TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

smischmal Archive

View 1 post and 148 comments by smischmal 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)
6

smischmal/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:01 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Mens Rights : Less openly hateful than those really really awful people over there sometimes!
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:43 AM
3

I'm pretty sure that's what they were saying. I read it as protesting with Take Back the Night, not against it.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 04:51 AM
1

To terms for the same thing, as far as I can tell. edit: I haven't really seen 'female privilege' called so, but by the general definition of privilege, it seems as apt a term for the phenomenon as benevolent sexism. So long as we're all in agreement that it's not a nice thing to have in a culture, I don't see much benefit to squabbling over terminology though.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:39 AM
1

Well, that's how it's been used in my experience (both academically and on the internet, save some trolly places like here and SRS), funny how stuff like that works out. Now, when is discrimination okay? A man, for whatever reason, could have a vested interest in appearing better to women in his mind. I don't think that discriminating between individuals based on statistical trends or stereotypical expectations of a group they happen to belong to is okay, full stop. Like I said, I'd prefer folks…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:12 AM
2

I don't think that people ought to be treated in particular ways solely on the basis of sex, but ought to be judged as individuals. Benevolent sexism is a term I've seen tossed about here to refer to when someone is being sexist, but in a way that in some way imparts a benefit (such as the ever popular, but in my experience, rarely happening in real life, example of men holding doors open exclusively for women). Even if it does in some sense have a benefit, it's still discriminating on the basis…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 02:20 AM
1

So wait, do you think it's a vague or a rigid hierarchy? Those seem to be incompatible concepts. this is more or less a red herring. there's also an unfalsifiable BUT EVER SO THERE carry over effect. Would you care to clarify these points?
/r/MensRights13/03/12 09:14 PM
1

Regardless of their posting history, they're totally correct. You can't dismiss my opinion so easily, considering I've never posted on SRS and in fact, I kind of despise the place, because it is rather trolly. Perhaps I should just repeat things that they say that are good points, so you'll consider them. No, that would be silly. Perhaps you could try addressing arguments and claims instead of making weak ad hominen attacks? Yeah, that sounds like a lot better of an idea.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:40 PM
1

I'm going to pretend for a moment that your comment is actually relevant. Do you actually know anything about neuroscience? There have been discovered some general trends between the neuroanatomy of men and women, but, much like pretty much all other attributes (just look at height for an example), the overlap between the ranges for features has been found to be significant. For instance, you can say that in general women tend to have more white matter in their brains, but there are also men in …
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:34 PM
2

there are some definite areas in life you can show, with evidence, that identifying as a trans person and having it out in the open can be detrimental. That's pretty much the definition of "privilege", just so you know. The concept doesn't mean (except to a lot of people here, that is) that a person is advantaged or disadvantaged in every scenario, or that they are universally better or worse off than another group. Most people who think about this kind of thing and use the word 'privilege' reco…
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:28 PM
2

I kind of agree with you, except the part about it being funny. I thought it was just kind of stupid.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:18 PM
0

Hypocrite. Surely even you can see the parallel between dismissing something out of hand because the person saying it is a man, and dismissing something out of hand because the person saying it has posted to SRS.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:13 PM
1

This is the pretty much the only place (and other parts of the manosphere) where it's used that way though.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:11 PM
1

It's a busy life, being a strawman in /r/MensRights. So many appointments to keep.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 06:08 PM
1

To be honest, I think that's the case with just about any satire. Most people don't pay all that much attention to much of anything.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 04:33 AM
3

Link for the lazy.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 04:31 AM
2

It's kind of funny. The original artist was being satirical but you really believe this, don't you?
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:38 AM
1

Seems pretty wtf to me. Like it's implying that getting raped is a requirement for being a "real man" (whatever the fuck that means).
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:28 AM
1

That might make sense, but nowadays, man bits sex robots are a lot more common, methinks. I'd suspect that if ever there were proper sexbots (and no serious social stigma against owning them), man-sexbots and woman-sexbots would be about equally common.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:18 AM
-10

