TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

will4274 Archive

View 5 posts and 203 comments by will4274 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)
2

touche.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 02:55 PM
11

how about we just not vote on linked threads and allow the discussion to evolve organically?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:59 PM
37

Ya know, posting this twelve minutes after the original thread was posted feels a little bit like a brigade. Just saying.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:13 PM
2

this person isn't a feminist, just a moron who has been influenced by feminism. and victim-hood is either two words or hyphenated and only has one d in it. I suggest downloading a browser with spell check built in or an add-on that adds the functionality.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:11 PM
2

definitely
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:09 PM
2

when you're alive, you're alive. alive is better than dead. does that confuse you?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:35 PM
2

what? how does that support the idea that the survivors are worse off than the people who died?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:40 PM
2

it seems pretty ridiculous when its the end of your happiness. if you're alive, you'll have more happiness. if you're dead, you won't.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:31 PM
1

I'm not encouraging suicide. I'm claiming that humans always prefer life to death. We may be "biologically driven" but that doesn't make the preference any less real.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:39 PM
1

Everybody would rather be alive than be dead. The people who would rather die than have their SO die are sacrificing themselves to keep their SO alive. That's why war is called a sacrifice. The reason my comparison is more apt is because it compares the two sitautions: situation 1: you are dead. situation 2: your SO is dead and you are alive. Your phrasing incorrectly suggests that by choosing to be alive, you are killing your SO. It's a moral phrasing that places the blame of the death of the S…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:13 PM
3

correct in both. nevertheless, even those who would rather die than lose their significant other are doing so as an act of kindness to their SO. Even they agree that being alive is better than being dead. You've created a false choice: SO dying or you dying. You're not holding things equal. The question is, if your SO died, would you rather die too or be alive? Obviously, the answer is be alive (as proven by the low suicide rate).
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:56 PM
2

Would you rather be dead, or lose your significant other? I'd rather lose my SO. Being alive is almost always better than being dead. The few scenarios where being dead is better involve endless torture and nothing like the freedoms present in the Western world. And no, the pain of losing somebody cannot reach the level of torture. I'm talking about imprisonment, not emotional pain which you can deal with as you see fit.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:44 PM
7

you're telling people to commit suicide. In a subreddit where a depressed poster previously committed suicide after the suggestion of trolls who commented. Do you see anything wrong with that?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:01 PM
4

good argument. except you missed this part The context [...] does not change anything about the meaning of the statement. It's true for Hillary's statement, but not for your poor quotation of me.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:52 PM
3

The worst part is: Men lose their husbands, their fathers, and their sons too. But for whatever reason, it's worse when a mother loses her son than when a father loses his son and it's worse when a daughter loses her father than when a son loses his father.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:49 PM
3

The context doesn't change the meaning. There are two fundamental wrongs in the quote: implying that being alive with a dead loved one is worse than being dead. implying that when a woman loses her husband, father, or son it's somehow worse than when a man loses his husbands, father, or son. And the second is by far the greater symptom of what's wrong with society. Hillary FORGOT that sons lose their fathers just like daughters. And she FORGOT that fathers lose their sons just like mothers. How …
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:47 PM
5

And the aftermath is horrible. But it's not worse than dying. The context changes nothing. Hillary said that being the spouse of a dead person is worse than dying. That's a fundamentally ridiculous statement. Trying to claim that "context" makes the meaning different is the ONLY dishonest thing going on here.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:44 PM
10

this post is intellectually dishonest and engenders a Fox Newsian level of willful ignorance. Why? Hillary said it. When asked about it, she reaffirmed it. This isn't out of context. Nor is it some statement she misspoke and then took back. It's something she deliberately said and then reaffirmed and continues to believe today. That's not intellectually dishonest. the context is here. It doesn't change the meaning. It makes the quote longer. But, the phrase "taken out of context" implies that th…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:41 PM
2

If being dead is better than mourning, why do we mourn instead of committing suicide?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:39 PM
2

If it's better to be dead than the spouse of a dead person, why does the spouse of the dead person keep on living?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:39 PM
5

The obvious answer to such a question though, is that there are still - hopefully - positive experiences to be had in the rest of their life. Unlike the dead solider who you claim they have it worse than. Does that really make sense? They have good things remaining in their life that make it better than death. He's dead. Therefore, they are having it worse?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:37 PM
7

report it. the mods need to ban users like this; it's ridiculous.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:04 PM
10

mods, can't we ban this?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:01 PM
2

this is trolling. Present a similar citation for /u/binarypillbug or stop arguing in bad faith.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:51 PM
0

unless you have evidence, argue in good faith. And Obvious_Atheist is a troll. Look at the user name and comments in this thread.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:27 PM
2

if it actually happened, another news source will have reported it with more context, less editorializing, and more facts.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:04 PM
5

there is nothing incorrect about three fourths. Brits tend to use quarters while Americans tend to use fourths. You can ask the people at /r/grammar if you'd like more information.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:02 AM
23

