TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

zazhx Archive

View 0 posts and 170 comments by zazhx 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)
3

Actually, perhaps if prostitution were legalized and carefully regulated to be in compliance with existing labor laws, incidence of child prostitution and human trafficking would go down.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 08:02 PM
2

Yes, I suppose that's the inherent issues with such definitions. Masculinity essentially refers to the set of traits which stereotypically belong to men, but as people have different impressions of and stereotypes regarding men (as they do all things), they also have different definitions of masculinity. However, I would believe that (at least in western cultures) the classical, traditional definition of masculinity would include traits like the ones you listed (bravery, self sufficiency, a stoi…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:40 AM
1

Most people would not call me a feminist (by virtue of posting in this subreddit alone, apparently), but, as a supporter of the men's rights movement, I accept the idea of toxic masculinity. Masculinity is the traditional male gender role. While there may be some objectively and almost universally negative components to this (including the very existence and propagation of gender roles altogether), there are potentially positive aspects as well. As a classic example, masculinity might instruct a…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:05 AM
8

Take this line: I think that culpability should be instilled in every current or future parent, because we are the difference between the men women are thankful they encounter, and the men they hope they never come across. Imagine if that were gender-reversed. Imagine if we were claiming that women should be raised so that they are desirable to men. We'd be branded misogynists and rightfully so! The paradigm of man vs woman, battle of the sexes, must come to an end for real progress to be made. …
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:48 AM
6

She's not afraid of raising a man, she's afraid of men (and boys!). She's afraid of her own son. Before he's even been born. She believes that boys don't face discrimination and therefore it is unnecessary to be concerned for their wellbeing. She believes gender roles are good for boys. She believes that all boys will naturally become abusers unless a woman teaches them otherwise. She believes that boys should be defined in the context of girls, and raised to meet standards desirable to women (b…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:42 AM
1

This should be good news for the men's rights movement, so long as they don't take prejudiced, subjective opinions as truths.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:30 AM
2

Yeah, I understand the impulse for justice (or vengeance, be that as it may). But, in a lot of these situations, given the current public image of the men's rights movement, the best thing to do is simply take it in stride. Prove once more that we are better than them, show that we do not need to resort to their lowly online shaming and brigading tactics. In any case though, you may be interested in https://np.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/3eyaau/powermod_utehalpacalypse_creates_restagli…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 07:41 PM
3

I made the list! I can't help but wonder what the purpose of the list is though... And frankly, I'm surprised that particular post was so offensive. Of all my posts to single out, I'm sure they could've found something worse.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 07:08 PM
31

OP of that thread posted: I think it was the mods =/ might have been something to do with a joke I posted. Oh well. I would've assumed that was a joke line as well unless there were more serious details to go with it.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 05:05 AM
5

Police and practically everyone else.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 10:38 PM
4

Also interesting how her very last remark is We're not equal.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 10:35 PM
3

I can sympathize with how people think that way: most people aren't in court facing child molestation charges. Those that do are already way out of the ordinary. The US DOJ had a 93% conviction rate for 2012.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 09:41 PM
2

For what it's worth: We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. Certain societies at certain times, usually in the interest of maintaining the baby supply, have discouraged homosexuality. Other societies, particularly militaristic ones, have exalted it. But regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not …
/r/MensRights09/07/15 09:20 PM
1

This is also misogynist: the implication is that women (who, biologically, mature earlier than men) are less capable and responsible than men of the same age. Of course, even if misogyny is part of the issue here, it's important to not miss the misandry: boys are disadvantaged to girls because their abuse cases are not taken seriously, men are disadvantaged to women because they are held to higher standards, all without any serious justification. The problem is the gender role.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 08:08 PM
8

Political correctness is famously a leftist ideal. You can idealize liberals all you like. But the unfortunate truth is that there are idiots on each side, and there are smart people on each side waiting to take advantage of those idiots. Moreover, given that a key element of being a republican is being a member of the Republican Party, your idea that they are all "hardcore republican" doesn't hold much water. I'm a liberal and a leftist. And I do worry about excessive sensitivity, political cor…
/r/MensRights12/06/15 02:27 AM
21

I'm not sure I understand... Are you saying that republicans control reddit, twitter, and academia? Are you saying that the users who post the censored information are republicans? Or are you saying something else?
/r/MensRights12/06/15 01:18 AM
1

Alright, before everyone starts panicking, take a look at this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_was_rfatpeoplehate_along_with_several_other/ Here are some other potentially interesting posts: http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_was_rfatpeoplehate_along_with_several_other/cs2c14q http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_was_rfatpeoplehate_along_with_several_other/cs23u3y http://www.np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/r…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 01:32 AM
-1

I generally agree with your sentiment, but I would like to point out the definition of the word bigot: A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinion You might've confused "bigot" with "someone who engages in discrimination" or, perhaps in this case, "misandrist." But, strictly speaking, being a bigot is not the same as being misguided. A misguided person, for example, might still be willing to reconsider their faulty reasoning. A bigot would be someone who would refuse to do …
/r/MensRights29/05/15 06:23 AM
7

Fortunately he's at about -39 points at this point... But yeah, the fatal flaw of the men's rights movement is that there actually are crazy misogynists and extremists. Which makes it rough because it gives critics something tangible to point to when they try to lump us all into that same category.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 06:16 AM
1