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:16 AM
-2

Not sure if trolling, but... My argument goes a bit more like this: Money influences artistic direction. An already fairly homogeneous market buys. The producers cater to the majority segment of that market. The altered creative landscape further alienates others, creating an even more homogeneous market. (from point 3) Diversity of content is good. Catering to the majority expectations to the exclusion of others reduces diversity and is a self reinforcing process. (from points 1 to 4) ∴ Caterin…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:14 AM
-4

So you oppose the ideals of feminism, just because some misinformed jackasses in Minnesota made a mediocre abuse intervention program?
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:04 AM
-1

Because by expecting porn in a non-porn genre, they're influencing it to be like that, eliminating it as a source of enjoyment for others. Not everything has to be about sexy women in not enough clothing in erotic poses, that's my point. I like that stuff for, you know, stories and gameplay and stuff, but sometimes, due to this tendency, random tit-shots and jiggle physics seem to get in the way of that.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 11:52 PM
1

This is so full of truth, right here. It's a shame that so many people here think that they actually are representative, and mistrust or even outright hate all feminists as a result. To be honest though, a lot of the time, I really hope that /r/MensRights doesn't represent masculism as a whole. Lot of nonsense here sometimes.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 11:00 PM
-3

The problem isn't 'not catering entirely to female desires', it's more of an issue of 'not catering to desires of anyone but straight males at all'. Accepting and embracing a given sexuality is all fine and dandy, but excluding large segments of the audience, is significantly less cool.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:56 PM
0

The difference is that Twilight is just one work, while comic books are a medium. It's more like saying that (back in the day) when women started writing and getting published openly, that it would ruin writing as a concept. If that had happened, then you might be onto something, but it didn't, so you aren't. A given medium can easily support a variety of different sorts of stories and character types.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:54 PM
-1

If they're just looking for porn, why not just get porn instead of dominating the superhero comic/video game stuff then?
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:51 PM
1

Something like this, I'd expect.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 05:48 AM
1

Well, perhaps she put a great deal of work into it, excercising and whatnot in order to gain what she views as an ideal rump. I'm not sure, not being the sort of person who is proud of my ass. But people are proud of a lot of things that I don't value, so I certainly can't rule it out as a possibility.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 07:12 AM
3

Maybe she's proud of her ass? Just because you post pictures of something doesn't mean you want it viewed as a sexual object. Presumably, those folks who post pictures of their children aren't trying to encourage paedophilia.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 11:56 PM
1

Actually, I wouldn't be rude. People can like different things, or even deny the stuff I love. That's part of being human, this whole diversity of opinion thing. However, this is getting rather silly, and you're ignoring my points, and thus, I bid you adieu Monsieur Trollio.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 11:37 PM
1

Yes, I know that, having identified as genderqueer for a number of years. Unless someone specifically tells you that they'd like to go by 'it' though, it's generally considered incredibly insulting and dehumanizing.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 06:39 PM
2

I don't disagree with that in the slightest. I also don't see why you need to be so rude to everyone for no raisin.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 06:37 PM
-1

You do know that calling someone 'it' is incredibly rude right? The more you know! -------=======⋆
/r/MensRights21/02/12 08:34 AM
-7

Why don't you let knucker3 speak for themself if they were being sarcastic or not? And actually, I dress the way I do, despite the negative response I get from others, because it makes me feel good. I mean, maybe you're the sort of person who only cares about aesthetics as a means to an end, but a lot of folks aren't like that. Though obviously, if I were blind as well as everyone else, I wouldn't care about how I looked, but I would still take care in my non-visual presentation for my own benef…
/r/MensRights21/02/12 08:31 AM
20

I think it's the OP toying with known tendencies in /r/MensRights to be honest, whoring out for karma.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 08:28 AM
1

Well, it's that or be told that your opinions don't matter because you aren't a man. (Personally, I'd take ad hominen attacks over misgendering any day too.)
/r/MensRights18/02/12 09:54 AM
0

