TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

quantumfox64 Archive

View 3 posts and 106 comments by quantumfox64 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)
9

Fortunately we've begun to see more gender neutral anti abuse posters recently.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 03:11 PM
1

Eh, then you get into problems of whether something was "false, false accusation", and things like that. As far as statistics go, it's probably not unreasonable to consider that these things even out.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:55 PM
27

Most likely attributable to Christian / religious puritanical roots.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 06:52 AM
7

The thought processes of my friends can be seen in the language they used. S’s behaviour can be distilled down to two “bad” traits: being interested in having sex, and expressing emotions. ... And falsely accusing you of hitting her. This guy is basically saying people shouldn't be presumed innocent based on the idea that... innocent until proven guilty somehow gives power to the accused? If that's not victim blaming, I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:42 PM
-3

I don't understand the vitriol with which you're dismissing other plausible hypotheses. Since of us prefer to base our knowledge on things that are shown to be true, rather than things that fit our personal narrative. I'm as much for men's rights here as anyone else, but you guys are clearly ignoring information contained within the study.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:18 PM
0

I mean more so as compared to women. You very rarely see women as sole providers. Everything else you guys decided to ignore was based on the study you clearly didn't read.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:14 PM
-8

Yeah, I think this is a better way to look at it. And because men tend to be sole providers , although this is decreasing, this would be very likely to cause stress. I would expect similar divorce statistics from men who have an unemployed sole provider wife. Very few instances of that to be able to measure though. I bet that divorce rates for unemployed men where they are not a sole provider is not as high. The study notes an overall lower risk of divorce when a woman holds or is transitioning …
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:11 AM
1

For the sake of consistency, this is good, but I still have significant reservations about statutory rape.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 11:01 AM
21

Somewhat tongue in cheek. I agree with you. The proposal that there is a "true feminism" is remarkably naïve, though. It essentially amounts to denial that misandrist elements are pervasive in (and because of) primarily 3rd or 4th wave feminism.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 06:58 AM
125

As a feminist, I'm against everything listed being a female advantage. That's the point. Please stop conflating feminism with misandry. True feminism. If I could get 10 feminists to agree on true feminism maybe I would be able to stop "conflating" feminism and misandry.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 04:34 AM
1

Be better to legalise prostitution so forced prostitution could be driven out and/or prosecuted more readily.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 08:31 AM
1

I'm not sure if you're saying that the one in four statistic is only supposed to cover rape, if you're saying these numbers aren't rape, or if these numbers aren't representative of sexual assault numbers, so I'll just answer all of them. Yes, the one in four statistic is only supposed to refer to rape. Reading over my comment, I probably should edit to clarify. However, I was mostly trying to stay in line with the methodology of the Pittsburgh, although now I see even more flaws there. If you a…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 06:00 PM
2

Minor issue with the Pittsburgh numbers is that the claim is that one in four are assaulted during their time at university. Because we don't know the yearly probability distribution, it is incorrect to use annual numbers and compare them to 1/4*total population. Instead, it implies that 1/4*one matriculating class will be sexually assaulted over four years (approximately). So for the sake of simplicity, if we assume this were all to happen in one group's senior year, we would expect to see 1/4 …
/r/MensRights23/01/14 12:08 PM
2

I did not know that, interesting
/r/MensRights29/12/13 06:38 AM
-6

Fair enough, but this is such a fringe situation that it feels like cherry picking instead of focusing on the real miseducation out there.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 06:31 AM
0

So you think this will have some small effect on opinion. I can buy that, I guess, but I don't feel that is something we should be focusing on... Basically mudslinging.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 06:30 AM
-3

So I'm not sure this is relevant. Okay, so most of us here are anti-MGM. Cool. He's supporting MGM. Not cool. And he happens to be sexually involved in children, which casts the organisation in a negative light. Okay, not so good for the organisation... but this isn't going to change anyone's views on MGM. Furthermore, I would argue that this just perpetuates the stereotype that males are paedophiles and shouldn't be left with children. Why does it matter to the MRM if this guy touched children?…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 05:58 AM
4

That's a pretty poor argument. It implies that a similar argument would be for us to say that women shouldn't have the option to use the pill because they might deceive. That would be a pretty absurd argument to make.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:28 AM
1

Thank you!
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:41 AM
1

I would like to see the source for those statistics, please
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:03 AM
4

This video is one big non sequitir from the original. But of course the original was sexist! There were naked women in it! (And they said "you know you want it"!) Let's ignore any and all context.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 02:37 PM
1