Come on. Dailymail Stop editorializing titles
/r/MensRights09/12/12 11:59 PM
2

I was +1/-2 before the edit and +6/-1 after... you might be smarter than the average commenter.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:01 PM
3

fair, fixed.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:30 PM
6

I hoped the smiley face was enough to make the sarcasm obvious. my downvotes prove me wrong...
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:26 PM
18

no, you see, that isn't victim blaming, because that takes away from the seriousness of the term victim blaming if it's used for men ;] edit: /s
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:01 PM
5

just like democrats liberals, republicans conservatives, MRAs, nazis national socialists, and everybody else.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:59 PM
6

I always just say something like: "if somebody nutty calls themselves a feminist, then they have a slight influence on how I view feminists. If a lot of nutty people call themselves feminists, then it has a large influence on how I view feminists"
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:58 PM
4

I would argue there isn't enough information to determine if they are radical feminists. Radical feminist simply means that they don't believe they can achieve equality in the system. Obviously segregation and genocide are examples of this, but so are Marxist feminists who want the downfall of capitalism and a wide variety of other examples. One such byproduct of Marxist feminism is the idea of oppressed and oppressor classes that we see lead to such horrific results. One might argue that belief…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 12:16 AM
3

yale, yale, cornell, and harvard.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 12:08 AM
3

from a hyperliberal place, all at hyperliberal ivy league schools (perhaps redundent). It's about looking for people who actually like to think and then challenging them to do so.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:59 PM
19

that's simply not true. source: my gf, her friend, my other friend, and my other friend.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:52 PM
1

an interesting thought but rather targeted (albeit unintentionally) for idle speculation
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:41 PM
5

precisely. when free birth control ranks above death, you have to ask why.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:35 PM
2

how about this: make a list of the ten worst things that happen to people. now make a list of the ten issues that were prominent politically lately. analyze the ones not in common. Free birth-control is a bigger issue than wartimes deaths because it effects women rather than men. Rape is a bigger issue than murder for the same reason.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:34 PM
2

precisely.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:57 AM
3

fortunately, you can get circumcised at any age, including shortly prior to becoming sexually active. you know, when you're old enough to understand speech and express an opinion and all those other unimportant considerations for bodily modification
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:40 PM
1

almost all countries are part of the UN. (yes)
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:39 PM
8

well, fortunately, i have access to soap, clean water, and don't live in an AIDS epidemic zone. for me and the vast vast majority of the 1st world, that means it has no benefits.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:38 PM
5

almost nothing, not nothing. the distinction might seem trite but the risk of dying from having your appendix out is roughly comparable.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:35 PM
7

you didn't think filing a false police report was a crime?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 04:23 PM
1

pure capitalism reflects the desires of the people within the system. the motivation for charity comes from individuals. capitalism is simply a system which uses monetary units to exchange wants and needs.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 07:44 AM
1

you're not thinking hard enough. if everybody believes that those people should be helped then why aren't they donating money (in a world without government aid). actions speak louder than words and the reality is that people don't care. instead of forcing through government, why don't you try to work on making them care?
/r/MensRights24/11/12 07:42 AM
21

I'm not really sure what your point is. His first sentence seems (to me at least) to be a reasonable analogy. Is it not? The second may mock SRS slightly (with "womyn") but it calls out the lawmakers, not women as a whole.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 06:39 AM
4

fuck. i forgot about that.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 03:37 AM
22

WHAT THE FUCK? When did the ACLU stop being an actual advocate for civil liberties? This is the most clear cut example of a restriction of civil liberties in a very long time and the ACLU is bizarrely FOR IT? /rant
/r/MensRights17/11/12 10:47 PM
11

See how it works? Heads I win, tails you lose. The only way to win is not to play.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 10:13 PM
4

you can buy the pill but you can't make her take it. oh, and even if you buy the pill, she can make you pay for the baby.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:06 AM
1

i've only been talking about violent crimes as well.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 11:32 PM
1

I'm just saying that I see no natural reason to vilify those who believe that all violent criminals (male or female) deserve harsh prison sentences.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 09:17 PM
2

I think this is a moot point because everyone who dislikes /MR is going to claim we hate women no matter what. It's their easiest quick shaming tactic. Yes, but the world isn't divided into people who like MR and people who dislike MR. There are also people with mixed feelings and people who have never encountered MR before and others. When our front page is full of stories to the tune of "look at this horrible woman and the horrible thing she did," we look like women haters TO THEM.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:55 PM
3

many members of MR are not too far from "law and order" type ideologies that push harsh prison sentences for violent criminals.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:53 PM
4

is divorce equally easy for men and women or does one sex have dominating leverage?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 03:31 PM
5

what she is saying is derailing the conversation this. fight fire with fire and force her to have the conversation you want, not she one she wants
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:59 PM
3

more of a stroke than a grab, i really need to get a feel for the size and girth.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:43 PM
5

http://xkcd.com/194/ trust me, just click it.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:42 PM
1

http://thefire.org/ is a good place to start. It's an ACLU of higher education for lack of a better description. You should be able to look up your school and read quite extensive information.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:18 PM
1

took some time to look through some of the link. it is very interesting.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:32 PM
3

