TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Apathetic_Zealot Archive

View 0 posts and 83 comments by Apathetic_Zealot 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)
1

And The Western Australian Club wasn’t a “rich old boys club”? Yeah right. I never said it was, but they do generally cater to older men, they have a recruit problem that has nothing to do with women. It’s $150 a month (likely more now) to be a member. You need to be nominated by a member in “good standing” and endorsed by another 6 members. I think that means you have to be part of their “circle” to be a club member. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to exist. If people choose not to …
/r/MensRights15/05/24 03:36 AM
1

Ok but that drop off was slow, their business last 30+ more years. There was a down slope already occuring before the 80's remember, it's possible not even women could save the Aus Club from bad business choices. They were already on shaky financial grounds. Is it really womens fault? What's the connection?
/r/MensRights15/05/24 02:02 AM
1

The Western Australian Club had gotten over the financial issues when they admitted women. That's what the entry suggests, or I assumed revenue by increased members given the fact it continued to function for more decades. I'm happy to acknowledge correlation isn't causation. So why didn’t they “boom” in membership now that it was this “inclusive place”? I don't know, nor have I ever suggested I know how the various other decisions they made over the following decades after women were allowed to…
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:54 AM
1

The point remains there's no connection between allowing female membership in the 80's to the financial insolvency in 2019 - especially given they had financial issues before admitting women. They’d be viewed as perverts and leerers by feminists and society should they do so. Accusations of impropriety was what the MLB said to keep women out of locker rooms, it did not fly. They have the same legal right.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:28 AM
1

Do male journalists have the right to enter women’s locker rooms? Yes, it's literally the law. They have equal access as any other reporter is granted. If not they could sue for the same reasons that lady in the 70's sued.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:21 AM
1

Maybe the word pastoralist and country means something different in Australia, but to me that sounds like non-elite members of society.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:13 AM
1

If you recall, you flatly denied that female journalists got the legal right for access to men’s locker rooms. You made it sound like females have exclusive rights because they're women. The truth is all sports journalists have a right to go into locker rooms to do their jobs. Previously female reporters were denied that professional opportunity.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:11 AM
1

where were all the “additional membership and dues” due to The Western Australian Club admitting women It's extremely stupid of you to try and blame women 30+ years after they allowed women, especially when it seems to have reversed their financial troubles in the 70's. They also allowed non elite men to join around the same time. Do you blame poor men 30 years later for the downfall of the club? The “sexist dinosaur” continues. It's literally one of the richest clubs in the country. And Yes, Th…
/r/MensRights15/05/24 12:53 AM
1

I knew it would be stupid. You don't care about the "why's" and it shows. Male reporters often conducted interviews in the locker room. In 1978, in U.S. District Court, it was found that despite the defendant’s argument that keeping women out was necessary “to protect the image of baseball as a family sport” and to preserve “traditional notions of decency and propriety,” the baseball policy violated Ludtke’s 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process in terms of “her fundamental r…
/r/MensRights15/05/24 12:43 AM
1

I'm going to condense these 3 discussion chains into one comment chain. Female equivalents DO exist. They don't always exist. When women have tried to secure funding for a separate equivalent under Title 9 men would still complain. The Western Australia Club caved, and admitted women. And folded 5 years ago. You're leaving out major details in your delusional narrative. From the Wiki "By the 1980s the Western Australian Club was no longer strictly a "gentlemen's club". Women were full members. P…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 02:46 PM
1

Sports teams? You means the ones where female journalists have free access to the change rooms and showers? Show me the law in the UK that says female journalists have free access to change rooms. It’s not like that now. Even men’s day at golf clubs has come to an end. Real shame women are allowed to golf along side men. I bet the golf courses regret expanding their market base. And as I keep pointing out, even the Men’s Sheds You'd have to give me a source. I'm sure there are details you're lea…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 07:34 AM
1

And our “equality heroes” are aok with that aren’t they. Just so long as women enter. As if you actually give a shit about political corruption. Any club: sports club, working man’s club, even the local Men’s Shed gets targeted and harassed Again you pretend allowing some women into groups utter destroys them for men. That's false. Many times women have to join these clubs because female equivalents don't exist. They see men grouping together in the absence of women as something to be stopped. Y…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 07:26 AM
1

