~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
Been summed up many times before, feminism is "special rights" for women, treating them like a minority of some kind when they're a majority. Feminism is providing opportunity to women at the expense of men, and then instilling laws which protect them from having any legal or social accountability for when they fuck up their opportunity EG: no fault divorce, if a man cheats and she divorces he can be taken to the cleaners, if a woman cheats and she divorces he's still taken to the cleaners. The system is sexist and supremacist in that its designed to benefit one gender, and with feminist support no doubt. Feminism is overtly sexist but uses political correctness, mirrors and victim cards to justify its extremism.
Equality wouldn't work anyway as women are hypergamous (90% of UK women MARRY a man who is wealthier than them!) but modern western feminism hasn't created equality, it's created female supremacy. There is no fucking support for men. Calling it equality is a contortion of the meaning of the word. Taking power from men decade upon decade whilst empowering women is not equality. It's already obvious the hand tips in the favour of women, so when will they stop, when will this ideology just fuckoff? How low does the birth rate need to become, how many criminals raised by single mothers do we need in prison? This civilization is crumbling to this bullshit and it's fucking sad, because the west (more specifically, England) is responsible for the modern industrial era, computers and by extension - this subreddit. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Feminism is great population control when you marry it up to the pill if you think about it btw.
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Time for the hard question then:
feminism is "special rights" for women
How is that argument different if you replace the worlds "feminism" with "civil rights" and "women" with "black"?
AAAAAND....GO.
[–]tidux24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There are distinct biological differences between men and women, far more so than between men of different races or women of different races. Nice strawman.
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
The second strawman is that feminism is not synonymous with civil rights. Feminism is not the same thing as "women's civil rights" if it were just about that the ideology would not exist as men do not have any rights women do not, but due to feminism women do have rights that men do not. Feminism impeaches on male rights and robs men of masculinity by building a society that does not facilitate their growth, it promotes the feminine at the expense of the masculine via media and the support of single motherhood which leads to boys growing up without a male role model in the house to teach them masculinity, thus they learn femininity from the mother, or the mothers feminised view of masculinity.
Feminism upsets the balance between the sexes and harms gender relations. Feminism destabilises the family unit by making marriage an unfair deal for men and incentivising divorce to women, essentially transforming marriage into a machine of empowerment for women and a machine of oppression for men. Feminism contributes a net negative impact to society because it demands more and more restraints on masculinity whilst letting femininity run free, the results of rampant femininity without sufficient masculinity to counterbalance it is the society you see in front of you today, increased suicide, crime, rudeness - a moral and social breakdown versus the society we used to have pre-feminism.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I see one difference and not even in biology. Plain simply all these "group X oppresses group Y" requires that these are groups. But men and women are not groups. Because my primary group is my family, and that means mom, wife, daugther, sister. A different racial or ethnic group of people living in a different part of town and hardly interacting with each other can be a group. But any definition of a group that cuts through a family is wrong, because the family is the basic group.
[–]QuietlyLearning1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Redpillschool has rules about posting anything with Racism. Check with him if you want to open such a discussion.
[–]mistermikeymike 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
cause blacks are poorer, less educated and more likely to be in jail?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Elaborate? How does that tie into the question?
[–]mistermikeymike 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
women are ahead of men. blacks are not ahead of other races. a woman asking for more rights it the rich getting richer. black people are born into environments where they can't succeed. women are born into environments where they are almost guaranteed to succeed
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
good response
how does it make sense, if one movement is about giving a group of people special rights/ privileges that another, unrelated movement is doing the same thing?
[–]Endorsed Contributor3030303030303014 points15 points16 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
I actually expect alimony laws soon to be re made or completely removed. Since women are unhappy with them then obviously, something has to be done about it, and most likely will.
[–]pirateundies10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I can't say I'd be surprised, but jesus... That would just be the biggest "Fuck you" ever to literally millions, generations, of men.
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It never stopped feminism before. Sweden's gender-based affirmative action policies serve a great example:
[–]Endorsed Contributor303030303030304 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Feminist government removes AA policies because no woman should be denied an education over a man because of her gender.
yeah, I wonder (not really...) why all the gov programs and facilitation women get to get easier into colleges are not now moved to men, since women outnumber men in colleges... ;)
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because oppression!
