TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

turinturambar Archive

View 0 posts and 123 comments by turinturambar 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)
1

Great! As before, I still haven't saved my relationship, but I am taking daily steps to becoming a person who can. I hope to be in shape to initiate contact with my partner in the next couple of weeks.
/r/Divorce_Men12/08/22 02:54 AM
2

Hello. Good step doing the marriage counseling. I trust you'll find the right path for yourself. I am in process of taking Geoffrey Setiawan's course. I like the content (to me it's an amalgamation of info based on psychology, communication, and philosophy that you could find online, but would likely take a long time to draw together cohesively). I like the lack of reliance on both partners coming to the table (to start with). I haven't yet "saved" my relationship, but I can feel the internal gr…
/r/Divorce_Men21/06/22 06:20 PM
5

To think about it in a more positive way -- by not being a bitch, and by not splitting hairs, you are increasing your own value. Which is something you'd want to keep maintaining and heightening throughout your relationship.
/r/seduction10/03/22 09:51 PM
2

This commenter clearly don't have the most upvotes here, but I agree with them. It's not about whether what the waiter did was "scummy" or not. The waiter isn't part of your daily life. Your gf is. And your thoughts are. And do you want your thoughts to sit on how some other guy might be contacting your gf, or instead on how to work on whatever it is you find interesting, and whatever interests you about your partner? Choose your hard.
/r/seduction09/03/22 06:12 PM
2

Oh, I misunderstood what you wrote. You're saying that you didn't apply the thinking behind these biases to your current situation. I thought you were saying that you weren't biased in this situation. Got it -- that makes sense. It's very natural for us to not think of these biases, and that's why they are biases -- everyone falls for them, including me. Again, I'm not saying she is or isn't interested. But I would say that being interested (ie, being open minded) makes me more interesting to an…
/r/seduction08/03/22 08:07 PM
1

Glad to help! > I know these bias and didn’t applied them on this specific situation How would you know?
/r/seduction08/03/22 07:54 PM
1

So, she sent you two messages a few days after you sent yours, and you don't want to open them. Because you deduced that she didn't respond to your messages right away (which you define to be within a few hours maybe?), because she's not that interested in you. It's common for our minds to come to a conclusion when in an uncertain situation (because the uncertainty really bothers our minds!). And that conclusion has to look rational to you. But all along, you could be far from understanding, bec…
/r/seduction08/03/22 07:29 PM
1

This is great to me -- but the key point is, how do you feel about saying it, and why? To me, emotional safety is the bedrock of a successful relationship. Telling her you feel this way is a good thing. The key fear you seem to have is being misinterpreted. So maybe you can write it out, think about how you'd work around that fear -- maybe by explicitly telling her what you don't mean, and what you do mean?
/r/seduction26/02/22 10:24 PM
2

Did you have any conversation at all with her about whether you were exclusively dating? She seems to need some help on conversation and relationship skill and some help dealing with personal issues. You'd need to lead her with patience and love and gain her trust, and enjoy the ride of ups and downs you'll inevitably face in your relationship with her. If you feel incapable of looking past her actions, let her go.
/r/seduction23/12/21 08:58 AM
7

You were manipulated into having sex with him. It was certainly very wrong, and it was definitely sinful to do what he did. He mentally tortured you by telling you that it never happened. And he wanted to have sex with you again, and manipulated you into it. It was devious, and it was exploitation of your emotions towards him, really. You haven't told us how old he was, but if he was above 18 it would probably be statutory rape. It certainly requires some follow-up, and I can understand that you…
/r/MensRights29/07/12 07:57 AM
0

Well, any man that sacrifices his life for a woman isn't doing it because of something in the woman's nature. He's doing it because of his own nature. EDIT: I'm being downvoted for this. Did you simply think the comment was without substance? Let me explain. "Any man that sacrifices his life for a woman is a fool BECAUSE it's not a woman's nature to do the same for him." You can say the same of many men that some men sacrifice their lives for. Does this make them fools in your eyes? It is becaus…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 08:54 AM
8

TLDR: I apologize. I sincerely do. I take that apology back. You're simply a weak man/child who can't run your own life. I've had sex with over 50 women (best estimate), a few of them dozens (and a couple of them hundreds) of times and I don't think any of them would call me mutilated. Yet somehow even with all the girls you fuck you find the time to write a rant this on the internet to a random guy you barely know, insulting him without having the balls to do it in person to his face. Let's all…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:02 AM
2

Valor and heroism will remain as long as we remember men like these, and be inspired by their actions.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:56 AM
1