This one is awful because it completely lacks any of the sexual tension present in the original. It's like having a bunch of lesbians in the original video.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 02:34 PM
64

a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. ...
/r/MensRights21/05/13 09:41 AM
3

At least no female sentencing discount here A Scottsdale woman accused of killing and dismembering her husband more than three years ago has been sentenced to natural life in prison. And this is just another great example that shows women can be just as violent in relationships as men (especially with guns as the great equaliser). One need not be physically superior, as most feminists seem to assume.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 09:58 AM
1

For a while now. It's pretty much up to the school district.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 09:54 AM
8

I suppose Romeo and Juliet was a completely one-sided romance that was made up for men to deceive women into thinking they could love... In any case, this girl sounds like a nutjob, no offence. Do guys all across the world get married just for sex? Seems like that would be a dumb idea. Do men commit suicide because they don't have emotions? I'm sure somebody out there has committed suicide over unrequited love. If she thinks it's only "moral" then she obviously has a pretty "clear" view of moral…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 09:48 AM
10

Obviously everyone should agree that silencing critics is wrong. It is an interesting thing for feminists to "get a taste of their own medicine." However, the real way we should respond to this is to use this as an example to reopen dialogue and ask again, "Is this the right way to approach equality?" Perhaps now they will understand what it is they are really accomplishing with their tactics.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:35 PM
6

My perception of what happened: He did a whole bunch of provocative and sexual things to this girl, beckoned her over, allowed her to unzip his pants, put his penis in her mouth, and then appeared to be assisting her in the process. This does not appear to be rape to me. This appears consensual. This appears to be a publicity stunt now, or a claim that resulted from regret.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:21 PM
4

Fair enough -- my reaction was similar to yours initially, but like I said, from what I understand, it certainly appeared consensual.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:05 PM
16

Do you know what happened? He quite literally beckoned her over after fondling her and put his penis into her mouth. I'm not sure what kind of consent you want.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:01 PM
80

Something about not calling something rape because you regretted it afterwards seems to apply here... EDIT: Isn't something like this the whole POINT of security?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:05 PM
1

Although you're surely fighting fire with fire, I'm sure you well can think of reasons why it might be that men produced more scientific and engineering accomplishments than women over the last 200 years other than by some "natural inferiority"...
/r/MensRights27/04/13 01:13 AM
2

I think it happens to everyone, people just downvote when what you say doesn't agree with whatever limited experience other people have with the subject (or what they would prefer to be true).
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:00 AM
6

I don't know why people are downvoting you. Everything you've said is entirely accurate, and is exactly what I had been told by each of the various universities to which I had applied.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:00 AM
0

I understand that, but I don't have problems with discrimination per se. I have problems with primarily governmental discrimination, because we're forced to contribute through taxes. But I also see insurance as an entirely different animal than just some hairdresser discriminating. It's basically necessary for them to discriminate to do their job properly. Using the government to stop this is absolutely incorrect in my mind. I'd much rather have an insurance company ignore political correctness.…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:38 PM
4

Not only is it really easy to know if a man is a male or female compared to homo/hetero/whatever, but the real reason they don't discriminate based on the other factors is because it's "politically incorrect" and people don't like it. However, the most effective insurance company would be one able to discriminate based on a wide variety of points, including race, gender, age, etc. It's not implied that there's a causal factor. Now when you have greater detail of information, you can do Bayesian …
/r/MensRights14/03/13 10:50 AM
1

I guess, but it seems like it comes down to enforcement of an implicit contract, and in civil courts, it's not uncommon to figure out necessary compensation for that. But yeah, I can see what you're saying.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:00 PM
9

If the woman gets pregnant, this is the case, but we usually don't have a problem classifying something like this as sexual assault even if it doesn't get the woman pregnant. Fraudulent-sex seems like it should fall under this umbrella (rather than "nothing" for females and rape or sexual assault for males). The man is guilty of sexual assault in some jurisdictions because he has caused unwanted sexual contact through his deceit. The same can not be said for the woman, whose deceit has not physi…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:04 PM
13

It all comes down to fraud or deceit, really. He defrauded her into having sex, her thinking it was safe. If she goes off the pill or does the same thing, she defrauds him into having sex, him thinking it is safe. This is true regardless of bodliy asymmetry.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:18 PM
3

Not in the English spelling...
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:18 AM
-1

Sure is white knight-y to be accurate in our statements... The original statement didn't say "All companies run by women? I bet a bunch of them will fail!". It basically said "All companies run by women? Every company is going to be run into the ground!"
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:08 PM
0

