TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Kate Upton is pathetic

jnvincent93

October 3, 2017
60 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/8rliy2mt4opz.png
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Kate Upton is pathetic
Author

jnvincent93

Upvotes 60
Comments 84
Date October 3, 2017 7:42 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/742ujx/kate_upton_is_pathetic/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/kate-upton-is-pathetic.913491
https://theredarchive.com/post/913491
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by jnvincent93

LSC mod thinks men shouldnt have rights.

0 upvotes
August 8, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]foryeve 56 points57 points58 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

What about young women who buy guns? I guess shooters are a male-only phenomenon.

[–]cymrich 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the first school shooting was done by a girl because she”hates mondays”

[–]foryeve 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep, Brenda Spencer.

[–]GrimGrump 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sure it wasn't Garfield?

[–]ThoseCatsHaveBigHats 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure that's not the point. Gloria Steinem chose to write about young men buying guns because (in her opinion) they don't have any perspective on what it's like to be a female looking for an abortion

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But women often oppose abortion too.

[–]ThoseCatsHaveBigHats 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That... was not my point at all.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

chose to write about young men

She chose to make the abortion / anti-abortion issue about men in her statement. I simply brought up the fact that it seems odd to single out men when there are many women who oppose abortion too.

[–]Neko404 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

i don’t know....is this the same Gloria that stated “You’re either a feminist or a bigot.” if she speaks in such absolutes i can easily imagine that the argument is not so

edit ok after a little google fu i was wrong, two different glorias

[–]JebberJabber -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia quotes 98%. There may be room to interpret the statistics differently but any way you slice it mass killers (and spree killers, and serial killers of strangers) in the west are are almost exclusively male.
A registration law would apply equally to men and women of course.

[–]foryeve 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia is not the best of sources. And no, laws typically don't apply equally to men and women because women not only receive lighter sentences but they also are more likely to avoid being charged, let alone convicted, in the first place.

[–]Neko404 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

also women tend to kill in other ways. often by seeking third parties to do the work. if caught they might just get a charge of conspiracy while the person she sought out gets the murder charge.

[–]foryeve 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is also a very good point. You are absolutely correct - there are a LOT of factors that go into statistics like these.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see the relevance of this.

Leaving aside the Bowling Green Massacre, has there ever been a single case of a US woman even being caught, accused or suspected of hiring or otherwise procuring a man to be a mass shooter? Or a spree killer? Or even a serial killer?

[–]Neko404 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the point was that when women kill it is not always with a gun or with their own hand. So this tends the throw off the stats for gun violence and murder when taking sex in as a factor. hiring a hit man to kill someone is not the same as attempting to murder them.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but what proportion of murders involve hitmen? It should not be hard to detect them because there must be an endless supply of useless assholes who will present themselves for hire more cheaply and far more easily contactable than competent hitmen. A decent fraction of these jerks would end up in court, incompetence and inexperience being what they are. So we would know about them. My impression is they are responsible for a relatively small proportion of murders.

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are encyclopedias ever primary sources? The best ones employ named subject experts who are sometimes authoritative in their field. Wikipedia's are anonymous so it isn't a primary source but I've found the accuracy very good in the few subjects I can judge. It is usually my first stop, I can follow up the sources for more detail. I don't recall coming across significant discrepancies between the source and the article so far.

I didn't see any point in checking Wikipedia's source so I said "quotes" and pointed out that arguments about the statistics are off the point because the number for women is going to be close to zero any way you look at it.

The law being discussed concerned the registration process for obtaining firearms! Charges, conviction and sentencing would very seldom be relevant to the registration process. What I meant is that in practice a law would require women to register as well as men regardless of whether the inconvenience resulted in any benefit, just to avoid a political shitstorm.

[–]foryeve 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you go into any college class, the first thing the professor will tell you is that Wikipedia is not a credible source. If you've found it accurate so far then that's great, but if you are admittedly not checking the sources then I have no reason to believe you as I do not view Wikipedia as a valid source and do not blindly believe anonymous claims.

Women are less likely to be charged and convicted at all so the statistics are going to be heavily skewed any way you want to look at it because of outside factors.