Also, circumcision doesn't do a damn thing in HIV protection nor does it have an effect on any ailment for that matter. Yes, I know. But I think this study is good because for those people who stubbornly believe HIV contagion can be prevented by mass circumcision, this research shows they are not even justified money-wise. Hence, I think the study was fine. The fact that some people saw the need to get researchers to address it is another matter entirely. On the flip side, they also state this: …
/r/MensRights16/06/12 01:50 AM
0

No, I think their study was fine. I could be wrong, but it looks like they are merely using the term "mandatory" to suggest a scenario where all Americans were circumcised, and then figure out how much more prevalent the spread of HIV would be. So yeah. This is actually good. I once had to argue with someone about how there is no medical benefit to circumcision, and had trouble because people try to apply the WHO mandate to the US. Articles like this actually prove that medically speaking, circu…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:46 AM
0

This is completely ridiculous for a college... What were her qualifications? Can you link to any public class materials page?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:30 AM
24

Yeah, sometimes the double standards are just boggling. And the worst part is that she claims not to have them. I'm just going to hope that she is basing her opinion of MRAs out of pure ignorance of forums like this one, and not malice.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 09:00 AM
3

I saw this after my reply to another comment, and yours has given me a different perspective. I thought the point was that the author has seen men in a class respond to this kind of "jerk" to stop it, but that this didn't happen in the class of mostly women, sort of like men having a cultural "immunity" to this. I hadn't thought of the article this way. But it still does tie into what I was saying were benefits of teaching programming to women and men separately. If men are used to a particular …
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:48 AM
1

If you actively classify the classroom into "minority" and "majority" members based on your own discretion, then sure, gender could play a role. How about a twist on what you said? The guy was in the minority, because he was in a women's class. That made him uncomfortable and he wanted to be recognized, despite being in the minority. I don't think you'd agree with that interpretation, but really I don't care nor do I actively subscribe to that interpretation either. My point is that by saying su…
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:42 AM
2

This. Some people merely like hashing out their arguments, and can appear brash on the outside. But some of these same people can also be adept at criticizing their own viewpoints, and changing them after some thought.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 06:34 AM
0

You have no basis for claiming that women benefit more from getting men to do their bidding, and even if you did you do not have basis for claiming women are less intelligent, lazier, and more cruel. And please, don't evoke evolution in such general context, without any reference.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 11:15 PM
7

This is mean, untrue, and can easily be replaced by the word "men" and "him" in place of "women" and "her".
/r/MensRights10/06/12 09:31 PM
29

Maybe I'm a little more optimistic than others on this thread, but I think that just arguing on the basis of that factoid, in the setting of a single argument, isn't enough to judge her. Remember that the main thing you (and she) would have to deal with, like in any argument, is ego. Try to remove as much of this as possible from your discourse with her, and see if she reciprocates. Remember that "winning" this argument means getting her to understand she may have been wrong about it, even thoug…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 09:20 PM
1

I'm not denying the WHO is wrong, and I know plenty of sources on this to back me up -- but the problem is that the WHO is such an authoritative source. Lay people don't read medical journals or try to assess how many scientists are for or against a particular hypothesis. People want small factoids, and the WHO statement is a strong one. Btw, their recommendation was far more general and vague than just "adult men in high-HIV areas" from what I remember. ... interesting. The link no longer exist…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 09:01 PM
1

It's painful that the UN supports this. When I try to argue for medical reasons (cost vs benefit) against circumcision, it's hard to argue against an official mandate by the WHO. I have to fall back on ethical reasons.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:49 PM
26

First, I think the author has a point. Men and women could learn in different ways, and benefit from different kinds of classroom environments. This could be the reason behind the formation of such women-only groups for programming. Second, I think your concern is that the "jerk" is being made out to be like all men. To be honest, while reading the article, I was surprised he/she ended up in a gender-education discussion... I have faced numerous such "jerks" in college and work environments, and…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:45 PM
1

The only pandering I saw in her talk was the disclaimer at the beginning, but it may have been a good thing considering how the audience was more attuned to talking about girls' problems. Honestly, most social issue speakers at Ted pander to their audience so they can relate in some way.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:59 AM
3

Yes - to whatever comfortable degree.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 03:45 AM
2

I agree with your points, I just want to comment on your post for your future reference: Babies can't; they're all instincts. ... You've talked about the special problems babies face after a surgery, and how this is different from performing a surgery on an adult. I think you actually missed writing a critical point here. When you break your arm, you are giving consent for treatment -- in other words you accept why you are being treated. It's not just that babies can't understand -- it's that th…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:27 AM
1

I hope I'm not underthinking what you wrote, maybe you had a deeper meaning. There's a difference between wanting more rights, and wanting the upperhand. The former could be a genuine situation where feminists want more rights for a certain party of people, and the latter is wanting to have the upperhand over a certain party of people.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 12:42 PM
1