Not every guy though, clearly.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 11:07 PM
1

Perhaps so, but I am unfamiliar with your classification system, so I went with something I know of. Pretty sure that forced mastectomy is stretching a bit though.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 11:06 PM
2

I'm not certain, but they probably are.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:27 PM
1

The only reason we immediately recognize the inhumanity of it is because those other, more extreme sorts of FGM are lumped in. I've never even heard of this classification system you've got, I've only ever heard of "female circumsicion" to describe all of those sorts of procedures.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:21 PM
1

Oh, and I just thought up a better analogy. Toungue splitting. It's completely unnecessary, painful, usually not obvious to others, mostly irriversable (not quite so much as circumsicion though, no analogy is perfect), and certainly shouldn't be performed on children without their consent.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:16 PM
1

And the foreskin is a necissity? Breasts are far more important socially than a foreskin, considering they're actually quite visible, while your foreskin (or lack thereof) is typically kept in your pants.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:12 PM
0

Thank you for the response, as I was being honest. Now, I'm glad you can count, but I don't think you actually read any of my comments (nb: that was meant to be condescending). If you had, you would have learned that I DO NOT think this doctor should do it, nor do I hold to this opinion that it's a horrible mutilation. I think it is usually an unnecessary and wasteful procedure that, the vast majority of the time, serves no reasonable purpose at all, and so should not be performed. I'm fairly su…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:00 PM
0

Nice ad hominen dude.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:49 PM
0

This may not actually be the best place to ask. The so-called hivemind is an especially powerful force here, so you are unlikeley to get great diversity of opinions. The short answer is that if you circumsize him, you're a weenie chopping monster and everyone here will hate you, and your boyfriend is too.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:48 PM
0

I think I managed to understand what was being said behind all your gobbledeegook, but I'm not sure how your analogy makes any sense.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:36 PM
1

Oh. Derp. So you were. I responded before even clicking. Sorry about that.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:24 PM
-1

Allow me to explain then. See, arms and legs are actually really important. Foreskin you can live without and it doesn't really impair your life in any way, and to a person who chooses that, it is certainly an improvement in some sense, or they wouldn't seek it out. Arms and legs, you would be at a very serious disadvantage compared with most people and would likely be dependent on others for assistance in a variety of situations. Hope this helps.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:21 PM
-4

I have you RES tagged as 'gay revenge friend-zoner'. I bet there's an interesting story behind that, but I can't remember. Edit: Not entirely sure why the downvotes, I was just wondering because I bet it's an interesting story behind that, but I think it was a long time ago and didn't want to dig through their post history to figure it out, as that would seem a bit invasive. Sorry if it was inappropriate or something.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:16 PM
1

I'm circumcised, but I probably wouldn't bother, if I were in your position. I certainly wouldn't take the over-the-top position that it's some kind of mutilation that seems so popular here, but it does seem somewhat unnecessary and pointless. And you certainly have a say in it. It's your child too. In fact, forgive me for assuming, but you are probably likely to have experience with a greater variety of penii, so maybe you should be considered the expert opinion on the matter.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:15 PM
5

This is the first time I've seen the 'no true scotsmen' fallacy applied to doctors. Congratulations!
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:09 PM
-13

I'm not sure that one's foreskin is entirely comparable to breasts. I get that you're pissed off and all, but do try to keep your comparisons within reason.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:08 PM
1

Pro-tip: You can right click a youtube video to copy the link at an exact moment.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:05 PM
-22

You do realize that claiming that my genitals are mutilated makes you look like kind of an asshole right?
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:02 PM
-7

Sorry, you're being too sensible. We're supposed to be alarmist here and go for shock value over reasoned discourse.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 12:01 PM
1

If women didn't suffer from analogous deficiencies, then why would they not then bar men from front line military service instead? Seems to me that there must be an additional reason on top of that that they chose men over women to be the sole sex allowed in combat.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 10:01 AM
1

Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't think she was saying that there are no dogmatic elements in parts of feminism, but that there is no overarching dogma common to all feminism. While specific sects may be dogmatic, feminism itself is not.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 07:51 PM
1

