possibly controversial opinion in this matter is that the 'war between the sexes', the 'gender ideology wars', and all other b-llshit wars are at their very root a class war. It's just a bunch of rich w-nkers pitting the commonfolk against one another so they become too preoccupied trying to survive that they have zero time or energy to band together and destroy an even more pervasive common enemy. Women didn't create the problem of requiring a two-income household. They were fed the illusion…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 08:25 AM
2

Those damned time-streamers! This is all the fault of the Santananic cult of the Illuminatree!
/r/MensRights04/08/24 08:03 AM
2

And all people. Even the people who are only partially x-percent human and x-percent machine. It isn't an issue now, but when it happens, it'll be the next thing religious nutjobs b-tch about. And if the human race survives long enough to crossbreed with another species from somewhere else in the galaxy, you'll have 'pureblooded humans' b-tching about the fact that 'hybrids' exist as well. Religious nutjobs have frothed at the mouth about everything from a different ethnicty getting to f-ck anot…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 07:47 AM
15

WHAT IS A WOMAN?! [throws wine glass aside. F-cking thing shatters.] A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk! Have my upvote.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 06:05 AM
41

The same can be said for all religions.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 05:39 AM
3

There is a reason why Gondor doesn't call for aid. There is a reason why Gondor believes it needs no aid.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 05:09 AM
2

Because women will play the 'victim of patriarchy' card and use the dismissal as 'proof' that 'all men are out to oppress women'. The best way to shut a woman up to ensure that there's a foolproof argument presented that cannot be weaseled out of logically or emotionally. Being master manipulators, they'll try to find loopholes. When loopholes don't exist, they shut up.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:46 AM
3

Hysterically. As expected. Works every time.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:33 AM
3

Where were these 'women allies' when the Westfold fell?
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:29 AM
7

'Emancipation of women in the workforce'? I don't see no d-mn woman working at a garbage disposal, or a woman working in an oil rig, or a woman logging, or a woman braving the perilous ocean to fish. Some 'emancipation' that is.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:28 AM
4

It feeds off of their delusion of self-importance. 'I need to be the centre of attention, I need to be the object of desire, I require validation,' while simultaneously demanding to 'not be objectified, not be reduced to a caricature, to be loved for my mind,' et-cetera. This dualistic conflict is a blatant manifestation of mental instability disguising itself as 'having depth and complexity'.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:26 AM
13

Just have a fat paycheck and drive fancy schmancy vehicles. No matter how much they will say 'It isn't your money that attracts me to you,' eight times out of ten, it actually is.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:24 AM
11

Because the word 'accountability' only applies to men, and yet somehow 'men are never accountable'. Women are perpetual victims of their imaginary enemies. And if they're f-cked up in the head, all of their actions and subsequent consequences are everyone else's fault but theirs.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:22 AM
12

It's easier to villianise someone once you strip them of their complexity and humanity. It's also easier to program someone with simple or absolutist axioms, i. e. 'men only want sex,' 'men are more combative,' 'men are dumb,' etc., because the simplicity of the 'mantra' makes it easier to self-internalise. The system doesn't like complex. Complex is difficult to manipulate, deceive, and control. The system wants simple and predictable. And simple is all the 'tropes' being pushed on one from an …
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:19 AM
1

All women. Because if 'yes, all men,' therefore 'yes, all women.'
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:33 AM
0

I know how it ends, thanks. Would you prefer a r-pist and p-edophile as the leader of the 'free' world? Or would you rather have feminazi scum on the throne? If someone has to choose between the 'lesser' of two evils, that ought to tell that person their world needs a reset.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:32 AM
2

Yes, it is, but only indirectly. It's twoissues being targeted indirectly, and simultaneously. On the one hand, it attacks trans women and questions their right to exist and their place in sports. on the other hand, the rabid TERFs are insisting that a cis woman is somehow 'trans', so it affects cis women who 'aren't woman enough' for those feminazi scum. Hopefully, this will teach some people how 'feminism' isn't really on anybody's side except its own insane agenda.
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:30 AM
2

No, there is no such thing as a 'patriarchy'. There is no 'sex war', there is only a 'class war'.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:47 AM
5

Give them the same treatment. That's what equality is about. A woman does something you disagree with, call them 'insane'. It'll drive them bonkers, especially since there is a purportedly 'patriarchal' stereotype of the mentally unhinged hormonal female. If men are 'incels', 'weirdos', or 'creeps,' then women are 'insane,' 'shallow', 'gold diggers'. In a truly 'equal' world, you dish out the same b-llshit you're given.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:42 AM
-10

I wonder when people will learn that the only 'good' politician is a dead one? Regardless of whether that politician is a p-dophile r-pist who has it in for his own daughter, or a feminazi, politicians never have 'the best interest' of the public in mind. The public ought to rally together and French Revolution their politicians.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:34 AM
0

I am aware that there is no trans person involved in this. The way that TERFs employ trans issues and make it out to be a 'men sabotaging the rights of women' issue, however, is both a men's rights issue (because men's rights must not be conflated with trans rights, unless it involves trans men), and a trans issue (because trans issues are not men's rights issues, unless it involves trans men). Trans issues are not a 'feminist' issue, either, because feminists don't even view trans people as 'hu…
/r/MensRights02/08/24 09:53 PM
5

A relatively good looking man does this sh-te, the headlines will be 'PREDATORY MONSTER'. But because a woman does the same atrocious crime, let's dial back on the crime, and focus on how glamorous she is.... Some 'patriarchy' we live in.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 09:13 PM
1

Boys are just potential women-abusing, entitled, privileged monsters-in-the-making to f-minazi scum.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 09:11 PM
5

Notice how folks say male s-x offenders should be made to, oh, swim with the fishes? That thing up there is a s-x offender. Shouldn't that thing also swim with the fishes?
/r/MensRights02/08/24 09:10 PM
2

Female privilege.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 09:08 PM
8

Those 'high standards' in your so-called 'values' and 'behaviours' are easy to tout when you're just a pair of hands typing on a keyboard hiding in anonymity. I find it ironic that you call it a 'travesty' when 'anyone who falls so low as to wish pain and financial abuse toward woman', but where is the same sentiment when it's the women doing it to the men? I get the philosophical gist of your high-horse argument. 'An eye for an eye makes the world go blind,' is what you're trying to preach, but…
/r/MensRights02/08/24 08:46 PM
5