Wow, I had heard of this woman years ago, and had heard profound respect and praise being showered on her. Not knowing better I felt the same way about her. Now I see this article from her, and it's like it was written by someone bitter and angry, not willing to devote any substance to her idea. But what's worse is the people who cheer her on in the name of feminism. They, along with her, have lost the ability to think critically, and resort to insults and the patriarchy axiom to get their point…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 12:34 PM
1

But I disagree that feminism is an idea - it's a big web of ideas. Okay... you really think you "disagree" with me here? I feel like any idea is a big web of ideas. Always. Only some of those ideas are incompatible with gender egalitarianism. If some of those ideas are incompatible with gender egalitarianism, why not say you're fighting for gender egalitarianism, which is a subset of all ideas in feminism? Is it because the word gets more complicated to say (this is a reasonable excuse imo - but…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 11:02 AM
1

If someone embraces the feminist label but rejects the doctrines I find noxious, I name them ally. You're basically disagreeing with what I said, and I think you missed my point. It's great that you would ally someone embraces the feminist label but rejects the doctrines you find noxious, maybe I would too -- but I'd point this out nonetheless. Practically speaking, feminism is not just a word. It's an idea. The word should convey the attitudes behind the idea, don't you think? Why use the term …
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:25 PM
2

Thanks! Missed that. Okay - that seems reasonably fair. Odd philosophical reasons in the beginning (seeming to point to what I was saying about women not being comfortable running alongside men), but then they talked about separate mens' events. I guess the fact that people run for cancer is besides the point that they are running to make themselves feel fit. They would like to be part of a larger goal, but the ultimate aim is personal. So it makes sense that this sort of event would have to tai…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:55 AM
2

I'm honestly confused, because it seems like you understand the concept of an "ideology". Why were your friends so vehemently against classifying feminism as an ideology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology It's a reasonably vague definition, and maybe not the greatest, but that's the problem with English language, and with vague broad ideas. They're vague. But yes, I feel like both feminism and mens' rights are ideologies, as are democracy, the idea of a republic, communism, capitalism, and s…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:48 AM
1

I too had the same feeling. Getting into the NFL is really hard, and with everything going on in his life, he really may not have had the time or, indeed, the will, to devote effort to his career. I just hope that if this doesn't work out for him, he has some fallbacks... what would really suck is if his career is permanently ruined because of this.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:34 AM
8

I didn't read the whole article, but this did seem to stick out, although the rest was pretty good. This guy is a psychologist. Maybe he should think about the effect of the word "femin" in "feminism". People do pay attention to the roots of words, and from its root, it doesn't inherently convey gender equality. To the lay audience it conveys a meaning of "something about females". And that is the key point this article seems to miss. When people are not given statement (2), they will reflect up…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:31 AM
1

There are actually a fair number of these, they just don't get publicized as much because they don't necessarily assert public opinion.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:22 AM
2

Wow. Just... wow. How do these people become moderators of a subreddit like AskReddit?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:18 AM
2

This is the first time I'm hearing of this organization, so to save people the trouble of googling it: http://raceforlife.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/what-is-race-for-life/index.html I find the logic behind the event's drive rather weird. It's against "cancer" (not even a cancer that affects mostly women, just cancer in general). And it's women-only. How strange... are they just not comfortable with men running alongside them, or is it to back some sort of claim that "women are the foremost le…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:14 AM
4

No one "deserves" forgiveness by default. I agree. Just as no one "deserves" to be hurt, no one "deserves" forgiveness. Besides, it isn't really ours to give, it's the victim, Brian Banks. And in this case, well, yes, she's done squat. In the end, we can't just let someone make a mockery of justice like this. That's what merits penalty.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:05 AM
2

I really felt disappointed at the number of comments missing the point, asking people to forgive her because Brian forgave her. If you can be that lenient to a woman who put this man through an immense punishment that he did not in any way deserve, why not use the same leniency when criticizing men? Also, did she really blow her entire 1.5 million dollars? I just heard that she has not yet agreed to pay it back. I find it hard to believe she could blow 1.5 million dollars when she was dirt poor.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:00 AM
2

Ugh... some people have too much time and not enough appreciation for serious discussion.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 11:02 PM
1

I'm not so sure it is -- but anyway, it seems everyone went ahead and downvoted the OP.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:58 PM
1

Honestly, to me, execution would be far better than that sort of punishment. It seems that for rape, unlike every other crime, the eyes of the public stays shut towards the convict, and in fact everyone is ready to dehumanize the convict. And unfortunately, rape applies to so many things, but the punishment nonetheless seems to remain the same, horrible in severity.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:57 PM
5