Also, women already do go through the same process as men to obtain firearms. Both men and women have to take multiple steps to legally purchase them. If a woman decides to take that gun and shoot someone, however, she already has a better chance than a man of avoiding conviction and, even if she did get convicted, would receive a MUCH shorter sentence - hence why I said the law does not always apply equally.

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course Wikipedia is not admissible for academic sourcing. My comment on my experience of accuracy is based on those few subjects I do know a lot about, and from reading the sources provided and finding them in agreement with the Wikipedia article which refers to them.
There have been attempts to measure its accuracy in comparison with other encyclopedias, one found it comparable or better than Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The accuracy of Wikipedia is a political issue since the demographic of its contributors naturally skews toward left / liberal. Right wingers and conservatives find some of its content enraging e.g. the view that transgender people exist.
There are also attacks by the War On Science crew, e.g. creationists, global warming denialists, polluters etc.

How is the lower charging and conviction rate for women relevant to the subject of mass killer gender?
I imagine about 100% of mass killers are identified and convicted. Do some get charges dropped, or found not guilty?
All the 98% figure relies on is gender - not arrest, charging, conviction, sentencing..

[–]foryeve 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you know a lot about this subject but admittedly and deliberately use information that is politically biased? Also, not all conservatives view such content as "enraging" in your words. I'm a conservative dating a NB person and am very much in support of science as long as there is data behind the claims (such as global warming). If you know so much about this subject why not find an unbiased source and one that is actually academic?

It's relevant in that mass shootings are not the only way to kill people using firearms, and, though males represent a large part in mass shootings, females are less likely to be convicted and tried for other types of shootings. This quote does not reference only mass shootings, but firearms as a whole. Not every shooting is a spree, and not every shooter is a male. These are based on skewed, biased data. The first school shooting in the US (as pointed out by another redditor) was in fact perpetrated by a female.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Going back to 1979 for an example speaks for itself about rarity. There is one other example given, in Baltimore maybe. Is that it for the last 38 years in North America, two cases? But it would be cherry-picking to put the boundary just behind the first case. Let's say two cases in the last hundred years. Or four cases, if we missed a couple. It doesn't change the overall picture. We can add in spree killers and the common subtype of serial killer who attacks pretty much randomly chosen members of the public, to put all the unpredictable killers of semi-random public people in one bucket. All three are almost exclusively male.

Are you trying to argue that women do other kinds of shootings but we don't notice that because they use a hitman or get let off by the cops & courts? That does not fit with the numbers. Paid or proxy killers are not a big proportion of shootings. In areas where most gun crime is solved they don't find lots of paid or proxy killers, and those who are found are not usually working for women.

[–]WoodChucking 51 points52 points53 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

So for a coupla other mild inconveniences I can skip the 10 day waiting period I already have and only wait for 48 hours?

Seems like a reasonable trade.

Headline: "Kate Hudson favors reducing waiting periods and eliminating back ground checks for gun buyers."

[–]CellularPeptideCake5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And if you're underage, you just need a parental note!

[–]boringcarpets 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reproductive freedom eh? The willful ignorance of these people is astounding. not only do men and women have all the options to prevent pregnancy in the first place (women have more than men I might add), women then have the unilateral option to abort it or give it up - abortion isn't the only solution to a problem that only women are forced to have. It isn't a human right that is being denied, it is a medical procedure, It's not a trip to the corner shop - yes, doctors need to be involved, yes there might be a cost, yes there needs to be evaluations, there might well be a waiting list, and there isn't a hospital on every street.

And before anyone says "What about rape or medical reasons", abortions for those reasons are the tiniest fraction of abortions as a whole, and using that tiny fraction to argue the whole case of abortion is dishonest and false

[–]samsc2 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I had someone on my facebook rip that post from her and actually try to argue it... I then spent quite a long time proving over and over again that strict gun control doesn't impact murder rates. They tried to argue it does by only giving me gun murder rates....instead of the actual murder rate.... They didn't seem to understand the disconnect there. Was quite funny to see them bullshit up some more "stats" to try to make their point after I destroy their stats time and time again. Like the whole "America's murder rate dropped drastically after the assault weapons ban" which I explained to them that most gun murders use handguns and NOT assault guns.... I was called the "crazy right winged" person though by the person who didn't even bother to read any of my facts that I gave her even though she continued to say I was wrong....