I'm not saying that they aren't christian, what I am saying is that it would be inappropriate to dislike all sects when what you actually have issue with is the specific practices of particular branches. Unless you have an issue with the core belief (in christianity, that Jesus was the son of God, in feminism, that women are not worse than men), then there is no reason to be dismissing all the various manifestations of that belief system. Furthermore, I am in no way denying that there are segmen…
/r/MensRights29/01/12 08:31 AM
1

Perhaps I did. Of course Christians believe in JC. Moreover, they believe that he's the son of god. That's the definition of christian. I thought that we were discussing the other dogmatic principles that are tacked on after that one central tenant, which can vary enormously from sect to sect.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 02:40 AM
1

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. In both christianity and feminism, it is not simply a matter of degree. There are numerous points in which different sects are diametrically opposed. For instance, a cultural radical feminist thinks porn as a concept is exploitative towards women, while a sex-positive feminist thinks porn is pretty awesome even if it is sometimes done badly. Likewise in christianity, some sects believe that everyone has a shot at heaven if they just accept jesu…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 04:24 AM
1

Well, going with the christianity analogy, shouldn't you judge the different sects individually, rather than saying that they're all horrible because of Westboro Baptist Church?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:56 AM
1

Ah, that makes sense. They are one seriously unhelpful lot.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:46 AM
1

Just wanted to point out that this is not my article. I didn't write it, I just found it and thought that some people here could use a little perspective. I'll probably come back to address your other points later though if I have the time.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 12:56 AM
1

You could always post your rebuttal here too, if you have any serious points to make. I'm quite certain it would get past moderation here.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 11:24 PM
-1

Yeah, feminism is pretty broad. No shit. Yeah, you'd think that would be obvious, but I see so many people saying that feminism is this monolithic entity here (for example, see Donkey_Schlong above) that I felt it was a good idea to post this. Plus, I figured the first paragraph would draw them in so they wouldn't immediately ignore it and call me a 'feminist cunt' or something. Anyway, nice to see someone being reasonable. edit: changed 'below' to 'above' to be accurate.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 10:46 PM
6

You think you're so clever, but that isn't even a real subreddit.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 06:48 AM
0

Well, doing further research, I may have not phrased that in the best way. According to this article, as well as a number of others I came across, while you're brain is still capable of rational thinking in a sense, there is a disconnect from forming memories, which means that the ability to make decisions based on current data would be impaired. However, your access to previously acquired long term data is not infringed, which is why you can still function semi-normally if you're not paying too…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 02:08 AM
26

It seemed to me that she was just pointing out the law. Note that she didn't say that she had been raped. The law actually is that you cannot give consent if you're blacked out drunk (and for good reason, your rational thinking brain is basically unconscious, even if you're still up and walking around, like a zombie, which is why you can't remember anything). It seemed to me that she wasn't even blaming him, but saying that in the eyes of the law he would be at fault. Young men her age are prett…
/r/MensRights25/01/12 08:47 PM
40

Welp, it's official, /r/MensRights has become what they always hated, a downvote brigade.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 06:47 PM
-1

Well, that certainly would not include breasts. I'd just as soon go with user-defined private parts. If there's a part of my body that I don't feel like sharing, then it's private. If I'm cool with random strangers seeing it, then it's not.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:48 AM
2

Well, we do need to wear clothing to protect ourselves from the elements, and there is a social imperative to follow certain norms. I'm not advocating nudism or anything (though I don't see anything wrong with it, even if I have no interest in participating). I was just saying that it's clearly either totally arbitrary, or at the very least, based on some more complex metric than 'does it have a function'.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:20 AM
1

your clearly trolling username username: Donkey_Schlong Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:16 AM
3

That's a terrible criteria. After all, our ears serve a function, but we aren't expected to wear earmuffs all the time.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:10 AM
1

See, I didn't know that, but I didn't want to exclude it as a possibility just because he happened to be nice to a woman that one time.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 09:27 AM
1