Why does 'being the bigger person' fall on the victims? Why don't you try saying that to, say, the victims of r-pe, or the victims of wartime genocide? They're embittered, hurting, and lashing out? D-mn skippy doo, I guess they'll have to learn to be 'the bigger person'. F-ck being 'bigger' or 'better'. Justice is not justice until the guilty pay their dues.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 08:40 PM
2

This is a trans rights issue. The only time men's rights overlap with trans rights is if transgender men are attacked by lunatic TERFs.
/r/MensRights02/08/24 07:47 PM
22

'Male' is not a sex. 'Male' is the designation they give to slaves and thralls, and thus if one is 'male', discriminating upon them is fair game. /s
/r/MensRights25/07/24 06:16 PM
3

Men didn't read so much for pleasure as for work in the Victorian Era, since a good number upper-middle class and upper-class men spent most of their time writing the very novels other people read, while the rest of the lower classes eked out a pittance working in sweatshops, coal mines, and other 'industrial giants' of the age. But this really doesn't take into account that the Victorian and later Edwardian Periods reached a 'literacy' zenith, especially with the growing availability and afford…
/r/MensRights25/07/24 06:33 AM
1

It comes as no surprise. It's always been like that. The resistance against men's rights is comparable to other social rights activism throughout history. 'Conversative' religious nutjobs' react in the same manner when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. They've been at that minority group's neck for so long that they're afraid that of receiving the same treatment. Several hundred years ago, the slave-owning upper class resisted the liberation of slave-classes because they feared violent repercussions. T…
/r/MensRights23/07/24 12:07 PM
17

If people started raising women like they raise men, we would have less of these entitled pieces of sh-t around. Or, rather, if women were raised in accordance with the same standards of yesteryear, we wouldn't have these entitled sh-tlings. And by yesteryear, I don't mean the whole 'stay at home and wait for me to auction you off to the highest bidder' - that's for the upper-class f-cks, and the upper-class f-cks have always been privileged w-nkers. By yesteryear, I mean the average working-cla…
/r/MensRights21/07/24 08:53 PM
5

It is better to converse with a bear than to debate with a woman. Whenever one is forced to debate with a woman, the best recourse is to walk away.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 08:40 AM
5

Matters involving escorts and other 'adult industry' workers isn't 'usury'. It's transactional. It's a business deal. I wouldn't say my local ramen shop is 'using' me. I'm paying them for something I want to eat, and for the time and labour they put into providing me that thing I want to eat. There is a difference between said ramen shop and a wife who will not allow me to eat dinner or tell me 'Why don't you eat outside, you bum?' because I 'came home late' from rendering overtime and 'didn't g…
/r/MensRights20/07/24 05:18 AM
2

I can attest to that fact. In Southeast Asia especially, a good chunk of women just prey on men and use them for their money. But the same can be said anywhere else in the world.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 05:10 AM
10

All women will use you. Overseas, under the sea, anywhere and everywhere. They WILL use you.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 03:45 AM
14

When women do this shit, it's 'empowerment'. When men do this shit, it's 'gold digging'. Such equality.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 03:45 AM
9

Woman stabs things, gets off with misdemeanour. Man screams in the street and kicks a bin over, gets tackled, tazed, beaten with billy clubs, and jailed for six months. Such equality. Such justice. Such fairness.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 03:37 AM
1

The thing about 'feminism' is that it's an ideology. It's like religion. Some people are in it neck-deep, others are in it waist-deep, and others just dip their toes into the concept. Because it's an ideology, and because it is widely promoted, even people who aren't really 'primed' into what the ideology is REALLY about, or its history, etc., will claim to be 'feminist' because it's the 'popular', 'righteous', 'correct' thing to do. Again, to use the analogy of religion, not all adherents to a …
/r/MensRights20/07/24 03:33 AM
46

What can you expect from a bunch of narcissists who think they're fighting an imaginary world order that is said to exclusively 'benefit' all men without any clear evidence of said 'benefits' anywhere? You can't expect 'sanity' or 'logic' from a collective that believes their safety is inviolable around bears, while simultaneously demanding that white knights come to their rescue when they encounter physical threats - the very same population who go on lengthy diatribes about how their 'strength…
/r/MensRights19/07/24 12:36 PM
15

When the belief system that one criticises likewise presents signs of violent extremism, it is normal for 'intellectuals' and so-called 'pundits' to presume that any response against said extremism is likewise extremist in kind.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 01:30 AM
8

It isn't really 'equality' unless they get equal treatment, is it?
/r/MensRights13/07/24 09:11 AM
27

You can't reason with imbeciles, so don't try.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 09:05 AM
5

Better make it equal, then, since they're all about 'equality'. Women and girls being trafficked and used as s-x slaves? No. It's just a heifer house. It's only a reeducation camp. It's merely a mothering movement for disenfranchised girls.
/r/MensRights13/07/24 12:22 AM
3

Feminazi scum will go 'It's every boy's dream come true.'
/r/MensRights13/07/24 12:21 AM
3

That's the common sentiment of folks who are incapable of doing the sh-t they tell other people they ought to do. Make-up and plastic surgery hardly counts as 'improving' the self, when at the end of the day, they're the same weak-minded, impulsive, hyper-emotional, mentally-unstable trainwrecks.
/r/MensRights12/07/24 09:20 PM
1

There are other texts throughout history which promote the same ideologies without a religious bend. Besides, the 'Ten Commandments' comes with additional baggage that sits outside of the given ten, but which are enforced by dogmatism and which breeds bigotry. It's like being given a gift with a pretty gift wrapper, while the gift inside said packaging is actually the rotting corpse of a rabid dog. You're entitled to think it's ridiculous. If my ideologies don't sit well with you, you're free to…
/r/MensRights11/07/24 08:31 AM
1

Yes. Anything promoted by religion. Anything. Of course I am. In order to stand against dogma, you likewise require a dogma.
/r/MensRights11/07/24 08:05 AM
-1

Anything that is promoted by religion - whatever that religion may be - is detrimental to the human race as a whole - not just to men or women. Anyone who subscribes to a religion is a slave to collective delusion. Dogma does not differentiate between a man or a woman; rather, it finds its own unique ways to impose upon and oppress both while claiming it is 'for their own good'. We will never be able to progress as a species so long as religion exists. Religion is like communism; it only looks g…
/r/MensRights10/07/24 04:43 PM
2