I don't agree with the feminism twist you're giving this (except if you're talking about some crazy militant feminists who basically advocate gendercide), but there is bias against men reflected in these words. What does feel terrible is that people laughed when the idea was floated that circumcision was a method of controlling sexual activity. It doesn't seem like people take the idea of toying with a baby boy's body to reduce his sexual promiscuity decades later as -- seriously -- an unethical…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:19 AM
1

I am not. I wouldn't be too worried that you're "missing" something after the fact - sexual stimulation is also a product of psychology, and many circumcised men are convinced they are not missing out. I'd say you should do the same. Confidence is a major play in stimulating yourself, and it doesn't help to think that you're missing the whole picture. From a psychological perspective, maybe you aren't - just convince yourself you aren't. I only ask that as a result of you convincing yourself tha…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 10:05 AM
4

This is a product of a conservative Indian culture that is overprotective of its girls and overly suspicious of its boys. It works the other way too. Segregated schools are commonplace (or segregation within the school, or within the class).
/r/MensRights30/04/12 10:00 AM
1

What went down: Apparently, Supervisor Malia Cohen told the cash-poor women they had to "pay to play," and attorney Kat Anderson accused them of sabotaging the entire effort. Then somebody accused Anderson of "living in the Marina," which is a fact, but apparently a mean one. That's when Hene Kelly, a progressive stalwart and self-described "den mother" for the newcomers, told school board member Hydra Mendoza - who was trying to calm everybody down - to shut up and wagged her finger. Then, Kell…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:47 AM
2

(edited from my previous reply) It actually seems like statistically speaking, there isn't a significant difference between Bachelors and Masters. More curious is why the gap narrows at the doctoral level. I don't have anything backing this but personal experience about how people choose to pursue graduate school -- my guess is that some of the degrees women take more than men at the Masters level are degrees they don't consider worth pushing to PhD or/and some graduate degrees men pursue more t…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:24 AM
3

I saw this comment and was going to bring up this exact point - you took the words out of my mouth. For those who don't see the inherent folly in the comment's logic, try reading the gender reversed paragraph: Other than speaking about undeniably harmful stereotypes and expectations that women face, what about other major issues, like discussing the privilege women experience and how that intersects with class, race and other factors. What about discussion of women's history and how it has effec…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 06:45 AM
4

Link to the actual FAQ on the SFU Women's Center website: http://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/faqs.html Reading the FAQs, I'd assess that the SFU Women's Center simply cannot represent both men and women on campus, nor can it begin to address the gender related issues of men. Even when it claims to be concerned about mens' rights, it responds in an incomplete fashion: "Our support would be contingent on that centre's mission statement, vision, and mandate. If the centre were about challenging popular conc…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 06:38 AM
2

That's not what I said. I do believe that people should be responsible for their actions Then they deserve the consequences of those actions. So it is what you said, even if you don't know that you said it. No they don't "deserve the consequences of their actions" in the broad sweeping way you seem to presume. You talk about people deserving any kind of other crime forced upon them because they committed some crime? Say that to the prisoners in North Korean jails, tortured in cruel and inhumane …
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:27 AM
2

You're right, there is little common ground. I see people as responsible for themselves, and you don't. That's the difference. That's not what I said. I do believe that people should be responsible for their actions -- but what is the greater crime, a lack of responsibility to be safe, or a lack of responsibility to not take advantage of that carelessness? I said that I would spare some sympathy for those who get into such situations, even if they were irresponsible. One can be sympathetic to an…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:43 AM
5

If someone threw a white sheet over themselves and walked down the middle of Harlem, we would be describing their actions as begging to get hurt/get murdered, would we not? But I really don't get that analogy. That person's actions may be bravado, but it hardly amounts to "begging to be hurt/murdered". The fact remains that it's wrong to murder or hurt someone else. And I would consider that far, far, far more wrong than being careless. And the same applies to this situation. There is a middle g…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:08 AM
2

I agree - this an article of no substance - it does not seem to necessarily point to a mens' rights issue, even though it is regarding a bickering couple undergoing a divorce.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:18 AM
1

To be more fair to her, her article on male circumcision was sympathetic to men. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-di-donato/circumcised-or-uncircumcised-sex_b_1380359.html Pity she can't show a bit more empathy on other issues.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 08:21 AM
7

Researchers have found that many non-working men spend much of their free time in “leisure activities and sleep.” Non-working women, by contrast, spend much of their free time in child care and housework. Yes, according to her, researchers have found that unlike men, women don't sleep in much of their free time. What a ridiculous statement.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 02:50 AM
10

You sit. You read. You write and you talk. Yes, of course women are better at that than men. And it's not sexist to think that way. /s
/r/MensRights28/03/12 02:41 AM
1

