TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

urtygurt Archive

View 3 posts and 79 comments by urtygurt 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

I have a penis, I am going to jail in a domestic violence call. But we are discussing what is fair and actually makes sense. I don't have all day to sit around repeating myself, if you look through my comments from today you will find any answers that you need. And even what I am about to say is basically repeating myself: Try this: go around everyday for the next three years and each day choose five people and get as close as possible, especially your face, and scream as loud as you can an inch…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 06:10 PM
1

Can I hit my wife if she yells at me? If she gets as close to you as possible, and is yelling as loud as possible, then yes, it may be justified.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 05:13 PM
-1

If someone is yelling directly into your ear, they are really fucking close to you. That is essentially trapping them and I already explained why. For all we know, she might as well have backed him into a corner. Don't go making baseless assumptions to justify a situation you weren't involved in. You are the one who began reading in between the lines. I have not done that, except once to show you how unfair it is to do that.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 05:00 PM
1

A person can yell at me all they want, my feelings can handle it. Except this was not just yelling...
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:53 PM
0

If she couldn't walk away, why did she do that after the fight? Because humans are not clairvoyant. You could say "I'm going to attack you now" and I defend myself and it turns out you were just bluffing. If anything, it was the guy who couldn't safely walk away According to you, he always had the opportunity to walk away. Unless you are suggesting that he knew she had a history of hitting him in the face, but again, we have no evidence of that. I'm not trying to make a case for this particular …
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:50 PM
1

I have never been in a situation where I could not have walked away from it. I'm happy for you.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:43 PM
-1

when they could safely walk away. Because they can't safely walk away. I've already explained why, three times.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:42 PM
-1

Summary: you claim I'm dodging your points but your points have nothing to do with my argument. For fucks sake you are claiming that having an argument online is the same as intimidating someone in person by getting as close to them as possible and screaming as loud as possible directly into their face and ear. Ludicrous.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:38 PM
-1

Reacting would have been walking away. You can't just walk away when someone is that close to you, it's dangerous to walk backwards and possibly trip and fall around a threat. If you turn around, you will hit them with your shoulder. If you do manage to turn around and walk away then you have turn your back to and taken your eyes off of the threat which is also not good. Would you punch me in the face if you knew me just because we're having an argument online? What if I somehow called you and y…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:36 PM
1

You don't have eyes in the back of your head. Walking backwards and possibly tripping and falling is not a good thing to do around a threat.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:20 PM
-2

Ideally everyone would always use the perfect amount of force but I don't fault people for reacting when they are threatened. nagging wives Nagging is different from intimidating someone by getting as close to their face as possible and screaming as loud as you can directly into their face and ear. I was showing how hypocritical this situation sounds when the sexes are reversed. You failed to do that. I am not being hypocritical.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:17 PM
-1

It's not only the yelling but getting as close to another person as possible, essentially trapping them - combining this with yelling does make this worse, and could be more indicative of a threat. Nothing I've said is a double standard.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:56 PM
0

Yes that's true. So should the default be to arrest both people?
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:49 PM
-2

So you push them away. Everyone here is already finding her at fault for hitting him. By that logic if she pushed him you would still find her at fault. Pushing would still be defending herself, and if there were no threat it would still be assault/battery, just like hitting would be, so I don't really see the distinction you're making. Plenty of husbands get yelled at by their wives, but it's never made it legal for them to punch them in the face to get them to stop yelling. According to what y…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:48 PM
1

walk the fuck away. They've made it impossible to walk away if they are that close. If you try to turn around you will hit them with your shoulder and then you are at fault. They will use that as justification to start "defending themselves" and attack you.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:45 PM
7

“…the sheer size difference between the defendant and victim, it was determined that the defendant was the primary aggressor in this case.” I do not agree with this, BUT The argument intensified to the point of Condron yelling in her face and ear, according to Graham. This really complicates things. When someone gets as close to your face as possible, like an inch from your face, yelling as loud as they can, at what point is that assault? I mean, you can't just start walking backwards because yo…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 11:51 PM
1

One who is drunk to the point of being blacked out is recognized as legally unable to give any form of consent to sexual activity. Only like 2-3 of the United States have laws like that.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 06:43 PM
2

if two young people get wasted and screw Given that being drunk does not excuse one from committing a crime (it can be a mitigating factor but it does not mean the person is innocent), and if they consider drunk people unable to consent, then it would be totally reasonable to tell a woman who gets in this situation to "not drink so much" and "not put herself in that situation" because when she does those things, she becomes a rapist by her very own definition. And yet, at the same time, that's v…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 06:40 PM
11