Would you care to elaborate? Providing a contradictory point of view without any reasoning is useless. Explain your point of view, explain what is wrong with the claim put forward in my previous post.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 03:57 AM
5

Worth noting that this is only one person, and there are probably people on the men's rights "side" that would have a similar reaction to feminist content. This sort of ideological, tribal commitment is hardly uncommon, albeit unfortunate.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 02:08 AM
0

I have nothing against statistics (so long as they are genuinely accurate and unbiased), but usage and context matters greatly. While a statistic might not be inherently racist, something as simple as stating a statistic could very well be considered racist (i.e. if the aforementioned statistic regarding black homicides was passed around at a KKK meeting). In essence, I want to point out that while a statistic might not be inherently racist/misogynist/misandrist/discriminatory/hateful, a statist…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 02:05 AM
11

No, it's misogynist because it's a false portrayal of rape as something women do to men, when we all know rape and sex is something men do to women. Or something like that.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:27 PM
6

That's the problem with getting your worldview from a comedy song.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 07:36 AM
5

I just want to caution everyone that we don't know the full story, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions or engage in powerful rhetoric just yet. There should not be anything inherently suspicious about existing, but until someone has gotten this guy's side of the story, we should avoid unilateral support for him and unilateral condemnation for the school. If he turns out to be a creep, and we've been supporting him wholeheartedly, the result would be extremely negative publicity for the men's ri…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 09:14 AM
8

It's called demographics and sociology, social sciences which utilize statistics in their analysis.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 09:43 PM
2

Somewhat off topic and I know it's not your fault, but I think your numbered list is broken.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 10:27 PM
5

Well I mean the topic comes up on Reddit fairly often and it seems like the people who are always up in arms are the ones who are uncircumcised. Not sure if red herring or ad hominem. As you admit, there are people who regret being circumcised. There are also people who are glad they weren't circumcised. But, like I said - people can adapt to almost any condition. The reason why people - particularly men's rights activists - are opposed to (medically unnecessary) circumcision is because it is ef…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:12 PM
5

Fingernails grow back and trimming them benefits wellbeing. Lopping off the tip of your dick is different. The point is, if one form of genital mutilation is okay, why is another not? Why the double standard? Why just pick some arbitrary point with regard to parental power over genital mutilation? Why not just outlaw all genital mutilation?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:15 PM
3

This is something of a straw man. No one is proposing that we outright ban all circumcision. If done for necessary medical reasons, then obviously it's justified and good. If someone chooses to be circumcised for aesthetic or cultural reasons, that's their choice (right or wrong), but it should be their choice - not forced upon them before they can properly consent. All we ask is to stop performing unnecessary, medically unjustified surgery on babies.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:11 PM
4

People are amazingly adaptable and can live with any number of conditions. Some people are perfectly content being deaf. That doesn't mean we should destroy people's ears. A combination of (American, Jewish, Islamic) culture and the ability of humans to adapt to almost any situation enables the continuation of circumcision. Just because most people don't seem to be bothered by it (and how often do you really ask people about their dicks?) doesn't mean it's not wrong.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:07 PM
11

If it's any consolation, most of those comments are pretty heavily downvoted. For good reason, it's hard to support genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:30 AM
2

Presumably Coleen is working from a more socially conservative set of values. That's not inherently wrong, but it explains the difference in perspective between you and her. Coleen believes that the woman in question did not want to have to sex with all these men and that sex (particularly in this context) is a degrading act that men do to women. This explains why she was dissatisfied with both the woman (performing such an impure act) and the men (for doing such a thing to the woman without que…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 12:40 AM
4

>medical doctor >uses as many exclamation points as words >WoW!!
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:39 AM
3

No one is ordering people to not get married. Check the title of this thread: Don't EVER get married guys I think the point /u/junkeee999 is trying to make is that a lot of people in this thread seem to be opposed to marriage and are treating the anti-marriage perspective as the absolute ideal. The fact that /u/junkeee999 has been so downvoted is further evidence of this - dissenting opinions are disregarded and silenced. That is not discussion as you have so promised. As I read /u/junkeee999's …
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:31 PM
10

Just in case you happen to wind up a multimillionaire?
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:24 PM
1

Were not against each other They're definitely against each other. They just happen to agree on this one particular point. But they might agree on it for very different reasons and as such advocate for very different solutions.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:09 AM
1

Feminist is an open label. Anyone can identify as a feminist. The notion that modern feminism is opposed to gender equality or otherwise misandrist is not inherently true. It may be true in many instances, but the notion that all or even most feminists are actively opposed to equality is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:07 AM
3

By abstaining you're not sending a political opinion. From the outside, it just looks like apathy. Maybe if you were protesting, making a big deal out of it, loudly and clearly pronouncing your reasons for abstaining from voting, you'd have a better argument. But otherwise, you're just lumped in the group of lazy kids. (note that this is not directly addressing "you" /u/Vilantius, but all those who choose not to vote for one reason or another)
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:01 AM
1

