TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thunder_mcshock Archive

View 0 posts and 114 comments by thunder_mcshock 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

Just a few hours ago she got back from whatever thing she was at with a fairly new HD camcorder. I forget exactly how she told me she got it. Might have been a gift from an acquaintance who had the same thought as the commenter. Seems like the video quality issue's been dealt with, as long as the thing functions right.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 07:13 AM
1

Hitler ate sugar. Sugar is rape.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:07 AM
10

I would tell you that, but even with your enthusiastic verbal consent, it would still be challenging your opinions, which is rape.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 10:24 PM
0

Why 'cashier' and not 'everything a capitalist society needs to function including but not limited to cashiers'? Answer: Because there are too few 'cashiers' and way too many 'everything else'. note - cashiers probably aren't actually in short supply but you get what i'm trying to say
/r/MensRights23/07/13 01:38 AM
13

You've got a minor in baloney. /sprays with hose
/r/MensRights18/07/13 05:40 AM
9

Fun Fact: girlwriteswhat's page is linked in Men Are The Expendable Gender and Men Are Generic, Women Are Special, under New Media.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:51 PM
2

Well, I for one don't, but for a different reason than you're trying to bait out here. I don't feel like I can, in good faith, call myself an "activist" for much of anything when I don't contribute to any cause to a meaningful extent. And on that note, I can tell you what the difference is between the feminist and MRA labels. One of them is a label based on ideology, the other based on action. Do you eat? You are an eater. Do you work? You are a worker. Do you engage in activism for the cause of…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 10:01 PM
11

And I thought I already explained that the list of benefits is almost entirely bunk? Respected institutions are not impervious to ideological bias. I recall there was a little kerfuffle surrounding the Southern Poverty Law Centre that demonstrates this quite clearly.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 10:54 AM
16

Great, you keep on congratulating yourself about how much not having to take ten seconds to clean your dick in the shower matters, while the rest of us handle stopping infants' human rights from being violated for no reasonable benefit. Sound good?
/r/MensRights26/05/13 10:16 AM
8

Not so much an expert as someone who can see it when it's really bloody obvious, and also see when institutions are parroting the shit science's results as a legit possibility. It seems pretty obvious that someone up high has a serious and relevant bias. If pointing that out constitutes an opinion, then so be it.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 09:44 AM
11

Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on. A lot of these uncirc infections are from hospital staff and parents just plain not knowing how a foreskin works. The foreskin doesn't retract until around puberty and they think by pulling it back to clean it they're doing the kid a favor. All it does is expose …
/r/MensRights26/05/13 09:16 AM
15

All those things are defects that impede natural function, and it is in the objectively best interest of the child to have that corrected. Circumcision is the opposite. Would you be justifying lopping the outer ears of infants off because cleaning behind the ears is easier when there's no ears?
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:49 AM
17

Circumcision actually correlates positively with premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:05 AM
1

Don't count on it being taken seriously in that case, though.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 08:24 AM
3

I used to get a stiffie every day just before noon, like clockwork, without fail, for no apparent reason. I don't think your mom knows how male sexual organs work.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 06:53 AM
4

They should not have responsibility placed upon them by default. If they choose to take on responsibility, though, they should have corresponding rights.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 07:04 AM
2

No, see, they don't say that, they just half-heartedly acknowledge the guide, quietly employ the tactics anyway, and leave after getting called on it mumbling something about 'misogyny' and 'angry men not getting anything done with a tone like that'.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:24 PM
4

Of course feminism got branded by anti-feminists. In response to the willful ignorance and hypocritical words and actions from feminists.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 07:09 AM
1

Popping bubbles of grease getting on their skin and burning them I assume. In such a case, though, why would we care how they felt about makin' bacon? We already chained them to the stove in bikinis.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:55 AM
3

How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three. One to screw it in, one to berate the bulb for failing to get enthusiastic consent before screwing and another to comfort the socket in light of its terrible trauma. Then the latter two excommunicate the former for supporting rape of light bulb sockets.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:23 AM
1

Negative seventeen percent of those zero reported rapes will be fabricated. After all, women never lie about rape. They don't lie so hard that their word should statistically be considered more true than the truth.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:23 AM
9

That isn't even the least. Muslim groups were willing to downgrade their rituals from horrific mutilation to the equivalent of a papercut and their proposal received a resounding "no".
/r/MensRights26/03/13 10:33 AM
3

Yes because hate or supremacy movements are always honest in identifying themselves.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:35 PM
13

