TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thesreynatwork Archive

View 4 posts and 76 comments by thesreynatwork 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

Sweden's.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 10:33 AM
6

Did you actually watch the report? This was actually very well presented, relevant and hardly the usual sensationalistic type of reporting that TT normally does. If we could encourage them to perform all their reporting in such a manner, we'd see a noticeable increase in good reporting.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 06:08 PM
3

I closed Tumblr in Action and came here. I had to check whether I still had TiA open, because of the absurdity of this woman's statements.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:18 AM
5

Well arguably MRM IS obfuscating, because there's a greater focus on egalitarianism than the name would suggest. I know I'm not articulating myself in the best way, I'll try and frame my main point more clearly: The phrase "Men's Rights Movement" is very pointed and direct. Taken at face value, it is a phrase that is most easily interpreted as "a movement that supports and works towards men's rights". To that end, it is not a phrase that inherently states "a movement that supports and works towa…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 02:23 PM
9

[Shrug] That's your opinion. I'm simply pointing out that the word "feminism" is a far more useful word in terms of attempting to obfuscate actual considerations of the movement than MRM or MHRM are. I would argue against your saying that women were borderline second class citizens after WW2. Did they have it worse than men? In some ways definitely. Overall? I don't feel confident making that judgement, I don't think anybody should be. It is a typical case that people over-look the sacrifices th…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:36 PM
13

It's something that often pops into my head when I'm just pottering around and thinking about conversations I might have in relatino to human rights. Feminism, a word that is definitely more ambiguous than "Men's Rights Movement" or "Men's Human Rights Movement" is amusingly not focused on egalitarianism (regardless of whether moderate feminists are or not). In contrast, MRM and MHRM are enormous proponents of egalitarianism, though it does tend to have a bit more of a focus on men, due to the n…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:07 AM
2

Before anyone gets seriously up in arms about this: It is an article written in 1999. Both Feminism and the MHRM have come a long way since then. It's not pleasant to see how we were represented back then but, much like the article claims the MHRM was, this can be attributed simply to backlash against competition. An attempt to cut the head of the snake before it had been properly birthed, perhaps. This is a heavily biased article, written at a time when even less research was available on mens …
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:34 PM
22

Wouldn't make it past the app censors, according to the article. "Make believe" Electrocute, mace, lash, slap a woman? Worse than Hitler. Do it to a man? FUCKING HILARIOUS AMIRITE GIRLZ?!
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:57 PM
8

Dude, you need to get Patriarchy Insurance. Even in the event of a Bear Market in the Patriarchy stocks, I still retain my majority share in Testosteriffic Pty. Ltd. and Oppression Inc.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 01:40 PM
1

Oh get stuffed. I love espionage, recognise the blatant inaccuracies of James Bond and still love those movies.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:21 AM
2

They were nothing but helpful to me when I posted my silly questions. They are very much against the concept of bro-science, and the routines that they endorse work very well. The comments that make it to the top tend to be either in-jokes or useful information (just like most other sub-reddits), so if you see a circlejerk over oats, it's not exactly "broscience", or them discrediting alternative points of view. It's just part of the regular subreddit circlejerk. To be fair to them, you have pos…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:20 AM
2

Well, all my time in sports there was usually only one adult around. Our coach for hockey, one of the various leaders (whoevers turn it was) for Scouts etc. And there were times when you would be alone with the adult, maybe they were providing emotional support, or talking about a problem away from the group or some such. I get the whole "no closed doors" thing, but I don't think we should have to be concerned about this sort of thing to the degree that we are. What about in schools? Plenty of o…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 03:47 AM
4

It's disappointing that we have to resort to having agreements like this, even though it is smart, given the current climate surrounding these issues. I'm honestly made sad by these sorts of events. I want to be a father at some point, but I am scared that I will nto be able to associate with my children and their friends in the same way that my father did when I was young. The idea of being a Cub/Scout/Venturer leader, like my father was when I was in the organisation, brings on concern about t…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:16 AM
2

Huh... that is a rather poignant way to clarify feminism. (Yes, I know it's from Conan.)
/r/MensRights19/01/13 12:45 AM
1

It's ok bro. They'll be better in Heart of the Swarm.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:54 AM
3

Well, I know what I'm watching when I get home.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:03 AM
6

Absolutely, and this is part of the problem, again with any advocacy group: only the most vocal are heard or are at the protests. In a lot of cases, the moderate voices are not moved to protest (though there are definitely cases where they are), so while they may identify as part of a given movement, they do not necessarily care for the internal politics or the actual direction of their movement, until it actually becomes negative nomenclature. And that's what's happening to feminism at the mome…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 07:13 AM
1