8chan
/r/MensRights06/04/15 08:00 PM
17

Short, unbiased tl;dr: Ellen Pao is the current CEO of reddit, she recently received this position on recommendation of the former CEO, Yishan. Ellen Pao's husband (who, for reference, is black), Buddy Fletcher, has on multiple occasions in the past filed lawsuits alleging racial discrimination. His claims were dismissed. The hedge fund he once managed is now in bankruptcy. He is accused of civil fraud. Ellen Pao sued her former company over her termination claiming gender discrimination. The co…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:55 AM
1

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or your legitimate view, but it is nonetheless revealing. When I call the American Enterprise Institute "conservative" I am not making a value judgement; though I could see how it might appear that way in my first post, but that disclosure was merely meant to provide a full and accurate picture of reality. Principles of economic and social conservatism are not inherently invalid, nor are principles of economic and social liberalism, despite what partisan propagand…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:45 AM
2

I never said it wasn't, however they are indisputably conservative.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:35 PM
11

Presumably she does in her scholarly work. But this is obviously a short entertainment video directed at a general audience. You don't often see the History Channel or National Geographic citing peer-reviewed studies during their TV shows. But serious historians generally do (at least when producing serious academic work, not infotainment).
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:46 PM
35

I'm not a fan of Prager "University" and Dennis Prager in general. However, the speaker in question, Christina Hoff Sommers, is somewhat more respectable: Bachelors from New York University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. Doctorate in philosophy from Brandeis University. Was a philosophy professor in ethics at Clark University. Author of seven books on ethics, feminism, and philosophy. Is a feminist (albeit self-proclaimed, like every feminist). Recipient of the Exceptional Merit in Media Award from…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:44 PM
1

First off, it is different when newspapers do it. They need to be held to a higher standard. Equating professional journalism (and associated ethics) with recreational social networking is ludicrous. If you read my first post thoroughly, you'll see that I am not inherently opposed to anonymity. I can see where it has value. However, the public deserves as much information as possible, particularly from any serious publication and particularly when it goes to the credibility and integrity of a pi…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:01 PM
0

There is a significant difference between a social media website is a feature and a serious journalistic outlet. The public is entitled to as much information as possible, particularly with regard to the author's integrity. Like I said, we're either left to believe the author is in fact ashamed of their writing, knowing it is intentionally incendiary and unreasonable (e.g. trolling) or that the author doesn't really care about their own writing (and if the author doesn't care, why should anyone?…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 07:42 PM
2

No, but reddit is a social media service, unlike The Independent which is a newspaper, supposedly a serious journalistic outlet.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 07:20 PM
3

This, they made a choice to publish that article. The government might not be able to intervene due to free speech, but that doesn't mean the general public can't respond.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:54 AM
6

1) Hate speech is not protected everywhere. The Independent is a UK publication. There are laws against hate speech in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom 2) This publication (presumably) has an editor who makes a decision about what content is representative of and appropriate for the publication. Free speech does not mean they are required to publish anything and everything. Free speech does not entitle you to utilize any outlet (particularly private one…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:50 AM
1

When writing your article, you should consider the voice of those who oppose you: While you may view racism and sexism as individual acts of meanness, they view racism as systemic white and/or male privilege. So, be careful when discussing racism and sexism as it applies to white men. You don't want to come off "whiny," you don't want to minimize discrimination against minorities, and you shouldn't ignore the historic and contemporary contexts of privilege (as they perceive it). Obviously white …
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:46 AM
4

People should stand up and take pride in their beliefs. If they can't do that, then they either are deliberately trolling or lack conviction. It's not about bullying and shaming the author, but without understanding the context of the article, we have no way to meaningfully respond as readers. We're left thinking either "why give a fuck (about the ramblings of some random, unidentified person)?" or left to conclude that this is somehow representative of the publication itself.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:39 AM
3

Selectively publishing articles based on an editorial point of view is not the same as censorship. The publication has the right to choose what it publishes. It chose to publish this article and it could choose to retract it. If they accept and publish an effective rebuttal of the article in question, then perhaps your position is viable. However, failing to do so illustrates that misandry is, in fact, a component of their point of view. And I don't think it's wrong to fight against bigoted orga…
/r/MensRights29/03/15 08:35 AM
2

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/gibbytheshow/images/b/bc/Normal_3x03_iSpeed_Date_073.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120806133042
/r/MensRights27/03/15 08:33 PM
2

Since it is now obvious that you are either a fucking retard with no reading comprehension or a fucking asshole with no empathy (by your remarks, it appears as though both are true), allow me to attempt to explain reality to you (though I suspect it will fail because, as you have already proven, you are a retarded asshole). Now, when you say that a victim "asked for it" you are either attempting to engage in victim blaming (which is obviously inappropriate due to the disproportionate reaction of…
/r/MensRights22/03/15 04:03 AM
3

How do you not see how this is still victim blaming? Your position is easy to disprove via reductio ad absurdum: Say, for example, you cut in line. The person you cut in front of, understandably annoyed, pulls out a gun, shoots and kills you. That person is guilty of second degree murder. Sure, you could argue that it was entirely your fault as you deliberately offended the other person - but is it really? And even if it is, does it really matter? The salient point in the case of this boy is tha…
/r/MensRights22/03/15 03:33 AM
13

She didn't deserve to get raped. But its entirely her fault. Who wears such short skirts? and walks around late at night? Seriously. This logic. It's fucked up. Victim blaming.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:11 PM
1

I don't doubt you, but do you have any evidence of the outcry?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:08 AM
0

