TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ostrakon Archive

View 6 posts and 110 comments by ostrakon on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I'm aware of the issues surrounding boy's education; I'm just pointing out that the statistic that 60% of As are attained by girls isn't necessarily damning evidence of it. I'd like to see it broken down by subject, by biological age (as boys tend to enter school slightly later than girls), and other finer statistics to really delve into what this actually means instead of freaking out over a context-less statistic like feminists are wont to do. For example, does an "achievement gap" mean an "in…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:56 AM
24

Are we gonna wage-gap this one like the feminists do? I need more detailed data before I draw any conclusions.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:43 PM
44

Yeah, getting our boxers in a bunch over something so trivial is somethibg SRS would do. We should be above that.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:26 PM
28

legbeards is the established terminology.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 09:05 PM
-1

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. We can't call out feminists for silencing skepticism about rape accusations if we're going to stoop to the same tactics.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:42 PM
1

Using 'concern trolling' to silence dissent is just as bad as when feminists use 'rape culture' and 'victim blaming" to do the same thing.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 04:19 PM
1

Hiding, or can't find? For all we know their robots.txt is busted. Also sometimes the quirks of their search algorithm can make it hard to find certain websites.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 12:39 PM
3

Isn't automatically assuming they're out only to help women because of their gender the exact thing we make fun of feminists for when they blame everything on the patriarchy?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:57 AM
22

The general MO for feminism is to complain until men start acting on their behalf, so this comes as no surprise.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 03:31 AM
0

This would be true if they selected lucratice degrees (largely, they don't) and didn't take years off to raise kids (largely, they do). Truth be told, though, I don't think a "college degree gap" is worrying because men typically have more viable options that don't require degrees but still pay well. Military, manual labor, etc.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:39 PM
12

This reeks of troll.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:48 PM
4

Sometimes I just wanna pretend to be a geek Fixed that for her. You either are or you aren't. Not understanding a harmless dongle joke means you're pretty definitively not a geek.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:08 PM
19

Don't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:00 AM
0

fetus != baby This is very much apples to oranges here.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:20 PM
2

Reverse the genders, and we'd be rightly calling this out as a woman being coy before giving consent. Which is exactly what this guy was doing.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:25 PM
2

So he changed his mind after and retroactively withdrew consent? Isn't that the exact thing we lambast feminists for labeling 'rape'? Fuck this. We're starting to get some major attention and I think we need to learn to pick our fucking battles. If we squander our momentum emulating our opponents the MRA movement is doomed.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:09 PM
4

Didn't he keep his hand on her head for while? It sounds like his consent was implicit.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 04:55 PM
1

There are probably a lot of other factors in play here, same as any gender disparity. There might be fewer men supervising because there are better paying jobs available at that age for men - physical labor pays better and women tend not to do that. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that disparity = discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:02 AM
1

There are probably a lot of other factors in play here, same as any gender disparity. There might be fewer men supervising because there are better paying jobs available at that age for men - physical labor pays better and women tend not to do that. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that disparity = discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:02 AM
11

Apex fallacy.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 03:18 PM
1

Why does 'David Wong' sound so familiar?
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:24 PM
2

That's an extremely poorly constructed study. Did you actually read it? They sent the same resume out with different names, but it was an absurdly poor resume. Go ahead and read it and tell me that was a reasonable template. Plus, they were asked to assign a salary and a 'willingness to mentor' based solely on the resume. In what reality do decisions like that get made on resumes alone?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:03 AM
2

That's actually a pretty interesting point. I should probably delete the thread (since my assertions seem like they're probably false), but I'm going to let it stand so anyone else who sees this sees your comment.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 02:46 PM
1

Source for the quote was wikipedia, which is sourced here: http://www.gibbonslaw.com/news_publications/articles.php?action=display_publication&publication_id=2173
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:40 PM
2

Yeah, if these reports are true these guys are getting what they deserve. They were utterly barbaric.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:50 AM
6

