TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BlueLinchpin Archive

View 0 posts and 79 comments by BlueLinchpin 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)
16

Just wanted to say congratulations on spitting the pill back out :) Hope things go better for you in the future!
/r/ExRedPill11/06/14 09:58 AM
-2

If you make demonstrable and meaningful efforts to help men, not lipservice, I mean actually help men and address problems they face, you will inevitably face feminist opposition. Helping men? What, like overloading universities with fake rape claims? Wow, yeah, that's really helping men without hurting women at all. Can't imagine why that got any feminist backlash. The problem with this subreddit is that you have to make everything pro-man ALSO be anti-feminist and anti-woman. It's all you guys…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 09:26 PM
0

Where did I say get over it? I said it was an awful joke. But the person I was responding to was claiming that feminists hold rallies with signs demanding that men be killed. Yeah, the twitter joke is awful, but if you have to act like it was a legit call to kill men then you're grasping for straws. Apparently holding people to their statements is too much to ask.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 09:19 PM
-1

It's true, I am in fact multiple hardcore feminists. /s It's not at all possible to be both a feminist and an egalitarian and in support of men's rights. Totally. Not remotely possible. Yup. /s
/r/MensRights16/03/14 09:18 PM
-1

feminism does have some anti-male sentiments. Some feminists have some anti-male sentiments, just like some MRAs have anti-female sentiments. I am certain that we blow it out of proportion, just as there are elements in MRM that are in fact anti-women are blown out of proportion. Both sides of the argument are only looking at a small portion of the other's pie. To the rational people on both sides it feels ridiculous to call their group a hate group because, they don't hate men/women. So all tha…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 08:27 AM
-4

tl;dr Samsc2 claims there are feminists rallies with signs saying kill all men, changes mind and points to a twitter joke. Why are you even here if you are just wanting to promote violence against people? I'm not sure if you've ever heard of a straw man but you should probably go look it up. Where have I promoted violence or defended anyone who promoted violence? All I said was I'd never heard of a rally where feminists called for violence. If you're going to talk to someone, respond to what the…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:24 AM
-6

I sure did miss those rallies.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:20 AM
3

That's really sad to hear, as if it's evil or wrong of us to want equality for everyone and be labeled as such. That's not the problem. The problem is /r/mensrights is perceived as being anti-feminist/anti-woman more than pro-men's rights. no signs saying hurt other people or w/e the feminists do ...what??
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:01 AM
-1

You've spotted the reason why egalitarians like myself have a lot of trouble taking this sub/"movement" seriously.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:55 AM
1

Some feminists only care about women's rights, some feminists care about women's and men's rights. Usually it's just a disagreement about whether men have it better or women have it better, not a disagreement about who should have it better.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:56 AM
3

And this sub claims it's not misogynist?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:36 AM
2

You are not the breadwinner if she works too, and it is not her fault you resent her because you are ambitious and she isn't.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 07:44 PM
2

Feminist and self described MRA here...though I've had no lack of MRAs try to tell me I can't be both. You put it much better than I ever could, for that I am really grateful. Both groups need to stop being so hostile to each other.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:10 AM
2

I’ve never said that. I just don’t like “feminism.” Feminists don’t have a monopoly on women’s issues… thought they’d like you to think that. Bit of a ramble, sorry: Really stuff like this comes down to semantics...but feminism is a huge, nebulous cluster of beliefs and ideologies, a lot of them don't agree with each other at all. But feminism in the larger sense (rather than being defined by whatever view is most prevalent among people who call themselves feminists) is just shorthand for women'…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 06:27 AM
4

Thanks for the measured and not crazy response! This topic ends up with too many of those... I would approach that from a POV of helping people in general, not just helping women. There you're talking about a huge socioeconomic and cultural change, it's very narrow to say oh, you need feminism to cause all of those changes. It's not the only way to go about doing things. This is IMO the right way of approaching things. But when we say things like "I'm not personally oppressed as a woman, therefo…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:22 PM
4

I'm not going to get on some high horse and tell you that you owe it to someone to call yourself feminist, like that really makes a difference, but I think it's worth noting that yes, life for women is finally elevated to an equal place in society and for white, middle to upper class women in the U.S. at least, in most careers and situations, there's not anyone really holding us down. Occasionally someone might treat us like shit or murder us just because we're women, but generally women like yo…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 11:08 AM
1

Cute, but "the vast majority of activist feminists" as you see it just hasn't been my experience.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:06 AM
0

I doubt you can find Blackstone's sources, either, but that's how these things work. I'm not sure where you get off putting "encyclopedia" in quotation marks when referring to Encyclopedia Britannica... I can't help but notice you've glossed over this issue: your own source is stating that wife beating was a right until the reign of Charles, at which point we don't know what happens afterwards, aside from what the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us happened up until the mid 19th century in most bu…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:16 AM
-1

I'm not sure you read your own quotation thoroughly. The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem [To beat his wife severely with whips and sticks], for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere [with moderate punishment].60 That sounds absolutely enlightened. But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted:61 and a wife ma…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:56 AM
0