Gender has nothing to do with it. Consider this hypothetical example: A boy, age 17 (assuming 18 is the age of majority), violently attacks and rapes a man, age 90 (a generally old age). The old man is physically incapable of fending off the attack, a 17 year old generally being more fit than a 90 year old. The old man did not want to have sex with the boy; the boy forced the man to do so. /u/JustOneWorm previously commented: It doesn't matter who the aggressor is in either situation, as minors …
/r/MensRights20/02/15 06:25 AM
2

A lack of sympathy for men simply by virtue of their being men is unfortunately quite common.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 12:39 AM
2

I somewhat agree with this, but what if there is a minor who genuinely attacks and rapes an older person? Would the older person who had been forced to have sex still be guilty of a crime?
/r/MensRights20/02/15 12:35 AM
2

I think that all people are born with a right not to be disrespected (a right which they can potentially lose with their actions), and that is a right of all people of all genders. I think people need to earn respect (here defining "respect" as a "deep admiration") through actions which sufficiently and admirably distinguish them from others. And, in that same vein, people earn disrespect (by some sufficiently negative action). We shouldn't respect/disrespect people just because we can, but rath…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:57 AM
1

I agree, certainly just because petitions aren't as effective as other options, doesn't mean we shouldn't petition as well. Especially as petitioning doesn't really detract from other efforts. So long as people realize petitions aren't enough to effect meaningful change alone, and that they must do more, I see no issue with petitions.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:51 AM
9

Just because you're free to believe doesn't mean you're free to oppress. Laws which benefit one religious preference or practice over another are unconstitutional. She's not being denied her first amendment rights just because she doesn't receive special privileges (to the detriment of all others). If it was really a religious issue anyway, why brand it as a gender issue? Why not just kick out all non-Muslims?
/r/MensRights10/02/15 07:33 AM
7

Women can have a safe space, but then men ought to have one too. Particularly if they're both paying the same amount. A part of gender equality means that if two people pay for the same service, then they ought to receive the same service, regardless of their gender. If a person receives preferential treatment on the basis of their gender alone, then it's discrimination.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 07:27 AM
1

Intent of malice doesn't really depend on the degree one person intends to hurt another. The fact that the intention exists in the first place proves malice. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Using public resources to intentionally harm another person in such a way that might result in them being imprisoned for decades ought to be treated as a serious offense. Hell, even if you are a misandrist, you should be opposed to taxing the legal system in such a way. Not to mention, it risks bringin…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 05:50 AM
1

That's a tremendous misrepresentation of what I said. At what point did I state that he deserved the response he received?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:36 PM
0

In what sense?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 06:08 AM
1

Let me clarify... Just because you have an object which offends a group does not prove that you are morally superior, nor does it necessarily say anything about the "radical" or "ignorant" nature of the group. For example, if a person walked into school wearing a Nazi swastika sweatshirt, people might conceivably be angry. But that does not justify one's support of Nazism, nor does it invalidate those who oppose Nazism. Now, while you do know how a group (of unknown relative size) of people outw…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:03 AM
19

He could submit it to his local newspaper.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 02:54 AM
1

I wholeheartedly support men's rights, but it should be noted that just because people are outraged by the shirt does not necessarily prove we're justified - nor does it necessarily win favor for us among others.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 02:51 AM
1

Yes, I am familiar with primary school level mathematics. I realize it's a joke, but I am concerned that many people at least appear to not be familiar with the meaning of the word "average."
/r/MensRights10/01/15 03:59 AM
10

Technically, an average is merely a measure of central tendency, including the median.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 12:24 AM
1

The truth is that almost anything can be cast in any light. I wouldn't describe that song as a "rape anthem" but I also wouldn't call it a "very pro-feminist song." I will also say that particularly when coupled with the video (which was rather racy, albeit not necessarily and overtly sexist), I can see why some might take offense. For example, consider the following lyrics: I hate these blurred lines I know you want it I know you want it I know you want it But you're a good girl The way you gra…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 08:27 AM
2

I disagree with some of the commenters here - I think many VICE stories are interesting and relevant (albeit almost all need to be taken with a grain of salt as they have a tendency to embellish). Unfortunately, they do sometimes put out obviously false articles like this.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 08:08 AM
7

I don't think it's horrible to emphasize the female victims if that's what gets more donations, as long as the money gets to all victims in an equal way. But it is indicative of general misandrist sentiment in society. Also, this only holds true if the donations actually help all victims equally.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:57 AM
5

That's effectively my point. If you change your decision to consent then it is your responsibility to communicate that to your partner.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 04:12 AM
3

If we never do anything other than circle jerk around online, how will anything ever change?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:49 AM
4

Yes, you can't just magically withdraw consent at any time. You can't just suddenly stop consenting to a contract and get out of it once it's all said and done.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:39 AM
1

Yes, "indicated" is certainly a poor choice of words as that is a definite indication of consent (even if perhaps it is not an explicit statement of consent).
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:38 AM
1

And when does he indicate that he wishes to engage in the act? Or is sex something that men do to women?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:36 AM
3

The usage of the word "too" would indicate at least a somewhat comparable level of intoxication (ie "John is tipsy like Mary").
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:30 AM
3