Double-standards everywhere. It gets worse when you realise that some men are raised to 'just take it', 'because they're women, and therefore weaker than you, you don't ever raise a hand to defend yourself against assault.' I say that's bullshit. The moment anyone raises a hand to me, either I put them down, or I go down. There are no exceptions.
/r/MensRights10/07/24 03:17 PM
3

Hey buddy. If we can't talk about those things which eat us alive, sooner or later it will devour us, and we in turn will devour the world. Better to talk about it here, than not at all. While I can't speak on behalf of everyone here, I for one will lend a listening and non-judgmental ear. Thing with how most men are raised (and this isn't really a 'feminazi' issue, but a 'society in general' issue) is that it comes with the rule of 'being a protector and provider'. That's the set role that men …
/r/MensRights10/07/24 03:01 PM
1

Go ahead, buddy. And thanks.
/r/MensRights10/07/24 01:32 PM
2

The book was based off of radio lectures, and did have its fair share of pre-publication editing to make it more 'cohesive' in book-form, so the difference is a given. I am not sure if the radio talks are better, as I've never listened to them, and only managed to read the book. But it's been, I don't know, eight (?)-plus years since then? I'll be damned if I still remember all - if any - of it. Lol. My thanks to you for the link to the radio talks. I'll give it a listen-through come the weekend…
/r/MensRights09/07/24 11:54 PM
3

I've read his 'Four Loves', and have a copy of it.
/r/MensRights09/07/24 11:41 PM
3

That's ultimately because there is a difference between romance and friendships. You'd be quite lucky to have both, luckier if you find both in one person, and just as lucky if you find it in several people. Nevertheless, there is a grave need for profound friendships among men today, which is seemingly lost or unattainable in much the same light as profound romantic relationships. Loneliness is loneliness, and to a very lonely person, there is very little difference between romantic longing and…
/r/MensRights09/07/24 11:31 PM
5

Let them. Let's see how well they do it. Let's see how well they can run society and make it function. The only caveat is, if they ask anything of men because they find some of their 'methods' aren't working as well as they'd like, men can just say 'No. My body, my rules. You don't own me. And if you're going to force me, I will eliminate myself from the equation or eliminate you.' The only way to fight extremism is to counter it with an even more extreme sort of extremism. Sure, some men will '…
/r/MensRights09/07/24 04:47 AM
6

Feminism promises a false sense of 'sisterhood' and 'unity' against an imaginary 'common enemy', but like all cults (religious or political), all of its promises about a 'united' front are lies. It victimises not just men, but women as well, especially since you have various 'factions' of the so-called 'movement' who just as often are at each other's throats as they'd be against their so-called 'common enemy'. It's all 'sisterhood' until you're heterosexual, until you choose to have children, un…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 05:10 PM
7

There's a word for that which is casually thrown about and is believed to be the birthright of all men: 'privilege'. Men are told they all have 'privilege', while simultaneously being denied even basic care. And when they turn out 'wrong', the only explanation is because it is inherent in their nature, and 'The Patriarchy' made them that way. Classic damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 05:00 PM
2

'A lot don't, though.' I wonder why that is? Also, note the latter statement of 'sure they have help' (with regards to women). They have help. The same cannot be said for men, especially if you belong to the lower strata of the social ladder.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 04:46 PM
1

Stick to your Star Wars analyses, 'doc'.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:46 PM
2

'Usually'? You think men, especially those who belong to lower social classes, are given choices? Lol.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:42 PM
1

You misunderstand my point. There is a difference between delusion, which results in entitlement-mentality, and understanding and knowing your worth. Your 10/10 isn't going to be everyone's 10/10. But if people don't even meet you halfway with their 10/10, they likewise don't deserve the 10/10 you have to give.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:36 PM
1

Says the ch-de who isn't even 'not that kind of doctor'. Lol.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:34 PM
3

The division is superficial when we begin to see each struggle as a. individual struggle and b. ideological struggle while forgetting that ultimately, it's all a big c. class struggle. Because at the end of the day, the victims are the average working-class folks. Low-income men are just as much a victim of wh-redom as are pr-stitutes who work under ruthless pimps. Both sell their bodies at great risk to their personal safety, health, and general well-being, all to benefit a 'ruling class' who d…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:11 AM
4

Says the w-nker with who goes by 'Doctor'. LOL. Go back under the hill, 'Doctor'. A degree in Reddit commentary doesn't make you special, either.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:01 AM
2

How many patients have you saved, 'Doctor'? Why don't you go save more lives, since that's what your supposed 'job title' curtails, 'Doctor'?
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:58 AM
1

They're dying in the workplace precisely because of them being men. They're demanded to take on more arduous and dangerous types of labour. And before you say, 'Oh, well, they can just refuse to take it,' there is such a thing as hiring preference. Oh, and if nobody does the work other folks don't like to do or want to do, just see how quickly the simple order of society will crumble. Women have likewise recognised the dangerous and back-breaking nature of a lot of blue collar jobs, so a signifi…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:57 AM
3

How many hours does your husband render at work? And how many dishes can you cook for dinner? Because if your husband is dish-washer, with no caveat for excuses whatsoever, then you're on kitchen duty, no excuses. Sarcasm aside, if you have issues with your husband, leave him. Don't make it like your husband's shortcomings are the shortcomings of all men, especially when generalisations and comparisons usually ruffle your feathers.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:44 AM
10

They'll assume they can do it better, give it a shot, find that they cannot, call a man to do it for them, then blame 'The Patriarchy' for forcing women to be reliant on men as a means to control their autonomy.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:39 AM
52

Yet another case of psychopathy in women. There's even a study that suggested that psychopathic tendencies were more commonplace / had higher rates of manifestation in women. But since the author of that study is a man (Dr Clive Broddy), it will be relegated to dusty old archives or deleted outright from the collective zeitgeist because it's just 'men telling women what they are so they can be controlled'. Among Dr Broddy's findings are the following observations: '“People generally attribute ps…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:37 AM
2

Hey, the 'politically correct' phrase for 'biological this or that' is 'cisgender'. And even those 'non-gender' people understand the difference between biological sex and what's in someone's head / how they showcase themselves to the world (at least, the intelligent ones do). I don't know how you feel about 'such people', but the way I see it, the world is already against men in almost all fronts. Let's not cultivate even more enemies, especially since what constitutes 'men's rights' and the in…
/r/MensRights08/07/24 02:30 AM
8