Male MPs can’t automatically go there. The same now applies to women. They don't get to automatically join, but now they have the opportunity. Care to explain why it’s ok for there to be female only spaces but not ok for their to be male only ones? There are male only spaces. They're called fraternities and sports teams. It's just another example of hyperbolic rhetoric when you act as if a minority of women entering a male dominant space is destroying the space for men. A male student can’t goin…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 07:19 AM
1

Of course there would still be a conflict of interest. Do you think women should not be allowed to join a club that influences national politics when there are women MPs? Do you think it's proper that government officials are rubbing elbows with the people they're probably supposed to regulate? This culture gender war bullshit is a distraction.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 07:14 AM
1

I don't even know why you care. Why should an elite club that has powerful members be exclusive to men unless you want power to be exclusive to men? Female MPs care that it's sexist because it bars them access to where male MPs can go. This isn't the kind of mens spaces so called MRAs should be fighting for.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 07:09 AM
1

You moron Ford did way more to bust unions than what feminists have done to Garrick members. You're delusional and appropriating the workers struggle for your weak ass grievance politics.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:53 AM
1

If those officials resigned because the club was sexist why didn't they think to stay for the vote - or rejoin after the vote?
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:51 AM
1

When your boss is The People and you spend time with people who are a potential conflict of interest then yes. That's so obvious. You're dumb.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:48 AM
1

You're completely ignoring the potential political corruption aspect. You don't understand what a conflict of interest is. It's you who isn't bothering. You're boring.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:47 AM
1

But it was not a free choice was it. It was. You can't use a false equivalent. It's garbage. They were hounded Hyperbole. women constantly try to push their way into male spaces through harassment, legal challenges or a combination of the two. Often they have legal standing.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:45 AM
1

I am saying that they were pressured and that because of that it was no more a free vote than Ford workers voting to not unionise. That's a garbage comparison. I do not believe they have a particular right to pressure them on their personal lives. Their personal lives hobnobbing potentially influences their work lives. Duh.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:44 AM
0

You’re losing it now. No, you are. You tried to pass off officials resigning from the club as equal to the pressure from union busters. It's inherently improper for judges and lawyers, or government officials and private business members to be part of clubs together because it could be a conflict of interest. It was put to them they had to choose between their jobs and membership in a “sexist club”. Citation needed. You don’t really think they’ll let the local pipe fitter join now they’re allowi…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:42 AM
1

If the elite can’t keep their own space, what chance do you think regular men have of have their own space? That's a non sequitur. There's the specific difference of the nature of the club itself. All clubs that have an all male membership get harassed and attacked. You're just being hyperbolic at this point. My view is this: it’s either acceptable to have gender segregation in private clubs or it isn’t. Each club can decide that. The men of Garrick chose to let women in.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:33 AM
1

It’s an example of intimidation tainting a free vote. No it isn't. There are no threats of violence or evidence anyone is losing power because they are a member. We’re talking about senior judges and members of the Civil Service here. Yes, it's a potential example of impropriety for lawyers and judges to be members of the some elite club along with civil servants and private interests. These people control society. Stop crying for them and their network of nepotism. You complaining about pressur…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:26 AM
1

And what everything else I said? There's apparently over 1000 members. These people are the height of society what do you even care.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 05:58 AM
1

Did you look at the date? That was last week. Here's a source from today that says the same thing. https://dailynews.co.zw/londons-famous-garrick-club-votes-to-allow-women-nearly-200-years-after-it-was-founded/ The membership list was clearly leaked to intimidate prominent members to vote for admitting women. Unless there's info on who voted yes and no that's not really relevant. King Charles was a name on the members list, and MP are not directly chosen by the people so they can't be pressured …
/r/MensRights14/05/24 04:16 AM
1

one of these campaigners released The Garrick’s membership list. Was it supposed to be a secret? I don’t think that the subsequent vote is exactly a “free choice” do you? They voted to stay men only quite recently .. You missed the part where this was a debate for decades. It's not even clear if the rules actually exclude women. Also they're still voting. Source
/r/MensRights13/05/24 11:56 AM
2

If you're complaining when men vote to end mens only spaces you show you don't actually give a shit what men want. Also the Boy Scouts changed names because they need more memberships to pay off the child molestation scandals which were associated with their old name.
/r/MensRights11/05/24 11:15 PM
1

But sounds to me like you're basically in favour of "minor" forms of FGM being legal. That's at least consistent for someone who wants male circumcision to be legal. Indeed. I would not recommend people do it, but I wouldn't advocate for its abolishment. Like with tattoos or other body mods there seems to be legal wiggle room for parental consent. In cases of older children can consent but refuse I would probably side with the children not to have it done. The history of body mods is varied. Chi…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 10:37 PM
1