I don't think that drunk sex is rape (because of all the problems it causes when determining who is held responsible for what in nontypical sexual situations involving alcohol), but the fact that he "fell asleep" multiple times during the encounter makes this sketchy as fuck .
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:58 PM
3

I'm not sure. I mean you can point out that just because something isn't as common, that it's no reason to not address it (even though I believe our issues are pretty common). I've tried pointing out that "smashing the patriarchy" fundamentally won't fix a lot of issues. Like, for instance, when people hear about how men have way longer prison sentences for the same crime with the same criminal history, their initial thought is usually "wow, there should be less men in prison (for so long)." The…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 12:52 AM
1

Why are you any better? Because we don't have dogma, lore, classes, terminology, etc.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 12:37 AM
3

you're a man, you can't have this position. This is why I try to tell people that sometimes, men get stuck with dangerous jobs. I don't know how much of a factor it is exactly, but when over 90% of dangerous jobs are done by men, at least some of those men got turned down at other jobs before they ended up where they are.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 12:36 AM
1

It's very difficult for me to imagine society separating males and females much in the future, like 100 years from now, or caring so much about nudity, so either way I think we need to start progressing, which in this case means yes it's sexist and you shouldn't be denied service based on your sex.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 12:40 AM
1

the more you associate your identity with a belief set But what you don't understand is that men's rights beliefs amount to one thing: equality. That's what feminists claim, but it's clearly not true judging from the mountains of dogma, lore, classes, terminology, etc.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 12:36 AM
18

It's not just that. You try to bring up that men have issues and they say "white males have privilege and nothing to complain about". So then you bring up undeniable issues such as the draft, circumcision, prison sentencing disparities and they switch to "patriarchy hurts men too" while still saying "men's suffering is a drop in the bucket compared to women's so quit complaining" in the same breath.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 12:32 AM
1

Lol "DNA evidence on fingernails" Yeah, because strippers, especially outside of the view of club owners, encourage you to touch them. In my experience this means literally grabbing by the wrist and placing the customer's hand on their body. Or maybe she consented to fooling around with them. Or maybe we're talking about her fingernails? Which means nothing, because she could have grabbed them while dancing on them.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 01:57 PM
-1

If someone convinces a really drunk person to drink poison What if someone convinces a drunk person to punch their significant other? Is the drunk person completely innocent of any wrongdoing? Nope. they are still someone who punched their significant other. So then what if someone convinces a drunk a person to cheat on their significant other? Are they still a cheater? Yup. They would still hold the title of whatever their actions were, even if they were drunk when they committed them. And isn'…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:48 AM
11

The way this is written makes me laugh, but I hope that feminists never get wind of the phrase "woman abuse".
/r/MensRights25/04/14 12:02 AM
1

not because it's riskier. Because the burden isn't the same. Women always ask themselves if they killed something that had the right to live. It's an emotionnal weight no man will experience But it's not the fault of men that women experience that. It's like you're saying that because women suffer for reasons that men are not responsible for, men should be punished.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 06:05 AM
1

You say it like people are looking around, seeing a lot of other people and then having some physiological change that makes them not want to have kids. People don't want to be poor, homeless. People don't want to go to jail for inability to pay child support. Women often don't give men a chance because they still have an unrealistic standard of success. But these things aren't some built in mechanism, no more than homosexuality is. There is still plenty to support people and their children - th…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 08:04 PM
3

it is more complicated than that. it's alot harder for the majority of women to do so. The guy doesn't have to face possible consequences of abortion. There's always risks, like any medical intervention. Even child birth has a risk. So because getting pregnant has more inherent risks for women, we shoudn't allow men to have the right to financial abortion? It's really hard to find a way both have the same consequences and choice Ok, but we can have the same choice here. Some men even want to be …
/r/MensRights23/04/14 01:55 PM
44

I suppose that's her opinion. But in that case she better not consider a man poking holes in a condom rape, which is what a Canadian Supreme Court has determined.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 12:51 AM
1

I like pie.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 11:39 PM
5

The thing to remember here, are the motivations and reasons a woman might have for aborting. A woman can literally walk into a clinic and say "I have no problem with being pregnant, I have absolutely no problem with what pregnancy would do to my body, but I want an abortion solely for financial reasons - solely because I don't want to pay for child care in any way." and she would, of course, legally be allowed to have an abortion for those reasons. Whenever we can give the same rights to men and…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 11:24 PM
1

It's not only men here.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 10:47 PM
1