It's a "he". And he fucked up by referencing just his blog at http://my.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/201202/why-are-men-so-violent And no more references once you go to the blog. But there are larger problems than not just including citations. The problem is that the author doesn't seem to be making statements that hold water. But I suppose this isn't meant to be a scientific article.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 07:12 AM
2

I understand your sentiment that a lazily thought out comment doesn't deserve that many upvotes, but you certainly have the power to downvote it for that reason. I understand the article is written for a lay audience, but it is a poor exercise in science. An example of a poor statement written in that article is that men "start all the wars." It's hard to take a statement like that seriously unless you believe there were no female rulers throughout history that had a capacity to start wars and t…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 07:08 AM
1

They just don't because most people don't like wrapping themselves around shit. Just to be clear: You deny that social conditioning and selfish egotistic behavior is why there is violence?
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:49 AM
3

Honestly, I had to stop after half the article. It's too painfully close to how I've seen some feminists write their blogs. Maybe that's the author's intent, but I just don't see how his article would be convincing to a woman, or a man who agrees with radical feminism. But isn't that supposed to be who the rant is directed against?
/r/MensRights23/03/12 07:34 AM
10

For anyone wondering, this is a quote on one of the comments. Painful to read... but even more painful that this sort of a statement is now part of a "textbook theory" that some people try to identify as a "social science".
/r/MensRights23/03/12 07:24 AM
2

I don't really think the woman's behavior was all that professional, but as her employer correctly stated after coming to her defense, her intent was not to represent her company, but rather, herself. Although, she can't really expect to not be associated with her firm when that's how she knows the two people she was arguing with. On the other hand, the company representatives were more unprofessional than she was, especially with the veiled threat of talking to her employer.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 07:17 AM
4

hehhehehehhehe the anti - tee hee - snipping -- heheheh ballot got cut short it's soo soo funny when you get to the base of the issue makes you wonder what the giant fuss was all about was being sarcastic. but honestly, that's the tone of the article.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:12 AM
2

I don't know what you're alluding to with the research depts thingy; she seems like she's part of a thinktank. I'm too tired to pick apart this shit, but here's a gem: Fathers’ rights groups claim that fathers are discriminated against in divorce proceedings because they are not treated “equally”: they may end up spending less time with their children or paying more child support than the mother. But the notion that “equality” requires an identical division of benefits ignores the differences be…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 11:55 AM
1

wait, so what does "forbidden (reddit.com)" on /r/GoAwayMRA mean for me - does that mean I'm banned?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:52 AM
1

I was going to leave a reply to this, but altmehere's reply said it very eloquently. The best line was I wouldn't presume to argue against you that any group that advocates for what is clearly privilege doesn't deserve attention.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:47 AM
1

Yeah. I get your point too. Basically I don't care what happens to people at this program. But making atleast some noise about this is an opportunity to open up a fruitful dialogue with a community widely composed of women.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 08:51 AM
2

that's just sad. at least the mods themselves saw your post. Hopefully they aren't brainwashed enough to not absorb even a word of what you said.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 12:33 PM
2

Yeah, I agree. I wrote this on avoiceformen.com, but this is an appropriate topic on which to put this comment: People should just get better at two things: -Be kind while speaking to other people, and empathize with them, even if their view differs from yours. While online, it’s really easy to speak harsh words. And I’ve seen a lot of harsh, sometimes borderline inhuman comments, on feminist as well as MRA websites. It’s painful, and usually a lot of the comments are just devoid of logic, yet i…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 12:31 PM
5

Ugh. Painful, just... painful. Feminists had to paraphrase this guy's article to the degree of "what, he's just saying that men need to take more care not to scare women in situations where they aren't alone, so why do you take so much offense to THAT" -- when most of the offense was directed at his moronic generalizations of male behavior. That being said, I think the feminists condensed version of the article is also game for debate -- the easiest hypocrisy is to simply point out that feminist…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:29 AM
3

One good thing that comes out of it is: Those blogs usually already have high traffic -- From feminists and their supporters. Therefore you get to see how many of them agree with the extreme view. And then by putting it up on this subreddit, you show people visiting the subreddit that the fears of this subreddit are in fact not unjustified, because most of these sites' material would truly be extreme to most people accepting rationalism and logical thought . And the critical thing you'd be missi…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 10:45 PM
6

Even if the title is wrong, I don't know if it deserves a downvote purely on that basis -- the topic is still one of mens' rights. Then again, misleading titles can be sensational for no reason, and do need to be discouraged.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 10:37 PM
2