I replied with ...? because I'm quite used to dating and thought it was a hilarious comment for you to make (as it's wrong). You shouldn't wait for somebody to get over somebody else, you should go do your own thing and come back later. If you're lucky, they will be ready. If not, go do your own thing again. I don't love the MRA - PUA thing which sounds close to what you're describing. I do understand how feminism has changed the dating game. I think it's extraordinarily interesting. I'm not con…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:30 PM
2

I'm going to assume you're not used to dating that often ...thanks? Either way, the advice isn't "feminist" in nature and the inhabitants of /r/relationships, when they exhibit feminist perspectives, tend to do it because of general socialization rather than any distinct agenda. What you're suggesting sounds rather like the SRS approach, name a MRMRelationships for giving approved relationship advice, and a MRMWomen for approved advice on being a woman and MRMGaming for approved conversations ab…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:15 PM
2

sounds like good advice to me. the girl is still getting over a previous guy and isn't emotionally ready. nothing about that advice is "feminist"
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:04 PM
7

Good article. I was slightly troubled by "dyslexia is the opposite of autism!" While your meaning isn't entirely obvious, it has a vague feeling of autism bad, opposite of autism good. While we're not SRS, we do try to avoid insulting those with mental disabilities here.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:35 PM
4

I don't think the image is informed enough as it doesn't fully convey that this is a trans* issue. Feminists fall on both sides of the spectrum with regard to trans* people. Generally, mainstream feminists are pro-trans and radical feminists (radfems) are anti-trans. The twitter account in question though is more likely simply uninformed and an armchair feminist.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:29 PM
2

What did I do that was name calling? Your criticism of MRM was that it's anti-feminist. I tried to explain what's wrong with feminism and why the MRM must be anti-feminist. This isn't an internet war or a joke. These are serious people, serious scholarship, and a serious intellectual disagreement that's fundamental to changes in our social sphere over the coming years.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:26 PM
3

/r/relationships isn't too bad, actually.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:22 PM
6

lowest common denominator content, we can do better.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:52 PM
4

Because 18 is an absurd age for the age of consent anywhere. 16 is a perfectly valid age of consent. Statutory rape laws are used to vilify 19 year old "rapists" for their interactions with 17 year old girls. We don't have to accept their framework that teenagers are incapable of consenting to sexual activity. 12 year olds? obviously they can't consent. 16? Give me a break. We teach sex ed at 10, 12, 14, and 15 and then say they are incapable of making decisions until they turn 18.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:36 PM
1

also in the united states. the rates of sex selective abortion are not trivial among certain ethnic groups
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:20 PM
1

google "PRENDA" it's about sex-selective abortion. Some studies show that certain ethnicities (primarily asian americans) are more likely to abort females than males. The republican party proposed a bill that would make this illegal last year.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:19 PM
1

http://www.texasrighttolife.com/a/905/Alarming-statistics-about-sexselective-abortion it's not quite as rare as you might think.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:15 PM
1

they oppose it. google PRENDA. The republican party proposed a federal law making sex selective abortion illegal last year. This bumper sticker refers to it.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:13 PM
1

the mods said dont worry guys, we'll be your friends too. in other words, no shits were given.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 03:19 PM
3

Concerns trolls don't real hth. /SRS edit: but actually, concern trolls aren't a real thing. if somebody is expressing a concern, it should be addressed not dismissed with "oh, you're concerned, isn't that cute"
/r/MensRights26/10/12 03:15 PM
1

yes.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:06 PM
1

i see things wrong with all three assumptions. my point is that people make the first and the third flippantly, but not the second
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:07 PM
-2

I know where I am, my participation in MR is older than your account. SRS is trans-friendly to the exclusion of homosexuals in spheres like lgbt. you remain wrong.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:42 AM
1

But you do see people say "oh, he got hit by a car, must have been J-walking" or "oh she got raped, must have been dressed like a slut and really drunk" or "oh, he got shot by a neighborhood watchman, must have been doing drugs and up to no good" why is it that the first and the third are no big deal but the second is a horrible wrong?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:04 AM
-2

I think you failed to read. SRS hates radfem almost as much as they hate you.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:49 PM
3