Just a small note here--GWW specifically supports a system where a man can opt into parental obligations until the aforementioned cutoff point, rather than out of. Under an opt-out system, all a vengeful woman needs to do to is just not make him aware of the pregnancy until she can't get an abortion and he's on the hook. Plus, as she says, why should use of a condom and/or affirmation that birth control has been applied on the woman's side (one or both of which fail, resulting in a pregnancy) be…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 11:15 AM
3

You can be simultaneously a human and an ostrich, depending on how you personally define "ostrich". Just don't expect people to agree with or adopt your definition, or to avoid calling ostriches flightless birds because that's unfairly painting them with a broad brush.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:20 AM
5

May as well ask if cashiers want the economy to collapse because they aren't individually covering all the bases required for a functioning economy, such as production of goods. The label "MRA" is a descriptor based on something somebody does. If an MRA (or indeed, a WRA) wants to achieve gender equality by doing a certain thing (such as, well, advocating for the rights of men or women where they happen to be lacking), that doesn't make them hypocrites any more than the cashier who isn't simulta…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:58 AM
2

Mind you, this is after their report on MRA websites was widely criticized as shit journalism and they found they needed to save as much face as they could.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:23 PM
6

Yes, in the same way you could be both an ostrich and a human if your personal definition of "ostrich" is something other than a certain species of flightless bird, against all evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 10:25 AM
13

As I understand it, the figure is relative. The F-to-M transmission rate goes from something like 1% to .4%. That doesn't sound good enough, though, so they rephrase it. To say nothing of the thorough assfucking they had to give the scientific method in order to produce that statistic in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:55 PM
1

Generally "concern trolling" is used here to describe something like this... Someone comes onto the subreddit expressing sympathy for many of the issues we discuss, but at the same time disdain for both the 'angry' language we sometimes use and for the imagined misogyny we engage in en masse (as well as, occasionally, for our discussion of a few specific issues usually falling under anti-feminism), and recommends tuning it down in order to cultivate a less negative reputation and foster communic…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 08:54 AM
7

Thus, Rape Culture. Oh my God, I think this may be their plan.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 01:39 AM
5

I should be able to throw my child into heavy traffic because I've deluded myself into feeling that there are benefits to this.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 03:22 AM
-1

If you wanna get technical, it's both. Just like my pet is both a dog and an animal.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 09:17 AM
23

"People don't tend to 'get' things that don't make sense."
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:26 AM
6

The aesthetic merits of cut dick are hardly objective. Even in America, rates seem to be going down IIRC and the schism is approaching 50/50. Compared to, say, flaying the nose off, slashing open an eye and cutting out the left cheek and sewing it back on wrong, which is universally considered a degradation of appearance. As for function, you're trading slightly more ease of cleaning (seriously it's like ten seconds in the shower) for nervous and mechanical functions that make sex easier and bet…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:08 AM
20

Simultaneously rapists and virgins.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 12:29 PM
1

Good thing nobody's making the claim that the heat in Florida is just as bad as the cold on Pluto. Just that neither cold nor hot environments are ideal, and that everyone should have the right to an ideal environment that they can pack up and move from should they individually choose.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:01 AM
13

IIRC, they also supplied condoms and sex education to the circ group that weren't given to the controls. I'm pretty sure they also ended the study before a lot of the later (read: a good amount of the late-starting circ group) infections could be detected and recorded. I'm almost tempted to make the assertion that, if they had to compensate so heavily only to produce such a tiny result in their favor, I wouldn't be surprised if, as it turns out, circumcision actually increased the transmission r…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:01 AM
11

Where was circumcision mentioned? Or Type III female genital mutilation, for that matter? That comment was about male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation. Of course you can make the equivocation of two spectrums seem unreasonable when you choose not to compare the same points on both spectrums. 'Hot places are much easier to live on than cold places. I mean, Florida is a cakewalk compared to Pluto. Complaining about the heat where you live is diminishing the terrible life experience…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:45 AM
12

Remember, guys, feminists are for equality. /s
/r/MensRights26/09/12 12:40 AM
6

Ask her what rights men have that women don't. Legal ones. Make her list them in bullets. Then make your own bullet list of legal rights women have that men don't. It will almost certainly be longer. Swap lists. Discuss.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 06:07 AM
7

You should be against male circumcision, then, since the foreskin is around 20000 nerve endings worth of "actual feel good stuff".
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:10 AM
3