Gosh. I'm sorry this is so difficult to get through to you. I'm not saying it isn't privilege. What I'm saying is that it's a two sided coin. That even apparent advantages can mask disadvantages. This is the biggest problem I've seen in both MRA and feminism and that is a powerful tendency to black and white thinking. You see these advantages that women hold and assume that there are no disadvantages. They see it in a mirrored sense. People seem completely incapable of seeing the discrete parts …
/r/MensRights13/01/12 11:52 PM
2

You're right, I'm not discussing MRA, I'm discussing gender equality in general. Chivalry is a sexist ideal, I don't think that we disagree about that. However I think that if someone is doing something for someone else (holding doors open or whatever), it is either because A) they expect to get something in return, B) they believe that the other party needs their assistance or C) they're just being helpful (in which case, it wouldn't discriminate based on sex). I think that this motivating fact…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 11:36 PM
2

I'm not denying any sort of cultural or historical trend, but I'm saying that one instance of him offering his seat to a woman means nothing. You can't take a trend and assume that it applies to any given individual. That's just basic statistics. It is certainly possible that he would have offered it to anyone. We do not know his motivations in this situation, but you are assuming, based on mere trends of culture, that you do.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 11:23 PM
0

So being assumed to be inferior is a privilege now? Huh, today I learned...
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:56 PM
1

Well, until we have video of him not giving his seat to a young man, the jury is still out as to whether he was sexist or just genuinely nice.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:52 PM
0

I think that they're implying that chivalry isn't exactly a good thing, as it is rooted in assumptions that it is a man's place to serve women since they cannot serve themselves.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:50 PM
3

it's a sir-charge FTFY
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:47 PM
3

From what I've come to understand, women have a greater tendency to date people who are up front about their intentions. Your comment seems to jive with reality.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:46 PM
1

Seconded. I often hold the door open for people (all genders of people), but that's only because I walk faster than most people and get to the door first. It wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:38 PM
1

Yes, sexism is so 'refreshing'. If being first on the bus is a good thing, then a genuinely nice person would let others go on first, and their gender would be a completely irrelevant detail. Though of course, it's not surprising that people would be hesitant to give up whatever advantages they gain from a biased system. We've seen it before all over the place, whenever culture changes. It is because one hasn't fully integrated the ideal of eqaulity into their thinking. One has to be able to con…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:33 PM
1

I don't get it, why should college degrees not be given out by colleges? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that doesn't make sense or seem at all relevant to this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:16 PM
3

Well, sex-positive feminists are pro-porn, pro-masturbation, pro-kink, pro-lgbt, generally cool with alternative forms of relationships (such as polyamory and whatnot), and supportive of sex-worker rights. Notice that none of those are specific to women. In fact it could easily be argued that some of those things are far more popular with men (i.e. porn and prostitutes). It bothers me how so many people on /r/MensRights seem entirely ignorant of the diversity of opinions in various feminist move…
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:49 AM
1

Of course, so is celebrating human sexuality. It all depends on which school of feminist thought you're looking into.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 10:52 PM
4

Um yeah, some people actually are hurt when people go out of their way to insult and demean them. Shocking, I know.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 11:31 AM
7

Yeah, I have serious difficulty taking seriously anyone who uses the phrase "feminization of america". What a load of hooey. Still, a rather silly rule, for certain. To be honest, I don't see the point of sexual segregation in this situation (or really any other, to be honest).
/r/MensRights10/01/12 11:26 AM
5

Co-ed teams should be fine at any level, if they are controlled for height and weight classes. Otherwise, people with less advantaged physiques get left out, whether male or female.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 11:16 AM
1

Well yeah, that too. Asshole and bigot are not mutually exclusive though (in fact, there's probably considerable overlap).
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:21 AM
1

Can't tell if trolling, or just an asshole.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 01:28 AM
1