That's not what he's saying. He's not saying "Oh, if every company was run by women a large number of them would fail." This is the context: There won't be true equality before every large company is run by a woman /s Run into the ground by a woman. The second comment implies that every large company will be run into the ground by a woman if every large company is run by a woman.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:07 PM
1

There won't be true equality before every large company is run by a woman /s Run into the ground by a woman. The second comment implies that every large company will be run into the ground by a woman if every large company is run by a woman.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:05 PM
2

You should report her for malicious comments / hate speech, since that's way more supportable here.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:48 AM
2

xD
/r/MensRights03/02/13 06:20 PM
26

Wowwww. From the comments ...once the species has evolved men out of existence, women are surely going to miss all that rape and murder. Does she even understand science? Evolving men out of existence. What the fuck. Yeah, because it's certainly plausible that sexually reproducing organisms are going to develop the ability to asexually reproduce. Evolution would require the propagation of humans that asexually reproduce, but there's a reason that this won't happen: asexual reproduction is inferi…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 08:19 AM
36

Perhaps she has a son and husband, both named Richard!
/r/MensRights26/01/13 08:05 AM
3

Pedophiles*
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:29 PM
1

I agree, although I would be inclined to think that that sort of behaviour is being reinforced by specific gender norms -- both for males and females.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:28 PM
16

The way I see it, it's not the specific lack of males, per se, but rather the fact that the teaching style, especially in elementary schools, is so mommy-like. I don't know that that's necessarily due to male underrepresentation, but I'd agree that it seems to be exacerbated by it. Even males can be bad male role models, and a good, tough woman teacher can potentially have a better effect than a man, i.e. I don't think men are specifically necessary, but some sort of similar influence is.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:25 PM
51

I don't see any reason why we should be worried about this unless there are unfair and biased hiring practices at play (in which case we should try to fix the problem). Why is it that every field has to be gender-representative? I see this a lot with feminism trying to get more and more females in engineering, for example, and while I understand that they want to encourage females to be engineers, I don't see any reason why it's intrinsically bad to have a gender difference in different jobs.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:36 PM
0

Make like a baby and "head out"?
/r/MensRights27/12/12 11:02 AM
1

Women are also called "prudes" or similar for failing to initiate sexual relations.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:27 AM
1

One could argue causation direction: whether studies influenced men to behave in such a way due to popular media/culture, or whether the men did this naturally and confirmed the hypothesis.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 07:33 AM
1

And don't think that humans were left out of this picture. We've all heard it, right? When some big-name male public figure sleeps around, and cheats on his wife, isn't there always someone ready with an evolutionary explanation about vigorous male seed-sowing? Edit: In case it wasn't clear, perception of males and male sexuality affects arguments about rape, contraception, sex, and other things that affect men's rights.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 07:31 AM
7

Don't forget ad hominems everywhere.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:59 PM
0

I think this is still a bad analogy. The thing is that depression is a mental disorder, and behavioural changes, mental exercises, etc. could actually have an effect. It's also possible for someone to mentally perpetuate depression based on their mindset. That's why therapy and helping people work through issues in order to improve their mentality of the issue can actually be effective. Using a physical malady like a grotesquely injured hand is unfairly minimising some of the things in this cart…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:55 PM
1

Pretty sure we'd need to have "terrorise" for the verb form of "rape" or something :P Edit: I still have to say that although I obviously agree that this "educational material" is sexist, I think you're drawing a false analogy here. If Arabs actually did the vast majority of terrorism, then you would have similar connotations, and unfortunately, people might still agree with what was being said. People still feel like the vast majority of circumstances is all that matters.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:24 AM
2

The last three sections come across as sexist. Doesn't rape confine women? Don't women know survivors? (Why are we calling rape victims survivors?) Can't women also stop rape? Not to mention that mention of female perpetrators is minimised, and it is implied that it is insignificant that females rape men.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:23 AM
1

A witness would be discredited by pointing out character evidence which compromises their credibility or questions their integrity. You're exactly right in the reasoning why -- because in court cases, honesty tends to be critical for witness testimony. In addition, if you can point out unreliability of the witness, then their testimony is questionable as well, regardless of how honest they are. For example, if you point out that a witness has a history of schizophrenia, that would be an ad homin…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:03 AM
2

I agree with your fervour, but although your insults may be generally favoured here, I think your vitriol could be reduced to improve the reception of your argument.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:35 AM
3

Of course, not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious, if it's integral to the case against the argument (for example, discrediting a witness in a trial). Just adding some more information.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:33 AM
13