I never said men were sociopaths. Tell me, do you prefer raping children, or murdering children? If you don't answer with precisely one of those options, I'll harass you about it for the next 5 hours. Seriously, feel free to drop it any day now. This has gotten stupid.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:39 AM
2

Thank you for being the one to speak up with a reasonable reaction to this. It's all too easy to look at the actions of the "other" and purposefully see everything in a light of oppression, but from the perspective of the women, having a guy flash you when you're out to protest rape seems like it's intended to send a pro-rape message. Definite overreaction, but it's worth noting.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:33 AM
0

How many times do I have to say I don't think that they were? If someone answers your loaded question/false dichotomy by rephrasing the question and answering it using a different set of words, typically it's time to stop asking the same question over and over again, get a life, or ask a different question.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:28 AM
0

My meaning was precisely what I said. If you're going to ask loaded questions don't get picky with the answers. :) I don't know what to tell you. I'm a feminist, and someone who believes in men's rights as well. I've met plenty of feminists who are capable of both being wrong and being right. History is a much more complicated affair than "one person on the other side of the fence said it's true, therefor it must be true", or vice versa, "this reputable information resource doesn't say what all …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:26 AM
0

Actually I did admit that, right around the point where I called that period of history "remotely friendly to women". So....? As I've pointed out in the other response where you linked that, an avowed anti-feminist website of no repute that only deals with whether or not a specific "rule of thumb" ever existed isn't really going to convince me over the more reputable articles. I'd hardly call it socially acceptable, it was considered so shameful for a man to be able to be beaten by his wife that…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:16 AM
0

Excellent, so your answer to a reputable website is one that specifically names itself as anti-feminist and doesn't actually debunk the Britannica article stating specifically that men were given the right to beat their wives. That doesn't sound biased at all. I'll point out that your article, if you've read it, is specifically in regards to "the rule of thumb" and whether or not Blackstone ever mentions it. Granted, my meaning was never that men were sociopaths at all, but then what do you expe…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:14 AM
1

Do you have a particular time period in mind? Well, there's all of them for one. It wouldn't be hard to just admit that, yes, only the period of history that gave birth to women's rights was remotely friendly to women. Nope. If a slave owner was not obligated to go into debt for her slave's upkeep. If she went into debt she could sell her slaves to pay off that debt though. I'm not legally obligated to pay for my cat's credit card. Do we really need to play stupid here? Nope. They were responsib…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:05 AM
1

After the 17th century there were no such laws. Really? In the early 1800s most legal systems implicitly accepted wife-beating as a husband’s right, part of his entitlement to control over the resources and services of his wife. Feminist agitation in the 1800s produced a sea change in public opinion, and by the end of the 19th century most courts denied that husbands had any right to “chastise” their wives. But few women had realistic sources of help, and most police forces did nothing to protec…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:55 AM
0

No one's denying that men have felt affection for their partners -- this has been true throughout history in both directions. But it's been true in societies where there have been absolutely zero rights for women, just as it's true in societies where there have been some or many. If that's really all your argument comes down to, I think we're done here. It's an especially weak argument when you consider that wives have never just been property but one's path to having children, connections to pr…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:45 AM
1

Yes, and...? You're saying men as a group weren't opposed to women's rights, I'm saying they were opposed. As a group, yes. "If men as a group were so opposed to granting women rights" insinuates that you don't believe men in general were opposed to it. I'm saying, yes, they were as a group opposed to it.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:32 AM
-1

So laws that gave husbands the right to abuse their wives to "correct" their behavior were ultimately well-meaning. I guess I've been misinterpreting domestic abuse all these years.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:29 AM
1

You're narrowing the scope to the one point in history that was remotely decent enough that it started to give way and create the modern Yeah, that's convenient. You're repeating all this and ignoring everything I've said in the other post you're responding to me in, so since the same thing is being repeated there I'm just going to copy/paste in each response: You're ignoring the fact that this is all a consequences of women not having any actual rights, just as owners were legally required to t…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:20 AM
0

You're repeating all this and ignoring everything I've said in the other post you're responding to me in, so since the same thing is being repeated there I'm just going to copy/paste in each response: You're ignoring the fact that this is all a consequences of women not having any actual rights, just as owners were legally required to take care of slaves around this period and just as owners are legally required to take care of pets today. You're also ignoring the reverse -- and several things I…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:19 AM
1

No offense, but I'm really not seeing the issue here. Maybe I'm confused, maybe you're confused, maybe we're both confused. It's nothing to get upset about. The bit of your own text that you've quoted just says that the men who elevated women's status did so because of women's suffrage. That's fine, I'm not confused on that part -- nothing about what I've said goes against that, and I'm not accusing you of saying otherwise. The only thing I'm disagreeing with you against is that somehow, men wer…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:35 AM
1

