TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BedMonster Archive

View 0 posts and 52 comments by BedMonster 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)
4

Death. It isn't a question of old people being less capable - but if young people aren't replacing their parents at a sufficient rate, the population falls. And automation included - population growth is still a substantial factor in GDP growth. Primarily, technology is about using our labor force more efficiently. Using fewer workers more efficiently isn't going to be competitive with nations who both use technology and have at least positive rather than negative population growth.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 11:24 AM
7

Ah. Well, I'm still not opposed to referring to the child welfare complex as "the state."
/r/MensRights20/07/13 08:56 AM
4

Don't you call out my wall hax. In seriousness, I dunno. But always grateful!
/r/MensRights20/07/13 07:06 AM
22

She won't get child support - but he may still be required to pay it to the state. She may as well, depending on the state.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:52 AM
35

He may still be required to pay child support even if the children are in foster care.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:26 AM
2

Some people think that Western rationalism is science, some others reject that idea (see Feyerabend's Against Method). Would you agree, then, that those who reject Western rationalism as science are unlikely to call themselves scientists? And isn't it fair that, as a society we do not recognize as "scientists" those who reject Western rationalism and the scientific method? Looking back, it appears that Do sociologists consider themselves scientists? has evolved into a more metacognitive discussi…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:11 PM
2

Haha, okay. According to Hargens and Kelly-Wilson (1994), scholars' pessimism about research quality in their own field may affect the way administrators, other faculty, and research foundation personnel perceive that field. [...] Using the 1984 Carnegie survey, Hargens, and Kelly-Wilson (1994) examined variation by discipline in faculty assessments of their own field's vitality. As predicted, pessimism about one's field is much higher in the social sciences and humanities than in the physical a…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:41 PM
6

Oh, I'm familiar with the history of sociology as a discipline, from Comte through Durkheim and Weber -- as well as Durkheim's efforts to get sociology recognized as its own academic discipline. It was a more philosophical question about how sociologists identify themselves -- good sociological research uses the scientific method and seeks to be objective and repeatable. However, in my intercourse with academia I have met many who consider themselves activists first and objective researchers sec…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:54 AM
3

You would be the exception in this case. There's a reason why news reports commonly refer to "researchers at the university of..." when discussing sociological studies and "scientists at the university of..." when discussing research in biology or chemistry. These are simply the terms we have settled on as a society. And the answer is: some do, some do not. I assure you that the percentage who do not is far greater among sociologists than it is among physicists.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 09:26 AM
3

I'm not saying that your average sociologist or economist would respond no to the question: are you a scientist? However, much in the same way as we use the standalone term doctor to refer to a medical doctor -- if you say someone is scientist, you are generally understood to mean a hard science. In the context of this thread, it is unlikely that a sociologist who does not believe the scientific method to be a necessary component of their work is going to call his/herself a scientist.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:57 AM
3

Hard sciences versus social sciences. For example, economics is a social science - but economists don't generally refer to themselves as scientists.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:38 AM
21

Do sociologists consider themselves scientists?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:15 AM
1

Depends in part on where you went and what your network is like. Half the people I know working in technology or finance majored in completely unrelated fields in undergraduate. I'm talking sociology majors working for Google, Econ majors working for LinkedIn, and Spanish majors working for Deutsche Bank. Hell, even as an econ major all my finance internships told me my liberal arts Economics degree would be pretty useless in i-banking - since 95% of the necessary skills are taught on-the-job. I…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 08:09 AM
11

She apparently prefers the death penalty to a life sentence, and has therefore been put on suicide watch.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:50 AM
1

Cool, thanks.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:50 PM
2

Do you have a source for the time line of events? Neither the article here or Pryde's post mention those things.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:10 PM
2

The proper way to read it is that mothers are the most likely to be primary abusers, but that is a characteristic associated with motherhood and not being a woman. Alternatively, women are far more likely to abuse their children than other children, whereas men are more likely to abuse children who are not theirs. Because of the sheer number more women who abuse their children: women as a gender abuse children more on average.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:26 AM
0