I hope you're right about the growing pains. I do think it's important that a united front is shown to new members however. We don't want this sort of thing clogging up the important messages and discussions we want in this subreddit.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:56 AM
–

I cannot agree with this enough. Feminism was (was) a good thing. It has been corrupted beyond belief however, by the waves of kiddy feminists and screaming shits that have decided they're entitled to everything. Not all feminists are like this. I would venture to say that a substantial portion are not and they are not the voices we hear. As with any advocacy group, the most vocal and most controversial minority are those who receive the screen-time and those who generate the most content. Men's…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:29 AM
–

Agreed. Shakespeare is quite good and I enjoyed it a lot, but I was very happy to have been assigned BNW during my high school days. It raises some significant issues and has some very good ideas. If only Huxley were a better writer. Ideas are fantastic though.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 10:30 PM
–

Explain why it's immoral, without using a religious argument. The caveat of not using a religious argument is that when attempting to explain a moral dilemma, it shouldn't be rooted in logical fallacies and hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:42 AM
–

Can someone summarise this for me? I can't look at ED at work.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 12:56 PM
25

Exactly, that's why I pointed it out. They're all happy to shout for equality when they're getting something, but remove one of their benefits and suddenly making things equal is only doing it for the sale of being equal. No fucking shit, feminists. That's what equality is about.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 08:44 AM
6

You're going to make/are being an excellent influence on this whole problem.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:46 AM
–

Article includes bonus use of "women r better than men at drive, science says so" as an argument to return to old standards.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:16 AM
1

Correct, her tumblr is quite satirical.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:20 AM
1

No, she was taking the piss out of feminism.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:19 AM
1

I'd like to read the full article, but don't have access to the full text at the moment. What immediately strikes me is that they've taken an undergraduate sample. Often this is a sign of conveniencing sampling, and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, if they've only done a survey on undergraduate women at the university which sponsored the study, this is less generalisable and a bit more specific. Still, a good stepping stone for future research, if so. That being said, is there a solid a…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 11:38 PM
-2

The way you're talking makes you an arsehole. Also, the fact that you linked statistics of "violent crime", which are not specifically gun-related, and also have nothing to do with the topic under discussion which is mass-shootings (which obviously involves the use of firearms), means that what you're saying has no bearing on my proposition for research into this particular phenomenon. Edit: In fact, you're falling victim to the very same problem that the "feminism causes mass-shootings" poster …
/r/MensRights17/12/12 07:08 PM
–

Yes, it says that it is conjecture. Yes, it says that research would need to be conducted. It also specifically says that it is not a proven statement, and that yes, it is conjecture, based on a logical proposition that could form the basis of research to test whether we can reject the null-hypothesis. You have done an admirable job of pointing out the obvious and acting like an arsehole. Kudos.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:57 PM
–

Read the sentence that literally follows right after that.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:43 PM
4

Also a fair point. There are so many things that could be correlated with an increase in shootings. It is so ridiculously important that people don't break the golden rule regarding correlation and causation. It can be very dangerous, and it's a tool often used by feminists in their arguments about men.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 05:16 PM
–

I think that you're breaking the golden rule: Correlation =/= Causation Alongside the rise of feminism, we saw the rise of the civilian-owned firearm. The ownership of personal firearms saw a dramatic increase during the previous century, and with the availability of firearms increasing, as well as the production levels being increased, ammunition being freely available, not to mention that many firearms remain in circulation, get passed around, get sold on etc. The increased prevalence of perso…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 05:11 PM
1

Oh my god, can someone please re-do the Toronto Feminists video with the Skyrim trailer music/speech and a bunch of Fus Ro Dah inserts?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 11:14 AM
–

I posted this because a little while ago I posted the article with the feminist pushing that women's wisdom will save the world from future tragedies like Sandy Hook. This was posted in the interest of fair exposure, to show that there are (sadly) tools on both sides who will try and push a political agenda in response to a recent tragedy. This isn't right, this isn't something we want to see, and this is definitely NOT something we want associated with the MRM.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:07 AM
16

Some people will say this is shitthatneverhappened.txt I don't care (and I'm inclined to believe you, though I'm skeptical of everything on the Internet), I think this was fucking hilarious. 10/10 would watch on Broadway.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 02:59 PM
1

Which is our nature, to be fair.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 02:31 PM
0

Ad hominem attacks. Cute :)
/r/MensRights16/12/12 08:27 AM
–

The first source is riddled with bias. It totes the national violence against women survey as being a superior method to the Conflict Tactics Scale, and the revised CTS, citing that framing of questions in the CTS is a critical downside, then straight up saying that the framing of questions towards victimisation by the NVWS is going to produce more reliable and valid results. Not only that, but this person is taking one survey, their own previous study and then re-examining their own previous st…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 07:11 AM
–