Actually might it be worthwhile posting this to reddit.com? To give her a wider audience and show them her err... enlightened views on feminism.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 09:46 PM
2

wow, I had no idea who Lorena Bobbit was until I googled her name after reading your title. The ideas that radical feminists espoused to actually support someone before her trial, and suggest that "vigilante justice" served as a lesson to all men, are truly shocking... honestly, it's dangerous notions like that from feminism that need to be brought to the attention of a wider audience that supports and institutionalizes it.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 10:33 PM
4

i stopped reading after she added her own bigoted slur for "Psychology Today". Then I scrolled down to realize I shouldn't have expected any better, as the article is by Amanda Marcotte. This woman must get a high out of writing pieces that anger and sully men and their dignity. It's sad how many people seem to support her bigoted, narrow-minded view in the comments, one even going so far as to call it "an article that brings in research (yay, research!) into the picture"... feminism is so deepl…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:06 PM
1

yeah, cuckolding has a pretty solid evolutionary basis from what i remember. essentially it has the double benefit of getting the good male genes as well as the good fatherly nurture. sad that something called the "good men" project would actually try to justify the lies and pain underlying this act.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:10 AM
3

All things that can be determined through software applications that MEN developed. Face it, these girls are riding on the coattails of men's discoveries. First, I know plenty of women working in the field of statistics, it's less male-dominated than engineering for some reason. And you can't really make a good argument when saying things like, "Men developed X software" -- you just assumed something that may not be true (and I really don't believe it's true, because there are a fair number of f…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:28 AM
1

Again, I'm telling you, calling this more complex than that is simply not right. About my background: I've done research projects in musical information retrieval, computer vision, and electrical engineering, along with some work in bioinformatics and statistics. It's not like doing software projects isn't hard. But you're exaggerating when you simply handpick words from the abstract to call that kind of a project "complex" and another project "something any chem lab student with the proper equi…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:04 AM
0

It's not clear whether you support the idea of infant circumcision. If you do, I wonder if you'd be okay with providing an age of consent, and making the patient's consent necessary for circumcision (I don't think the age necessarily needs to be 18, but then again that seems to be the logical age at which parents are supposed to stop having a large role in one's decisions).
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:06 PM
5

I've had a look at the abstracts here: http://www.google.com/events/sciencefair/finalists.html And I don't agree with you. I don't think the "boys were much more innovative than the girls" -- I just found a lot more biological/medical research from the girls' end, and a lot more electrical engineering/machine learning/other engineering projects from the boys' end -- this is consistent with the trend of female-dominated biology and male-dominated engineering in college. It's not that women are be…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:48 PM
1

To everyone downvoting this: http://www.reddit.com/help/reddiquette For the record, I don't agree with this guy's opinion, but I think it's a relevant opinion that deserves to be heard. Thanks.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:45 AM
1

Thanks for the detailed reply; my sleep cycle is kinda screwed up as a result of reddit, so I'm going to take a nap. Anyway, a quick response deserved another, so here goes in short: Yea, I understand where you're coming from. I don't buy the "males are being fed aggression by society" theory -- I don't have such a childhood experience either. One psychology school of thought that actually seems to have its roots in feminism claims that boys are "nurtured" (read: brainwashed) in a way that makes…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:25 PM
3

I was going to comment that this ias a very good article, but then I saw this comment. I really don't understand what part of this article offends you. What she's writing is a far cry from feminism, and while it's an opinion piece, it's got a fairly balanced scientific outlook. A lot of the studies she refers to remind me of lectures from my human sexuality class in college.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 02:34 PM
4

At the risk of misreading someone's mind, he may be referring to OP saying She changed her mind about marriage saying that even though we don't need to get married we would get a tax break or something...I was in love and blindly agreed.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 02:24 PM
1

It helps if you define what you mean by patriarchy, and in what sense you want to use the term.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 08:47 AM
1

Came here to say this, but you put it well enough. Honestly some of the points on there make it seem as if it were written by someone who doesn't regard men very highly. I brush my teeth twice a day, except when I pull all-nighters studying lol
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:30 AM
3

Great article, especially the point stressing on how they treat family (and for that matter, friends).
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:10 AM
1

This. I thought one of the premises of this subreddit was the unrealistic claims made by feminism that spew hatred towards men. By making unscientific claims such as that questioning the courage of any random woman, you're bound to be viewed as extreme and just... wrong.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:02 AM
0

this is really all based on perspective. yes, through history, men are more disposable as far as war and punishment went. women can also be considered disposable by societies for social reasons -- sons being more useful in wars, or being considered primary sources of income, or lacking the requirement of a dowry during marriage... these have been reasons to actually dispose of many female babies, and prioritize male babies. Basically it's like you say in another comment. The grass looks greener …
/r/MensRights03/07/11 08:55 AM
2