I agree. That annoys the heck out of me too. But the radfem thing is even worse than that. It's like describing men's rights as opposing women's right to vote. Mainstream feminism and radfems state their opposition to each other and their conflicting ideologies. Just as WE state our opposing ideology to hate groups that try to steal our support.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:21 PM
12

it's because it's actually a vice article, reprinted by the daily mail. http://www.vice.com/read/lesbians-no-longer
/r/MensRights24/10/12 06:10 PM
2

elucidate means to give out lucidity. elucidation means the act of giving out lucidity or clarity on a topic.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:19 PM
10

learning roots is more helpful than people realize e-lucid-ation if you see the "lucid" and know that "e" means out. To give out lucid-ness, or to make clear.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 05:25 PM
4

and perhaps the one about suddenly kissing.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:04 PM
-16

lemme fix that for you having observed my female friends Attractive guy[without leering]"nice dress" I feel good, someone likes my dress attractive guy[while leering at me] "nice dress" I think he's a douche ugly guy [without leering] "nice dress" whispers to friend "wasn't he leering" "yea, i think he was" "what a creep!" "yea and look at that [unattractive feature]" ugly guy [while leering] "nice dress" "ew, wtf, you creep"
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:52 AM
4

here's the problem: you're saying that for women, they have to be explicitly sexual (your third paragraph). But for men, implicit sexuality is enough (second paragraph). that seems like a disparity? Can i not interpret "nice suit" as sexual based on the tone of voice just like a woman can if i say "nice dress?"
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:30 PM
0

No. Whatever the murder rate, you're still talking about a tiny tiny tiny sub-portion of the race. It's the same mindset as "all guys are rapists." I can't believe you would advocate targeting an entire group based on the actions of a tiny tiny minority IN MENS RIGHTS. That's explicitly one of the things we are against.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:06 PM
3

This video isn't MensRights related and really makes this subreddit look stupid. after a verbal altercation, an aggressive person on a bus hit a bus driver who aggressively hit back. the impact of gender on the situation is not entirely obvious (unless the driver was charged and the passenger wasn't). It shouldn't be surprising that the driver was suspended as travel agencies typically suspend people involved in violent altercations when they did not act professionally (the verbal exchange and t…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:42 PM
1

without a source, that's a rather baseless attack.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:35 PM
3

its actually less absolute than you think for DNA to match physical anatomy. That is to say, some XX are born with penises and some XY are born with vaginas (to say nothing of ambiguous genitalia). It's not very common (by a long shot), but it is not so uncommon as to say that chromosomes are sufficient. Unless you've been tested, you don't really know your chromosomal makeup for sure. It's not uncommon for somebody to live their entire life unaware.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:46 PM
3

die non-NPH fan scum!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:44 PM
1

type 100 WPM on a smartphone.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:12 PM
2

sexuality only makes sense when considered within a framework of sex. consider his attraction (to men) fixed and his gender as fluid. The discrimination only exists because he is a man. As other posters have said, gay women face significantly less discrimination than gay men. the male factor cannot be ignored.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 12:42 AM
0

intersectionality is real. one can be members of two discriminated against groups at the same time and face additional discrimination because of it. case in point, gay men face stronger discrimination than gay women.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 12:39 AM
1

you asked how this is MRM related (implying it wasn't). the MRM addresses discrimination against men. This article is about a man who was discriminated against.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 12:38 AM
3

Document. Everything. Communicate by email. Use a diary. Do it subtly if you have to: Dear SO, I'm really sad about your decision to cut me away from my biological son. Your former SO, [name] 2 months later, you can pull up the email you sent to her and prove her wrong.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:32 PM
1

you mean like statutory vs non-statutory rape? Are you trying to imply that they are different and should therefore have different penalties?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:41 PM
6

its also funny because most colleges now use "gender studies". ya know, so they can study both genders instead of just one of them.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:49 AM
5

Rather, most pre-meditated violent crimes are hate crimes. Why would you murder somebody if you didn't hate them?
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:42 AM
4

plenty on 2x. Also Obama. Keywords "obama believes women should register for the draft"
/r/MensRights19/08/12 03:05 PM
14

Barack Obama believes woman should have to register for the draft. Believe it or not, he's in charge of a certain political movement. link You can find another dozen news stories about it by searching "barack obama women selective service"
/r/MensRights19/08/12 03:04 PM
8

Every single rights movement since civil rights takes it as a model and makes endless comparisons. Gay rights, trans rights, etc. The civil rights movement is THE MODEL. Also, nothing in that article could be construed as insulting to black people.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:51 PM
2

not really. its dangerous to be alone with another human being who you don't trust who can overpower you. this is true whether you are a male or female and whether the other human being is male or female.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:51 PM
1

I agree. I read and participate in MensRights for a reason.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:48 PM
1

how is that a straw man? There are actually people who call themselves MRAs who disagree with me. Just read some of the comments on this thread. A straw man is when a position is misrepresented, not when it is simply stated.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:46 PM
2

lemme respond in a different way. do you support the standard of enthusiastic consent generally? or only in gender reversal situations?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:36 AM
7