Because the victim is a woman. Because men can't be victims of r-pe. Because what's there to r-pe? They're all horndogs who should be grateful someone's showing them interest. Classic misandrist bollocks.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 01:34 AM
4

Do you mean to say with the last line that 100% of the perpetrators of r-pe are male (specifically cis/biological 'male')? You kinda lost me with what you intend to say with the last line. We do need to have the 'legal definition' changed, because r-pe is a non-gendered thing - that is to say, anyone can be a victim, and anyone can be a perpetrator.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 01:33 AM
315

There is no such thing as a 'male loneliness epidemic' when you aren't viewed as a human being to begin with. Disposable machines do not get 'lonely'. R-pacious monsters who think with their sex organs do not get 'lonely'. Tyrants who live to perpetuate the suffering of real humans like women and children don't get 'lonely'. Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room because they don't even think there's an elephant or a room.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 12:17 AM
10

There's other ways to say it without having to use the word 'r-pe'. There's forced (like you suggested), assaulted, non-consensual intercourse, abused, et-cetera. They just won't use the word 'r-pe' because in their minds, r-pe 'is something men - and only men - do.' Double-standards everywhere.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 11:06 PM
18

The wording also applies to the enactor of the crime. If the criminal is a man, the act meted out against another, whether female or male, is 'rape'. If the criminal is a woman, the crime is designated as 'assault' at most, or 'sex' in the least, because of a silly little caveat that involves the matter of penetrative s-x and the matter of autonomy. According to some silly lawmakers, penetrative sex is required for something to constitute as 'r-pe', and since women are incapable of such, it 'doe…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 11:03 PM
6

Best solution is to mass quit. Let the women do it all. Fishing? Women. Construction? Women. Heavy industrial labour? Women. Waste management? Women. Maintenance of oil rigs? Women. Mining operations? Women. Let them do it all. If they're so 'empowered' and so 'strongk', they can do it. Let them prove that 'women are just as capable - if not MORE capable than men in any field'. Let's see how long they'll last. Their failure is the only foolproof way of discrediting the feminazi ideology. Once th…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:27 PM
16

Those poor souls. It must tear them to shreds to see so much death while they're cursed with the agonising pain of having to keep on living...
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:22 PM
2

When have women ever been 'logical'? If men are 'ruled by their d-cks', women are ruled by their feels. Ain't a shred of logic there.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:21 PM
1

Welcome to society, where 'intrinsic value' is a lie. You're pushed out into the world to do something. If you can't do it, then you serve no purpose. It's always been that way. It isn't just a 'Boomer generation versus Gen-Z' thing. It's always been that way. Even more so if you're a man.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:19 PM
3

If that were the case, then men should be given a free pass for murder too. Because, after all, 'nobody thinks straight in the heat of the moment'. But somehow, that sort of excuse is only applicable if women are the perps.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:14 PM
3

In their logic, all men are blood-thirsty, cold-blooded, mass-murdering, p--dophilic r-pists, and all women who commit crimes were 'driven so by circumstance and the difficulty of having to navigate an oppressive patriarchy-ruled society where everything is stacked against them'.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:12 PM
3

These are just the ramblings of an insane woman who's trying to make up excuses for murder. If a man did this, he'd be chewed up, spat out, shat upon, stepped on, and incinerated to beyond recognition for being a child murderer. 'Career' schmareer. It's 2024. If you 'prioritised your career', there's about as many options for contraception as there are brands of toffee available in the market. If it was really about 'career', there's also the perfectly viable option of early termination of pregn…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 10:10 PM
8

Because they're fed the illusion of 'intrinsic worth', and they aren't required to 'prove' their worth or 'earn' their worth. You don't need to 'accept' that most women aren't happy unless you're a 10/10. You need to implement the same standard in your life. If they're not a 10/10, don't bother. If you're willing to go above and beyond, but you're only being given less than what you dish out, never settle. If you're in your 20s and you're realising their bullsh-t as early as now, it'll get easie…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 09:59 PM
11

If sh-t hits the fan, all you have is yourself. If you fall ill, all you have is yourself. When you're dying, all you have is yourself. Do not feel guilty for prioritising yourself, because as a man, all you have is yourself.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 09:47 PM
130

If the perp is a man, it's 'r-pe'. If it's a woman, it's 'sex', or 'assault'. Lol.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 09:41 PM
1

One of the reasons why the state cannot be trusted is because we stopped b-h-ading our rulers.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 09:38 PM
2

Yes. The politicians can go fight their wars. They can go die in them. Yes. It takes two to tango, and a whole village to raise a child. Of course. The alternative is that my taxes go to funding the lavish lifestyles of corrupt parasites who think I 'owe' them sh-t because they're 'lawmakers', instead of them owing ME sh-t because they're PUBLIC SERVANTS. Public servants need to be reminded that they serve the people, and not the other way around. This same sentiment applies to question number t…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 09:37 PM
1

No. We're living in a classist hellscape where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And last I checked, wealth doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. A rich piece of sh-t is a rich piece of sh-t, regardless of what's between their legs. A parasite that drains the working class dry while they reap all the benefits is a sub-human entity that is beyond sex or gender. There is no 'gender / sex war', there is only a class war.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 07:16 PM
1

Do people walk in the street with a bag of groceries in tow to find sex partners? Do they eat at restaurants or piss in public urinals with the intent of finding sex partners? When you go to a lesbian bar, or a gay bar, or a straight bar, do you go there ONLY with the express intent of hooking up, or is that only something a SELECT number of people choose to do? The narrative you feminazi scum try to peddle is that 'all men' are down to r-pe anytime, anywhere. Not just r-pists. Not just coked ou…
/r/MensRights05/07/24 03:40 PM
3

They wouldn't be able to comprehend that because you'd be comparing people to objects, they'd say. They also wouldn't be able to comprehend that walking around in a shady neighbourhood at the wee hours of night dressed to nines and bedecked with gold increases the likelihood of you getting mugged. Not that muggers and other such low-lives need a 'reason' to commit a crime, of course...
/r/MensRights03/07/24 10:47 PM
12

If I leave the snake alone, it won't make up sh-t about how I 'molested' it when I was ten feet away from its territory this whole time. The snake respects boundaries and doesn't believe it is entitled to anything simply by virtue of its serpentine nature.
/r/MensRights03/07/24 07:22 PM
6