Her is back-asswards but I'm not seeing anything inherently hypocritical.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:45 AM
1

Stop using retarded SRS-speak.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:55 PM
43

That's always been my primary concern with so-called 'male feminists'. The fact that feminists can't see that these guys are only piggybacking on their ideas because they've constructed a philosophy that depends on clinging to the assertion that women are weak just makes me laugh. How can these people not see that they are the creators of the condescending 'nice guys' they purport to hate so much?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 06:40 PM
5

Femsplaining: attempting to subvert a logical argument backed by citable, empirical evidence by emphasizing the importance of feelings and repeating thoroughly debunked memes.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:48 PM
2

Whoops, my bad.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:48 PM
1

Nice to see some recognition of the profound effects the simple presence of positive male role models has on kids' mental health. Especially on a very mom-centric subreddit like r/parenting.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:33 PM
5

"Sure, if you say so. Sign me up. When are we going to protest how family courts are severely biased against men?" Right after we eliminate the wage gap, abolish the patriarchy, make sure white men check their privilege, and check off every ither box on the Stock Feminist Issue checklist that revolves around pushing women forward. "How can you call this a push for gender equality when you clearly only advocate for one gender - coincidentally the one denoted by the root word of the -ism you claim…
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:26 AM
1

I was citing the idea of a wage gap where a demonstrated statistical inequality was perfectly reasonable given the correct context. The fact that feminists cite this as an example of patriarchy or whatever despite how well-documented the actual situation is is the precise kind of logic (or lack thereof) that I'd like to see MRAs avoid.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 04:03 AM
1

The disparity between how young boys and girls are treated in early schooling is known to me, but that wasn't the specific issue I was tryong to address. But thanks for bringing it up - that attention to detail is something l'd like to see more of here.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:50 AM
22

I don't have the words to describe how brilliant you are for making this connection. Bravo, sir.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 08:58 PM
1

Feminism can't survive if women aren't behind somehow. The only way some of the zanier aspects of their philosophy make sense is if women are oppressed and helpless. This really isn't the case anymore, but it hasn't stopped them from going fill speed ahead trying to push for more privileges for women despite the fact that in the Western world women and men are mostly at parity. This is why they cling so hard to false rape statistics, false domestic violence statistics, and false income disparity…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:53 AM
0

I don't see what that has to do with communism. Communism holds that "from each according to their ability"... modern feminism goes out of its way to try and nudge women into careers that they (meaning individual women, not women as a whole) have no aptitude for simple because "there aren't enough women" in that career.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:44 AM
12

Why don't women have to do it then? I plan on repaying that federal funding with the drastically increased income taxes i pay with my drastically increased income obtained with the degree I got. Hell, in general men are more likely to actually make up for their funding. Most of the high-income degrees are mostly held by men because women are simply not choosing to go for those programs.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 04:26 AM
1

Source, otherwise quit being a dumbass.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 04:49 AM
3

I love how she can say that it even gets worse in the 'mining regions' when that's precisely what any reasonable person would expect: miners getting paid a better wage for a riskier job is going to skew average male income up. I can't tell if feminists are being intentionally disingenuous when trying to push the wage gap meme or if they just honestly suck that much at basic statistics.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:24 AM
1

Yeah, I would, actually. The way insurance works is based entirely on the statistical likelihood that they'd need to pay out. Men get in fewer but more serious accidents so it makes sense that we'd pay higher premiums. Conversely women's healthcare costs significantly more and so should their premiums.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:47 PM
10

Please back up that 1 in 5 statistic with some sort of citation.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:26 PM
2

I've never heard that men could get anything from HPV. Thanks for the info.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:37 PM
2

Fails the gender reversal test hard
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:25 PM
8

Actually, it's not the existence of the term that bugs me so much as that the ever growing SRS/Tumblr/radfem contingent likes to throw the term around as another means of silencing opinions they disagree with and attempt to engender privilege guilt. And they do have a word for white guys in Japan, and it doesn't bug me that people have labels for things outside the norm. It bugs me that our approach to reconciling differences is going out of our way to make sure every little thing has a specific…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:17 PM
15