Several posters have tried to suggest that you turn yourself into the police for raping your boyfriend. I can't think of a suggestion more disconnected from reality. They're channeling their hatred for the people who emotionally abused them and wishing horrible things upon you which is fine-ish but doesn't really sound like a suggestion any rationale person would follow.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:32 AM
6

thanks for the curse words. you're missing the point. when somebody cries or puts our an ultimatum, you can leave. the same thing doesn't apply for drug/date rape (remember that alcohol is a drug) or violent rape. don't deny yourself autonomy. you are a human being. on the other hand, some verbal threats can cross into the category of rape. threats of criminal accusations, child abuse ("i'll hit the kids unless you fuck me"), etc. can easily qualify. but that isn't what the OP is talking about. …
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:28 AM
58

to be honest, i don't like any of the responses that have appeared in the thread so far. I don't define rape the way feminists do and I don't consider this rape. Pressure followed by consent followed by sex is NOT rape despite what a lot of SRSers will tell you, regardless of the genders of either partner. On the other hand, it is somewhat emotionally abusive. In that case, my advice is the same as to any other person who realizes they've been emotionally abusive: try to be less abusive, listen …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 09:56 PM
1

Did they press charges? Did they file a complaint? Why are these valid questions for male who have been sexually assaulted but "victim blaming" for females who have been sexually assaulted?
/r/MensRights07/07/12 04:26 PM
5

actually, that thread has a lot more to do with pressure than with timing.
/r/seduction29/06/12 03:50 PM
1

I don't think I've ever seen a news article with less information.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:56 PM
3

the point is this: All catholic churches acknowledge the infailiability of the pope. They have to in order to be recognized by the global catholic church. All catholics attend a catholic church. They have to because catholicism places a strong emphasis on confession, communion, and church attendance (more the first two, but you can't its rare to do the first two without the third). Most give monetary support to the church they attend.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:47 PM
3

name one catholic church or church official which denies the supremacy of the pope.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:38 PM
3

The difference between catholicism and other forms of Christianity is allegiance to the holy see. I challenge you to find a single Catholic organization that denies the supremacy of the pope.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:22 PM
3

If you believe in Catholicism, you believe in the hierarchal structure of the church and the infailiability of the pope. That is THE thing that distinguishes catholicism from other types of Christianity. The pope believes that homosexuality is a sin. If you are Catholic and you think that homosexuality isn't a sin, then you don't believe in the infailiability of the pope or the moral authority of the church structure and you're actually a protestant calling yourself a Catholic.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:56 PM
3

Maybe I'm sensitive, but I wouldn't denigrate someone over being gay or support somebody that does.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:17 PM
3

if you think that by calling themselves catholic, they give the pope greater power to push an anti-gay agenda.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:45 PM
9

radical feminism This is part of the problem. There is an ideology that is called radical feminism. Those people really suck and do horrible things for men. There is also an ideology called feminism that doesn't include rad fem. These people sorta suck and do some horrible things for men and have a LOT more power. What am I talking about? Rad fem is anti-trans, openly sexist, etc. Mainstream feminism erodes rights for men accused of sexual assault, advocates affirmative action, maintains divorce…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 01:14 PM
7

no they aren't. 2xc has explicitly rejected the safe space model of SRS.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 11:29 PM
2

oh, so the reasons americans sue so much is because we just wanna see everybody burn?
/r/MensRights19/06/12 09:28 PM
1

mm. i thought TERFs considered trans people to be a hostile takeover of their gender. So basically, spies and saboteurs instead of just enemies like MRAs.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:55 AM
3

surprising. my experience is that TERFs and religious people tend to get along very poorly with MRAs.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:24 AM
8

read more slowly. there is a huge difference between deliberately deceiving and failing to mention. very few MRAs are proponents of the idea that trans people need to bring up the topic. but almost all MRAs recognize the right of an individual to put any restrictions whatsoever on their OWN choice of partner. even if other people view it as discriminatory.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:23 AM
8

if by incredibly you mean incredibly less so than the average person. MRAs tend to be informed about the gender spectrum. that by itself is usually enough to make one sensitive to the concerns of trans people and to avoid transphobia. tl;dr: source?
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:20 AM
2

because its an ad hominem attack in the place of actual discussion
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:21 AM
25

I simply don't understand how an educator could believe that grabbing another persons genitals is acceptable in any circumstance.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 08:59 PM
3

perhaps. But (in addition to everything else that has already been said) if men are more likely to be found guilty regardless of the crime committed, do we really know?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:38 PM
25

you're right, but you also miss it. There is no reason to bring up feminism here. But they also can't be worked with. Patriarchy theory necessarily excludes the existence of discrimination against men. Feminism, as an ideology, is built upon an idea of class struggle, where men are oppressors and women are oppressed. It's impossible, from a feminist viewpoint, for a Mens Rights Movement to ever be necessary.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:30 AM
1

... and how does that have anything to do with this thread on reddit?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:07 AM
2

er... what happened to assuming good faith? greenwizard said he/she no longer works at barnes and noble. Unless you have evidence to contradict that, don't.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:01 PM
2

Make sure you contact the source dictionaries as well as dictionary.com. Also, if you get to contact info, post it in the thread so that others can see it (if it isn't inconvenient).
/r/MensRights04/06/12 06:23 AM
2

thanks.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:59 AM
3

source your stat please.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 03:59 AM
1