I can tell you're new to reddit. You still didn't provide any research so I must insinuate that you are a dumbass now. See, I learn fast!
/r/MensRights22/04/14 05:18 AM
0

if they were leaving to seek help Yup. But no, clearly they are to be shamed and that's why their faces were blurred out. This video is so freaking dumb. I'm really surprised it got a positive response from viewers.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 05:17 AM
1

men aren't going into teaching It seemed safe to assume that this was a generalization. foreign to my experience and researches. You haven't provided any research.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:48 AM
1

It doesn't invalidate my post. I'm not making a point about the law. I'm making a point about what feminists think - about how they view and judge the people in these situations.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:33 AM
1

An underage woman can rape a drunk man. Well, for one thing, there are very few places in the United States where legally, being drunk means someone can't consent to sex. Feminists create the impression that this is the law in all the United States, but it's simply not true. I've never had anyone able to confirm that there were laws saying that a drunk person can't consent to sex in more than 2 or 3 of the states. If a woman is drunk and has sex with a child, she is a rapist. I agree with you. B…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:30 AM
1

It seems close enough to me because they are both states that are said to be unable to consent. I don't mind blending the two because many feminists blend the two: they consider both rape. It's not necessarily about what the laws are. It's about how feminists view the morality of the situation.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:22 AM
2

Men are guilty until proven innocent when women and children are involved.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 05:09 PM
0

I will say this about your argument, which, to be honest, is the one everyone goes to, and has for some time, and yet it doesn't seem to change anything. Normally, if a woman gets drunk and is "raped" (consentual drunk sex), then a feminist would say that it's not ok to "victim blame" that woman. But, if two drunk people have sex, then in a feminist's mind, ideally, those two people have indeed raped each other. So here's the thing: if you tell the woman in a situation like that to not drink so …
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:52 PM
2

I prefer my argument, because for one, if you only talk about people being drunk, it's very easy for them make a broad statement of "well of course drunk men can't consent the same way drunk women can't consent." But when you frame in a different but similar light - meaning a different situation where neither party can consent, but the reasons they can't consent are not the same reason (not both drunk but one drunk and one underage), it's very easy to get them to accidentally admit their bias. T…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:37 PM
12

Obviously, your anecdote doesn't negate the experiences of anyone else, but also...you teach high school.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 03:39 AM
0

there are some women who think about these things We know. :) It's not a big deal, probably just a pet peeve of mine after I see it too many times.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:29 AM
10

Men spread their knees because it keeps their testicles cooler. That's also the reason the testicles are on the outside of the body. It promotes sperm production, and I've often wondered if it promotes testosterone production as well. You don't have to announce that you're a woman...
/r/MensRights18/04/14 02:44 AM
1

:)
/r/MensRights16/04/14 10:13 PM
1

The quote is not mine. The ellipsis is mine.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:53 PM
2

I have to admit, I like the stuff he says after around the 33 minutes mark a lot better than some of what he says starting at the 22 minutes mark.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:50 PM
2

That is another one of the big issues I have with MRA's, they advocate for a uniform way for men to act, they don't advocate for men to be whatever they want to be, a man must be stoic, a man must be strong, a man can't be emotionally vulnerable because anything else is just not manly or masculine, feminism understands that women are not monolithic, they are individuals, and in my opinion, a good men's liberation movement should be about men choosing to be whatever they want to be without having…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 06:16 PM
12

Well, also, maybe more importantly, the fact that even mentioning that men have issues immediately brings about accusations of misogyny, etc. We can't even have discussions without people pulling fire alarms, and blowing vuvuzelas - screaming in our faces to "SHUT THE FUCK UP", and then when we give them a chance to join our discussions, to have counter discussions with our own speakers, they kick out people who don't disrupt the process in any way, but happen to be male and happened to be filmi…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 05:22 PM
15

There are many kinds of female genital mutilation, and they are all banned by the UN. So, for instance, if someone were to remove the clitoral hood of a baby girl, that would be considered female genital mutilation and would be banned. That procedure would be the closest analogy to removing the foreskin from a penis. So why is removing the foreskin from a penis not banned? I'm sure you all realize this, but it's a very good way to make the point.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:21 AM
1

I hate to be pedantic but you might confuse someone. That's not what "redundant" means.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 06:48 PM
1

Also, drugs and alcohol. Obviously I'm not removing responsibility from males in this situation, but there it is.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 06:40 PM
6

Once Worboys was named, a large quantity of survivors came forward, which helped to convict him. Before this, the police had dismissed allegations against Worboys from survivors who came forward individually. So if these accusers had all happened to make allegations against different men, the police would have dismissed them all (I'm assuming because there was no additional evidence, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.), but because they all happened to name the same person (that they did…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 05:30 PM
2