You're playing into the politics of normality by failing to admit the simple fact that something in the extreme minority falls outside of the norm. Minorities are, by definition, not normal. A white guy living in China is not normal. A black female software engineer is not normal. By refusing to even acknowledge the simple fact that things outside the average case is not normal, you're effectively subscribing to the idea that 'not normal' = 'bad'. Instead of inventing pants-on-head-retarded term…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:25 PM
26

But then you're just politicizing things. I harbor no ill will toward the LGBT community but you have to perform some severe mental gymnastics to convince yourself that being straight isn't the norm, since straight people make up what, 95% of the population? I think it's a lot smarter to accept that people have differences and teach people to recognize that fact than to turn everything into one giant philosophowankery by getting offended when people claim something is outside of the normal bound…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:14 PM
2

I don't know of that's necessarily true. I think the women's rights movements were necessary for a long time because there was a real, tangible disparity between the two genders. Almost literally everything they asked for would have brought them closer to parity, and the only thing they really had that we didn't was the privilege of having no sort of military service expectations. The problem is ever since then the accelerator has been stuck. The treatment of genders has become effectively equal…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:42 PM
1

I don't know if it's a specifically enumerated right in any nation't constitution but I think it's reasonable for people to have the right to choose their own means of transportation.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:00 AM
2

The BSA organization is bigoted, anti-male, an under serving of any goodwill it has. Local troops are often pretty awesome but the BSA leadership is terrible. On the surface they appear to want to empower men but in reality all of their doctrine points to wanting us to simply fulfill traditional male gender roles. It's fun and most kids don't get trapped in that mentality but that's no excuse for how they've built the organization.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 02:02 PM
2

On the other hand, it's more socially acceptable for men to viable careers that require no degree, like construction. I don't necessarily see this as a problem, as women are going to need education more to compensate for the fact that they tend not to pursue occupations like plumbers, electricians, military careers, construction, and other relatively well-paying jobs that people tend not to have degrees for.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:32 PM
2

And, I know, "disparity between fields, disparity between leaving jobs" might not be factored, but that's just a lie, because it actually is factored in. It says that where? In the image you just have a table that's poorly sourced (page number, what year, link to the study would have been immensely helpful).
/r/MensRights01/10/12 09:53 PM
26

Even cooler, she does that to any obvious liar regardless of gender. Stupidity knows no gender, and she makes a point of skewering anyone who's an asshole.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 02:18 AM
1

The BSA organization is pretty rotten either way, so no great loss there. Individual troops tend to be pretty awesome but the core organization is infested by religious doctrine.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 01:47 PM
7

The problem with feminism is that they won't admit that they're not a unified front. I'd be willing to bet that a significant portion - if not a majority - of feminists aren't really feminists at all but total egalitarians who want to see standards adhered to for both genders. When they say stuff like 'there's no need for MRAs' they probably actually believe that what they're doing is enough. What they fail to consider are the crazies who can't finish a sentence without including the word 'patri…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 05:29 AM
2

Right, but I'd those kids don't get fed, we take them away and sustain them by other means. No such option for a fetus.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 06:23 PM
3

I'd rather have financial abortion AND biological abortion on the table and will to continue to advocate so, but I think having only the latter is preferable to having neither.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:20 PM
13

I don't think an unwanted fetus should be counted as a child. Moreover, we consistently make the argument that circumcision is wrong because the child can't consent and that there are unnecessary risks involved with the procedure. If a woman doesn't want to bring a fetus to term, why does the same logic not apply? The health risks of pregnancy and delivery are several times greater than an infant getting circumcised, and of the child is not wanted I think it's effectively an unnecessary procedur…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:18 PM
2