Yes, but what it actually says is "don't blame women, blame men"
/r/MensRights04/06/12 03:57 AM
5

What do you find strange about this story?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 03:54 AM
1

Er, well, actually...
/r/MensRights28/05/12 01:03 AM
2

The poster against MGM had far more upvotes that the poster for it. Even prior to me linking it here. That alone is positive.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:32 AM
1

Failing to see the analogy. Feminists view trans people as a protected class. Radfems view them as an attempt at hostile takeover of their gender. Seems like one family is anti-semitic and the other wants to pass hate crime legislation to protect jews. Hateful vs misguided?.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:31 AM
1

the categories have some gray area, but nothing that reasonably conflates grinding with sex.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:28 AM
1

I don't think you should ask their permission every two minutes. I think you should ask once, before you penetrate them. You can also ask in non-awkward ways. I don't require you to ask "would you like to have sexual intercourse with me." Simple things she can volunteer including "lets fuck," "i want you inside of me" constitute explicit consent. So does non-awkward things you ask like "should i grab a condom?" or "lets bang?" with a proper response. Or say (sensually) "what do you wanna do to m…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:28 AM
2

or, as shes undressing you, you can say "should i grab a condom" and then bend over to pick one up from your pants. explicit nonverbal consent can occur. all i'm saying is that i think situations where consent is ambiguous are few and far between except in cases of youth, alcohol, and mental disability where state of mind rather than actions form the more pertinent criteria.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:25 AM
2

I think you are far too strong on the side of "communication is hard." it really isn't hard for two people to communicate. the problem is when consent is given and then rape claimed afterwards, not where there is some confusion about the consent in the first place. lemon-meringue-pie is being ridiculous by claiming that everybody must wait for their partner to initiate sexual relations. by that standard, nobody could ever have sex.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:16 PM
2

someone sweet-talking you into it It's now rape to sweet-talk girls? Am I supposed to be rude to them while trying to have sex with them? THAT is exactly what is wrong with enthusiastic consent. You've criminalized being nice, having a discussion, and trying to persuade somebody.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:14 PM
3

people can fuck however they want to... assuming both people are ok with it.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:15 PM
3

what are you talking about? You're obviously a new account, but I linked to a SRS comment that MRA would agree with, not one they would downvote.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:46 PM
8

you're a moron and you make /u/hardwarequestions look better with your responses. enthusiastic consent is a ridiculous term. you sometimes decide to do things you aren't enthusiastic about. for example, one of my friends had sex with a girl who he considered less than gorgeous. he nevertheless wanted to. this violates "enthusiastic consent" but is obviously NOT rape. CONSENT is what matters
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:32 PM
10

No. They grind against you, then they go back to your room, then you say "lets fuck" and then they say "[blank]." whatever fills in the blank determines consent, NOT the grinding.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:28 PM
1

doubtful.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:30 PM
2

this suggests circumcision causes more death that SIDS. Granted, your source seems a lot more legit.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:30 PM
2

If you read some of the articles about the PSA prostate cancer test from last week, you'll find that almost insignificantly few men die from prostate cancer. Simply doing a test to find out if you have prostate cancer is generally harmful to your health, rather than helpful. In any case, infants rarely get prostate cancer. We're talking about MGM, not decisions that adults make to improve their health.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:22 PM
2

That's really the problem that I've found. They are all about their strict moderation policy, except for MGM. For that, dissent is tolerated and discussion happily occurs.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:20 PM
2

It does seem as though SRS relaxes their moderation policy for cisplaining of why MGM is ok. If you try to say FGM is ok - instant ban. If you try to say MGM is ok - mix of upvotes, mix of downvotes, a few posters disagreeing with you, maybe one or two agreeing.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:19 PM
2

It's not possible, it is. Read a tiny bit, learn something. The discrimination against transpeople hurts rather than helps your argument. We now have: trans woman CAMAB, no op, acts like a man, faces no discrimination by gender or cissexuality, feels unnatural VS trans woman CAMAB, op, acts like a woman, faces discrimination both for gender and transsexuality, feels natural Obviously, the choice to make the transition is about gender dsyphoria, not a desire to be a woman. Nobody would spend that…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:50 PM
2

I think you misunderstood. I am answering this question: If men really had all the power and women were victims, why would anyone choose to transition into becoming a woman(in the case of transwomen)? The answer is that a trans woman, CAMAB, would rather be discriminated against and feel natural than not be discriminated against and feel unnatural. "natural" being a poor term, but meaning non experiencing gender dsyphoria.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:40 PM
4

Please recall the radfem and feminism are typically opposing entities. Third wave or "mainstream" feminism is very pro-trans, it considers trans people to be an oppressed class, just like minorities, women, and homosexuals. Radfem is anti-trans, it considers trans women to be a male invasion of femininity. Most feminists HATE radfem. It's simply unfair to conflate the two.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:29 PM
3