Just because some people don't have successful relationships with their spouses doesn't mean you won't. In general, you tend to hear the absolute worst and the absolute best of things (mostly the absolute worst of things), as those make the most interesting stories and are thus the ones worth telling. If you genuinely trust and love (for good reason) your girlfriend and you genuinely want to be with her for the rest of your life (and you know she views you the same), then it'll probably work out…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 02:20 AM
5

It's especially interesting as that belief is predicated on women being fundamentally inferior to men.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 09:36 PM
3

That's good.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 05:15 AM
1

I don't think her reaction is appropriate, but I think the purpose of the audience laughter is to show they're pleased with Dr. Phil's response.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 11:58 PM
1

I understand why he might want to wear the shirt, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I don't think it's badass - IMO it's not only pretty ugly but also distasteful and unprofessional for the setting. If he's really the genius science people are propping him to be, then the success of his rocket ought not depend on whether he wears his lucky shirt. Even if he did wear his lucky shirt in private, he should have changed before the press conference. When you give a press conference of this nature…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 11:14 AM
0

IMO I could see why he might have apologized. I don't think all the outrage and hate was warranted, but I think the shirt was inappropriate for a professional setting. Call me old fashioned, but the gender depicted in the shirt is irrelevant, the fact alone that it's depicting a seminude sex scene makes it inappropriate.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 03:09 AM
1

Part of this point of analogy and hyperbole was reductio ad absurdum. While the argument is flawed, he's not equating rape and insult, he's trying to demonstrate an error in reasoning.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:28 AM
3

There's not a lack of women in STEM fields. Really just T fields, maybe TE fields. STEM is actually arguably a majority female now.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:25 AM
19

I wonder how many men actually honestly tried to help her out, waste time out of their day to do so, only to have their own time wasted. I would hope no one. If it was staged, she presumably wasn't acting drunk all the time (instead only acting when filming the relevant scene). Hot white girl in distress? Walk by her. At best it's a stupid group trying to make a viral video, at worst, some dumb girl who needs to take better care of herself. That could be one lesson to be taken away from this, bu…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 10:44 AM
1

I know, I'm trying to add to your comment, not contradict it. Apologies if it came off as antagonistic.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:57 AM
1

He ran away and then got her convicted. I'd hardly say that implies a want.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:47 AM
2

In Sweden the legal age limit for sex is 15, which I think it's far more reasonable than the "18 years old hard limit" in the US. This is not an accurate description of the legal situation in the US. Less than a quarter of US states have an age of consent of 18, and over half of US states have an age of consent of 16. Many states also have "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow people of around the same age to have sex, even if one or more are under age, though that would not apply in this scenario…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:45 AM
2

You fail to understand what she is expressing. She's not directly commenting on her own feelings towards this woman or this situation, though they could potentially be inferred from the content of her post. She is commenting on the necessity of the protection of men's rights, because she does not want to see her own children placed into a similar situation. This is a perfectly legitimate point of view.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:37 AM
3

The age is hardly the issue here, the issue is lack of consent and refusal to recognize men as victims of sexual violence.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:34 AM
1

Whether or not there are teens mature enough to give consent is irrelevant because: 1) The teen in question is legally a minor and is therefore incapable of legally consenting, making it criminal regardless of his own intentions. 2) Even if the law was different, the teen in question demonstrated his desire to not engage in sex by the fact that he ran away. 3) If the genders were reversed, and a 47 year old man lured a 15 year old girl to his house repeatedly, then gave her alcohol and tried to …
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:33 AM
1

The fact that she is a mother of three boys is relevant because it informs her opinion. She has three boys she cares about and would not want to see in this situation.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:29 AM
1

You should take a screenshot of that bit too.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:25 AM
1

I think both /u/luxury_banana and you are making the mistake of trying to generalize your own past experiences and opinions to all teenage boys.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:21 AM
1

The men's rights problem in this specific scenario isn't necessarily that a boy had sex with an older woman. The problem is the reaction to the legal outcome. Essentially, the outrage against the equal and fair enforcement of the existing law (outrage that probably would not have occurred had the genders been reversed). The boy refused to have sex with the woman even after she deliberately drugged him and tried to force herself upon him. The real men's rights issue in this scenario is that peopl…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:17 AM
0

Whether or not he has consumed alcohol before or has a high tolerance for alcohol is irrelevant to the legality and ethics of this situation, alcohol is still a psychoactive drug and giving alcohol to a minor is still illegal.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:06 AM
1

Giving alcohol to a minor is illegal and can be punished with fines and jail time among other penalties.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 12:02 AM
4

/u/enjoycarrots is putting providing alcohol to a minor aside because his analysis is specifically and solely of the ethics of having sex with a minor, whether or not alcohol was present is irrelevant to that. He's not saying that the alcohol was irrelevant to this case overall, just that he doesn't view it as necessarily inherent to the men's rights violation in this scenario.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 11:59 PM
1

This is a sentiment I certainly agree with, but in this case, it doesn't seem to apply. Most of the "harassment" in this video (and the 10 hour female version) are really just harmless and even polite comments or compliments. I'm not sure that really qualifies as harassment. I believe that's what this video was trying to point out, what it was parodying. If it was actually harmful or offensive, I would agree. But this harassment (if it could even be called as such) is not on the same level as ac…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:49 AM
3