An infinitesimally small chance of death is not what I would consider an actual risk. Most of the health problems I see associated with circumcision complications are really a result of improper hygiene on the parents' part, which would have resulted in similar problems if the kid remained uncut (UTIs caused b parents who don't clean the foreskin correctly, or at all). I think by far the more important issue here is consent, or rather lack thereof. If in our society an inebriated person is unabl…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:43 PM
3

Seems like we're overreacting here, gentlemen. What they actually said is that there aren't significant health risks for getting one, which is something I always assumed was true anyway. It doesn't say anything about it aside from a purely medical perspective. Yeah, there are tangible health benefits from getting circumcised and little actual risk in doing so for newborns. Those are facts. We can't get mad about facts. We constantly bash feminists for getting pissed about facts that conflict wit…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:53 PM
0

So you're saying being religious and anti-female are mutually exclusive? Come the fuck on. If you're a religious organization providing a public service, you're obligated to follow the same rules everyone else does. Your beliefs don't entitle you to make personal decisions for other people.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:10 PM
-4

The GOP is primarily driven by men, and in many states there are converted efforts to lessen access to contraception or abortion. I can't think of any way that can be interpreted as anything but an anti-woman policy, since they're not going after contraception males have access to, like condoms.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:03 PM
10

May not be a perfect example, but GOP lawmakers have been on an anti-women stint for a while.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:57 PM
6

I agree. This is one of those public perception things that we can't reasonably do much about. It's like when feminists go off about not having the 'right' to not e called a slut for dressing a certain way. it's a silly goal based off of half-baked emotional response that you can't reasonably enforce without infringing on the actual rights of others. This show is retarded, but there's no use getting outraged by it. Just another piece of ammo to demonstrate how social inequality (reverse the gend…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 11:21 AM
1

Yeah, but what percentage of athletes actually get significant scholarships to decent schools? Most of the time if an athlete gets a scholarship to a D1 school he's not taking advantage of an education; he trying to use it as a stepping stone to pro sports, which in all likelihood is probably not going to happen. I would conservatively estimate that maybe 20% of the college athletes I knew had sensible backup plans, and there was tangible pressure not to fail them.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 11:10 AM
12

You don't need sports to be active. You've really never encountered that dad in sports? The one who, since his kid hit puberty a year earlier than the rest of his peers, thinks his genetic stock is the stuff of legends and won't rest until junior is fast-tracked to pro sports, because he's trying to relive the only successful part of their pathetic lives? Because in my town, there were 2 or 3 of those guys per team. You can exercise at a gym, and you can learn to be competitive at shit that's ac…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:19 AM
11

Sports often turn into the exact same thing. Even if you don't subject your kids to that nonsense, they'll still have to deal with asshole kids raised by other dickhead dads who get off on their sons hitting puberty a yea early so they can hit a ball a little harder than the other kids. Take the kids to museums and shit. Organize kickass science projects. Either way it'll be something useful beyond the scope of high school. The only useful things you get from sports (namely competitive pride and…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:27 AM
0

Should read that it can go both ways, since at this point nothing has been proven. It does go both ways but the way this statement is worded seems to be a presumption of guilt.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:14 PM
4

Same goes for AA lot of the frequently hated on subreddits, like here, r/atheism and r/politics. It quickly gets judged as baseless, angry whining because most people just can wrap their heads around the concept that just because they aren't personally experiencing it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate complaint. Of course, it's easier to buy into social memes than think for yourself - 77 cents, atheists are angry teenagers, all politicians are the same, etc.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:04 PM
1

Proof that the only thing worse than a legislator with no knowledge of statistics is one with a little bit of knowledge of statistics.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:20 PM
2

I think you're overreacting. It's a factual statement. Fathers are more likely to miss those kinds of things. You're the one jumping to the explanation that it's because they don't care, even though the three preceding sentences heavily imply it's simply because they work more. Working more doesn't imply a lack of parental love: you gotta feed those kids somehow. Stop applying emotions and victim complexes to data. We vilify feminists for that bullshit and we shouldn't do it ourselves.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:17 PM
38