Uhh... she forgot to mention how the accuser's translated words to her boyfriend hours after the accusation she made were "Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing." The fact is this writer would be perfectly okay with a rape conviction based on circumstantial evidence, and in this case that kind of a recording is good circumstantial evidence that she planned to frame her sex act as a rape for monetary gain. Of course it doesn't prove it; it may have simply been an added i…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:04 PM
7

err what's stormfront?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 11:43 PM
3

well, the parents should instruct the kid how to take care of himself. only trouble is they don't seem to know what the right way for him to take care of himself is out here because so many people are circumcised. as far as i know, it isn't harmful as a kid to slowly retract the skin and stop if it hurts. that may eventually lead to a full retraction without any consequence. basically, there isn't a need to do anything that feels feels like you're ripping off skin.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 11:40 PM
1

Wow, so much cynicism and anger on this thread. Anyway, I think he has a point, despite the argument about the empress having no clothes. It doesn't help this idea if the tactics used are similar to that used by feminists. And while you can condemn this guy all you want for stating this, the fact is that the subreddit as a whole seems to speak for itself when it usually seems to give a low number of upvotes to such articles. And OP, on a similar note, people have a point when they say there shou…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:51 PM
1

capable of making a misandric statement, misandrist There's a difference between 1 and 2. 1 includes the day-to-day stuff that could be conceived as being slightly offensive towards men and that anyone could be capable of, and can easily be pointed out without making the other person feel like a complete ass. 2 implies most if not all women harbor a deep-seeded bigotry against men - it's an extremely strong statement. How would you feel if someone said most if not all men are misogynist?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:39 PM
5

to be fair, words are generally made up by someone of public influence (in this case, George W. Bush), and then become popularized. The problem is this word is... well, it doesn't make sense if you break it up into different words.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:36 AM
3

I was going to post something stating somewhat similar stuff... but this was just too good. Hilarious! Have an upvote. Who edits these stupid articles? I mean, you mentioned only keeping stuff women are better than men at -- but at the tasks mentioned below, I just seem to draw a blank. As Abrams notes, women are better soldiers because they complain about pain less. Hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahaha. I could quote a source proving women "feel" more pain then man do, and as a result complain more ab…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:30 AM
2

misused by people who like pushing an agenda. But you can say the same thing about anything in science and engineering, really.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:28 AM
9

sorry if this seems a bit irrelevant, but someone had to point it out: misunderestimate?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 10:59 AM
1

Anyone with a brain is not going to rely on one clearly biased site for information. Hahahahahaha... you'd be surprised. I wrote a few comments days ago defending a national leader against some pretty poorly done, libelous writing that's easily fed down people's throats. Basically people nowadays like byte-sized information.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 02:49 PM
3

Ugh, I wish I hadn't seen the site from which that comment came from. It's rather funny that this article picks on that comment by Amanda Marcotte when the whole article it links to, along with its set of comments, is just so... ugh. Does no one on that site know how to google and find out what "MRA" even means? Ugh. My brain just decayed a little.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 02:17 PM
1

this is late, but just wanted to say i didn't actually think about that - good point.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:15 AM
1

Do you support plastic surgery to repair cleft pallets and physical deformities? Those are "not-medically necessary" in the sense that the child will not die without them. Or are you defining "medically necessary" in terms of cost-benefit analysis? But who decides when the benefit is larger enough than the cost to make it "necessary"? Can you say that the reason you'd want this surgery performed on a newborn is because you think there's a medical benefit to it? Also, it'd be nice to research on …
/r/MensRights18/06/11 05:03 AM
3

yeah, i'm with you - this bill is basically being labelled as an act of oppression, and people really aren't being educated on why it might be unnecessary to perform the circumcision in the first place.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:18 AM
3

I mean, it's probably more difficult to convince a woman why this might be wrong simply because it isn't a part of their body - meaning they can't understand what the procedure entails without educating themselves on what an uncircumcised penis looks like, and why it isn't unhygienic to keep the foreskin. Whereas circumcised men also present this kind of an argument, but they're more likely to be curious about that sort of thing -- and with that curiosity comes knowledge, and the obvious answer …
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:17 AM
2

I wonder how many in the west recognize this as a restriction. They think nudity to be vulgar enough to merit the restriction. The funny thing though is that their attitude is exactly the same as in countries like Iran when they make these restrictions. And that attitude isn't any less wrong.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 08:54 AM
1

I mean, I doubt feminists have a consensus on this issue... they're influenced by religion, culture, and background. So yeah - not all feminists would be like that. The comment below by chavelah basically nails it though -- the view in favor of circumcision is largely based on ignorance of modern medical ethics standards.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:15 AM
3

I wonder what you consider substantial. Do you consider your biased TL;DR comment substantial? Do you think it was worth the couple of minutes it took to make that comment, versus a bit of research on the procedure ("safe, commonly performed" surgery on a neo-natal infant)? The sad thing is, your comment history indicates you're perfectly capable of making substantial comments, yet you simply don't want to in this case. I hope you choose to read more about this in the future.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:49 AM
1