Do you have any evidence that it's fake other than your own opinion mixed with a bit of childish name calling?
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:47 AM
2

Generally, most people act without regard for others (particularly strangers) because they mistakenly believe that they are the center of the universe. Everyone has their own story line of which they are the main character. It's hard to imagine that the supporting actors each have their own story line of which they are the main character as well.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:45 AM
33

When a man or a boy is a victim of sexual abuse or harassment of any kind, he wanted it, deserved it, and was lucky to have gotten it. That is the stereotype that unfortunately many uphold as true. Men are the ultimate sexual object.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:08 AM
1

There's a saying that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" but I'm not so sure it stands up to reality. Insulting words, name calling, harassment, do not, of course, cause broken bones, but emotional pain and psychological harm is very real. It is really a Western idea that even though words are used as weapons by antagonists, the antagonist and people around them blame the victim for experiencing pain by believing that it is the victim's fault for being too sensit…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 02:07 AM
2

I agree with you here. Saying "have a nice day" is not an example of catcalling (even though the video which ignited this all counted it as such), it is an example of courtesy. Even if he was doing it to get attention from the woman with the intent of obtaining a sexual or romantic relationship with her (which frankly seems remote), that's still a far cry from harassment. Generally speaking, I'm opposed to catcalling. However, it's important to distinguish between legitimate harassment and commo…
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:34 AM
1

Most feminists will even agree, sexual assault randomly happening while someone's walking around at night is pretty rare. Seriously, they're defeated by their own logic. At this point, it's just hurtful.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:30 AM
8

And even if she did, that's her own issue. Each person is responsible for their own safety. Asking all men to specifically indicate that they're not planning on sexually assaulting you is offensive, sexist, and horribly ineffective. If she is legitimately in danger, she should contact the authorities.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:28 AM
1

I find it disturbing that whenever a boy or man engages in sexual intercourse, it is automatically and immediately assumed that he wanted to, essentially regardless of his age, mental state, or ability to consent and, more disturbingly, regardless of whether he, in fact, actually wanted to. To be clear, in this story an adult forcibly performed a sex act on a minor after intentionally intoxicating that minor. That's rape (among other crimes). Even if the victim did want it, it's still illegal.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:22 AM
1

personally, i don't really care whether people take offense at my personal expressions or not. i look at it like that's their problem not mine. I think we agree up until this point. In my opinion, a personal expression is one thing, while a public expression is another. While the ensuing popularity probably couldn't have been predicted by the person who took and uploaded the picture, it certainly opens up the possibility of harassment and abuse. Hypothetically, if the picture was of an underage …
/r/MensRights06/11/14 11:05 AM
1

That's a good point, perhaps "harassment" is not the right word, as taking (and even sharing) a photo shouldn't be seen as inherently wrong. It's more a matter of potential for harassment. While I suppose whoever took the photo couldn't have known at the time he/she shared it, by becoming as popular as it did, it certainly opened up the potential for inappropriate actions against the subject of the photo. I'm sort of conflicted on this matter, as while I do believe you ought to be able to take p…
/r/MensRights06/11/14 08:27 AM
5

I agree with this. Even if it could be construed as slightly offensive to use "beautiful" as a pronoun, I don't think any offense or harassment was intended by it. Honestly, that just seems like an overall pleasant and friendly remark. At least I would not be particularly upset if someone said that to me. On the other hand, secretly taking a picture of a stranger (who is apparently underage) and then posting and spreading it (along with his name) around on the Internet to exploit his physical at…
/r/MensRights06/11/14 07:19 AM
2

It also turns liberals and Democrats (read: much of the young generation) against the MRM. It only hurts the cause.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 06:03 AM
0

Now OP, you need to handle this maturely. Your only choice is to go into the women-only room at an off time when no one is around and proceed to piss and shit all over the floors and walls.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 08:34 AM
2

You keep claiming reductio ad absurdum as though it is a bad thing, when in fact it is a valid method of proof. Reductio ad absurdum is about showing that an argument logically reduces to absurdity, thereby discrediting the argument. Your argument was that it is acceptable to circumcise babies if it has the potential to at least slightly reduce the prevalence of HIV. Stated more broadly, you believe it is acceptable to forcibly mutilate infants if it has the potential to slightly reduce incidenc…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 11:43 PM
1

So, what you're saying is that your feelings towards this effort is ambivalent, and that you don't necessarily support or oppose it?
/r/MensRights02/11/14 01:41 AM
1

So, if the ends don't justify the means, that means you don't support this government funded effort of forced infant genital mutilation?
/r/MensRights01/11/14 10:01 PM
3

1) Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument technique. 2) /u/elmariachi304's point is that infant genital mutilation is wrong.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 10:00 PM
23

Top reply is a justification of child abuse; women abuse children only because they have to, men do it because they are evil.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 09:33 PM
13

She must be gigantic.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 08:27 PM
2

This is true. One could even argue that people who make false rape accusations belong on the actual sex offender list (given how broad the sex offender registry is and the nature of the accusation in question). That said, I support the abolition of the sex offender registry, and would not support a false accuser registry. While it may be more fair to have both sex offender and false accuser registries, it is not preferable to having none at all, and to add a false accuser registry would be an un…
/r/MensRights13/10/14 07:06 AM
5

