TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • 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/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /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/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • 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 Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Donald Trump: “All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women anym…

victorymonk

May 11, 2016
18 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/Bpw8T
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Donald Trump: “All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women anym…
Author

victorymonk

Upvotes 18
Comments 27
Date May 11, 2016 2:19 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4iv4ac/donald_trump_all_of_the_men_were_petrified_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/donald-trump-all-of-the-men-were-petrified-to.949816
https://theredarchive.com/post/949816
Top posts by victorymonk

It's time to consider a curfew for men - Feminist Current

295 upvotes
January 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Today's feminists are so out of touch with how most women live, they might as well be on another planet

292 upvotes
December 11, 2015
/r/MensRights

Backlash against Emma Watson’s “problematic” comments on feminism

257 upvotes
September 30, 2015
/r/MensRights

Feminist film-maker criticised for making 'balanced' men's rights doc… (Guardian)

254 upvotes
November 11, 2015
/r/MensRights

Woman Tries to Grab 100 Guys' Balls in Public, Has Zero Issue

168 upvotes
July 19, 2015
/r/MensRights

Prison worker allegedly plotted for escaped inmates to kill her husband

123 upvotes
June 15, 2015
/r/MensRights

How female breadwinners are 'losing out' in divorce

114 upvotes
October 14, 2015
/r/MensRights

"Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities. A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? We conclude he is liable for child support." Actual case.

87 upvotes
August 26, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]orangorilla 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm generally a nonviolent person, I try to live my life doing the least harm and the most good(well, some good, lots of neutral stuff). But there's really one thing that makes me want to slap a (gender neutral) bitch.

suggesting that men, not women, are really the oppressed ones.

The sheer amount of dismissive bigotry in that phrase is stunning. Personally, I don't claim that men are oppressed, I don't think there's anything to be gained from playing oppression olympics. But that sentence reads like a victorian lord is about to scoff and say "preposterous." It's not even a claim they bother looking at, hell any claim that women are not oppressed will get a "so you mean men are the oppressed ones?" an automatic dismissal from someone so entrenched in a victim narrative that they can't even bother looking over the edge to realize there is no trench on the other side, they're just shelling a playground.

[–]questionnmark 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Definition 1: the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Well technically you could argue that men are oppressed due to the unjust and burdensome manner that they are treated by those with authority -- police, courts, public opinion and laws.

[–]orangorilla 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One could argue that, but I see that as generally landing you in a pointless discussion trying to out-oppress someone.

Better to argue that "nobody are the niggers of today" and try to focus on the plights of both groups.

[–]questionnmark 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that is why I said technically, so you're right. :-)

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah, I just used your comment as incentive for additional ranting.

[–]ExpendableOne 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

lol "mra's believe in traditional gender roles"... okay.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

MRAs are being lumped in with SoCons all over the place these days. It is just the latest attempt to smear them.

[+]Demonspawn -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Any MRA who's actually thought it out prefers traditional gender roles:

We have traditional gender roles where a man protects and provides for a woman he chose to protect and provide for and women have their own gender roles to follow which assist men in the male role.

Or...

We have "equality" there are supposedly no gender roles but men are forced to provide for all women via proxy of government (and if feminists get their way, eventually men will be jailed if they fail to protect) and women are free from any burdens.

Which one is better for men? Which one is better for society as a whole?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the term for what you've posited is "false dichotomy" because there's a few more options in there besides the two you've painted.

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And those options are?

And they are possible to exist?

I understand that my argument could be construed as a false dichotomy, but unfortunately it is not. The truth is, we will have gender roles: either men choosing who to support, or giving influence of government over to women and women forcing men to support them.

Women's suffrage leads to Bureaugamy. Period.

Not allowing women's suffrage would be traditional gender roles.

[–]questionnmark 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The whole protect/provision thing is becoming a lot less relevant. You can't go back to gender roles that were based on a societal structure that no longer exists. Women have jobs, violence is uncommon and government support is unlikely to get rolled back any time soon.

[–]Demonspawn -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't go back to gender roles that were based on a societal structure that no longer exists.