Yeah, it's really annoying that because female and male are complements, if something isn't ACTUALLY misogynistic, they can just claim that it's just due to the fact that men are trying to be/not be like women and claim it by complement. It's totally ridiculous.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:20 AM
23

Some feminists claim LGBT rights under feminism and consider homophobic qualities to stem from misogyny. If a gay man were to be beaten up, it means misogyny from patriarchy which, to these sort of feminists, means that women are victims of this increased misogyny. Then again, some radfems actually consider homosexual preferences to be a rejection of women and therefore misogynistic. Really can't win either way. Also, using feminist terms is really annoying. It just complicates the exposition un…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:16 AM
33

They are supporting trans, but the claim seems to go like this: Girls looking like boys is socially acceptable Boys looking like girls is socially unacceptable The second is socially unacceptable because looking like a girl is considered to be degrading Looking like a girl is considered to be degrading because being a girl is considered to be degrading Being a girl is considered to be degrading because society views females as being inferior to males. Because society views females as being infer…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:11 AM
6

I'm sure there are plenty of actual misogynists that say they're for MR. Just because it hasn't been highly publicised doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. However, I am tempted to agree that I find a higher proportion of feminists behaving in vile ways like radfems than I do among MRAs, but that could just be confirmation bias. I don't recall encountering anyone of these mannerisms, though.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 06:26 AM
2

Naturally. But if he is unable to know his accusers, he can not possibly defend himself against accusations and he cannot charge them for false accusations or sue for defamation or whatever.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 03:11 AM
11

A common theme in recent weeks has been the propensity of what are effectively prosecutors claiming to want to protect the accuser by not being open to punish those who mount false accusations. This has to stop. A false rape accusation is a serious crime. If somebody would be expelled for rape, as they rightfully should be -- once proven, then certainly similar actions should be taken against those who would falsely accuse others. This sort of behaviour goes against what most academic institutio…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:27 PM
6

Can we try to not have editorialised/sensationalised titles like this? Saying the UN has a "man-hate agenda" just sounds radical and incorrect.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:11 AM
2

Of course. I was just offering an alternative explanation. I believe there are a lot of supporting factors for the under-report/over-report as well.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:05 PM
1

Societal pressure combined with gender-specific interviewers? Men are sort of expected to have more partners, women, the opposite.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 09:51 AM
1

Especially since it seems to say that all the interviewers were women. That could be additional incentive for misreporting.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 09:49 AM
16

Unless we're only taking the average of individuals who have had partners at all.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 09:46 AM
2

Doesn't this seem to imply that both male and female students have increased effort with a male teacher? Having a male teacher increased the efforts of female students whereas a female teacher lowered the efforts of boys. If female efforts are increased with males while males remain unaffected, and male efforts are decreased with females while females remain unaffected, that would imply that the increased efforts of females and the undiminished efforts of males with a male teacher are both above…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:16 AM
2

They compared the perception of harshness in grading with the actual harshness in grading in practice: Male students tend to bet less [money] when assessed by a female teacher than by an external examiner or by a male teacher. This is consistent with female teachers' grading practices; female teachers give lower grades to male students. Female students bet more when assessed by a male teacher than when assessed by an external examiner or a female teacher. Female students' behavior is not consist…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:08 AM
1

Explicitly, but most of this is gender neutral, and that was for a very specific case. I feel like this article went out of its way to ensure gender-neutrality
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:17 PM
1

"rational" That word.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:59 AM
1

This is the correct response to all equality issues, in my opinion. Society is more than able to deal with these by allowing separate areas and integrated areas, since there is economic demand for both.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:26 PM
-1

Interesting how these people don't want to integrate men+women bathrooms. I guess sometimes it's FINE TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN AREAS.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:23 PM
8

lesson in austerity conservative with my optimism I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:53 PM
18

Just days after Komen announced it would stop funding Planned Parenthood, an online furor forced the breast cancer foundation to reverse itself. I don't think defunding Planned Parenthood is anti-feminist, honestly. Not forcing the government to pay for contraception, etc., for example, would just mean that males and females would have to pay for services that they use instead of everyone else paying for those services. If anything, it would be anti-poor or something, but I think affordable cont…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:53 PM
2

And then got offended when she realised, lo and behold, barbershops only serve men? If she didn't go there with that intent, then she would have realised this instead of being a firebrand.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:25 PM
3

Barbershops are well known to serve only men.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:16 PM
1

I mean, not sure what a gyno is supposed to do with a man. Anatomical differences, sure, but one could certainly argue similarities here where cutting a woman's hair tends to be significantly different (assuming you want satisfied clients) than cutting a man's.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:25 PM
2