This is vigilantism and is arguably wrong for the same reason most disliked this: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/u-chicago-students-outed-rapists-on-tumblr/
/r/MensRights12/10/14 08:54 PM
38

I don't think it's right to have such a false accuser registry for the same reason there shouldn't be a sex offender registry. Both sex offenders and false accusers ought to be punished, but a lifetime registry is too far.
/r/MensRights12/10/14 08:52 PM
3

The word "rape" isn't outright mentioned, but she is clearly framed as the bad person and the audience clearly dislikes her. Maury, the host, even mentions to the woman that many believe she committed a crime. There's much more screwed up things about that show than this. That said, I do think the woman should be punished (not by a TV show, but by the law) and I don't think it should be the responsibility of the boy to care for the baby (which he won't be, because he isn't the father - but even …
/r/MensRights06/10/14 09:04 PM
11

tl;dr - 1) Drunken guy punches girl (allegedly because the girl was involved in another altercation with a different girl). 2) 6 men then proceed to run over and violently attack the drunken guy amidst cries of "he hit a girl!" As the drunken guy is horribly brutalized, OP tries to defend the drunken guy. In a last ditch effort, OP throws himself over the drunken guy so as to shield him. 3) It turns out the drunken guy is in very bad shape, with people having kicked him in the face and ribs and …
/r/MensRights04/10/14 08:09 PM
0

I agree with you. While the intent of /u/CMOS222's idea presumably isn't to victimize more men but instead take away from the power of the "campaign," it could also be actively harmful, at least at first, to some of the additional/new people listed, and I don't think that's fair. It seems extreme and perhaps even somewhat immature, and might not be the best way to represent the MRM. I also don't think that it is fair that people are downvoting you for presenting a legitimate criticism.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:41 PM
0

Yes, that's exactly what I said.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 10:47 PM
-6

Except that's not at all what I said. In fact, what I said was completely accurate. The authorities cannot legally publicize her identity. But please, do downvote just because you disagree with the law.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 08:16 PM
-8

As /u/kurokabau stated, legally speaking, the identities of rape victims cannot be publicized by the authorities. She is still considered a potential rape victim until he is cleared. He, however, was at no point a rape victim and is not believed to be a rape victim and therefore does not receive the same legal protections.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 06:08 PM
2

As it turns out, tumblr, like many social networks, has many different people each with their own ideas and opinions. Kind of like reddit.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 09:00 AM
6

That may have been the original intention, however it was obviously not understood that way by many people. Literally most (80%+?) of the 30+ single women I know are fat and broke. That said, the above quote (taken from the current top reply to the post by /u/Cross_of_Coronado) doesn't strike me as a negative comment about feminism. Nor does the aforementioned quote about how "[women] fuck up constantly." These both seem to be negative comments about a specific gender, specifically women. Making…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 12:57 AM
8

Well we CAN sit back and just look at how [gender] fuck up their lives themselfes. They fuck up constantly and that offers some justice. I'm not /u/watoosh, but do you see some similarity between the above and below quotes? I don't F*cking care, [gender] are idiots. If we claim to be opposed to modern radical feminism, we ought not to stoop to their level. Just because they insult us on the basis of our gender, does not mean we should insult them on the basis of their gender. One is misandry, on…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 10:41 PM
1

It's just a two letter difference.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:08 AM
12

"Men can never understand women, I know this because I am a woman and I understand men."
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:44 PM
3

Elaborate?
/r/MensRights27/08/14 04:26 AM
1

Please elaborate.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 10:30 PM
1

I think you were looking for #
/r/MensRights21/07/14 08:16 PM
2

It's also not really an executive issue, more legislative if anything. But, nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear the response, and it may attract public and media attention to the cause.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:05 AM
2

But, if you get enough signatures, at least you get an official response from someone presumably quite high up. At least this will tell you where the movement stands in the eyes of the government (and maybe help draw some media attention).
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:03 AM
14

I'm not quite sure you understand how possession works.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:02 AM
0

I think feminism focusing on women's rights is not a fault. I think to claim that the focus of the men's rights movement is general equality is as disingenuous as the similar claims made by feminism and feminists. The ultimate goal of both these movements is (ideally) total equality for all. But, by the very nature of their names, that should not be the primary focus. I don't expect PETA to advocate for LGBT rights and I don't expect the EFF to advocate for African American rights. I don't expec…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 03:38 AM
-5

And that's fine, but it doesn't make it a men's rights issue. It's possible to support multiple social movements. That still doesn't make it relevant to men's rights in particular though.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 11:11 PM
3

Could you clarify how you were expecting him to respond?
/r/MensRights09/07/14 09:07 PM
1

I just realized that I may have misinterpreted your earlier post. I thought you were arguing that sexting between minors should be legal (which is a youth's rights issue). I now see that you may have been arguing that treating the accused in such a manner should be illegal (which is still arguably more of a youth's rights issue, but I now see the gender component).
/r/MensRights09/07/14 09:05 PM
1

The anger is exactly what you would expect from a men's rights perspective. Your anger is from a youth's rights perspective. The perception, from a men's rights and gender equality approach, would be that, given that they committed the same crime, they should be charged with the same crime. Whether or not that action should be a crime is another argument altogether (and one that is frankly irrelevant on a men's rights subreddit - feminists might call this "derailing").
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:57 PM
3