If sex offender is female: 'They had sex.' 'They were having illicit relations.' 'It was an amorous tryst.' If sex offender is male: 'R-PE! R-PE! R-PE! GROOMER! PAEDOPHILE! PUT IT DOWN AND SHOVE A STAKE UP ITS A-SE!'
/r/MensRights21/05/24 01:35 AM
4

Unless and until 'necessary force' becomes a norm for men who are often exclusively the victims of unnecessary force, often resulting in severe injury or death, then the 'equal' treatment would be treating women with the same degree of force so they'll get it into their heads that a. there is no such thing as 'male privilege' b. the 'patriarchy' isn't an all-boys' club that favours all men c. the make it so far in life not because they're 'strong and powerful, fighting against the insurmountable…
/r/MensRights21/05/24 01:25 AM
1

Nor are they called 'paedophiles', and their actions are very rarely called 'r-pe' or 'grooming'.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 03:55 PM
1

Because men aren't treated like people. They're treated the way soldiers are treated: disposable things meant to accomplish missions, follow orders, and then die, with only tiny bits of shiny metal on ribbons and a piece of paper with 'Good job for not dying' being doled out to the few who manage to survive.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 11:24 AM
12

Nobody chooses PTSD, nobody chooses bipolar disorder, nobody chooses any mental illness. But if the mentally ill person were male, see how quickly they get 'put down'.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 11:16 AM
18

If this were a man, he'd be on the floor in seconds with a knee on his neck. Meanwhile, female lunatics get far better, more 'humane' treatment. If equality were real, tazed on the ground with a knee to the neck would be standard fare for everybody regardless of sex.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 11:15 AM
1

Switch up the sexes and BAM! It's grooming and statutory r-pe.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 11:03 AM
1

Tell that to all the countries that were invaded by all the Colonial powers who likewise did plenty of r-ping, assaulting, butchering, and what-have-you, all to pay for their so-called 'progress' and 'civilisation'. Maybe you've forgotten that your 'freedom' was paid for by the price of immigrants who laboured and died so you could guzzle down pounds of melted fake cheese while chanting 'USA! USA! USA!' Why is it that people who seem to be so 'anti-immigrant' happen to come from the very same po…
/r/MensRights20/05/24 11:02 AM
4

The problem with most women is that they aren't taught accountability. They get a free pass at shitty behaviour because nobody calls them out on it.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:35 AM
1

I am aware of that. And that has to change. Nothing will change if we play by their games and use their sanctioned phraseology. R-pe is r-pe regardless of your sex or gender. Grooming is grooming regardless of sex or gender. Molestation is molestation regardless of sex or gender. They want equality, they have to be GIVEN that equality, along with all the sh-tty bits they get to miss out on because of their 'oppressed' status.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:34 AM
1

You mean the excuses you tell yourself so you can keep your imaginary 'liberty', right? Why don't you use that 'liberty' spiel of yours on the graves of all the dead children who had to take the brunt of your 'liberty' point-blank?
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:32 AM
1

Really? Because it's really sick that you criticise a country where the senseless death of children isn't a regular Monday.
/r/MensRights18/05/24 07:54 PM
4

How many schoolchildren get shot down in Belgium on a monthly basis?
/r/MensRights18/05/24 12:21 PM
12

The government takes a cut from everybody. We're all wh-res in this bordello called life.
/r/MensRights18/05/24 12:19 PM
4

So, like any kind of employment, your masters have the legal impetus to make you work longer hours, work against your will, work if you're sick, work when the conditions are far less than ideal, etc.? Looks to me like any other job. The proper response would be to unionise.
/r/MensRights18/05/24 12:18 PM
3

True progress would be calling a predator what they are, without the need for quotation marks.
/r/MensRights18/05/24 12:15 PM
44

Because 'equality' is a lie.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 02:53 PM
57

Not at all. Believe evidence. I cannot believe how ludicrous the world has become when even the judicial system has been retconned into this whole notion of 'believe unvalidated testimony'. In every other respect, if a person were to tell me they were the King of France, I would require evidence before I believed their claim. But all a woman needs is a made-up story, and it's no-questions-asked. Absolute sh-tf-ckery.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 02:24 PM
20

'My suffering is on a whole other level from your suffering, so while I appreciate you trying to help me in my time of suffering, the gravity of mine still eclipses yours.' That is how narcissists sound like. Me, me, me, me. All me. Just me. Only me.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 10:59 PM
4

There oughtn't be any 'gender responsibilities'. In a world where 'equality' is the 'norm', everybody should be able to do what everybody else is capable of doing, and everybody should take the blame for whatever everybody else f-cks up on if they likewise f-ck up on it. 'Why didn't you open the door? What kind of gentleman are you?' 'Gentleman? No, no. I'm just a man. And that's equality. If you can't open the door for me, why should I open doors for you?' So, in the case of your scenario, don'…
/r/MensRights06/05/24 08:48 PM
2

And you missed mine. Likewise, sir.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 08:40 PM
2

And good luck with your way, too. All the best.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 05:33 PM
3

Did I in any way attack therapy? Did I in any way say it was 'bad'?
/r/MensRights06/05/24 05:14 PM
29

So much for 'male privilege'. So much for 'strong empowered woman'. Lol.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 01:25 PM
1

That's a you thing, friend. If you go by the '1 + 1 = 5, yes, you're right,' ideology, all good. But cross-posting this on every post on the safety of bears isn't 'to fix stupid'. It also isn't 'to point score'. You do it because it exists and can be posted / shared. Will it 'fix stupid'? No. Should one try to 'fix stupid'? No. But the thing about delusion is it becomes a self-perpetuating thing unless the one falling prey to delusion hear the sound of one hand clapping. You don't go about this …
/r/MensRights06/05/24 01:18 PM
6

This deserves to be cross-posted on every f-min-zi post about the 'safety' of bears.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 11:21 AM
4

At the rate that things are going now, it isn't anymore that they aren't 'equal', it is that they have been given a set of privileges which have placed them at a far more superior state than that of men. This, of course, is not a global thing. But for your average American or Western European woman in large city capitals, it most definitely is.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 10:48 AM
18

First they say 'Women are equal to men,' now they harp on about how 'the system of oppression exists because of the assertion of the inferiority of women...' So, if women are 'equal' (i. e. not inferior) to men, then the premise of a system existing because of an assertion of 'inferiority' shouldn't exist, because its existence necessitates that the assertion of inferiority is real, and therefore the axiom 'women are equal to men' would then become a fallacy. Seems to me like they're trying to h…
/r/MensRights06/05/24 07:14 AM
22