In concept, perhaps. But that ignores the very real movement by feminists to eliminate victim blaming (an admirable goal) and replace it with teaching men not to rape. It is this second piece that represents the context the original is often shared in, being presented as a hyperbolic teaching aid, and no longer satire.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:14 AM
1

As I stated elsewhere, the stigma against homosexuality is deeply rooted in a stigma against men who love or have sex with men, much more than the stigma against women who do the same.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 08:13 PM
1

Fair enough. I agree that marriage equality may not be a top MRM priority, particularly while we are fighting for marriage and divorce equality for men in heterosexual marriages. Hopefully we can leverage the marriage equality issue into changing our laws and systems to be more gender egalitarian.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:33 PM
2

Does the stigma against homosexuality, and accordingly marriage rights, have more to do with men having sex with men, or with women having sex with women? Are lesbian couples stigmatized as presumptive child abusers? Do those who believe Lawrence vs. Texas should be overturned seek the application of anti-sodomy laws primarily against gay men or gay women? Opposition to gay marriage is deeply rooted in a stigma specifically against men who love or have sex with other men, more than a stigma agai…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:00 PM
6

I'm not claiming it is. False rape claims aren't only an issue for men, either. All I'm saying is that marriage equality is an issue that affects men directly, and therefore cannot be considered off topic or leeching.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:31 PM
4

Of course. But MRAs, of whatever gender, fighting for the rights of gay men cannot be considered to be leeching or off topic.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:14 PM
3

We wouldn't be leeching off of men for PR purposes, we are men. When feminists appropriate the struggles of gay men, they are leeching. MRAs supporting the rights of men can not be considered to be the same.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:10 PM
1

[Cont.] In the context of that discussion, your argument's literal translation is "you shouldn't have to know someone is unable to refuse sex in order to be held responsible for deliberately enforcing his or her participation." As I state above, you would be considered to have engaged in reckless conduct by failing to be aware that the person you're engaging in sex with is in a state rendering them unable to refuse sex. By arguing this, you're requiring the accused to have been able to decide to…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:43 AM
1

I see the gleeful fashion in which you approach the bolded accusations of "strawmanning." I was not arguing that civil law be applied to criminal charges, only that there is a legal definition of incapacitation. You wrote: This leaves it open for the accuser to interpret "my level of self-control was reduced" to mean "I was unable to decide whether or not I wanted to do this" and accuse a partner who had sex with an enthusiastic participant of having committed rape. To which I replied: While the…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:42 AM
1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is already a precedent for incapacitation in contract law. While the accuser can attempt to interpret that "their level of self-control was reduced" translates to "I was unable to decide whether or not I wanted to do this," but the court usually holds that the contract will be invalid only if the signer (the accuser) was incapacitated, or if the accused was aware of the alleged victims state. I think that incapacitated is fairly well defined, actually…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 12:32 AM
2

The only thing which this omits is the question of at what point is one considered to be incapacitated. While no one would question whether having sex with an unconscious person is rape, there exists some level of intoxication short of unconsciousness that would constitute incapacitation. The case this raises is that in which one party is intoxicated whilst the other is incapacitated. Looking from a technical perspective, mens rea may still be applicable regarding the rape charge, with the impor…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 10:24 AM
13

It isn't saying that sex without explicit consent is sexual assault; sex without consent is sexual assault. The notion is that yes, millions of non-verbal consent negotiations go perfectly fine - but it is easier to misunderstand non-verbal cues than it is to misinterpret explicit verbal ones. The more important point is that you don't lose anything by asking - if you're worried that asking "may I?" before your fingers or penis enter her vagina is going to "ruin the mood," or change her mind, le…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:24 AM
1

I think it depends on the industry, you might be surprised. It definitely happened with home mortgages. (Blacks being given higher rates for the same credit ratings and neighborhoods.)
/r/MensRights10/10/12 11:12 AM
8