Didn't you know? 9 out of 10 female-victim domestic violence incidents go unreported because of patriarchy rape culture mansplaining. Check your privilege.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 07:35 PM
2

Yeah, not sure what he's getting at for abortion, but no-fault divorces allow for a married woman to divorce out of nowhere, still taking a significant portion of the man's earnings even though she wanted it an he didn't do anything wrong.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 03:28 AM
0

I agree, provided the history of rape accusations is actually false. The headline didn't include that key adjective.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:41 AM
0

That alone isn't a valid reason to throw out the case, unless her previous testimony has been demonstrated to be false.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:43 PM
5

Female wants to keep the child, male wants nothing to do with it. Currently the man has no say. If she wants to keep it, he's on the hook for 18 years. If she doesn't want it she's free to abort or give it up for adoption. There's a massive disparity of rights there.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 03:38 PM
15

The problem with the science example isn't that science isn't above being tested, but that people who disagree with proven scientific concepts don't often have any actual evidence to compete with existing explanation. 'Evolution is a lie because I know the earth is 6000 years old, etc.' To argue that they shouldn't be allowed to post in AskScience is patently ridiculous though. They should be downvoted to oblivion. The problem with r/feminism in general is that it's adherents can only hold to it…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:29 PM
6

Haha what? Women dressing up as 'Slave Leia' aren't for decoration, but rather an important part of the geek community? Is she fucking serious? The entire point of cosplay, in both genders, is decoration. It is purely an aesthetic thing. She has to be fucking kidding.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 06:03 PM
2

I must have missed the part where South Korea had mandatory service. That's bullshit, then, that there was feminist opposition to the program. Where are the feminists calling for women to be included in conscription as well?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 05:40 PM
3

Hold on, how does that point system work in South Korea? It sounds like those 'points' would let them get jobs for which their army careers wouldn't provide any relevant experience for, over women who did get relevant experience. After all, I'd their army experience was useful for that job, it would be taken into consideration without a special system, right? It does sound like a sexist program. It would be the same if women who needed to remain home to have children had a system where they got …
/r/MensRights23/06/12 04:08 PM
7

I feel like it's really damaging to the MR movement to have comments like "any man who gets married is an idiot." I understand many of you are still hurt from whatever situation that screwed you over, but extrapolating your personal feelings to oversimplify a complicated issue is exactly the same bullshit we condemn crazy feminists for. Honestly a lot of the comments in this thread are downright shameful, and if you reversed the gender it would be posted as a link to r/MR and upvoted to infinity…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 04:37 PM
3

I think you (along with a lot of guys, and girls as well) are missing the entire point of what a relationship is. If your mentality is that you're 'putting up' with a girl because you're trying to get laid, that's not a relationship. It's glorified prostitution. A relationship isn't bending over backwards to please someone because of a perceived reward. It's supposed to be founded on mutual respect. You do things with the knowledge that they don't need to be repaid, but will anyway. A marriage t…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 11:20 PM
1

Yeah... people in a relationship can cohabitate successfully. As it turns out, it happens all the time. Go figure. The simple act of moving in with your girlfriend (or vice versa) doesn't constitute a relationship failure, except in cases where one or both parties don't already understand and accept the existing dynamic between them while acknowledging that the different circumstances will require them to adapt together. If you honestly think the relationship started sucking once she moved in, t…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:50 PM
1

It does change the dynamic, but it's on you for letting it slide. Relationships require effort on the part of both parties to succeed. Every time one of you decides that it just isn't worth it and drops an argument without actually resolving it (or fails to start one when something is bothering you) you're damaging your relationship. You wouldn't coast through your job and expect to succeed, so you shouldn't try to coast through your marriage and expect to not grow to resent each other.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:28 PM
4