Apparently the presence of fruit makes a thing a vegetable, according to whatever court ruled on the issue. I wonder what else this applies to... Maybe someone can get twinkies on a school lunch menu as a vegetable by serving them with applesauce?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 12:31 AM
6

According to the US, pizza is classified as a vegetable on account of the tomato sauce or something nonsensical like that. Someone I knew photoshopped "Pizza is vegetable" underneath a screenshot of the famous 1984 motto when the whole debacle was the new thing going on. Just a bit of an in-joke. Now whenever someone references that, my brain defaults to "pizza is vegetable".
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:46 PM
18

Pizza is vegetable.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 10:54 PM
2

We won't be the stereotypical asshole user who gets in your pants and then dumps you because we know that that's like painting a target on our chest?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:34 AM
4

They already have a rationalization in the tubes and ready to fire at a moment's notice. Patriarchal brainwashing. Whenever a woman does something bad, a man, men, or presence of maleness made her do it. Leave it to feminists to assume women are psychologically inferior sheep when it can be used to distract from the sound of their dogma collapsing.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 08:16 AM
10

It's also funny because default mother custody was a feminist initiative backed by feminists, and under "outdated beliefs about gender roles" father custody was the default.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 08:45 PM
4

In the same way I'm "scared" of dying of suffocation while on Jupiter. Both finding myself on Jupiter sans spacesuit and marriage are completely avoidable, so it's not something to get paranoid about. "Oooh what if I'm walking alone at night and someone grabs me, pulls me into an alley and marries me"-- no, that doesn't happen.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:23 AM
7

Convenient. You know, I've never actually met an MRA that even gets the basic definition of patriarchy right. It's really dimmed my views on being able to have a good faith discussion when you don't even understand teh concept you're trying to refute. Now I'm curious. How would you define Patriarchy, then, since you know it better than us?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:34 PM
4

Badly phrased on my part--many MRAs are anti-feminist (both groups that I am a part of, hence "us" and "we") because they have read feminist texts and studied feminist history. I am, unfortunately, not one of those particular anti-feminist MRAs, but I know several who are, including girlwriteswhat. I like to take the side that generally makes an effort to be intellectually honest, something that feminists have consistently failed to do.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:26 PM
9

And many of us are anti-feminist precisely because we've read the feminist texts and studied feminist history and realized that this "feminism is 4 equalty" is borderline 1984 shit.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:08 PM
6

I can say I personally fought in WWII and defeated the Nazis with nothing but my left testicle, but that doesn't make it true, no matter how many morons who didn't study WWII choose to stubbornly believe it.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:04 PM
2

No big deal. Bookmarking that gif, by the way. It's hilarious.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 06:45 PM
3

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was caricaturizing the standard "moderate feminist" that we get around here, precisely the type you are referring to. Agreeing with you, essentially. "Moderate feminists" are only feminists in the same way that a person may persistently refer to themselves as an ostrich instead of a person.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 06:39 PM
2

Hey guys, not all ostriches are flightless birds with an exceptional run speed! Some ostriches are primates identical to human beings! I'm evidence of that! Saying ostriches are birds is unfairly painting ostriches with a broad brush! What? What do you mean, 'you're not an ostrich, you're a human'? To me, ostriches are primates identical to humans, and those bird ostriches aren't real ostriches. EDIT: That's what "moderate feminists" sound like.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 06:10 PM
15

"Hey baby, you okay? This hurting?" baby sits there in psychedelic shock, can't reply "Must not bug 'im then."
/r/MensRights22/08/12 01:45 AM
13

It's funny because it's literally incorrect. Like, 'believing that WWII was won by a faction of anthropomorphic watermelons' incorrect. Under "patriarchy", the assumption was default father custody, because the father was generally considered the parent most able to provide resources to the unit, and a unit cannot survive without a flow of resources. It wasn't until feminists put the tender years doctrine into place that custody defaulted to the mother, and to this day feminist lobby groups figh…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:16 PM
1

Not "okay". "...better than [a viscous beating if he blows his shit at repeated and prolonged sleeping-bear-poking]." Being less bad than another thing does not automatically qualify a thing for goodness.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:58 PM
7

Muslim extremists aren't teaching in muslim studies post-secondary courses or successfully preaching to first-world governments, and they certainly don't hold a tight monopoly on religious practice and discussion worldwide.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 11:33 PM
13

Many of us, including girlwriteswhat, are anti-feminist precisely because we understand feminism more than most feminists.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 11:06 PM
9