There are good and bad definitions of rape culture. That isn't to deny that it has been used obtusely and/or unconstructively by feminists and others, but it can be used properly to describe elements of our culture (such as lenient sentences for female perpetrators of rape) that encourage or permit rape (of either gender) to occur. This is one of the best and gender-inclusive definitions I know of. It is most important to note that when we talk about rape culture, we are not saying that most peo…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:13 PM
9

For recessive traits carried on the X chromosome, an XX person has a chance that the other X chromosome has the dominant trait, while an XY chromosome does not. Color blindness is the classic example.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 02:05 PM
5

I'm pretty sure that at least in the US, you can't contract yourself out of child support payments regardless of what "contract" you had with the mother. It's extra useless for rape allegations, because consent can be revoked at any time - so the fact that someone signed a contract agreeing to have sex doesn't mean that they couldn't revoke consent during - and that, again, is not a right you can just sign away. In fact, I don't know that a contract would even be valid with regards to initiating…
/r/MensRights02/06/12 02:01 AM
4

The only reason I brought up the comparison was to give the number some meaning, and I think your point about the hours spent in traffic is also a fair perspective-giving point. And at least in my opinion, the numbers you give don't disagree with my point that I don't think the risk of death in childbirth should be completely discounted. Not that I even agree with the idea that (per the Facebook commenter) childbirth is a comparable parallel with men working in more dangerous jobs.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:41 AM
2

You're right. I'll still pass on taking that risk, but put in that perspective, (the death risk) is relatively insignificant. I'll edit my post to reflect your better reading of the numbers. Edit: It is by live births in a given year though, right? E.g., if we were talking about the number of childbirths in 2010, 21 of every 100,000 mothers died in childbirth in 2010, right? If that's the case, the difference is mostly that you need not be a driver to die in a traffic accident. A fairer comparis…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 01:17 AM
2

List of countries by traffic-related death rate Maternal Death Rates in the 20th Century; World Bank estimates 2010 at a somewhat lower 21 per 100,000.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:41 PM
6

No, not at all. The source you cited shows deaths per 200,000 hours worked, not the death rate per coal worker. in 2010 for example, there were 48 deaths (according to your source) per 86,195 US coal workers, for a rate of 55.7 deaths per 100,000. That's more than twice the maternal death rate of 24 deaths per 100,000 in 2008 or almost five times the maternal death rate of 11 per 100,000 in 2005. Only for the year with the lowest number of deaths in the last decade, 2009, is the rate lower than …
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:06 PM
1

I feel like 10 in 100000 is still significant. Apparently in the US it was 24 per 100,000 in '08 - to put that in perspective, the death rate for automobile accidents in the US is ~12 per 100,000. I'm not talking about the question of discrimination; just that I wouldn't completely discount the maternal death rate, just like I wouldn't completely discount the risk of automobile fatalities. Edit: Loose-dendrite called out my mistake, the maternal death rate is per 100,000 births (in a given year)…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 09:49 PM
1

I think it will be something we primarily see in ads for things which men buy. The "buffoon dad" ads aren't meant to appeal to men, usually, but women who are responsible for a higher percentage of domestic consumption. It was perhaps easier for feminists to do away with the "ditsy blonde" theme because advertisers knew they needed to appeal to women. As best we can we need to vote with our wallets and simultaneously call out/avoid companies which pander to women by demeaning men. They'll follow…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:19 PM
2

I think the obvious explanation is the only one, really. It's a car ad. Polo. Small but tough. Purely describes the car, in an ad targeted at fathers. A less blunt way of saying: "Polo. A car you can trust; or Polo. Safe enough for your child." I don't see any reason to extend that to feel the ad implies Dad=small but tough. If anything, it's more in the vein of "small, unlike you, but tough, like you.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:15 PM
1

Just responding quickly to the "why we don't have a male pill" article, the Norfertil treatment they refer to as having been 95% effective and with very little side effects actually had a high rate of fatigue, and longer usage was associated with high rates of lasting or permanent infertility. That's not to say that there is nearly enough research towards a male pill - and it would be a huge step towards revolutionizing men's reproductive rights. But if such a pill existed and was safe enough fo…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 01:22 AM
1