Except that the current social structure is still based on those roles. The only differences between traditional gender roles and the current system is one man vs all men and by choice vs by force of government.

Women have jobs

Most of which were created by government

violence is uncommon

True, but enough exists that it is an issue.

government support is unlikely to get rolled back any time soon.

It will as soon as men realize how much government is fucking them and end it or when the big government bubble pops. The latter is going to happen within your lifetime.

[–]questionnmark 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most of which were created by government

Teaching, nursing, secretarial, customer service roles etc. Specialisation that destroyed the traditional female role in the home alongside industrialisation. Can't put that genie back in the bottle, and specialisation has overall been good for society.

True, but enough exists that it is an issue.

A role that the police plays far more than men. Most people in middle classes will not have been a victim of violence in their lives, and may not even see any serious violence at all.

It will as soon as men realize how much government is fucking them and end it or when the big government bubble pops. The latter is going to happen within your lifetime.

Well I suspect that is wishful thinking at best. Unless something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHcfNy1_zqA informs the public. Really good video you should watch.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Teaching, nursing, secretarial, customer service roles etc.

Actually, I meant government bureaucracy itself (high percentage of women in those jobs) and jobs created by government bureaucracy (HR and the like... also usually female dominated).

Can't put that genie back in the bottle, and specialisation has overall been good for society.

Women flooding college and entry level jobs is actually a significant determent to society.

[–]ExpendableOne 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We have "equality" there are supposedly no gender roles but men are forced to provide for all women via proxy of government (and if feminists get their way, eventually men will be jailed if they fail to protect) and women are free from any burdens.

Your definition or interpretation of equality seems to be pretty skewed.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Your definition or interpretation of equality seems to be pretty skewed.

Is that not what we have now, based on "equality" between the sexes?

The problem with "equality" is that women hold 55% of the vote while only contributing 25% of the taxes and vote in a very predicable way for politicians who promise to give them more (of men's money).

So no, my definition is accurate. The reason it differs from yours is that mine is based on the results rather than the intent.

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If there are inherent inequalities in a system, then that system clearly isn't based on equality. It's a pretty simple principle to follow, and you are most definitely misrepresenting both that intent and those results in the process. True gender equality between the sexes certainly wouldn't be about men paying all the taxes for women to collect. You are deliberately twisting the definition of equality. That's not a legitimate argument.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If there are inherent inequalities in a system, then that system clearly isn't based on equality.

So do you want the system to be unequal in that women don't have the same weight in voting that men do, or do you want the system to be unequal in that it takes from men to give to women?

Or is this just a "no true Scotsman" so that you can avoid having to equate "equality" with a government system where women take from men?

You are deliberately twisting the definition of equality.

Nope. Again, I'm talking about results rather than intent.

That's not a legitimate argument.

Results are the only legitimate argument. Intent is meaningless in the face of results.

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We are living in a society that is still inherently driven by gender roles. This disparity between tax dollars paid and tax dollars earned between men and women is a direct result of existing gender roles. Clearly we are not living in a perfect egalitarian society when these gender roles still exist, and clearly feminism' definition of equality is skewed when it is and has always explicitly and exclusively focused on aspects of society that benefit women. The remaining aspects of inequality we see in society are not a result of "equality", in of itself, but systematic remnants of gender roles and further inequalities in addressing these gender roles. It is absolutely ridiculous, if not idiotic and completely dishonest, for you to not only argue that this inequality is the best and most accurate definition of equality we can get but that the answer would be to further encourage and perpetuate gender roles.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We are living in a society that is still inherently driven by gender roles.

Society will always have gender roles as long as women get pregnant and men don't.

This disparity between tax dollars paid and tax dollars earned between men and women is a direct result of existing gender roles.

Nope. Tabula Rasa is bunk. Men will out-earn women even in a society without gender roles.

Clearly we are not living in a perfect egalitarian society when these gender roles still exist

Then a perfectly egalitarian society has no current potential to exist. Any attempt to implement an egalitarian society will end up where we are now; which is what is being compared to a society based on gender roles.

and clearly feminism' definition of equality is skewed when it is and has always explicitly and exclusively focused on aspects of society that benefit women.