Do you really see much misogyny here or do you just hang around in places where feminists make false accusations about us? Not much, but I guess I just have higher expectations of a community supposedly founded on equality, so when /r/MensRights fails, it is all the more disappointing. Really, I don't hang around any of the larger feminist or mens rights communities, because I feel that they both tend to have a serious hivemind effect that limits the scope of discourse as well as a serious probl…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:41 PM
2

I'm so glad that you mentioned it was a parody of men's rights, because that was one of the dumbest, most sexist pieces of shit I've ever seen on youtube, and without your comment, I probably would have taken it seriously.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:28 PM
8

I'm a feminist for Men's Rights. I wouldn't say that the idea of men's rights is "not legitimate", just like I wouldn't say that 'women's rights' is not legitimate. Both are merely the more political results of holding the ideal of gender equality. However, I am often disappointed by the misogyny and blatant misrepresentation of feminism as a whole that I see here, but I try to not let a number of bad eggs spoil the idea, just like I try to avoid letting the radical sexist 'feminists' from spoil…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:04 PM
1

Yes yes and yes. Though I would advocate that individual stalls should be available in all of those.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:20 AM
1

I agree with the quote, if it only said "countered exclusively through legal means". Purely legal pressures have been proven ineffective by those very same feminists who have failed to stop the existence of misogynistic douchebags despite years of advocacy. That would indicate that grassroots widespread cultural change is the way to go, but when it comes to conglomerate entities (such as corporations or, say, a hotel), legal action may be the most effective and expedient solution.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:19 AM
1

Wouldn't it be easier to just have a rule that you can't have sex there?
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:17 AM
1

Male only hookers? I imagine that would be popular.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:10 AM
1

For hormones as well though, they are mere statistical trends and do not justify blanket discrimination against either group.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:51 AM
1

I disagree. I'd say that it's more akin to almost any other thing being illegal. It isn't discriminatory just because the perpetrators are disproportionately male.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:47 AM
1

And changing rooms (though I personally just avoid those like the plague).
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:27 AM
1

Nope. You're safe for another month, apparently.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:25 AM
1

You didn't say anything about hormones, you were talking about penises and vaginas. Besides, penises and vaginas have only a strong statistical correlation with maleness and femaleness. They can't really be applied to individuals without resulting in a large number of false positives.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:21 AM
1

Where in my post did you read about the movement being hijacked by radicals? You didn't, and I never said you did. That bit of data comes from me having an understanding of the history (or herstory, lol) of feminism. What equal rights has feminism achieved? Um, well, universal suffrage for one. Women's right to not be considered property for another. It has largely been fighting against social and economic, rather than legislative inequality of late though. As for the rest of your post. I sugges…
/r/MensRights06/12/11 03:10 AM
1

You know what's extra funny, the reasonable guy was almost directly quoting the wikipedia page on feminism.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:37 AM
1

Likewise. Those core tenants being the belief that women deserve to be treated equally to men in both legal and social circles and the belief that Jesus Christ was the messiah/son of god respectively.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 11:45 PM
1

Even if feminism has been hijacked by radical misandrists over the last couple decades in some parts of society, to say that it has never been about equal rights is a terribly ignorant viewpoint that completely ignores the history of feminism and the fact that to many modern feminists (myself included) it very much is about equal rights. I wouldn't (and I doubt you would either) appreciate the Men's Rights Movement being considered a "hate movement" just because of some minority of misogynistic …
/r/MensRights05/12/11 11:42 PM
1

But it's giving credit to the original creator anyway. If the OP isn't going to post it to a particular subreddit, I kind of feel that whoever has the initiative to bring it to other peoples attention can have that karma. Besides, they're just meaningless internet points.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 11:06 PM
1

So you were being satirical? Sorry, but that wasn't clear at all.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 10:58 PM
1

I'm really shocked that this wasn't downvoted to oblivion here, considering it speaks well of feminism.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 10:32 PM
1

Why is it not polite? By making it a repost, rather than a self post, it allows people to find the repost under "other discussions".
/r/MensRights05/12/11 10:25 PM
0