Truth be told? Nowhere. That's why so many men end up depressed, su-c-dal, or struggling with substance abuse. There nowhere. There is no one. If there are, it won't be 'free'. There's two kinds you can go to: places and people you pay to give you said warmth (which will be transactional and can be perceived as 'fake' by one, or all parties involved), or you yourself go out there to 'give' said warmth before any is given to you in kind. The latter can be quite difficult, because for most of a ma…
/r/MensRights06/05/24 03:44 AM
2

In case you missed out on one very integral line, here: ' Unless they give you reason to take them seriously (i. e. they try genuinely to engage in honest, proper discourse)'.
/r/MensRights05/05/24 05:21 AM
28

Don't. Unless they give you reason to take them seriously (i. e. they try genuinely to engage in honest, proper discourse), just give them the same dose of medicine they're dishing out. They say 'Woman safer with bear'? Say, 'Man also safer with bear.' They say, 'All men r-pists'? Say, 'All women p--dophiles.' They say, 'All men abusive'? Say, 'All women parasites.' You cannot reason with crazy. You cannot logic with crazy. Exasperate them. They'll rant and rave about how you 'generalise an enti…
/r/MensRights04/05/24 10:36 PM
7

Yes, it's stupid. That's why the best choice for men is to pick a bear over a woman. A bear will not falsely accuse you of r-pe. A bear will not manipulate your emotions to gain access to your bank account. A bear will not force paternity on you after they got knocked up by a one-night-stand. A bear will not emotionally or physically abuse you and then accuse you of being the abuser. Bear. For every man who deserves better.
/r/MensRights04/05/24 08:28 PM
5

They've always been around. It's only now that people are able to expose it easier.
/r/MensRights04/05/24 08:15 AM
1

Good for you. You do that. I feel quite enriched with the lulz.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 10:45 PM
11

So in this respect, the woman is no different than the 'men' she envisions. Because they rarely leave dead men alone. In fact, like carrion eaters, they wait patiently for a man to die before they assassinate his character and his reputation, and then leave with his estate. The bear truly is the safer option, even for men.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 10:14 PM
1

Like I said, 'It's for the lulz.'
/r/MensRights03/05/24 10:09 PM
1

I agree that if you rave against lunatics, you're no different. But there is a difference between railing against lunatics because you want to 'talk some sanity into them' - and giving crazy the same kind of crazy, because you are more than aware that there is no reasoning with crazy. In the former case, you want to 'bring them back into the fold of reason'. In the other case, you are aware enough that they are beyond reason, and are by then just pulling at their tails 'for the lulz'. In a cult,…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 08:50 PM
0

Go do that, Tim. Don't tell me what to do, because I sure as hell don't tell you how to live your life.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 08:39 PM
-1

If you think my point is convoluted, then go back to school.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 06:56 PM
-1

Nobody's asking you to marry one. You wanting or not wanting to marry one or be involved long-term with one is not the point of what I'm trying to say.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 06:36 PM
1

And human judgement can be influenced or programmed by whatever ideologies they subscribe to or find affinity with.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 06:20 PM
7

'Most women are not like that', is along the same lines as 'most men aren't like that,' and 'most cops aren't b-stards'. The 'most' get drowned out, or are 'converted' into the toxicity, or otherwise emulate it, or secretly support it. Hive mind and all that. If 'feminists' can generalise 'all men' as potential r-pists, serial k-llers, perverts, etc., then one cannot blame the male demographic if they do the same in kind. Turning the other cheek never works. It only leaves you battered and bruis…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 05:14 PM
2

Hating on 'the men who gives them the 'ick', 'men who have to, or enjoy paying for sex', will likewise result in the direct or indirect hating of the workers who provide such services. Because to the haters, the workers are 'slaves to the patriarchy' or have 'betrayed their autonomy as women', or whatever other argument. Hate is easier to spread than warm butter, and if there's anything blatant about the 'feminist' cult, it is that they don't just hate men, they also hate women who don't conform…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 05:06 PM
-1

'Enforcing personal preferences means you’re discriminating those that aren’t your preference. It seems you haven’t understood the term or you’re simply not realizing that discrimination isn’t just illegal discrimination that people often talk about.' Wrong. Within the context of modern sociopolitics, there is a demarcation between 'preference' and 'discrimination'. You are entitled to your preference (i. e. slim women over fat women). Saying no to a fat woman asking you out on a date, or avoidi…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 04:57 PM
-1

'the few I know would shrug their shoulders because it’s not their business who other people want to date'. Good for you. 'Anyway your experience with a couple of women doesn’t change that the above is just a survey,' If you interpret it as such, sure.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 10:03 AM
1

'Personal preferences are always discrimination otherwise humans wouldn’t be free.' What sort of pseudo-philosophical bollocks are you trying to pull here? Personal preferences can be misconstrued as discrimination, but discrimination can't be excused as merely a matter of personal preference. For example, one can say they do not wish to date someone of a certain religious demographic - and that's personal preference. But when one says individuals of a certain religious demographic ought to be a…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 09:47 AM
0

Why hasn't whatever god given women the strength to accept that not wanting to date a twenty tonne elephant in a dress is likewise a matter of 'other people's personal taste'?
/r/MensRights03/05/24 09:27 AM
6

It's flat out discrimination. In the same way that if a man were to say 'I don't want to date women who are the approximate size of beluga whales', it becomes a 'women's issue' in how 'the patriarchy' is 'forcing them to conform to an unrealistic standard of beauty'. And it isn't even just a matter of men's rights here. It's a human right matter. It showcases how women aren't just anti-clientele of sex workers, but anti-sex work as well, while simultaneously wailing about 'sex work is work' only…
/r/MensRights03/05/24 09:26 AM
3

Sex work isn't a 'negative trait', neither is being a p-rn star. The fact that women are unwilling to date sex workers or clients of sex work says plenty about their supposed 'sisterhood'. Women are the first to vilify sex workers, while simultaneously pretentiously screaming 'sex work is work! Empowerment for women!' whenever someone says anything negative about the matter. It showcases their double-standards, their hypocrisy, and the fact that the fem-n-zi cult isn't just anti-men, it is also …
/r/MensRights03/05/24 09:23 AM
7