So under what circumstances would you classify something as FGM type 2a? Type 2a is about the inner labia, which probably isn't equivalent to MC. For Labiaplasty that is just about the outer labia seems equivalent to MC, so it seems equally benign. But I'm not a doctor, I don't know if there is a necessary difference in the importance of the inner and outer skin in terms of overall vaginal health. When it comes to children who can't consent there should be a limit on what can be done. Generally …
/r/MensRights15/09/23 07:14 PM
1

They say that western cosmetic genital surgeries fit the definition of FGM. Does the WHO condemn such plastic surgery then? Do they run PSAs telling westerners not to get plastic surgery like they do in Africa discouraging FGM? Ok. So you don't want to go with consent as the deciding factor? Ok. So what's wrong with giving little girls labiaplasty? Probably nothing wrong with it. It seems equivalent to MC if it's just removing outer tissue. This website even talks about it specifically in the co…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 05:43 PM
1

If the WHO says plastic surgery is FGM then medical science says FGM can address the problems caused by FGM. How vexing that FGM is the solution to FGM. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6414122/#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20(WHO,genital%20organs%20for%20nonmedical%20reasons. I think that consent is the deciding factor The consent of children is not held in the same weight as consent from adults. So there are medical benefits, but there are other negative things that …
/r/MensRights15/09/23 05:21 PM
1

Let me put this simply, if you're going to devalue the term FGM by including plastic surgery by consenting adults then all you're doing is showing that both FGM and male circumcision should be legal. In regards to medical benefits, despite the technicality you're appealing to if the removal of tissue causes the remaining tissue to be more vulnerable to infection then on balance there is no medical benefits unless there is a specific issue with the tissue. That is why FGM does not have any known …
/r/MensRights15/09/23 04:46 PM
1

That's what you did. The aim was to show that it meant nothing. No, trying to argue type 4 "prick" as representative of FGM when for the most part that's not what people think about when they hear FGM. Trying to call MC castration or emasculation, or trying to compare FGM to plastic surgery on adults is word games on your part. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of this Because one aspect of parents rights is to make certain decisions for their child. Of course that right isn't abso…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 03:39 PM
1

But there are instances of female genital cutting being done for primaroly medical reasons. Which makes it not FGM. Adults getting plastic surgery on their genitals is not what we're talking about. probably not something that actual "western medicine" claims. Female genital cutting offers no known medical benefit, and there are significant short term and lifelong complications (See Table 1). Source
/r/MensRights15/09/23 02:31 PM
1

I can classify ... Would male circumcision then become immoral? Don't try to play word games with these classifications. It's mildly interesting framing that I've not heard before, so I like that, but when we talk about MC and FGM we need to be sure we're talking about the same act/procedure. Male genital mutilation is not a term I use, I see how all those acts qualify as MGM, but that just means there's a scale for MGM/FGM from benign to outrageously cruel. Perhaps a double standard when it com…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 02:21 AM
1

If you acknowledge it's a tautology then doesn't that answer your question? Are you going to say what the other guy said and try to argue tissue removed reduces the odds of tissue infection? Because it seems FGM increases infection issues.
/r/MensRights15/09/23 12:29 AM
1

It's a blanket term for things that don't remove tissue. Pricking is a common case of that and explicitly criminalized under the law. Sure fair enough, but cauterizing and other worse stuff is also in that category. If all it was was a ritual prick that would heal a matter of weeks I would call that benign. But you're right the law does mention it, probably because the whole practice is stigmatized because when people think of FGM it's type 1-3 so law makers are not comfortable with any aspect o…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 12:25 AM
1

Right so that's way more than a ritual prick. Nicking of the clitoris, burning, incising (cutting) that's obviously more cruel than MC and again western medicine does not recognize benefits of any type of FGM. The same is not true for MC. Can you acknowledge that's the difference?
/r/MensRights14/09/23 11:47 PM
1

Outlawing a ritual prick doesn't seem feasible, and only now am I hearing of type 4 at all. Even the wiki does not mention type 4, as it describes cutting or removing, type 4 as you describe is neither of those. Can you show me a law that specifically mentions type 4? Preferable the US. I don't even think type 4 can be described as multilation anymore than a shot from a hypodermic needle is multilation. Still an unnecessary practice, but benign. Edit: also again western medicine claims health be…
/r/MensRights14/09/23 11:31 PM
1