Oh, but I did. It's not only a barber shop, but it's a well-known barber shop which has been known to serve men. This woman obviously went there to shake things up, and it's stupid to say that now this is a special case because there have been famous clientele.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:21 PM
3

I'm surprised only 5 years for rape... is there some specific charge?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:01 AM
2

You won't see me doing that. I think individuals (and by extension, businesses) should be allowed to discriminate in this fashion.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:31 AM
-1

Well, yeah. Most things are.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:20 AM
5

So basically you want to force this man to go against his religion simply because a woman who could have gone to ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE AREA decided to have a bitch-fit over how she went to a BARBERSHOP and didn't get served? Give me a break.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:20 AM
6

FFS, this isn't gender equality. When did gender equality mean that someone couldn't deny you a service or a product because you're male or whatever or charge difference prices for insurance or whathaveyou? This is ridiculous. Gender equality is about equal rights, regarding protection from aggression. It's absurd that you think that someone shouldn't be able to own a male-clientele only business or the opposite. Should we not be able to have specialists in male medical services? How about forci…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:18 AM
2

I'm on the side of allowing discrimination in this way. It is simply irrational for us to force insurance companies to charge equal rates, and it's probably detrimental overall, especially if male premiums don't drop much, and female premiums rise much more.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 07:12 AM
1

I agree. This is really dumb. This isn't an issue about equality in rights. This is entitlement -- and we're better than that.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:02 AM
-2

Sorry, guys, but I can't agree with you all on this. Why should we legislate "equal" charges like this? These are private firms charging more because as a demographic, women cost more than men. It's not arbitrary discrimination: it's a cost analysis. Insurance companies have to evaluate the respective probabilities, and it's just a fact right now that men tend to cost them more. These aren't equal rights. This is a desire for a male entitlement for something that's statistically shown to not be …
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:02 AM
1

Aren't these the same "men" who supposedly so often ditch women after they get them pregnant and inevitably end up paying child support? One would imagine that men would rather pop a pill than pay for that.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 05:55 AM
3

I was wondering why you had Murray Rothbard in the background while saying we needed feminism...
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:00 AM
1

My apologies. I was just trying to make the comparison clear. I guess I didn't do that successfully.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 01:46 AM
1

I was speaking specifically about the comparison between this and taxation for the purposes of welfare, and it was because of it reason that I made this comparison.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 01:32 AM
2

Charity is defined as 1.The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need. 2.Help or money given in this way. Taxation for the purposes of things like the social safety net falls under forced charity, i.e. taxation is the taking of money, whether it would have been voluntary or not, and using it generally for the purpose of improving people's lives. Now we can argue whether this is "good" or "bad", but what I'm saying is that is what it is. You get something from charity, if not di…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 01:22 AM
3

It doesn't matter. They don't give you the number to text it; they text it for you, meaning it happens right there.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 10:01 PM
7

But isn't the institutionalised bigotry based upon social bigotry? The government is supposed to represent the people. And it does... to our detriment. Slavery in the south kept going until they seceded due to changing opinions in the north and got beaten in a civil war -- I'm sure we can find other examples. The point is that the institution is based on the people, and people are society. EDIT: What I'm asking for is implementing true feedback in the system through the pricing mechanism and pro…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:59 PM
1

But false convictions surely would result in successful lawsuits, don't you think?
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:29 PM
2

The nerve endings of the foreskin don't just make stimulation the same, but better, it makes it different and better. Didn't know that. Learn something every day.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:28 PM
1

Do you think it would be okay if it were consensual? I think there are many positives to it (as well as negatives), but I would probably wait until my son was older (assuming I have one) and let him decide. I assume this would be preferable. Also, sometimes decreased pleasure during sex is a useful thing, if you know what I mean. I don't think there is that much wrong with independent acute self-mutilation in this case, other than the fact that I don't find it personally attractive.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 07:31 PM
3

If the guy hands the phone to a girl and he can't see the screen, then this would still occur. Of course, I would never just hand my phone over to someone without being able to see what they're doing because they probably don't know how my phone works specifically.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 07:25 PM
26

I kinda want to bring my libertarian/anarchocapitalist tendencies in here and mention that this is essentially what taxation is. And also note that all these mistakes by police/courts in other areas of men's rights, e.g. falsely convicting men after false testimony, would be more unlikely to occur in private arbitration (courts) that actually could suffer by boycotting, lawsuits, etc. In any case, I am already arguing on facebook about this, and I reported this image. I can't believe that people…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 07:04 PM
11

I reported this as spam/scam and hate speech/symbol.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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