[–]The-os2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey man, not an American but I've heard this question(?) before; whether gun control will impact the murder rate. Is there a website or article that makes a real discussion about it with sources of course? Not one where one tries to argue and the other one goes REEEEEEEEEEE.

I'm interested as my first response would be that gun control would reduce the murder rate but you state the opposite.

[–]samsc2 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure. So the main countries people use as examples that gun control works are the UK and Australia. They always claim that their murder rates went down as a result of the ban's. What they don't realize is that the statistics they use aren't the correct ones as in the case with my argument.

Here's the UK's

Here's Australia's

Australia's ban was in 1997 as well.

As you can see neither country saw much of an impact in murder rates because of those gun bans. It's also important to note that the UK doesn't properly record murders unlike most other countries. Here's how their data is manipulated to seem better than it actually is

exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise

By doing that they are able to artificially fake statistical data to push their specific agenda's.

The murder rates DID go down over time but it was the same downward trend as the rest of the world which would have happened regardless of any gun ban. Take the US for example. A very clear downward trend WITHOUT a gun ban. There was an assault weapons ban in the US but it had no effect on murder rates because of the simple fact that handguns are used as the primary murder weapon in gun homicides.

That should help you hopefully.

[–]Ninjetik 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also not American, but your post had me look up some Canadian statistics vs American for interest's sake. Canada has always had much stricter gun control laws:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-homicide-rate-2016-1.4220230

Thunder Bay has the highest homicide rate in Canada at around 6-7/100000 people. Also this is double the rate of the second highest and there are several major cities in Canada listed that have a rate of 0 homicides per year.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-3

I picked the city of Detroit for comparison as it is on the Canadian Ontario border. The homicide rate in the same time frame is ~50/100000 people. It is not the highest rate in America, I think the data indicated that is St. Louis at ~63/100000 people.

Anyway, just interesting, I'm not sure this even indicates that gun control would help America's homicide rate, as there are cultural differences as well, but I think a case could be made to suggest that stricter gun control wouldn't make the issue worse.

[–]alclarkey 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Um, except every abortion ends a life. Very few legal gun transactions end with someone dying.

[+]Storm_Kun1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't call a clump of cells "life."

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guess, none of us are alive then and the Las Vegas shooter did nothing wrong. Please.

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is an idiotic response. A clump of cells may not be a fully developed human, but it is clearly life. Unless you don't believe that bacteria are alive either.

[+]Storm_Kun1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Well I sure as hell wouldn't say bacteria or cells are capable of cohesive thought.

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is being "capable of cohesive thought" the criteria for life? If so, you are arguing that a human being with a degenerative neurological disorder is not alive.

Go to school and take a biology class, kid.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

or at least dying due to anything other than home defense.

[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Suicide is rather more likely.

[+]elebrin1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It's true, but I don't see how its a problem.

If people are killing themselves, remove their need for killing themselves, not their means for doing so. To have an unbearable life and be legally forced to keep living it sounds like torture.

[–]geniice 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If people are killing themselves, remove their need for killing themselves, not their means for doing so.

The data suggests removing or making harder to acess popular ways of killing yourself reduces the suicide rate.

[–]FrankReynoldsMagnum 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gonna go jerk off to her fappening pics nos just to spite her

[–]mrwhibbley 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So a young woman seeks an abortion with the clear intention of killing her child. A man with a gun most likely buys it to protect his family. And only a percentage of women travel distances to a clinic. What about the women in cities?

[–]geniice 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A man with a gun most likely buys it to protect his family.

Statistics on actual gun use say he is being irrational.

And only a percentage of women travel distances to a clinic. What about the women in cities?

Depending on state thats still most of them.

[+]Arby01 -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A man with a gun most likely buys it to protect his family.

Really? That's moronic, get a sharp kitchen knife, more effective in close quarters with almost no training needed.