The practice varies by country. The kind of FGM I'm referring to is type 1, 2 and 3. Type 1 and 3 being the most egregious and undoubtedly more cruel than male circumcision. Also I don't know if anything in western medicine claims health benefits to FGM compared to the claimed health benefits of male circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 11:06 PM
1

What do you think perpetrators and victims of any similar practice tend to be conditioned to feel about it? I agree they can be conditioned to accept ill treatment, people can also be conditioned to make a mountain out of a mole hill. If "FGM" is as horrific as I'd assume you feel it is, how does it survive? Male circumcision is not the same as FGM, the male equivalent would be removal of the glans. As to why it continues it is a cultural practice via patriarchal social structures. It does not l…
/r/MensRights14/09/23 08:47 PM
-2

So in your opinion, of all the issues modern men face, circumcision is the top issue? I'm not even defending the practice I'm just pointing out the very obvious legal and cultural barriers to ending it. To me it's a bit strange to think you advocate for men when men will be your primary enemy in the fight against circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 08:36 PM
2

Being anti intactivist in this sub is definitely a no-win situation Indeed. But I'm here to try anyways. Source This is very sad and it gets to a major issue with the MRA movement. Thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 08:30 PM
-5

And I'm pretty sure we can discuss more than 1 thing on a forum. I think circumcision is an actual flair category here, no? We can talk about anything you like. I extend my offer I gave to Aluto7 to you. However for the sake of continuity with the topic I asked Aluto7 about, we should limit the discussion to a select few top most issues facing men. From yesterday I wanted to know what the top issues were and what policy prescriptions could address those issues. In your opinion what are the 3 top…
/r/MensRights14/09/23 06:23 PM
-16

I know anti-circumcision people need to paint it as a crime against humanity, but yes, it is benign. Men want their son's to be cut, and most cut men don't feel they have lost something vital to their well being. If that's not an example of a benign procedure I don't know what is. But please I ask you, is circumcision really the most pressing issue for MRAs today? Perhaps there might be bigger fish to fry?
/r/MensRights14/09/23 05:34 PM
-7

Because I asked for policy on the biggest issues facing men that MRAs should advocate for. You wanted to only focus on circumcision, which of the 4 issues you mentioned seemed to be the weakest, least pressing issue. From that convo you did not address any of the potential legal challenges or male perspectives that would counter any push to ban circumcision. I wanted to know what kind of policy reform MRAs want, and I was left disappointed.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 05:13 PM
-12

From your example from yesterday I don't think you have much to teach.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 03:16 PM
1

[1] https://assets.ctfassets.net/juauvlea4rbf/1kmtOU2RRXrAB9Jz1JRmwe/20ee3375a5ba9f2d31fcbf9fb5a2e541/191105_Ideal_partner_survey.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222425893_The_effect_of_nonphysical_traits_on_the_perception_of_physical_attractiveness_Three_naturalistic_studies [3] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250151
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 10:26 AM
2

Just remember I quoted science, you quoted Tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 08:29 AM
3

Women being the smaller group on dating apps have an inherit advantage, even your own source points that out. And Tinder profiles include bios - so personality is obviously a factor. Try referring to actual science: [1] https://www.insider.com/what-women-really-look-for-in-a-partner-study-research-2019-7 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/apr/22/thisweekssciencequestions.evolution [3] https://www.ktsm.com/news/study-looks-or-personality-what-men-and-women-care-about-most-throughout-their-…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 08:21 AM
0

No, you're an incel for playing into the trope that women only care about looks and money. Incels complain that the reason they can't get women is because of money, height or hair.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 08:05 AM
1

Is this subreddit an incel echo chamber?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 08:01 AM
0

Yikes. You'd rather men kill themselves than even suggest personality has something to do with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 07:35 AM
15

Instead of addressing the personal flaws of men your solutions are: sex dolls, suicide, or superficial surgery. Hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 07:26 AM
0

First off, I'm aware just calling fallacy is the fallacy fallacy, that's why I brought it up. Second, I was commenting on the "middle ground" part of his "opinion". He did commit those fallacies in the pursuit of calling other view points fallacious (meaning he also committed the fallacy fallacy too). If you really want me to get into the issue actually at hand, it's wrong to think feminists are committing the apex fallacy to begin with. The distribution of power in society is skewed towards men…
/r/MensRights22/08/21 02:51 AM
1