Condescension does not imply sexism. Way to throw out your attempt at a scary, feminist piece of straw man. The fact that you assume that somebody is being sexist, simply by refuting a point you have made that includes women, would be hilarious if it weren't sad. Now, why don't you go and find actual sources for these significant differences in processing, reactions and interactions between men and women. Make sure the significance levels are at least .05. Don't worry, I'll wait.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 05:52 PM
3

Twist: Funcuz's knowledge is about plates on which cookies are served.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 05:41 PM
6

Good lord this post is bloody perfect.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:57 AM
–

Heh, that is truly a fantastic piece of writing. I will have to read the rest. Of course, bring this to any feminist and they'll scream from the rooftops that this is a total exception. Statistics be damned.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:55 AM
–

Jesus christ, calm the fuck down. Not once did I mention gun control, but more importantly not once did she. The reason this post is here is because this woman is co-opting a tragedy which should be a springboard for discussion about gun control legislation into a "women better than men, if women ruled the world there'd be no wars" agenda. There is no proof or even any substantial evidence that women would govern differently from men, except if one were to put a hardcore feminist into power. His…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:53 AM
19

Of the 535 legislators between the House and the Senate, there are only 101 women, 20 in the Senate and 81 in the House. Irrelevant and a facile argument about a gender gap. Fewer women run for political office and running should not guarantee a win simply because you have ovaries. Women do approach the world differently. Women think differently, feel differently and react differently than men. Prove it. Beyond minor differences in brain structure and lateralisation, the only primary differences…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 06:59 AM
6

Get out of here with your facts.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 06:26 AM
14

I think you're confusing Reddit with the overall MRM. Reddit has always been a place where amusing and easy comments rise to the top. It's the very nature of them, given that they are typically short, to the point and designed to elicit a laugh, and as such they receive quick upvotes and amusing responses in return. Contrast this with well thought out commentary and deep, intelligent discussion. While arguably what reddit is more about, particularly in r/MensRights, it's still something that req…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 04:32 AM
2

That's what I was saying in my comment above.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 02:36 AM
–

I'm curious, you've asked this question but are, through your responses, essentially correcting what other people are answering you with. For example: But you have some people who feminism as a war on men, are rape apologists and suppot men being deadbeat dads. :\ The pro-sexism MRAs seem to be contradictatory. They want equal rights for men while at the same time want men to have the superiority? Because that's what traditional gender roles gave men. and Isn't manboobza feminist? Now, taking th…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:13 AM
2

You're going to hell and or capitalism.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:30 PM
–

MAth MAle 50% of the letters in math share 50% of the letters in male and of those letters they share 100% of the positioning requirements in the 4 letter words. maLE Male contains the letters L and E. Put together, they form Le, a slang term used on Reddit. Reddit is a misogynist website. At least 50% of math is therefore directly comparable to the word Male, which is associated with misogyny. Math confirmed for #1 oppressor 2012.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:24 PM
7

Statistics are fucking wonderful. People are fucking terrible. Most people with statistics are even worse.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:21 PM
2

You are missing the point entirely. By accusing Tony Abbot of misogyny so publicly and across such a ... respected forum as the Australian parliament, she is quite simply putting it forward as a defence she will use should she feel it is warranted. That is not IF it is warranted, it is if she feels it is, and she can now feel free to throw that accusation out at anyone she feels deserving. Using the misogyny argument in a political way is not just a means of trying to man-shame your opponent, bu…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 12:09 PM
–

Gillard's speech about Abbot's misogyny is what prompted Merriam-Webster to add a new definition to Misogyny, such that it is now also defined as a deep-seated negative prejudice towards women, in addition to straight up hatred of women. Abbot certainly hasn't been the most egalitarian in his approach to gender politics. There is a lot of debate over whether he is actually misogynistic or not, and with Gillard's speech it became much easier to label him as such. I am not a liberal supporter and …
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:50 AM
4

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you're being serious. Let me laugh even harder.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:10 PM
–

It is nothing more than a contract. A binding contract that serves no purpose in this day and age but to give legal precedent to discriminate against the male party if something goes wrong (unless you have a pre-nup). It is outdated and it is un-necessary. If you love someone, you don't need to affirm that before a court, or a church or anyone else. You certainly don't need to pledge the rest of your life to them, nor bind your entire future to them either.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:02 PM
1

Very true. My preference is to demonstrate how patriarchy theory is wrong to them, but of course that very rarely changes any minds. But I am concerned by the idea of validating their theories about the patriarchy and the like, even if it is only "well that's what you say about the patriarchy but".
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:04 PM
2