I think actually though, your statement is just badly thought through. Most people buy guns to go shoot them for fun, for hunting or to build skill. Few people buy guns for protection.

[–]redmagistrate50 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have a gun for home protection. At least that's what I say it's for. Realistically it's so I can have more fun than should be allowed clearing the assault course at my local gun club.

The rest of my guns are for sport shooting and hunting.

I doubt I'll ever use a gun to defend my home, the pistols are easier to access but not ideal for shooting in a home, the shotguns are securely locked in a safe in my office.

The last time I was in a house during a break in my grandfather chased the would be burglar out with a toilet plunger.

[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When plungers are illegal, only criminals will have plungers. Plumbers need a special license to carry.

[–]avuko 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Traveling hundreds of miles at your own expense? 98% of Americans live within 10 miles of a gun shop hun...

[–]cuauhtem0c -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It's a commentary on how difficult it is to access abortion, and juxtaposes the ease with which one buys a gun vs the difficulty in accessing reproductive health care. I think you missed the point. Sure, gun shops are all over the place, but there are several states in the USA that only have one abortion provider which requires patients (usually rural, low income) travel hundreds of miles and make multiple visits to far away clinics.

Nice condescending little "hun" there at the end, when you didn't even understand the point she was making lmfao

[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nice condescending little "hun" there at the end

Sorry, you aren't from around here... it's a southern thing.

[+]cuauhtem0c -13 points-12 points-11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

bless your heart.... i'm from texas, i think i understand

[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

bless your heart.... i'm from texas, i think i understand

And yet, you obviously don't.

[+]cuauhtem0c -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ok

[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What's the line that Feminists always tell men when they bitch about having to pay child support to a woman they just hooked up with, and never wanted a child with?

Oh yeah, should have keep your legs closed and your pants on.

So when a woman can't get an abortion for a non-medical emergency (because emergencies get taken care of in the hospital), because

there are several states in the USA that only have one abortion provider which requires patients (usually rural, low income) travel hundreds of miles and make multiple visits to far away clinics.

what's the proper response?

Oh yeah, should have keep your legs closed and your pants on.

[–]cuauhtem0c 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused, so you're justifying taking reproductive rights away from women/ pregnant people?

[–]Aeternalis_ 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Abortion was made into a women's rights issue to make it seem like it's bad to call it immoral. It in reality has nothing to do with it.

[–]cuauhtem0c -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

it really disturbs me how anti-choice /r/MensRights is as a whole tbqh

[–]Aeternalis_ 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being pro choice or pro life is a separate personal opinion.

[–]JakeDC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not sure that /r/MensRights is overwhelmingly anti-choice. I can't conclude whether /u/LateralThinker13 is pro- or anti- choice based on his or her comment above. All the comment does is point out an argumentative inconsistency. To determine his or her positions on legal parental surrender and abortion, I would need to know how /u/LateralThinker13 would resolve the inconsistency - that is, which of the approaches he or she thinks is correct.

[–]LateralThinker13 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I personally support Legal Paternal Surrender as a stopgap measure. Ideally, a woman has sole authority over her body and her progeny - and sole responsibility. If she can get a man to contract with her to help support her child, great. But I don't think men should have any default responsibility or obligation - or authority - over the child a woman bears. Now most commonly, we can argue that marriage confers that obligation. But then we get into paternity, cuckolding, etc. and it gets murky again. I prefer men have zero power over women or their children unless explicitly contracted. Maybe have them given the option to become legal parents by signing the birth certificate - I don't know. But the current system of men having all the legal responsibility but zero reproductive authority is abusive and unjust.

As for abortion, I believe two things. 1) Abortion after the fetus is viable (roughly 5 months) is killing a person, regardless of whether we make it legal or illegal. 2) Woman's body, woman's choice, and it should be available at her decision. I don't like it, but I recognize the need for it. I am a libertarian so I believe all people should have complete authority over what they do with their own bodies. And while a fetus is in a woman, it's her body.

So I have opinions/preferences, but I am completely pro-choice and pro-LPS.

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Based on what? I've seen plenty of times where there are tons of pro-choice MRAs and those who are endlessly droning on about the importance of life at conception get downvoted into oblivion.