I was, but you keep messaging me about it.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 10:30 PM
2

In the middle is not necessarily the same as lie somewhere between.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 07:56 PM
1

Calling something an opinion as if they're immune to criticism or get a pass from needing a semblance of logic is the opinion fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 05:41 PM
0

You really don't know how fallacies work.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 05:37 PM
5

If you ever encounter a debate bro who plays the fallacy game .. play the secret reverse uno card; the fallacy fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 04:21 PM
2

That's not how fallacies work. He made a middle of the road claim couched as just an opinion. It doesn't matter that he wasn't trying to discredit another.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 03:29 PM
14

It's just my opinion. That too is a fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 12:07 PM
23

The truth is in the middle, IMO. That's also a fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 11:06 AM
-12

As he points out, huge numbers of men are very disadvantaged. But that doesn't address the historical context of what privilege, patriarchy, and sexism is. Anyone can read a series of tangentially related statistics but what JP doesn't do is actually put them in any useful context.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/20 12:41 AM
-22

JP's response does not refute the claim. Listing that stuff was an attempt at emotional persuasion.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/20 12:27 AM
0

Is it not obvious there are JP shills multi posting their support to those that would question the genius of the man who became famous by misunderstanding Canadian law on trans pronouns? That's what I think.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/11/19 01:56 AM
9

Well if you're selling yourself as a trained beautician then I see a need for licensing, but from what I'm seeing the barber made no such claim and thus should not be held to that standard of service - even if the client is a woman. Edit: although it seems the mother wasn't asking for a high standard of hair cut - So maybe the barber should have done it.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 06:19 PM
1

I would think decapitating your client would be grounds for a lawsuit, regardless of profession.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 06:18 PM
20

They're in a no-win situation: cut a woman's hair and risk being sued for doing a job they're not qualified to do, or refuse to cut a woman's hair and face a discrimination lawsuit. Can you sue a person over a bad hair cut?
/r/MensRights11/07/18 02:24 PM
31

If I were a hooker in North Carolina your condescending comment which implies I don't know the various definitions of patronizing would be illegal.
/r/MensRights20/02/18 07:15 PM
110

14-205.2: Patronizing a prostitute (prostitution is Class 1) It's illegal to be condescending to hookers too?
/r/MensRights20/02/18 05:01 PM
1

How can she be guilty if the FBI said, fully knowing about the deleted emails, that she had not committed any criminal wrong doing?
/r/MGTOW18/10/17 01:38 AM
1

No one is disputing the emails were erased. What's being disputed if she was charged with a crime, and she was not. So by your own standard she's innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MGTOW18/10/17 12:02 AM
0

No, she had to be accused in order to prompt an investigation. How can you be charged for a crime when the FBI says there was no criminal wrong doing? Edit: and no you didn't answer my question, because "her emails" don't excuse why she's guilty before being proven so yet the rapists you defend are innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 11:50 PM
0

She was accused and investigated, not charged. Had she been charged there would have been a trial. But you still didn't answer my question.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 11:39 PM
0

I see, innocent until proven guilty, so why do you think the OP makes Hillary a hypocrite despite both her and Weinstein being innocent in your eyes?
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 11:05 PM
0

Try to keep up with the rest of the class. So logic is not charged = not guilty. Well that's good news for Hillary! And I thought I was the Democrat? The question is, why isn't she staying the fuck away from men who have been publicly labeled as sexual predators? The GOP chose Trump, it's not Hillary's fault she had to share a debate stage with a rapist.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 09:53 PM
2

You go from "as if the picture in the OP wasn't obvious enough [proof of moral hypocrisy]" to "The allegations are fake ... just like Weinstein" Wow great turn around! And of course you don't care who has access to the White House, you're a Trump supporter.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 07:18 PM
3

So you want to double down on your assumption, ok lol. So you're willing to disavow Trump for sexual assault, for allowing Kushner and Ivanka access to the White House despite using private emails for government business AND for allowing Hillary to get away with all the crimes she's done despite his promise to jail her?
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 07:04 PM
2

I'm not a Democrat, now who's jumping to conclusions? But here's a picture of your God Emperor associating with criminals - that makes him a criminal too right?!
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 06:37 PM
4

You talk about fake morals over the past 40 years. You're just mad you voted for former Democrat and rapist Donald Trump.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 06:23 PM
4

Oh yes the religious right never claims to be morally superior. Never ever do they think such a thing as they push their morals into law.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 06:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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