That's not really how it works. If, from your perspective, she's acting differently after moving in, it's up to both of you to resolve the issue before you start resenting each other for it. 'Hey honey, everything was X before you moved it, now it's all Y. Can we talk about that?' People can change, but the attitude that it just happens and there's nothing you can do about it is incredibly childish. If you don't have at least enough influence over your girlfriend to make her stop and think about…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 12:44 PM
41

So she told you she quit her job, and you didn't confirm that this wasn't a joke until the following morning? It doesn't excuse a damn thing she did, but it sounds like you guys had some pretty hardcore communication issues. I don't think this is 'feminism's fault so much as it was a couple of people who had no fucking idea how to manage a relationship. A lot of the times I see guys bitching about their psychotic exes on r/MR, they claim that it happened out of nowhere, or that the behavior worm…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:12 AM
0

Apparently you don't make enough to see a significant difference. An extra 200 bucks a pay period (biweekly) is what I would call sizable. Granted about 50 of that was moving her onto my insurance, but still. Also, you completely ignored my other point. Again.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 06:17 PM
1

Tax difference was pretty sizable for me, since I make more than twice what my wife does. You just glazed over the points you don't see value in instead of addressing them. What's the difference between doing that and when a woman dismisses the well-backed claim that say, women are more often the perpetrators of child abuse than men?
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:54 PM
3

It is racist or sexist when you have no data to back up your claims, nor have personally observed this behavior in a significant sample size. Judging from most of your comments here, you're a fucking idiot who operates entirely out of emotion instead of established fact. You're just as bad as the feminists with faulty logic we try to expose here.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:46 PM
0

I think there's a difference between a 'general warning against marriage' and a 'general warning against uninformed marriage' which I think makes much more sense. I think it's a subtle but important distinction. I think the vast majority of people go into marriage uninformed, with disastrous results, but that shouldn't be used as a basis to unilaterally discourage people from entering into what would without our doomsaying be a perfectly healthy marriage.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:05 PM
-3

I am totally in favor of advising men of the facts, especially with regards to the one-sided disadvantage they typically have in divorces. Spreading those facts is why I'm subscribed to r/MR. Advocating not to get married solely on the basis of that disadvantage is a childish notion.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:50 PM
6

Default legal guardianship of my kids if anything happens to me. A much more favorable tax rate, especially if I earn more than my spouse. Lots of minor conveniences that come from being treated as a single legal entity when it comes to paying bills and whatnot. Two incomes to report when it comes to getting loans and credit. An those are just the material benefits. I'm not ashamed to admit that I find being married to be emotionally satisfying.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:47 PM
-2

I'm not saying that what she did was right, or even that he should tolerate it. I'm saying that finding oneself in a position where the person you decided to marry is trying to covertly spy on you is a very avoidable one. A lot of red flags were certainly ignored.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:41 PM
2

Faulty metaphor. I'd simply advise them to perform extensive safety checks on the parachute instead of just grabbing one and hoping it'll work. Just because 50% of marriages end in divorce does not mean that each individual marriage has a 50% chance to fail. You're not exactly arguing from a position of intellectual superiority here, as demonstrated by your lack of basic understanding of statistics. It's the same faulty logic that women use to claim they make 75 cents for every dollar men make.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:38 PM
3

You want to unilaterally dissolve the concept of marriage because you're having marital issues. The idea is childish and just as illogical and emotional as when women cite the 75 cents myth. You clearly didn't realize what you were getting into. You consented to be married, to give this kind of power over yourself to anther person. There's no way you can sanely claim you aren't partially to blame here. You gave absolutely no context to your wife's behavior which indicates you either didn't ask h…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:25 PM
5

I'm aware of the statistic. Am I condemning the notion that all men should avoid marriage because of it? Absolutely. It's a childish, knee-jerk sentiment that seems to indicate whether a marriage is successful or not is a roll of the dice and hoping your wife isn't going to pull a 180 on you after years of a perfect marriage. Personality traits that indicate that kind of behavior are evident long before anyone actually gets married. Nobody forced you to get married, and it's your responsibility …
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:19 PM
8