Yeah, I just don't like what it represents. It seems like it's so easy for people to tell men what to do when they would never do that to a woman, as well as the obvious double standard.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 12:04 AM
3

Is this what they mean by "eyebrow game"?
/r/MensRights12/04/14 11:51 PM
1

I think people are just generally creepy towards any kind of celebrity Yeah, like College World Series baseball players.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 11:35 PM
1

Good point. ha
/r/MensRights12/04/14 11:26 PM
1

A lot of things are common. That doesn't make them right. As far as I can tell, there is no enforcement of dress code for women, especially not regarding sleeveless shirts/tank tops.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 11:24 PM
7

Wait, so when feminists literally make a bunch of noise and disrupt MRA speakers, nothing happens to them, but when this guy just stands there doing nothing at a feminist event, he gets kicked out?
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:51 AM
1

I would be interested in seeing them. Thanks.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:47 AM
0

You're making a lot of assumptions here. You're assuming that dangerous work is always more profitable for one. If that were true, then a lot more women would already be drawn to dangerous work, certainly more than there are now. I think that all factors exist: internalized gender roles, discriminatory hiring practices against women, etc. but I don't think those are enough to explain the huge differences between the number of men and women in dangerous jobs in this day and age. Most women are al…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 05:12 PM
2

Nobody is the innocent party by default, the person who was more drunk and/or who initiated sex with the more drunk person is the aggressor in the situation. What?
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:53 PM
3

The woman is the only one who takes any action in the song: "The way you grab me, must wanna get nasty." He's using words and she's being physical and we're worried about her?
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:15 PM
1

I used to give him the benefit of the doubt until that SNL monologue.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 09:08 PM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO0xspHN0Vw
/r/MensRights10/04/14 09:01 PM
0

The issues that the OP brings up in their screenshot refer to the United States. I do not ignore other countries all of the time, but I am often limited by what I feel I can firmly tackle. Obviously it's much easier for me to understand my own country, feel more invested in it, and feel like I can possibly change it. To be honest I am much more concerned with issues other than gender/sex related issues, but again sometimes I limit myself to what's happening in my own country - maybe I am not equ…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 09:04 PM
-1

Yes, I am talking about the US, and a few other countries as well. Sorry for the confusion. Men still have to sign up for the draft. A draft could be instituted at any time. And by record, I didn't mean historical record - I meant what's actually written down as policy or law right now.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:51 PM
1

I can tell you that in India, feminists rejected better rape laws because of gender-neutral language that would allow women to be convicted of rape: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:41 PM
9

At the very least, men have to sign their lives away to the military while women do not. I would say that's pretty institutionalized. Women have nothing that's actual policy or institutionalized that they can claim. There is nothing that has an official record of being disadvantageous to them while being advantageous to men.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:53 PM
3

That's not what hysteria means here. I'm sorry for the confusing title. The ENTIRE CASE was due to mass hysteria surrounding sexual child abuse and satanic rituals involving child abuse in the 80s. It was not the hysteria of the two women - it was the hysteria of everyone else - the "victims" and their parents, the jury, etc.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 04:59 PM
3

Until 5 years ago, we had 0% (half) black presidents, too. I don't necessarily have an opinion about the other stuff. People could care about feminism as a tool to get what they want, so in that respect we might see more of it, but who knows, really, what a candidate will actually do until they get in office?
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:45 AM
3

That part about Helen Mirren wanting to see less women dying on screen is pretty annoying. One of the reasons that's popular is because people find the unusual more interesting, and another reason that's popular is because people care more when women die.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:34 AM
5

The women found legal grounds for retrial. and those legal grounds were: they fought for a new trial and won on August 29, 1995 because the children had testified with their backs to the defendants. which are the exact same conditions as Gerald's trial: Gerald filed a motion for a new trial on March 30, 1995, and Violet and Cheryl filed their motion for a new trial on April 11, 1995, alleging that the special seating arrangements used for the child witnesses in their original trials deprived the…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 09:08 AM
7

I'm not really sure what this person is talking about. It's obviously illegal to discriminate based on sex when hiring, and your ex-boss is admitting to people that sexism is the reason she's not hiring male applicants.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:59 AM
4

This man is still registered as a sex offender with extreme restrictions put on his life, including an ankle bracelet, curfew, and order to not enter certain areas (presumably areas near victims' homes). EDIT: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of "a primary male offender." According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected …
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:46 AM
3

He was immediate family to the two women, and had the same lawyer. I find it difficult to believe that he didn't seek out a retrial. EDIT: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/box/archive_stories/amiraults_freed.htm He, too, is seeking a new trial in a motion filed before Judge Elizabeth Dolan.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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