Aren't you also defining feminism in your own way to exclude the majority of people who identify as feminists? Your feminism is one way, mine and Sexy_Fish's are another. It is an old and diverse movement and like any other, it's got good and bad parts.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 10:24 PM
1

I second this suggestion. It's common to think that those reviews just get fed into a machine somewhere (and they do), but they also are taken into consideration and are one of the best ways of getting your voice heard on an issue like this in a way that won't kill your grade.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 06:52 AM
3

Check their username. They're a nihilist, so everyone is wrong.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 06:50 AM
1

I totally understand, but I'm pretty sure that if you didn't know (and really, couldn't know) that she was drugged, and thus unable to give legal consent, there is no way that you could be accused of rape. Well, I mean, you could be accused, but it would never stand up in court (even if it would probably mean an end to your relationship). Now, if you knew that she had taken the Xanax and you knew that it could fuck her up pretty good, then you might be in trouble.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 11:27 PM
1

You know why they won't call it rape? Because he won't call it rape. Most likely, the man will not make the accusation that he was taken advantage of by a woman. In our culture, that would make him appear weak, and the typical man's ego is a very delicate thing. Technically, regardless of the genders involved, if a person is so intoxicated that their brain is not functioning (as evidenced by a blackout) and someone takes advantage of that state to have sex with them, and if the intoxicated indiv…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 11:25 PM
2

But its women that encourage it, stupid, by rewarding thugs with sex. If that came from someone else, somewhere else, I might assume that that was satire and upvote you. I know better though.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 12:09 AM
0

it doesn't excuse violence It's really nice to hear someone say that. One AntiFemenistMedia was advocating the opposite just yesterday (though he has since deleted the offending posts). In his view, it practically requires violence. I was deeply disturbed, but you have (at least partially) restored my faith in humanity. Thank you.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 12:03 AM
0

That's why lesbian was in scare quotes.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 11:51 PM
1

Oh, what do you know, that is a real place! Thanks. Not a very big subreddit though. I don't think you have much to worry about from there.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 11:47 PM
3

I can tell, we are probably never going to see eye to eye on this. In my opinion, violence is not justified in this situation. What does it accomplish? In order for an act to of violence to be justified, it must be accomplishing some greater good, otherwise it is just petty, pathetic bullying to make a person who can't get over their own feelings feel better. are you trans? Yes. That would have been obvious if you glanced at my post history. Though you really hardly need to know that to dismiss …
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:12 AM
1

I'd say that's true, but there's something more in how transwomen do it; an intense fear of clocking. Though an understandable fear. After all, a cis woman, even if she is mistaken as a man, has little to fear from the encounter, she can easily laugh it off. A trans woman on the other hand, will very likely no longer have her identity respected or taken seriously, she could even face harassment or violence. Plus, being read as a man, for a cis woman is built on a lifetime of being able to take h…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:04 AM
1

But those kinds of features are simply that, more common. They are by no means universal or exclusive to people who went through a testosterone driven puberty. Perhaps it would be better to say that most women, cis and trans, strive for a typically feminine appearance?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:43 AM
4

No, what I am saying is that no one 'deserves' to have the shit beaten out of them. I find it rather disturbing that this is so difficult for you to comprehend.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:40 AM
4

You're evading the question. It doesn't matter what information she is or isn't revealing, how the fuck does it justify physically abusing her?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:31 AM
1

Most trans women just want to be women, they want others to relate to them as women. And what the heck does it mean to look like a trans woman or a cis woman? People all look different. Both cis and trans women just want to be seen as women. Period.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:29 AM
3

A strawman is a logical fallacy when one crafts a weaker parody of one's opponents argument in order to refute that and then claims to have refuted the original, stronger argument. If one claims that you have attacked a strawman, then, assuming that they know what the hell they're talking about, they mean that you have misrepresented their argument in order to avoid attacking it.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:25 AM
0

Yeah, I just checked, /r/AMR is a banned subreddit and /r/AntiMensRights (which is what I assumed AMR stood for) does not exist. Some people really need to feel important enough to have a nemesis though I suppose. sigh
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:22 AM
3