How about because they experience gender dsyphoria and don't feel comfortable in their own bodies until they transition?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:26 PM
4

the vast majority of feminists are not.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:59 PM
10

not my fault if you're in a shitty country. Are you stupid? Reddit is extraordinarily us centric and many mainstream feminist leaders are from the united states. You can't try to claim that "feminism" is socialist when the vast majority of feminists are not socialist. it simply doesn't make any sense. How is the CDC feminist ? They aren't feminist, they are using a feminist definition of rape. They get it from groups like NOW that exercise an inordinate amount of influence over the US government…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:42 PM
8

We recognize that the major causes of crime are societal. Do you have any study to back your claim that the abundance of man crime is caused by society ? You missed the point. I was referring to all crime, not just crimes men commit. It's well established that poverty, proximity, lack of education, and homelessness cause crime. My post then continues to make the link between feminism and male poverty and homelessness. If feminism causes homelessness and homelessness causes crime, then feminism c…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:04 PM
11

Actually, I wish more feminists thought like this: rather than engaging in a victim-war, rather than saying "I have suffered, and my suffering is of more important than yours," why not accept that we all suffer, in some way or another? Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the author is incapable of making the link between all people suffering and both genders facing discrimination (ya know, suffering caused because of gender).
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:27 PM
5

see here for one example of incorrect attribution which is both factually backwards and attempts to shame men.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:22 PM
11

Lets try this part: prisons are full of them (men, not children, obviously). As the feminist deity and all-round bullshit detector Suzanne Moore has pointed out, this might have something to do with men like, doing more crime. Lets do some modification though prisons are full of them (black men, not children, obviously). As the feminist deity and all-round bullshit detector Suzanne Moore has pointed out, this might have something to do with black men like, doing more crime. We recognize that the…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:20 PM
58

just like it prevented bars from refusing service to blacks during the 50s and 60s.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 09:27 PM
92

they'd let you in.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 08:26 PM
151

I believe in organizations' rights to discriminate OP is hyper-libertarian, so yes.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 08:15 PM
0

it appears I confused my sources. "A Voice for Men" (which is also frequently on this subreddit), which also shares writers with the false rape society, is for jury nullification in all rape cases. false rape society writes: AVFM is not a monolith, and all of its writers don't subscribe to a monolithic philosophy. And we are certain its writers don't agree with everything we do here. For example, when AVFM calls for jury nullification in rape cases, that may seem extreme to many of us, perhaps t…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 07:37 AM
1

I assume LDF is legal dominance feminism? I don't really know much about it. Wikipedia says: "The dominance model rejects liberal feminism and views the legal system as a mechanism for the perpetuation of male dominance." Conceptually, I see that that is NOT mainstream feminism. I also don't really agree with it or feel like LDF is a decent starting point for a conversation. Can you elaborate?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 05:36 PM
0

I think feminism is also a poor term. I also think the NAACP uses a poor term in its name. That doesn't make them bad groups, and it doesn't make /r/masculism a bad subreddit. I just think there might be better terms given how loaded the word masculine is.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 05:31 PM
-6

Correct me if I'm wrong: Your article begins with an imaginary conversation between you and two people who you are smarter than. Neither one of these people exists. You engage in imaginary conversation where you mock one of them and their inability to understand what you are saying. However, these people don't actually exist; they are merely inside of your head. You label the dumber of the two people "femimist."
/r/MensRights06/05/12 05:10 PM
-5

This reddit isn't hateful. Laughable. here is a relatively highly upvoted thread about how hating feminism and women isn't the same thing. It generally implies that MR doesn't hate women and does hate feminism. As do the two links in my OP.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:17 PM
2

Imagine if he had let all the black students go before the white ones.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 02:32 PM
3

This specific subreddit, /r/MR, evokes a lot of hostility across reddit and for very good reasons. The linked content of the false rape society, information encouraging jury nullification in all rape cases, anti-egalitarianism in the name of "getting our equality," and the general trashing of women on this page. In all honesty, at least 10% of the members of this page are pure shitheads who need help (they are also the most frequent posters). 10% of the page is feminists watching and commenting.…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 02:27 PM
2

No, there isn't similar hostility. I post regularly in 2x. There are a few hostile people (2% of the community). Here, it's probably 30% of the community.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 02:12 PM
2

Pssst: Relevant comments are, in addition to being more likely to receive upvotes, more relevant to the discussion. I just wanted to provide a second reason in case you weren't worried about fake internet points. I sure am.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:45 PM
6

Your education is more important than your money. I shouldn't have to say it. Your education plays a long role in determining your profession and the relationships your have for the rest of your life. Destroying somebody's education is a bigger deal than taking their money.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 12:28 AM
5

So instead of addressing the point raised in the article, you make a miscellaneous comment? You do know that your downvotes are because you're annoying and post irrelevant comments MORE than because your views are absurd and discriminatory.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:59 PM
7