That's far more common in my experience. And I've been coming here for years.

Personally, though I consider myself egalitarian, I dislike how abortion is treated like a birth control option. It shouldn't be considered one. I'm pro-choice, but I think it should be an absolute last resort. And it should be treated as such, rather than normalized to the point it's a birth control option.

And focus should instead be on prevention of pregnancy all together. Because there are plenty of methods women have to prevent it.

If you care about women, you should want them to not have to go through a medical procedure for something that would be completely avoided with a simple use of a pill, condom, etc.

It helps men, and it helps women to encourage birth control from all involved parties. I just wish men had more options to prevent it, and they deserve legal parental surrender for fairness. And so that women can make proper informed decisions on whether they will keep their baby (whether they give it up after birth, or get an abortion... but again, we should aim to avoid these situations entirely by focusing on birth control use).

[–]JakeDC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the point is to argue for the anti-choice potion. I think the point is to point out the inconsistency of feminist "logic" on reproductive issues. On the one hand, when someone argues for something like legal parental surrender, many feminists say, "too late, you should have thought about that potential consequences when deciding to have sex." But that same logic could be applied to women who seek abortions (medical necessity etc. aside). But that reasoning is not given credit in the abortion context - regardless of the prior decisions, a woman should be able to terminate her pregnamcy. There is an argumentative inconsistency. Pointing that out does not involve concluding that one of the approaches is valid/correct. It is just telling these feminists to be consistent. Can't have it both ways.

[–]avuko 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, she said she wants young men that are buying guns to seek a similar process as to women who are getting an abortion. Women have to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest clinic to get an abortion. She is implying that young men should also have to travel hundreds of miles to buy a gun. This is impossible in America since 98% of people live within 10 miles of a gun store. It wouldn't make sense to travel hundreds of miles to buy something you can buy that's less than 10 miles away from you. Also, even if they were to travel hundreds of miles, it still wouldn't stop people from buying what they want. If someone really wants a gun, they'll do whatever they can to get it - even if it requires travelling hundreds of miles.

[–]cuauhtem0c 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wow you're taking things waaaaaay too literally dude

[–]Mythandros 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is pretty sad and pathetic.

[–]rambo8715 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, shes praying for vegas ok.

[–]QuasiQwazi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Steinem isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. Logical errors abound here.

[–]barneyiller 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I do everything she says do I get other people's taxes to pay for my gun

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd like any young woman seeking an abortion to be treated like any young man who just found out about an unwanted pregnancy. I wonder if that would wake Steinem and Upton up a bit.

[–]Source_or_gtfo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I want any young black people who buy a gun to be treated like young women looking for an abortion".

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I support gun control and America desperately needs it. To me pushing for increased gun control is absolutely an MRA issue.

[–]fmlom1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just a wombful of their own kin, is all.

[+]Tedesche -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is meant to protest wait times for abortion, not to link men with gun violence. Chill out, people.

[–]HailSanta2512 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't make retarded comparisons if you don't want people calling you a retard.

[–]docious 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Take your logic and patchouli stink outa my store!

[–]Aeternalis_ -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So killing a baby is equivalent to buying a gun now?

[–]CynicalSoup 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish.

I would have killed 5 babies by now.

[+]KULover36 -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You people are pathetic for not letting her have a opinion. BTW she not fat.

[–]jmac323 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No one is stopping her.

[–]KULover36 -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You people are pathetic for not letting her have a opinion. BTW she not fat. PS she just quoted what someone said.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You people are pathetic for not letting her have a opinion.

What the hell are you talking about. She's expressed her opinion already.

[–]chris0720 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why don’t you post porn anymore? Some of that was quality shit!

[–]diarrhea_of_the_moth -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She is fat.

[–]andejoh -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Talk to some people (including feminists at least when they talk about ht e"missing girls" due to sex selective abortions, which I take it are murder.) and abortion is murder. As far as killing a room full of people, wouldn't that depend on how many babies she ends up aborting over her lifetime?

[+]The__Tren__Train -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

she's fat, who cares what she thinks?

[–]Aeternalis_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How on Earth do you see her as fat?

[–]docious 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Redditroll

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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