When you get rescued, she'll go on live TV and accuse you of using her as a 's-x slave' while on that stranded desert island. And since nobody is there as a witness to second your innocence, and there is a continuous rhetoric of 'believe victims' rather than 'believe evidence', you will end up in jail with a free pass to b-ttf-cking central. The bear is a 'safer' choice.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 08:04 AM
1

Bear. I can leave the bear alone, and the bear will leave me alone. Eventually, the bear and I might form a bond. I can then fish with said bear. And when the bear passes away, I can wear its pelt and its skull.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 08:01 AM
2

Let's put it this way: If a person is convinced that drinking mercury is going to give them immortality, even after being told by several dozens of medical experts that mercury is lethal, and they are convinced that the medical experts are actually just out to 'prevent' said individual from obtaining immortality, then said individual can go drink an entire cauldron full of liquid mercury and become a venerable immortal. You cannot talk with crazy. Trying to talk with crazy means you're crazier t…
/r/MensRights02/05/24 05:54 AM
3

Let's see if that really happens. They're the ones who claim the world will be a utopia if they were the only ones left, or were the ones allowed to 'rule' (as if there haven't been female despots in history). They had better put their money where their mouths are.
/r/MensRights30/04/24 01:28 PM
12

'a bear will almost never attack a human for no reason.' Really? Can you prove it? Why don't you walk around bear territory and show us the veracity of this claim? 'a man will attack a woman for no reason.' By 'a man', do you mean to say 'ALL MEN'? Because if 'all men' 'will attack a woman for no reason,' why are you even still alive and commenting? Why is your mother (hopefully, and in good health) still alive? Why is your (presumably) sister, or cousin, or aunt, or (hopefully, and in good heal…
/r/MensRights29/04/24 06:27 PM
21

I don't know why you're so butthurt over the simple statement of fact that a bear can and will maul a human being to death. The idea of 'women being safer around a bear than a man' is illogical and unhinged. And the fact that you would even believe such a notion showcases that you are quite out of touch with the reality of what a bear is, what it can do, and what it has done to people regardless of sex in the many thousands of years that humans have had to share a stake in their habitat.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 06:13 PM
15

Go on right ahead and chill with the bear in the forest. Maybe you'll be the first on record for human being r-ped by bear. Barring that, there are a lot of recorded cases of bears mauling, and even killing humans. By all means, channel your inner goddess and tame the wild beast so you can prove your superiority once and for all. And if you don't, well... whatever happens to you, you had it coming.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 04:51 PM
3

I read - and still have a copy of - this book. For those who are curious, lonely librarian longing for some new spark in an otherwise boring life f-cks a bear. That is the story. Even the Marquis de Sade couldn't envision something as batsh-t crazy as that plot.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 04:11 PM
11

Considering how most women are, the bear would be the better option. Like I said elsewhere here: a bear wouldn't falsely accuse a man of rape, nor would a bear try to force assumed paternity on a man. A bear wouldn't also psychologically and emotionally abuse a man. A bear is also very unlikely to mooch off of a man's hard-earned money.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 04:08 PM
13

Also just curious: when was the last time a tragedy occurred and women were the first in line to get sh-t done and do the rescuing?
/r/MensRights29/04/24 04:04 PM
17

Really? Can you back that claim up with evidence? Because sexual aggression in wild animals, often meted out not only to similar species, but other animals (living or dead) besides, is pretty well-documented. 'Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications' by Craig T. Palmer in The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1989) covers this extensively. Then again, a bear wouldn't falsely accuse a man of rape, nor would a bear try to force assumed paternity on a m…
/r/MensRights29/04/24 04:03 PM
10

If they choose the bear, let them have the bear. That's how you end up getting mauled and / or eaten. And if that happens, well, that's on them. Oh, and since they're all strong, empowered women, I am sure they'll be able to find a way to either a. tame the bear with their superior morals / ethics / empathy / love b. master the four elements and live in harmony with nature as only Earth Goddesses can. Let society see exactly how well and how far they fare.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 03:52 PM
7

The strict dress code for men is rooted in the idea that men are 'function', but women are 'fashion' - a byproduct, no doubt, of postwar ideologies. Some several hundred years back, men had a greater agency with respect to their choice of fashion, and that ought to be a thing again, with the exception of jobs which require specific dress codes intended for safety. But for regular desk jobs, I don't see why men can't go about wearing 17th century Parisian court clothing, when what they wear will …
/r/MensRights27/04/24 02:42 PM
1

I do not see why prosecuting false claims will result in 'the potential risk of people not reporting abuse'. I don't understand where you are getting at with this. Victims of abuse will not be any less represented, able, or capable of reporting abuse. They will still be able to do so. In fact, the likelihood of cases of reported legitimate abuse will, in all probability, go up, because the unspoken caveat to this theoretical 'new status quo' will be, 'What you say about so-and-so had better be t…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 02:38 PM
1

That's how it's supposed to work, yes. But don't take my word for it. I am sure there are paralegals and those who have taken up reading law who are far more capable of deliberating over the nuances of the axiom 'innocent until proven guilty'.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 02:26 PM
5

But it is likewise foolish to prosecute accusers simply because. The only time it will be just to prosecute accusers is if and when a court of law proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accusation levied against a person is false. In this respect, if their testimony holds water in court, they will be given the justice they so rightly deserve. But if their accusations are false, misleading, or simply do not hold enough weight to be believed without question, then they will be accused on the…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 12:09 PM
24

Absolutely. If women can keep their hair long, so should men. If men are forced to look like jarheads, so should women.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 06:17 AM
0

He could have, but that wouldn't have meant he still wouldn't have proceeded with transitioning to male. Transitioning isn't a 'I'm gonna try this shtick for the sh-ts-and-giggles' thing. It sometimes is a matter of 'if I don't do this, d-mned to hell everything else, I'm better off dead.' We should have more sympathy for him - not because he 'came from the privilege of womanhood into the hellhole of manhood,' but because he is now able to better empathise with his fellows on exactly how and why…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:56 AM
1

This is what Norah Vincent has been telling people, before she off'd herself. So much for 'male privilege'. If 'privilege' means 'suffering', whoever enjoys such 'privileges' is a top-tier masochist. Trans men's rights are men's rights. All for one and one for all.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:50 AM
7