Universities have traditionally gone by the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" which is significantly higher than "preponderance of evidence." Essentially, a "preponderance of evidence" means "more likely than not." The reason that's an appropriate standard for civil courts is because it's entirely about money. With university sanctions, somebody's education and future can be destroyed. A sexual assault charge can prevent somebody from being admitted to other universities and can preven…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:55 PM
-2

No, the man agreed to reproduce and did so, fertilizing an egg. There is now a question of the destruction of the eggs, especially considering the infertility of the woman. That question is legitimate as the woman has some right to her genetic property just as the man has some right to his. As a strict believer in contract enforcement by government, I would rather see the original terms of the contract (ie destruction) followed, but I would also have preferred the contract allow her to implant t…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:58 PM
18

sure, I wouldn't either. The question is whether you can be forced to in the circumstances
/r/MensRights12/04/12 04:30 PM
10

seriously? read the article and leave that term to the SRSers
/r/MensRights12/04/12 04:29 PM
1

In your comment, you say: The guy is just standing there But the article says: the dude by the door followed the woman onto the train
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:50 PM
7

and then he called the school and attempted to have the student disciplined for saying it while on the university's internet. And then another redditor noted that he had a friend who taught in that department and that he might be able to harm the troll's life that way and said he would call the school the next morning. Both posts were upvoted and had encouraging comments. There have been other similar things, like the Agent Orange release and smaller incidents on threads. Multiple redditors atta…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:50 PM
0

No, it doesn't. It means the government can't pre-emptively prevent your speech. Afterwards the government and private citizens can refuse to associate with you even if you didn't cause "harm". The government can't refuse to associate with you. I'm not even entirely sure what that phrase means. In the context of government, free speech means no government consequences. In the context of institutions, free speech means no institutional consequences for non-institutional speech. In the context of …
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:38 PM
1

As long as someone doesn't attempt to harm others I don't care what they do. He did not attempt to harm you, he attempted to annoy you. You suffered no emotional harm. You suffered no physical harm. You are unharmed. free speech entails accepting the consequences for what you say. Free speech means there are no consequences for what you say unless you harm somebody (slander, libel). As nobody suffered any lasting harm (physical, emotional, mental, professional, whatever), that means there should…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:21 PM
5

Yes, he did. But that incident is widely recognized as controversial, with a large number of people believing that he was unfairly treated. We can do better than that.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:09 PM
11

Please do not do this. This is harassment and nothing else. You are attempting to ruin somebody's career because they disagree with you.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:41 PM
4

And when they fired him, they gave him 1 year of free pay. And now he has a better job. It was a regrettable PR shitstorm and not one I agree with.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:39 PM
2

Rules can be illogical and do not form a "should" basis for sanctions. If they have a rule that makes speech illegal, that is "criminalizing speech" almost by definition. Perhaps by analogy: I don't believe in laws that criminalize recreational drug use for individuals who are otherwise breaking no other laws and not attempting to operate a motor vehicle. If I saw somebody smoking pot, I wouldn't call the cops on them. If a redditor posted that he was smoking weed in his dorm room, would you cal…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:05 PM
3

Free speech is always better than the alternative. Edit: removed some identifying info
/r/MensRights10/04/12 04:53 PM
3

One small comment FeministMRA didn't mention: A lot of females need birth control because of the severity of pain from their reproductive cycle. Some estimates say that as many as 25% of women get on birth control for this reason. It's difficult, if not impossible, to argue that their healthcare shouldn't cover birth control.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 04:45 PM
4

Perhaps. Must schools however have formally documented "no censor" Internet. Apart from religious universities and movie/music piracy, your right to do whatever you want (within the law) is well documented. I'm also generally against punishing people for free speech even when it is speech with which I disagree.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 04:32 PM
22

2X Ninja Edit: /r/TwoXChromosomes
/r/MensRights10/04/12 12:47 AM
3

If he phrased it as "I gotta downvote that. I'd never agree that wishing death on anyone is appropriate content no matter how much I disagreed with them." would you like it better?
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:26 PM
1

Or just some good old circle jerking.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:06 PM
3

I just wanted to reply to you to reiterate what the previous postersaid. She's a bad mother. "OD'd within 2 months, taken to hospital, hasn't worked in 2.5 years and" is raising your children? Unless there is some reason why you are unfit for custody, you should have it. How many times have their kids seen their mother drugged up? Saying crazy shit. (what drug?) Hospitalized once and too high to comfort the baby when it cries every on friday and saturday nights? Tuesday afternoons too? Your kids…
/r/MensRights05/04/12 11:50 PM
1

No. The potential rapists analogy isn't quite fair. You can't rape somebody while going out to lunch with them in public. By contrast, you can be accused of sexual harassment for going out to lunch with them in public. Many men also avoid being alone with exceptionally odd or sexual women for fear of rape accusations. In some ways, women do treat all men as potential rapists. Who has a first date anywhere except in public, the one place where its almost impossible to rape somebody? If women aren…
/r/MensRights26/02/12 07:18 PM
8

Guns rights issue more than mens rights...
/r/MensRights26/02/12 12:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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