Okay, I'll bite. So, after the first bit on the question of whether insurance companies should be required to cover birth control; the rest is a defense of Rush Limbaugh in the Sandra Fluke debacle. You are well in your first amendment right to call anyone a slut, just like anyone is within their first amendment right to call Rush a misogynist or pull their advertising. That's the free market for you. But I think it's hard to justify Rush's comment, because birth control isn't necessarily about …
/r/MensRights27/03/12 07:07 PM
1

You're right. Especially because the stay-at-home thing is so often related to childbirth, so long as custody proceedings are so fucked, so too are men by alimony. You mean I can choose child support now (and not necessarily seeing my child, etc.) over the risk of alimony and child support later? Gee, thanks. And it's why I make the caveat that it may in fact be that the current system needs to be dismantled entirely before any fair system can be built. The current idea and practice of alimony i…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 04:59 PM
6

I mean, that is certainly your opinion to have. I would not expect my (or any) spouse to be willing to take that risk if not for some "insurance" if something goes wrong. Even "for the kids," no man or woman should make that choice. Further unless you put some contract in place, the mutually agreed upon choice can just as easily end on the fickle hearts of either gender - leaving the person who gave up their income to care for children (for example) in the lurch. ABSOLUTELY NOT. If she or he mad…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 08:53 PM
11

I should hope that one spouse quitting their job should be a joint decision, no? In the case that one's spouse unilaterally decides to quit working - that would be grounds for you to divorce them then and there, in which case any proportional alimony law would award your spouse very little, and for a very short time, as the time they were not working prior would be very short. But if the couple made the decision that one partner should stay at home for various reasons, that is a joint decision, …
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:34 PM
2

I think a year may be a rather short time to update one's skills to be current with the job market, even if you already have a college degree. A one year maximum makes less sense in cases of 10, 20, 30 year marriages. I think the situation Solo is referring to is one in which a couple decides that one spouse will no longer work, either to take care of the home or children, with the idea that this is a better use of their utility than having that spouse work. If say, that spouse is out of the wor…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:16 PM
18

To be honest, I'm really not inclined to believe that it's meant to be serious - much like "don't read the back of my shirt" shirts. I'm not going to claim that Pink isn't marketed towards teenage girls, but it's more honest to say it's geared towards the 15-35 age bracket. Regardless, it's a joke. Yes there are women out there who will wear skimpy clothing and genuinely complain about drawing the eyes of strangers. But that is a problem for those women, and they aren't even worth the time. Furt…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:36 AM
3

Here's my question: are articles like this one part of a feedback loop? Am I feeling like I'm seeing this information be talked about in the public more often, or is that just a bias because I read these kinds of articles? More broadly, how do we tell if our work with regard to awareness is having an effect on the public, without being caught up in preaching to the choir?
/r/MensRights24/12/11 04:19 PM
7

I think that homosexual exploitation in prison has an abuse component that is separate from sexual preference. My first thought is Abu Ghraib, and the idea that a sadist might get off on abusing their power in a sexual manner without otherwise or at least identifying as gay.
/r/MensRights24/12/11 03:42 PM
5

I think he means that as this recently happened, he feels ill because of what she said. If it weren't for the fact that his daughter's mother has pushed him around the house a few times, he wouldn't feel so sick to his stomach.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 06:56 AM
2

Taking the bait in saying that all liberals want x is no more intellectualy sound than the libs who go of shouting that conservatives hate women and colored people. There's a decision, in recognizing the coopting of social justice to mean women's justice and minority justice, on whether to scrap social programs entirely or try to make them more equal. I will admit to being rather liberal on a number of points, but my response to things such as disproportionate male homelessness/unemployment isn'…
/r/MensRights24/10/11 07:34 PM
28

Not to be a stickler, but physical gender expression is not necessarily representative of biological (chromosomal) sex. But you're right that language isn't the real issue - we'd see no more success ending racism by preventing people from naming races.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:06 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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