What oppression?
Er....PAST oppression!
What past oppression?
Um... RAPE CULTURE IN COLLEGE CAMPUSES!
[–]socal836 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
the dissolution of alimony because of feminist hypocrisy would be the most ironic thing ever recorded in the history of the world.
but since females are incapable of comprehending irony, let's just call it a devastatingly effective feat of legal jiu jitsu by men. using enemy momentum against itself.
[–]whynoflyingcarsyet2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah.. so women are becoming more equal. Good for them. Good show.
[–]unknownlabrat0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Dat generalization
[–]be_tru 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You do realize a generalization is just something that is true more often that not, right? How does it being a generalization invalidate this at all?
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Even though I agree with you "be_tru" in Logic, a generalisation of any kind is a logical fallacy because it does not guarantee something to be true through credible reasoning, but just outright assumes.
[–]be_tru 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That's correct, but many of our critics come in saying "thats a generalisation! some women don't do that, therefore your point means nothing!", which is clearly wrong. In this case is seems that is what unknownlabrat was implying.
[–]unknownlabrat-1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
...How is it wrong?
[–]rodz73 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Because you're using the exception to argue the rule. Claiming NAWALT in an attempt to discredit the argument, in spite of it being shown to be a behavioral pattern among women, is wrong.
[–]unknownlabrat0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What rule?
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Not sure if you're legitimately unintelligent, or just trolling. The trend is most women are like X, you find a woman that isnt like X and say not all women are like X because a specific women is not like X. Therefore, you attack a common trend by pointing to the exception without accepting the exception to be a minority in and of itself.
Lets break it down. 9 out of 10 trees are brown. 1 tree is green. The gardeners don't like brown trees. The gardeners complain they don't like trees because trees are brown, brown trees aren't as strong, they die quicker and heat up the ground too much. You know of a tree which is green which has these defects in lower concentrations and say not all trees are brown when you hear the gardeners say things about brown trees you don't like, you don't consider they speak about the trees in this manner because 9 out of 10 trees are brown (nearly every tree they come across), you don't like what the gardeners say because you know of a specific minority tree which is green, remember the gardeners like green trees too and don't think of green trees when they discredit trees, but they often generalise trees by the traits of a brown tree because green trees are so rare and brown trees are so common.
They generalise because that generalisation is almost always correct and by ignoring this commonality you actually present a reverse generalisation, by being so specific and selective in your choice of thought or example you can show a generalisation is wrong in ALL CASES because of one specific case, but the key is within the word - it's general, not specific. Educated sweeping generalisations can be correct across a majority group when you have gathered enough data about a group in order to formulate that generalisation, but obviously it wont encompass every single last member of that group.
NAWALT is used fallaciously to disprove common trends in female behaviour, but the truth is "most women are like that" and by concentrating on those who aren't bad (who fit male preference) you ignore the majority who are bad (that don't fit male preference.)
[–]r_rships_account0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can't believe you kept your cool on the face of a passive-aggressive troll long enough to write that elegant refutation.
[–]enticingasthatmaybe0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's like a company marketing clothing to women: Do most women like to shop for clothing? Yes, it is a fairly safe bet that most women like shopping for clothing.
Do all women like shopping for clothing? Of course not.
Should clothing sellers stop marketing towards women because a minority of women don't like to shop for clothing? Absolutely not, they would go out of business.
[–]veggie_girl2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
NAWALT should be changed to Nearly All Women Are Like That.
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Amen. :)
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan30 points31 points32 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]tidux24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]QuietlyLearning1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mistermikeymike 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mistermikeymike 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributor3030303030303014 points15 points16 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]pirateundies10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributor303030303030304 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]socal836 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]whynoflyingcarsyet2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]unknownlabrat0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]be_tru 7 points8 points9 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan3 points4 points5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]be_tru 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]unknownlabrat-1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rodz73 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]unknownlabrat0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]r_rships_account0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]enticingasthatmaybe0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link