Seriously. Especially if you're from Virginia, but really if you're from anywhere in the US.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:53 PM
1

This should be at the top and people should be doing this. Call and email. Simply upvoting the post does effectively nothing (unless maybe it makes it on to /r/all, but even then, the effect on this particular case will probably be minimal). It's important that our voices are heard.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:52 PM
45

But that's a youth rights issue, unrelated to men's or women's rights.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:40 PM
13

Except it's not done against their will.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:39 PM
3

I don't think you can be trusted, because your username suggests you never cite sources, and yet you cited a source, therefore you must be doing something suspicious and wrong.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 05:38 AM
3

No one likes an accusatory poster.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 05:25 AM
8

Holy fuck: http://femen.org/front/images/header/femen-sait-02.jpg http://femen.org/front/images/header/femen-sait-sex.jpg The headers on their front/index page.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:33 PM
0

#yesallwomen
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:24 PM
2

You're completely ignoring the abusive tirade that led up to her assaulting him. In the realities of life, some women doesn't stop at one slap, they keep on. At that point, BANG. The "abusive tirade" was actually her doing her job. She is paid to insult those men. Those men are paid to be insulted. It's a television show. And the "realities of life" (how false and imagined they may be) are irrelevant to this situation.
/r/PussyPass14/06/14 08:20 PM
16

You're right, obviously people never downvote posts they disagree with. Take a look at reddiquette again my friend: If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it. Tell me again how my post doesn't contribute to the discussion. It clearly created quite a bit of discussion. Tell me again how my post is objectively flawed. I'm downvoting you because your comment most certainly does not contribute to any discussion.
/r/PussyPass12/06/14 10:33 PM
1

Some of /r/PussyPass is valid criticism. I'm all for men's rights, however, many of the comments are an utter cesspool advocating overreaction, violence, hate, and legitimate misogyny.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 01:09 AM
36

I didn't say that. She slapped him once. If she was legitimately attacking him (even slapping him multiple times might qualify) and he had legitimate concern for his safety, then perhaps knocking her out would be an acceptable course of action. But going through life believing it is okay to knock someone unconscious for a comparably minor offense is not acceptable.
/r/PussyPass09/06/14 07:52 AM
43

If you watched the clip, you'd see she slapped him once. Knocking someone out - which is a very serious and dangerous act - is not an appropriate reaction. Aside from being illegal, escalating violence and becoming the aggressor is not an appropriate or effective manner of handling such a situation. If you go through life believing that it is acceptable or desirable to knock someone out for a relatively minor offense, you're certainly mistaken. And I'm quite confident that in a situation wherein…
/r/PussyPass09/06/14 07:38 AM
80

That's probably not a good course of action in life. edit: Why am I being downvoted? A single slap does not justify knocking someone out. There is a difference between self defense, retaliation, and becoming the aggressor yourself. Blocking strikes, and even striking back during the course of active conflict is reasonable self defense. To me, this looks like a single slap (an inappropriate, but unfortunately not uncommon, incidence of woman on man violence), not an ongoing or intensive assault. …
/r/PussyPass08/06/14 10:42 PM
0

Did you read the OP in that thread as well as the post in question? Or perhaps even the rest of my post? Moreover, fundamentally, bravery is not being deterred by danger or pain. In the strictest sense, being willing to admit wrongdoing and make amends is brave.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:25 PM
1

I'm not sure that criticizing that particular post is fair. The main point of that post is to offer advice to the self proclaimed rapist on how to help her victim cope and heal. Moreover, in some regards, admitting wrongdoing (especially on the scale of rape) and wanting to openly assist the victim is brave. While there is certainly nothing noble in rape, there is something noble about confessing and wanting to make amends. Though I would generally agree that a "you're very brave for sharing" co…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:04 PM
52

What an awful thread. It's disgraceful that a subreddit like /r/TwoXChromosomes is allowed as a default. For example, this post, which currently has 30 upvotes: If you check the men's rights subreddit, you'll see the vast majority of highly upvoted content is strictly feminism and woman bashing nonsense. In the same thread where you see posts like these: It's like these idiots are creating their own strawmen for use against much more reasonable arguments. I don't understand how these idiots can'…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 12:17 AM
1

Personally, I want to hear what the government has to say about it.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 05:06 AM
2

If, however, you weren't the red, then - what the fuck OP?
/r/MensRights28/05/14 10:27 AM
1

Honestly doubt many Asian guys that age are Unusual, given that Asia has the highest population growth rate of any continent and is the most populous continent several times over. Not to mention that he is right around the prime age for sexual activity. Also, I'd point out that even though he may be half-Asian, he really appeared fairly white. Many Eurasians do (and that is how he identified himself).
/r/TheRedPill25/05/14 09:38 AM
8

Is it weird that, despite pining for the attention of women, he actually very closely fits the gay stereotype? He wears nice (and tight fitting) clothes, his voice has a certain feminine attribute, he repeatedly refers to himself (and other things) as "fabulous" or "magnificent," he lives in California, he's slim, and, you know, he doesn't have sex with women. edit: I just watched one of his videos, he also describes himself as "beautiful" and discusses his "sense of style" and his love of sunse…
/r/TheRedPill25/05/14 07:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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