TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Beefcakechallenge100 Archive

View 2 posts and 31 comments by Beefcakechallenge100 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

We have a word in English called 'stereotypical' . It's not a new word invented by the right to make sjw's go crazy. It is a term that indicates certain traits or characteristics of a set demographic. If females behave stereotypical of their gender, and that behaviour it toxic to male morale, what's the problem with pointing it out? If I want to use the word toxic and want to leave the situation peaceful when I can report her behaviour to management for being disruptive in the work place.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 08:22 PM
1

Or you could just always point out how toxic Femininity is. Toxic gendered behaviour is just an idea, it's not based in any fact. If a female says it's harmful to keep emotions in, tell her the opposite. If she tries to disprove it, just disprove her. Tell how crying over nothing causes problems and conflict bit not crying over nothing does the opposite. It's not hard to just tell females they are wrong.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 08:10 PM
3

If it was a male, he would be judged complicit. For Christs sake, a female can stab her bf in the leg while she is on drugs and still not go to jail because she shows promise as a student surgeon.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 08:05 PM
1

Or is it not better to point out to females how toxic their behaviour is? Vulnerability by crying in the office when chastised. Attacking males or females for no apparent r was on. Female domination over men. These are the real issues.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 08:03 PM
3

Women are the cause of most domestic violence. Once men stop female violence and selfish bahvuoir, domestic assault will almost vanish. It's not men who are violent who is the problem. It's the people who push them to violence which are the issue.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 07:44 PM
1

If there are no girls on the Internet (assuming this means that men and woman are equal and anonymous online) why get upset about being misgenderd...
/r/MensRights24/10/17 06:59 PM
1

This in all? Probability didn't happen. The only point I regard as poignant is the point she made that she was afraid for the film she made with him in it. Again she puts what is supposed to be an illegal act aside for her career and profits. If the incident did happen, she will bring the man's name into the public sphere once her film profits begin to dip.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 06:11 PM
2

Why bother explaining anything to women anyway? It's not like they get how annoying their demands have become. I seriously don't know how you hetero men put up with it all.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 06:00 PM
1

No, it didn't. Women and children first is a recent concept that originates with modern sea travel. HMS Birkenhead sank off the coast of South Africa on 26th February 1852. This incident is widely believed to be the origin of the phrase women and children first. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered the soldiers' commander Colonel Seton told them to 'Stand fast!' and allow the women and children to make use of the few lifeboats. Most of…
/r/MensRights24/10/17 05:47 PM
1

I understand that the fittest will normally thrive. I hardly think a female wood be able to care for her brood on her own as a man would. That's evolution. If it wasn't, it would be the females who were integral to keeping a family. Not as we all know that the faculty was that widows had to try and find a new man pretty quickly back then.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 02:20 PM
0

In the past 500 years, females can be easily replaced over males in the family unit. Women and children first didn't happen during times before sea travel.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 02:17 PM
1

To clarify: 'We evolve to save ourselves and acquire what we need.' this means we ecolve to best be equipped to protect ourselves from predation. Acquiring what we need would be for example we don't need fins anymore bit need legs and arms. We slowly evolve to acquire what we need ie: limbs and not fins. ' Yes it is. We have evolved to live in social groups, there is an expectation that our progeny will be supported by the group. I don't know what sentimataluty is.' We have evolved to live in so…
/r/MensRights22/10/17 09:58 AM
1

We put children first because we have our genes invested in them. Humans are not naturally monogamous. Hence if a female dies during child birth, although very sad, she can be replaced easily. This is because the ratio I heard when I was in school was that females generally outnumber males by 2-3% (number seems higher now due to man-made environmental issues). Evolution played its part here to ensure that there are always enough females for males minus those who die in childbirth. There is no ne…
/r/MensRights22/10/17 09:48 AM
1

We evolve to save ourselves and acquire what we need. Saving a female who is not able to defend or support your children in the event of a males death is not part of evolution. It's sentimataluty that send me in that direction.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 10:03 PM
1

It's true. When we speak of tribes, as you have, we speak of primates who raid for women or for slaves. It want white men trapping black people in africa for slavery. Huge numbers of slaves were actually captives of war sold into slavery for money. We know that when forces invade, the first thing the invaders do is impregnate the women to breed a new generation sympathetic to their fathers. If you are not aware of such things, you should really do some research
/r/MensRights21/10/17 09:54 PM
1