Women, not feminism. Women supported politicians that took from men to give to women, not just feminists.

The remaining aspects of inequality we see in society are not a result of "equality", in of itself

No, just the "equality" of giving women suffrage.

but systematic remnants of gender roles and further inequalities in addressing these gender roles.

No, in the inherent moral hazard in giving 55% control of suffrage to women. Which is "equality", because "equality" includes rights, doesn't it?

It is absolutely ridiculous, if not idiotic and completely dishonest, for you to not only argue that this inequality is the best and most accurate definition of equality we can get

Yes, how dare I point to working examples of attempting to achieve "equality" which have disastrous results! How dare I challenge your ideology!

but that the answer would be to further encourage and perpetuate gender roles.

Do the results of gender roles work better for men than the results of seeking equality?

The answer is clear fucking cut, you just can't/won't admit it.

TL;DR: read the bold.

[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not his definition of equality. It's his definition of what we have now.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't believe a single shit about Trump in the media now. They are thirsty as fuck to smear him from both sides. I watch his speeches and decide for myself. He is pretty reasonable. And kudos to him for saying unpopular truth about woman card.

[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like it when the media smears him.

Trump is brilliant, contrary to what most of Reddit and nearly everyone in my home state wants to believe, though certainly not the most nuanced speaker. Negative press only serves to fuel his momentum. All of those media explosions earlier in his campaign are the primary reason he's performing so well.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"...suggesting that men, not women, are really the oppressed ones."

The author doesn't think different people are oppressed in different ways, to different degrees, in different situations?

"...who think that feminism has overreached and that men are now the oppressed class as a result."

So they don't think the above; they view claim to hardship in life as a zero-sum game of 50% + 1, I suppose?

And no surprise the author makes no attempt to really look into the perspectives of the people he widely and simply lumps together, no evidence of any empathy or bridging of gaps, and sees only a trollish horde of disgruntled expendables.

There's one big, easy lead to follow for this writer, too: "We're petrified to speak to women". I would bet that you ask any guy what the thought of "speaking to a woman" makes him feel in his gut (and lower) and it'll certainly be some shade of exciting emotion. And I'm sure for more than a few, it would be associated with fear or mistrust or feeling of being burned or what have you. Why do these men feel so hurt? What are their articulated thoughts and feelings on the subject, honestly reported? Not gonna get that from Vox. Not when Emily Crockett is submitting.

[–]questionnmark 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the consequences faced by one side is weighted far above the other by people then you get a situation whereby inequality can thrive. Looking at it with a racial dynamic you can see it as well where a white female child goes missing and the attention paid to that far outstrips the attention given to a black child. See Madeline Mccann for example.

[–]casusbelli1 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

MRA smear time:

But MRAs specialize in a very particular, and very toxic, brand of blaming women. This movement says women are the problem, and that women's complaints about sexism are really about nothing more than oppressing men. It invites you to take the "red pill" and see how deep the misandrist rabbit hole goes. It's an ideology that inspired Elliot Rodger's murderous rampage in 2014.

1, MRAs generally speaking are anti-feminist, not anti-woman, which is another way of saying we're pro-equality. Feminism is a female supremacist male hate movement whose solutions to perceived sexism have and continue to contribute to gender inequality.

2, Elliot Rodger did not draw inspiration from MRA ideology. As far as I know there is no MRA ideology, being as reason and not blind adherence to a rigid set of foundational ideas drives men's rights activism. Perhaps the closest thing to an ideological root that MRAs share is the pursuit of gender equality, which was quite clearly not the motivation for Rodger's shooting spree. Was his violence inspired by family court injustice? Unequal reproductive rights? The plight of homeless men? Intactivism? No? Then stop with the smearing.

[–]InvaderDem 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

MRAs value traditional gender roles

Stopped reading there. Unless ... am I wrong here? I thought we wanted equality between genders?

Honestly, though, I wonder how Hillary is still being considered the democratic candidate when she clearly has a lot stacked up against her - her email scandal, her flip-flop views and being in the pocket of big companies, etc.

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