While I agree with your assessment that it's mainly an issue with just some of the people here (mods included), I don't think that sending some kind of policy from on high would be the best solution. The best solution would be one where we could somehow get the less extreme feminists and the less extreme MRAs together onto common ground. Ultimately, if you don't get too clogged up with tribalistic bullshit, they're all fighting for the same thing really. Equality of the sexes, isn't that what we…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:16 AM
4

Do you really think that your are in any way being productive here? GTFO troll.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:09 AM
4

I refer you to the comment that you just commented on. Seriously, what kind of twisted morality do you hold to that says that it is right that you beat the shit out of someone that you were attracted to and had sex with just for having sex with you? P.S. By the way, I would never fuck you, you vicious sociopath.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:02 AM
3

Listen to Patrick. The whole premise is that the man never needs to know. That's the whole thing. Sex for everyone, no strings attached. I'm not saying it's realistic, but if it were, it would be the ideal solution. That's what Patrick does, he suggests obvious but unfeasible solutions to controversial problems. By the way, thanks for the insults. It really helps you stand out from the crowd. :)
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:57 AM
2

No. I never kid about urination. /serious
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:51 AM
1

Okay... Your lists seem more or less completely unrelated though. Maybe if you could connect the dots a bit more and explain how the elements of your list can be derived from the elements of his list, you'd come off as less of a cantankerous troll.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:50 AM
3

It's that age old internet dilemma so eloquently communicated by one Mr. Steven J. Fry. "Can't tell if trolling or just stupid."
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:15 AM
3

Are you sure that you even read the OP? Your analysis seems to be startlingly out of touch with reality, as he never said or insinuated any of those things.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:14 AM
7

1) Trans isn't a noun, it is an adjective, as in trans man or trans woman. 2) Nobody here is talking about a man in woman's clothes, that is a whole other can of worms.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:09 AM
2

That sounds like a winning solution. Everybody gets happy and sexed up. Nobody has to live with anything uncomfortable. A+
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:52 PM
2

Advocating violence? Just what this subreddit needs. Isn't it damaging stereotypes like "men are violent assholes" that we are trying to go against here?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:51 PM
1

Political correctness is an enemy to men's rights. Would you like to explain that statement? I would like you to, if it's not too much trouble.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:49 PM
7

1) I can remember being a kid and being shamed into not wanting to want to act girly. Nobody is talking about forcing anyone to do something that would make them uncomfortable. This article, on the contrary, seems to be advocating an openness in allowing children, boys and girls, to experiment and figure themselves out without persecution. As someone who is rather against forcing people to be someone that they aren't, I think this sounds like a good thing, though obviously only as a first step t…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:40 PM
0

As I said: Or at least, it is a major thing for a sizable portion of the most vocal members of /r/mensrights. We really have no reason to think it's such a big deal for guys in general. By the way, you quadruple posted. You couldn't have left the one that I replied to first?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:10 PM
3

Equivocation. Trying to make someone think that you were born male/female and just being male/female are not the same thing. In fact, often, it isn't either of those, it is just the person expressing themself in a way that makes them comfortable. Fact is, for a lot of people, hormones will put them a long way towards being perceived as a different sex in a relatively short time.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 11:08 PM
3

It doesn't seem that this has anything to do with feminism. This seems to have to do with hygiene. Also, does it only ban men from peeing standing up, or does it ban everyone?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:27 PM
-2

Damnit. I lost the game. :(
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:30 PM
3

So, is a transphobic person required to reveal that fact to every person that they intend to have sex with?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:42 PM
8

Isn't there a certain distinction between active and passive deception though? I mean, if a trans woman said to her lover that "Hey, did you know, I've had this vagina my whole life!" I think that we'd all agree that she was in the wrong, but if it just doesn't come up, I fail to see how she is guilty of something. Is one really expected to bring up every possibly objectionable item from one's past before sleeping with someone? Even when it won't actually impact the other person to not know?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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