You married your way into an abusive situation, though. People don't change overnight, and if you had actually taken some reasonable attempts to try and defuse the situation, you might not be dealing with a wife who thinks it's acceptable to install surveillance software on your phone. Maybe it was 'don't get married to this woman', but conflating that with a hugely immature, all-caps declaration that no man should ever marry is just fucking ridiculous. The MRM should be above making the same sw…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 01:27 PM
119

Warning people not to get married because your wife is an intrusive bitch is pretty fucking stupid. Fostering that kind of attitude without any context is damaging to the credibility of the MRM. I'm going to go out on a limb here and hypothesize that she didn't develop a predisposition to this behavior overnight. Usually when I hear people bitch about their spouses, it's not that there were no warning signs, but rather that all warning signs were ignored. Too many people don't understand the gra…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 01:09 PM
52

Not every fucked up thing a female does deserves to be posted in r/MR.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 11:08 PM
28

As someone who owes his profession to Alan Turing, I wholeheartedly approve of this.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:17 PM
-8

I thought this was the guy who actually WAS possessing some kind of firearm illegally. He had prohibited ammunition or something. That, or he was actually arrested on a charge unrelated to the firearms. In any case, we don't have debtors' prisons, and sensationalizing your headlines makes you just as bad as people who claim that there's a wage gap. You should know better than that.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 07:30 PM
16

"As a good faith gesture to settle this matter, the Department is willing to forgive Mr. Fisher's child support debt from the date of the genetic test results (Oct. 31, 2001)," writes Assistant Attorney General Kelly Turner. "Mr. Fisher's debt up to that date is approximately $11,450.15, and the department will continue to take enforcement action to collect that debt until it is paid." That's bullshit. He should be reimbursed for every cent of child support he ever paid. It's not like the bastar…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:17 PM
10

f two parents are yelling accusations at a suspected murderer and saying, "That son of a bitch killed me son/daughter!" Then discover he/she was innocent, should the parents get life in prison? If they knew for a fact that this "suspect" didn't kill anyone and were using these accusations for petty revenge , abso-fucking-lutely.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 05:51 PM
1

A disingenuous argument at best. What if nearly ALL of those 'little tiny amounts of money' are given to women (which, by the way, IS the case)? What if these people suddenly decided to shift to boys, and suddenly girls had nowhere to turn for funding? You're calling my argument disingenuous in the same paragraph that you establish outlandish hypotheticals? Far more money is given specifically to low-income students, or minority students than female students. White men do have significant and di…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 10:39 PM
2

Only an idiot would think giving everyone in a room something special, but not to one specific person, is not discrimination. But that's not what this is in the slightest. It's more like giving one person in a room something special, based on the criteria chosen by the person giving said special item. It's a tiny organization setting aside a tiny amount of money for the purposes of a tiny but specific goal. It's like saying that parents who set aside money for their kids' college fund are discri…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:33 AM
1

I'm not necessarily saying she should have gotten a sentence similar to an actual rape charge, but given the gravity and potential consequences of such a false claim (along with the relative ease with which they are believed), 18 months seems like an especially light sentence. Not to mention the fact that the damage to the real victim is done way, way before any sort of trial.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:31 AM
16

18 months? That seems far too light. How much would he have gotten if convicted?
/r/MensRights30/11/10 10:23 PM
-3

In fact, it is. ::woosh::
/r/MensRights30/11/10 10:16 PM
2

The difference there is that Jim Crow era discrimination was about blatant exclusion of minorities who couldn't defend themselves. This isn't about excluding men directly. It's about encouraging women to become scientists. Science and engineering really are total sausage-fests right now. Is it sexist? Yeah, sure. In the same way a scholarship for low-income students discriminates against people born to rich families, though. There are far more legitimate slights against men that are worth gettin…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 08:58 PM
7

As long as it's not publicly funded, I couldn't care less. It's their money, they can do what they want with it. Not to mention the fact that females are underrepresented in science and engineering.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 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