One other person has said it, but in support I'll say it too: People, please do not downvote because you don't agree with an opinion. This is considered basic rediquette. Besides, as halhobrook has earlier pointed out, and gotten massively downvoted for, doing this is unconstructive, especially considering OP is attempting to have an open discussion of the topic (despite what you might consider to be his bias). OP also has a commonly expressed opinion in the US, and it's constructive to present …
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:35 AM
8

wait, seriously, 30 days?! how is this considered ethical? who came up with the thirty days number? I'm sorry if my question appears naive -- but on this subreddit I rarely pay attention to alimony issues (not much of an excuse, but this is something that directly concerns me being just out of college and unmarried). However, this appears to be something easily proven unjust and unethical... a mens' right that most men and women can agree is lacking.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 04:17 AM
1

Counterarguments to your statement here are rather harsh. Agreed that the impairment effects may in fact not have affected you, or indeed affect a lot of people. So perfectly justified to be satisfied with the state of that part of your body. You're also in the majority when you say you would rather have it done when you are going to forget the pain later, than when you would remember it. Most people who have been circumcised in the US feel this way. Just one thing I do take offense to -- you ha…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:08 AM
1

If you'd like perspective on why people might be happy with their circumcised penises, research how women in countries with female circumcision react to this ritual. A large number of them think its perfectly normal, and are usually very surprised to hear any kind of problem associated with it. Even though most forms of female circumcision are actually more severe than male circumcision. Basically, a healed organ with ever-so-slightly impaired functionality obviously can't have an effect that's …
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:00 AM
6

As someone against circumcision, I've had a lot of trouble arguing the health benefits of staying intact vs circumcision. My main problem is the WHO endorsement -- I can't really present a proper critique of those 3 papers because I'm not in the medical profession. And while analysis like yours is nice, it simply can't hold water against published papers in established research journals... And when I look in Google Scholar for papers against circumcision, it's simply true that papers for circumc…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:51 AM
3

this is an interesting argument, and it may hold water. if people don't bathe, foreskin is certainly a problem for the reasons you described. the issue is that people are less concerned with taking advantage of current circumstances than they are with carrying on a supposedly safe practice from yesteryears.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 09:33 PM
1

But that argument similarly applies to FGM -- yet no one looks down upon FGM. I don't think feminists would be inherently opposed to calling circumcision MGM -- I think the main opposition is religious rather than gender-based.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 09:29 PM
3

I just found this interesting gem: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html Those quotes are not cited but if true they seem to indicate that the attitudes towards FGM in Africa are the same as the attitudes towards MGM in North America.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 09:26 PM
2

Actually, now that you mention it, I do recall a time there were more MGM articles. It's sad that discussion on reddit mainly involves flashing news articles and not encouraging further research (in MGM's case, for example, upvoting actual peer-reviewed articles on the benefits/risks of male circumcision, education on female circumcision and how that compares to male circumcision, and so on). And yes, it's easy to bash women's rights activists for being too harsh on their own issues, but it's mu…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 09:18 PM
1

I hold atheistic views, and what you wrote does not seem like nonsense. No, it seems absolutely right - male circumcision is a dogma. A ritual. The passing of a bond from father to son. That does not, of course, mean that we bow our heads and respect the religious practice if we know that it causes legitimate physical or mental harm to a human being (whether or not they remember it later in life). We didn't do that with polygamy, we didn't do that with the eye-for-an-eye punishments of the ancie…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 09:06 PM
2

I upvoted you because your comment adds to the discussion in a meaningful way. 1) Can you explain how you had benefits from this? In a general medical sense, it does have potentially have benefits. These benefits generally arise from comparing unprotected sex for an uncircumcised male to unprotected sex for a circumcised male. The foreskin has some properties that make it amenable to microbes. However, these studies were conducted in places where proper genital hygiene is simply not a priority (…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 08:49 PM
3

I don't agree with OP's ranking mens rights issues either, but I can see why he thought it was the most important issue: If you were a woman's rights activist, would you consider FGM more or less of an issue than women's well being in divorce proceedings and child custody? It's a tough choice for some, but I think the physical harm to women is what makes OP think that the corresponding issue for men is a bigger issue for men. While I agree with you that ranking problems may not always be the rig…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 08:13 PM
6

OP, don't back down. I think it's brave of you to bring such a contentious issue to light. Instead of another issue that preaches to the choir, you've brought up a touchy subject that runs very deep in western society's culture. It's like how women's rights activists bring up issues of FGM to societies that deem this practice acceptable - you can accept a lot of opposition. Like OP, I can imagine this comment being received with some distaste, but I feel like it's important to support his cause.…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 08:02 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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