But that is not the point of the slogan 'believe victims'. You are taking the slogan out of context and are missing the point of the irony of that slogan. 'Believe victims' is a catchphrase initially popularised by MeToo proponents, whereby women are to be believed without question, sans evidence, whenever they claim victimhood. It was an attempt to overthrow the then-standardised legal ethos of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Today, that catchphrase is still used by women who cry wolf. The oppo…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:47 AM
8

I fail to see your point. Misogyny is defined as 'the hatred and / or contempt for women'. How is that a 'right to happiness'? Any kind of hatred or contempt for another - man, woman, androgyne, android, cybernetically-enhanced human, Eldritch abomination, or what-have-you, is not a cornerstone of 'the right to happiness'.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:42 AM
31

Of course it is. But the phrase 'believe victims' is the commonplace slogan of false accusers who paint themselves out as the 'victim'.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 03:34 AM
11

Here's a little thought exercise for you: Why is it that when women create these absolutist claims of 'all men are [insert derogatory statement]', and some men say, 'whoa, no, we aren't all like that,' they're immediately shut down and told they're 'making up excuses for the Patriarchy' or some such b-llsh-try? But if men do the same to women, i. e. 'all women are [insert derogatory statement]', suddenly, it's only women who hold extreme views that are the problem, rather than all women. Where w…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 03:26 AM
79

That has to be lobbied. It's a process. It'll take a while. False allegations should be a criminal offense. Jail time for women should be equal to that of men for similar crimes rendered, rather than what it is now. Active service and conscription during wartime should be the same for women as it is for men, rather than what it is now. But these things have to be lobbied for. And not very many people are lobbying for it. That's why the perpetrator isn't in jail right now.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 03:20 AM
561

This is why you believe evidence, not 'victims'.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 01:36 AM
207

That should be billed out of the accuser's own pocket.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 01:36 AM
10

Philosophers have been harping over sh-t like 'ethics' and 'morals' for thousands of years. It doesn't mean sh-t. If you aren't getting your needs met, leave. If you aren't being respected, leave. If you aren't being treated the way you feel you ought to be treated, leave. If they try to harm you, fight back. There are no 'ethics' or 'morals' in this batsh-t crazy world. It's 'try to do no harm, but don't settle for anybody's bullsh-t.'
/r/MensRights23/04/24 06:24 PM
2

Give them a taste of their own medicine. They want to 'experiment' or 'be single for a while' for 'self-growth'? Do the same. If the woman b-tches about why you sleep with multiple women, tell them 'It's for my mental health.' If they complain about you not 'committing', just say, 'I have a right to options. My body, my choice.' They prattle on about you demanding to split the bill on dates? 'We're both earners. The Patriarchy likewise harms men in its unfair expectation of how men are 'provider…
/r/MensRights23/04/24 06:14 PM
3

That's because you either agree with the cult, or the cult shuns you. Doesn't make the cult any less 'right', or their behaviour any less 'cult-y'.
/r/MensRights28/02/24 08:30 AM
3

She is just one small part of a larger symptom. When humans form groups, these groups will tend to have a bias for themselves. They will always come first. Their 'party' is the best. Their ideologies are beyond reproach. Their 'way' is THE WAY. That's how it always is.
/r/MensRights28/02/24 01:22 AM
8

Herd mentality.
/r/MensRights28/02/24 01:17 AM
1

'A fading one in newer generations'? You mean the same generation that perpetuates the sexist stereotypes of 'don't work; marry a rich man'? As for the average woman being pressured to 'meet' a certain beauty-standard, who exactly is pushing that? Isn't it women who more often than not bring down other women? Why blame it solely on men, when women also contribute to the problem?
/r/MensRights07/02/24 01:56 AM
9

In a lot of cases, the ones who still end up 'spending' in order that women meet these so-called 'societal expectations' will be men. That's why sugar-babying is a booming 'industry'.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 02:01 PM
1

Because society has been brainwashed to believe that only women should be allowed 'preferences' because the imaginary 'patriarchy' already supposedly gives men all the benefits existence has to offer.
/r/MensRights17/01/24 03:17 PM
1

Never been. Malaysia is a primarily Islamic country, though, so you don't go there if you're a 's-x tourist'.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 04:54 AM
2

In Thailand, most people speak or can comprehend English. English proficiency is also decent enough in cities all across Vietnam. If you go to the countryside, it might be a different scenario. Still, stay in a place long enough and you'll get the hang of their lingo.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 04:04 AM
1

Vietnam, Thailand (if your sole purpose for going is to get laid), Malaysia.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 03:32 AM
1

Matters of state are its people's problem, not yours. Nobody is telling you to help any woke Filipino divorcee; not that you should anyway. Divorce as a legal right is a big deal for a country who still believes in delusional concepts like 'marriage as a religious sacrament'. And it isn't just rabid money-grubbing women who are keen on divorce being enshrined into law - it's also men separated from their 'spouses' who have a bigamy case hung around their neck for shacking up with another woman '…
/r/MensRights27/11/23 02:25 AM
1

Assume everyone is a gold digger. This is the same population of people who voted for the son of a dictator because they were promised imaginary gold.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 02:18 AM
4

They can't leave how? There is a Women and Children's Help Desk in every police station in every barangay of every city. Meanwhile, men who are domestically abused by their wives are made fun of when they file reports, being told things like 'You're not much of a man if you can't even fight back.' But if and when they do fight back, they're instantly labelled criminals. If the Philippines weren't peopled by religious nutjobs, divorce would have been a norm in the country decades ago. Unfortunate…
/r/MensRights26/11/23 04:59 PM
4

The cases of men being falsely accused of r-pe, domestic abuse, or harassment is increasing in the Philippines, especially in more urban areas that have adopted 'believe women' ideologies instead of 'believe evidence'. This is, after all, the country where you can pay a cop 50,000php to 'take down' someone you dislike and make it out like they're involved in 'dr-g pushing', which almost always ends up in (at best) a bullet through the brains, or (at worse) jail-time for a crime you did not commi…
/r/MensRights26/11/23 04:54 PM
16

'What is it like with regards to the rights men have?' If you're a Caucasian, you're pretty much guaranteed the 'royal' treatment, more so if you have the looks. The downside is you'll be made into everyone's personal bank, and when you refuse, you get mocked or talked about behind your back. Expect every single Filipino/Filipina who wants to be your 'friend' to be out for your money. There are exceptions to this, of course, but eight out of ten times they'll be after your money (or whatever 'mo…
/r/MensRights26/11/23 04:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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