There is no evolutionary reason for protecting females over males. Females are easily to come across and as we know from history, when females of a tribe are in short demand, the males will just raid another tribe and take theirs. The idea of women and children first has no basis in evolution. It's base in sentimentality. There is no room for sentimentality towards females when the life of an active strong and viable male with children to support is place below the life of a weak impoverished fe…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 09:37 PM
1

There are not enough small tribes or cooperatives to worry about females surviving.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 09:13 PM
2

Thank God cavalry is dead
/r/MensRights21/10/17 06:31 PM
0

That's totally off topic dude. The point is why would men sacrifice their lives for women who won't be able to provide adequately for the children on their own, when they can the females life to ensure the children can have the best upbringing. It makes no sense for a man to sacrifice his life for his female when he can just as easily continue his life and find a new breeding partner. We need to rethink chivalry and the senseless reverence of women. They don't revere us, why should we rever them…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 06:24 PM
2

I just don't get this value put on female life. For example: women and children first? Why in the world would you put females before children and males? If the male dies, the female will go through intese hardships raising her children on her own or look for a new husband to care for her kids and breed more for him. How does the dead man benefit from this? He doesn't. However, let the already used up female go down with the ship, the male can continue working to raise his children, possibly gett…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 05:57 PM
1

Image is more important than looks.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 05:29 PM
1

I think u miss the point... It's marketing. 14 copies of the ugly calendar will be sold but 14 million get sold if u use hot chicks. As the right and men's rights have a higher percentage tag of hot female supporters whereas the left consists of traditional ugly birds, I'm sure the men's rights movement would be better served by selling more hot calendars than fewer full of women wanting to be beautiful and adored. These females need to lean their place, which is not in print.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 10:17 AM
1

No idea what this means
/r/MensRights20/10/17 01:57 PM
0

Or we can just stop ugly women from sexualise and fetishising themselves.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 01:56 PM
1

It's a statement, not a question. I know this, because if it was a question, you would have answered it. I don't need to be put in my place for one extra dot. It seems u are offended that I think all the calendar girls are hideous. I have not stepped out of place by saying that. Have a nice day senior English teacher.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 01:54 PM
-11

Not meaning to be too rude, but what's with ugly out of shape women believing that their bodies are appropriate for a calendar for men to ogle over.... It's time we put ugly women back in their place.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 11:23 PM
0

Wolf whistling should be banned if there is no rational reason for it. As most catcalls are made towards women who have made themselves 'attractive', then any comments made by men would be considered appropriate. If mothers insist on dressing their underage daughters in provocative clothing, then any catcalls should be deemed inappropriate. 66% of all females claim to be victims of catcalls guilty and wolf whistles. We should use the examples of the 33% not effected by it and roll those lessons …
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:39 PM
0

Miniskirts and lack of knickers allow pheraemmones to permeate and affect men's demeanour. If females were forced to contain their pheromones, fewer men would be driven to comment or react to stimulus. Stop the stimulus and stop the inappropriate male behaviour. It's no use to tell a dog to not be horny if it smells a dog in heat. Why should males be held to a different standard!
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:09 PM
1

Why find a balance when you can just force the offending or provocative party to change? Why ask men not sexual use females and let the females continue to sexualise themselves? Why should men be fired from jobs for unwanted sexual behaviour and females be permitted to use their sexuality at work to find a mate?
/r/MensRights19/10/17 09:05 PM
1

Why should innocent men be provoked into catcalls and inappropriate behaviour by females using clothing to send out very strong sexual signals directly relating to their own sexual fantasy? Why should a perfectly nice man get caught up and punished for making a comment or action and the provocative female not be punished for provoking inappropriate responses in men? There is nothing wrong with punishing provocative behaviour. We impose sanctions on provocative regimes like north Korea why not im…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 08:45 PM
5

Laws that benefit women, benefit him. Why should there be laws that benefit women? Unfair entitlements that benefit women, benefit him. Why should women recieve unfair entitlements over me? Before he may have been a womanizing savage, barely recognizing the sentience of his numerous conquests. Why is a man who sleeps around 'a womanising savage' and a female who sleeps around called 'sexually empowered? But now he may grimace when he see's any man mistreating woman in any way. Why does nobody ev…
/r/MensRights07/10/17 07:06 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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