I am adding this comment simply to voice my support for what buster2209 has said. It resounds solidly with me, except perhaps for point 5: I personally think patriarchy theory is completely ridiculous and both the idea of it and reality are blown completely out of proportion, as another tool in the box of hyperbole that is typical feminist dialogue.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:36 AM
1

Didn't make sense to me either. Best I could come up with was that he was claiming I was lying in my previous statement. About what, no idea. So as I said, amazing use of straw man.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 08:23 AM
1

The statement specified in the image is quite black and white. This was not about a "social issue" this was simply "Men should have the right not to have a child if they don't want to". That is black and white.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 08:22 AM
15

I could swear predilection is trying to make a point, but all I can hear is "hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
/r/MensRights07/12/12 06:11 AM
2

Yeah, I realise that. It's certainly something I would do in a face-to-face conversation because I could inflect my tone with huge amounts of sarcasm. Sadly, that would be missing over the Internet. Your idea is a good one though.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:50 AM
3

A fair call that I over-reacted. I should have been more moderate in my approach. On the flip-side there's no way I would use any words that validate what he said. Being conciliatory is one thing, but given that he was trying to pass off something that hadn't even come close to prejudice, let alone misogyny, giving him any validation at all is in my opinion dangerous.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:39 AM
7

So absolutely ridiculous. This was a man I once respected for being open-minded, intelligent and quite knowledgeable. Then here he is spouting nothing but the same hyperbole and "misogynist shaming" crap that every un-informed feminist pleb on tumblr does. Sigh.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 02:56 AM
5

That's great and all, but let us be clear: The author has not cited a reference for their statistics. Certainly, I am not claiming that the video is anywhere near correct, but it is hypocritical to decry a statistical argument for poorly referencing stats when you yourself do not reference the stats. The article could be cleared up by stating whether the stated statistics are from the same survey that the video bases itself on, but then we have the same problem of using statistics that are 20 ye…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:46 PM
0

mcbain_that's_the_joke.jpg
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:11 AM
1

I do use the term Egalitarian :)
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:50 AM
–

No, a fancy way of saying you think men have it worse than women is to say "I'm an MRA". Yes that's generalising, I know, and I also know that the vast majority of MRA's realise that in some ways men have it better than women :) I like to think of it as MRA's being egalitarians and feminists being well... feminists. It would be nice if all feminists were instead, egalitarians, but then we wouldn't even have this problem would we?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 07:37 PM
–

I'm glad read things like this. I do have a question though: why call yourself a feminist? Why not call yourself an egalitarian?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 07:16 PM
0

Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say... Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is. Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you? Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other. Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it? Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is a…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:29 PM
2

I would also like to express my thanks for this positive story. I did notive something here though, about myself. All throughout reading this post I was apprehensive of what was about to happen, and thinking back on stories like this I have felt this sort of apprehension nearly every time. I have been conditioned to expect a negative outcome from any sort of story like this. This is dysfunctional, and it should not be. I remember when I was younger, I had no fear of interacting with children, no…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:38 PM
2

On this I completely agree with you. Seriously, every point of your post. I'd love it if diction were more accurately practiced, particularly in relation to this debate. The words misandry and misogyny and bantered around far too frequently and in largely incorrect circumstances. Something may be sexist, but that does not also make it misogynistic or misandristic. Those words are specifically defined by a hatred.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:18 PM
5

Ah I see. You're content to stick to the idea that what something is defined as is what happens in real life. That's cute. If feminism was actually what you're purporting it to be, it would not NEED to be called feminism. It could simply be called egalitarianism. Yet it is not. And its proponents, speakers, literature and held ideals uphold your definitions of feminism in exactly the same way that I have already outlined to you. I am willing to concede that the definition of feminism is differen…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:22 PM
3

Yeah, perhaps don't focus solely on reddit and actually go out and meet a cross-section of feminists. Also do some research on the way feminist literature and speakers promote misandry and the lack of equality. The definition you have put forth is inherently incorrect when you try and clarify it as equality. That's total, utter, absolute bullshit. "Equality for women" is not what feminism is pushing for at all because it refuses to acknowledge, let alone change, the enormous amount of influence …
/r/MensRights24/11/12 03:37 PM
7

The friend zone is not a real thing, that is one point the author has correct. However the associations with rape culture, misogyny and the threat of violence at the end takes any and all credibility away from the author. I want someone to call the author out on the last part, particularly. I want them to go up to the author, ask them what they would say if a man threatened them with violence, and then repeat it back to them word for word.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:58 AM
–

Perhaps not specifically misandry, and there are plenty of people out there who are more "equalists" than they are "feminists". But there is a lot of hatred towards men that is propagated by feminism literature and speakers, and this carries over to many of its 'disciples'. Not to mention the blatant inequality of women over men that feminism pushes.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 10:43 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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