We've done away with a multitude of other "religious traditions with theological justification" on basis of gross barbarism. Why should yours be different?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 05:50 AM
10

Muslims in America tried to use the same argument to get their religious exemption. It did not work. Why should it work for you guys? I don't live in America, but I've been told that the only thing going against the constitution in this situation is the fact that boys aren't receiving the same protection as girls.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 05:36 AM
6

Why, though? You have yet to justify your stance. Why is it that you think a religious exemption should be granted for the amputation of healthy, functioning tissue but not for a small wounding that heals back into initial working order, provided the former is performed on a boy.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 05:26 AM
14

Muslims asked for a religious exemption for their female genital rituals. They even offered to abolish the much-abhorred practices of clitoral removal and such things in favor of a pinprick, just barely enough to draw blood, that would make the lasting physical damage negligible. We said no to both proposals. Why do you think we should say yes to yours?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 12:15 AM
1

Ask her what legal rights men have that women don't.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 06:02 AM
1

I remember having a discussion with a feminist a while back, and the subject of the wage gap came up. Essentially, my response was that the nature of the gap meant that the responsibility for closing it fell entirely on women's end. They linked multiple studies showing a wage gap and I was able to instantly refute most of them because of the way the data was gathered or presented. One was more difficult. I actually went out of my way to say this was the first study supporting the feminist conclu…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 01:33 AM
3

And those "true" MRAs will be defined by their violent and abhorrent behavior. "True" being in quotes for a reason. Difference is, "MRAs" like that, whether they claim to be the "true" MRAs or not, are almost immediately disowned by the rest of the movement, so it's very difficult to claim that they are "true" MRAs.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 07:18 AM
4

Yes, we all know the dictionary definition of feminism. I prefer to define a movement by the actions it takes. "True" feminism, then, is defined by the amount of time it takes out of its day to scream "NAFALT!" whenever someone criticizes the tangible, anti-male actions of the productive feminists.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 05:39 AM
3

So the productive feminists aren't the true feminists?
/r/MensRights08/08/12 04:13 AM
13

useless I do not think this word means what you think it does, Herr Forehead.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 09:12 AM
8

Really, if they aren't practising the hygiene needed to wash under their foreskin, there's a good chance that they pretty much aren't practising hygiene, period.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:39 AM
14

Oh, but just think! That's 400 possible cases of HIV that have been prevented as a direct result of this procedure! Or something! It reduces your chance of getting HIV! /s
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:36 AM
4

Ask her to explain the various ways in which newborn boys who are more interested in mechanical objects and newborn girls who are more interested in faces have been victimized by gender role brainwashing.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:18 AM
4

My mom is rather active on the MRM side of the gender issues schism. Evidently, you've already heard of her. I already wasn't wholly buying into the feminist narrative, and through our discussions I realized that nearly all of it was horsecrap and harmful to a certain half of the human race that I happen to be a part of.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:21 AM
5

Rape should be treated differently because Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:15 AM
6

You still haven't answered the question.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:33 AM
3

I would reverse the process by which feminism came about. That is, I would make it look at the complete picture of reality and draw conclusions based on that, rather than start with a conclusion and search desperately for any and all fragments of reality that support the conclusion. If this were the case, feminism would not exist, because everyone would know better.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:44 AM
6

The nice feminists were all busy telling us that not all feminists are like that.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 01:50 AM
10

Meanwhile, in Imaginationland, where you fart where you burp, you burp where you fart, and everything in the above post is fact and based on sound reasoning and the entire body of evidence...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 01:43 AM
5

Feminism is deserving of hate for the monopoly it holds on gender discussion that it uses to push its gynocentric agenda and for the multiple times it has gotten in the way of MRAs attempting to pursue their goals. Feminists are not necessarily deserving of hate, as they may genuinely mean well and have simply been misled by the fundamentally flawed concepts feminism is built on. As I like to put it, I don't usually hate the feminist, but I always hate the fact that the feminist is a feminist.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 04:29 AM
7

Excuse to be a dickhead? I actually laughed, and not in a "this guy's a moron" way but in a dramatic irony way. Not knowing him, that was an understandable response. If it helps paint a clear enough picture of him, I once brought up to my mom that her boyfriend was so motherfucking RESPECTFUL. All the time. That he was so respectful to everyone in his life that it almost sickened me how well he could handle himself compared to me. His supervisor at one of his old jobs once blew up on him for an …
/r/MensRights27/07/12 06:50 AM
11

Having gone through the process yourself, as I said, is part of the problem. By continuing the cycle, despite evidence against it, you will validate your own protective reinterpretation of the harm that was done to you as an infant. That, and you only have an 'after' shot. Sure, the 'after' works, but I can almost guarantee that the 'before' shot worked better. The only one who can even make an educated guess is a man who grew up with a foreskin and later chose to have it done, and he still does…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 06:14 AM
10

Lack of sex? True. Of course, you then go on to assume that it's the root of my position in this debate. "You need to get laid," essentially. Really, the lack of sex doesn't bother me one bit, as most of what I can get with sex I can emulate with my own two hands without the gamble with odds of pregnancy and odds that what I just stuck my dick in turned out to be the oft-referenced 'crazy' that you shouldn't stick your dick in. Irrational anger and hate? Anger and hate, maybe, although I'd like …
/r/MensRights27/07/12 05:57 AM
7

Was that supposed to be ironic?
/r/MensRights27/07/12 05:27 AM
3

The piercing and especially the removal of the clitoris, mind you, is the sort of thing that should totally be illegal, and we aren't saying it should be legal. But just as the slightest, most inconsequential tampering with the vagina is and should be illegal (this isn't referring to the clit-butchering, but to the alternative proposed by Muslim groups), so too should it be illegal to tamper even slightly with the penis. Without urgent medical need or consent, at least.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 05:16 AM
15

When Muslim practices of FGM were being banned in developed western nations, some Muslim groups spoke up with "Hey, we're totally fine with this as long as we can still do rituals with the female genitalia that aren't nearly as bad as what we're doing now. Say, we take a knife, and instead of cutting off the clit with it, we take the tip of the knife or whatever we would use and make a little cut on, say, the lips. Just enough to draw a tiny bit of blood, nothing is removed, and it heals nicely.…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 04:58 AM
4

Yeah, I've seen that claim contested but considering that jokes about it even exist, it's probably common enough. Some women who have had both cut and uncut guys who don't have any other huge differences (experience, hygiene) find that uncut guys give better P-in-V intercourse because of both the reduced friction the foreskin gives and the fact that, with more nerve endings in the foreskin, the guy doesn't have to pound like a jackhammer in order to cum and can instead focus more on making it en…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 04:34 AM
13

You keep fleeing the fact that pricking the genitalia to just the degree that blood is drawn and then leaving well enough alone is just as illegal. Explain how having a piece of your dick chopped off under no anaesthetic and losing the mechanical and nervous functions it provides is better than a small papercut that heals back into normal working order.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 04:26 AM
13

You say the foreskin is meaningless as if it doesn't have a purpose. You say we're disregarding your beliefs and family history as if your beliefs and your family history, or rather the parts of them being debated, are justifiable and aren't barbaric and a tumor that should have been removed ages ago. You say you're fighting for your rights as a parent as if your rights extend to the pointless mutilation of infants, and as if the infant's rights don't extend to protection from pointless mutilati…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 04:21 AM
5

Money saved that might have perhaps been spent on lube for fapping? I hear it's a bit less convenient for cut guys to fap without outside lubrication, sometimes.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 04:06 AM
5

In my personal opinion, I would allow the 15-year-old an abortion because the unwanted pregnancy wasn't meant to happen and having a kid at that age has the potential to turn her life upside-down. Foreskins, however, are meant to happen and not having a circumcision won't turn his life upside-down.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:56 AM
15

That is the age where they feel no pain Studies have shown that infants are actually hypersensitive to pain, and infant circumcision has been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:51 AM
4

Explain that this is in the same class as her having her clitoris removed. I would rather ask her to try and explain why a pinprick, just enough to draw blood, is just as illegal as the justifiably-illegal removal of the clitoris, while the removal of the functioning foreskin is totally okay.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:49 AM
6

The problem is, saying humans aren't supposed to have six fingers and saying boys aren't supposed to have foreskin are different in that one of them is demonstrably true and the other demonstrably false.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:34 AM
12

Vaccinations have no lasting negative side effects and proven, significant, quantifiable long-and-short-term benefits. Circumcision does not.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:29 AM
9

Humans aren't supposed to have six fingers, though. If they have six fingers, something is wrong that should be corrected.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:24 AM
10

It's actually the opposite. Commonly, circumcision is justified by the assumption that the boy will get savagely bullied when he has to strip in the locker room or shower and the other boys see his wang. This seems pretty much exactly the opposite of what happens, in my experience. The boy paying that much attention to dicks that aren't his own was always the one to get savagely made fun of because it made him look 'gay'. Thus, I find it retarded to justify a harmful and pointless procedure usin…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 02:19 AM
16

Congratulations, you've figured out the problem we're trying to fix.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 02:01 AM
9

Indeed. While circumcision is a procedure, FGM (and, incidentally, MGM) is a spectrum of various procedures. Some varieties (e.g. a pinprick that leaves the genitalia functionally intact) are objectively less damaging than circumcision. These are also illegal when performed on females without consent.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 01:04 AM
3

Consider that female genital mutilation is illegal on grounds of barbaric-ness and violation of the female's human rights, no matter to what degree it is performed. I recall, after we collectively found out such things were happening and subsequently had a justified shitfit to get it banned in developed western nations, many of the people practising it attempted to opt for a compromise that would put their FGM rituals far below circumcision in the unnecessary-physical-and-structural-damage depar…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:59 AM
2

'Equality' is the excuse the purest feminists use to deflect scrutiny, and in the process they have picked up a lot of people who take that at face value and are genuinely interested in pursuing that imaginary goal.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 06:25 AM
1

Feminist responses seem to generally fall in a range from "I won't stop you but it's not my problem" to "MISOGYNY". Somewhere between apathy and staunch, instant, hyperzealous opposition, depending on the issue and the feminist. There are a precious few outliers who explicitly show their support for us on many of our issues, but I like to think that those people are only feminists in the same way that I might persistently refer to myself as an ostrich, despite objectively being a human.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 03:52 AM
2

The fact that it's totally legal to fellate an infant is bad enough. The fact that it's only legal if you do it after having sliced off a piece of the infant's genitals under inadequate anaesthetic, if anaesthetic is present at all, makes me want to empty my medicine cabinet into my body.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 06:58 AM
2

To rape you have to have a penis, so this scenario is impossible. Therefore, it is already not rape, and basically the only thing that cannot possibly be twisted into some kind of rape. /s
/r/MensRights07/07/12 09:38 PM
6

Of all the things, this is the best thing.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:16 PM
5

Generally, this justification seems to be brought up with the assumption that the kid will be teased and/or bullied because of his different-looking junk. As someone who has had some limited experience with this sort of situation (occasions where young boys are nekkid together may be more common in the States than where I am?) I can pretty safely assume that the boys who are paying that much attention to other boys' junk are more likely to be the ones teased and/or bullied on account of standard…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 04:36 AM
6

Better question. Why haven't we done so already?
/r/MensRights04/07/12 05:14 AM
16

women get paid less because in general they work less dangerous and/or demanding jobs, that require less time invested as a prerequisite, for fewer regular hours, and take more time off for one reason or another Continued F-ing-TFY
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:33 AM
7

Because the very fact that such a thing is legal is infringing upon the right of male, but not female, infants to bodily integrity. A lot of circumcised men claim to not be bugged by it. If you ask me, it's always some mixture of protective reinterpretation (who wants to live with the idea that your parents had you mutilated as a baby for no reason? Much nicer to think of it as beneficial cosmetic surgery that removes the oh-so-daunting task of cleaning under it periodically) and not knowing wha…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 04:27 AM
2

While I wouldn't say I hate a person because they are a feminist (at least when there are other factors to consider), I do hate the fact that said hypothetical person is a feminist, and feminism in general. There are two types of feminists in my book: the first, bigoted and in a position of some influence, that fight against any effort by the MRM or its individual advocates to achieve equality in areas where men are shortchanged, and the second, quite possibly well-meaning, not truly bigoted to …
/r/MensRights22/06/12 06:40 PM
5

Not to mention the fact that circumcision's so popular in certain areas nowadays because the Corn Flakes guy started endorsing it as an effective means of preventing masturbation in boys.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 07:51 AM
6

So, not ignorance, not even willful ignorance, but willful doing of exactly the wrong thing because you are aware if the "thing" part but refuse to accept the "wrong" part, no matter how empirical the evidence or how convincing the arguments, as doing so would force you to face an uncomfortable truth about yourself and other relevant individuals.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 05:24 AM
8

"I have been told the many reasons why this procedure is not a good idea and I choose to ignore them because the idea that my dick might have been maliciously tampered with makes me insecure." That's the feeling I'm getting from this.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:57 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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