Actually, I was responding to the part of your post where you actually mentioned the 19th Amendment: If men as a group were so opposed to granting women rights, why would a congress made up entirely of men vote to send the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the state legislatures to ratify? And why would those legislatures, also dominated by men, largely vote to ratify?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 11:52 PM
0

I'm doing this not because what you've posted is accurate to any other era, but merely to narrow the scope to a historical period relevant to the struggle for voting rights. So you're denying that men have held the power and women have been largely without rights in any other era? Am I reading that right? Ignoring that for the moment, as you seem to want to do, let's move on. Under coverture, men were punished for the crimes of their wives (up to treason and murder), I'm calling BS on this one. …
/r/MensRights09/12/12 11:50 PM
1

You do realize that the opposite is true, right? If a woman gets raped, the father has equal rights to the child?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:57 PM
1

If men really didn't care about women, feminism would never have existed. Full stop. They cared enough about women to create a whole separate class of citizen with the rights of citizenship but none of the responsibilities expected of male citizens. Wow. This kind of drivel gets upvoted? Men care so much about women that they didn't give them equality, they gave them a position of legal superiority. That's what you call no voting rights, no property rights, being denied educations, being legally…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:55 PM
0

The Nineteenth Amendment took 30 years for Congress to even consider it, 46 years to be accepted after being voted down again and again, came about in a time of largely socialist and progressive popularity, and came at the end of a long period of social change and forced acceptance of the fact that women were capable of and willing to be full citizens after helping pull the country through World War I. Congress didn't suddenly up and decide, hey, let's do the girls a favor. No: women's suffrage …
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:52 PM
1

Strange, they never replied with examples after making that wild claim about people threatening OP and having it upvoted...
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:29 PM
1

Anti-feminism is the revolutionary notion that women are (like men) moral agents. Strange, I'm a feminist and I believe this is true. I know not every MRA is anti-women's rights, so I'm not gonna let posts like this kill my view of MRA as a whole. And I'm sorry to hear about this guy getting harassed. I don't know the situation and there isn't a link around, but still sorry to hear it. Just wanted to pipe in and offer my condolences / obligatory "not all of us are like that" post.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:21 PM
1

Perfectly fair.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:17 AM
2

Because our movement is not about fixing things for men and women. It is about fixing things for men. However, the vast majority of us do not want to disadvantage women while fixing things for men. Fair enough. But when MRAs complain that this is what feminists say (I am just now in the middle of a conversation where an MRA is complaining that women only care about women's rights), it starts to confuse me a bit, you know? Perfect example of this is VAWA. Fair enough. Second example; how does sha…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:05 AM
3

No doubt. But here's the crux: If you want equality, then you need to look up men's rights, and you need to look up women's rights. Then you have to address both in a fair and impartial manner. I don't think Men's Rights support equality anymore than feminism does. But having Men's Rights present at these discussions, definitely does without at doubt. Unfortunately, MRA's are consistently being attacked, censored, and fought against. I fully agree with you on this point. Though I think that it's…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 11:58 PM
0

There's some issues with what you're saying here, namely in that you're saying it as if there's something wrong with the specific situations you've provided (women are able to abort their own pregnancies, but men can't choose to abort the pregnancy that isn't occuring in their own body). The only issue here is whether a man is obligated to pay child support should a woman he's slept with decides to keep the child. He shouldn't be, and you're right that the current judicial opinion is that once a…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 10:51 PM
2

You're right that it is a common thing for feminists to do, unfortunately. My intention was just to point out that in the end, we're both calling ourselves the "wrong" word, according to what we're all arguing we actually believe. I'm afraid though that I just don't agree with you that "most feminists exhibit a complete disregard for male issues", mostly because that's something so utterly subjective to one's own experiences that it's kind of pointless even arguing about it. Most feminists I kno…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 10:27 PM
3

So why use the term MRA instead of egalitarian?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:57 PM
6

We exist, I promise you.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:54 PM
4

Feminist here and while I wouldn't have agreed previously I think you've made an excellent case and now I have to agree. It's all about what you choose to call yourself and what you associate yourself with. There's some shitlords in feminism as well as in MRA, as well as outside both groups. Theoretically the two groups should be working together but too many on both sides are unwilling to admit that the other faces prejudice and problems from society. It's not mutually exclusive, guys, we can a…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:53 PM
9

But now you're just being a hypocrite. If someone else gets to define what a label means and apply it to you without your permission, that's exactly what OP is arguing against. Feminism, to feminists, is arguing for equality, just as Men's Rights to MRAs is arguing for equality. Instead of turning around and being a hypocrite and Not all feminists are anti men's rights, most aren't. There are issues men have that are unique from the ones women have and while most just see their own gender as hav…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:51 PM
1

How unsurprising that you've not been voted to the top like the frothing comments have.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:46 PM
0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. If you actually read some of the comments around here they point out that this article is both old and inaccurate.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:45 PM
1

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:44 PM
1

I'm not twisting your words, there's literally no other way to interpret it.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:13 PM
1

Well I'll say one thing, the fact that people who aren't me are downvoting you revives some of my hopes in the MRM.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:33 PM
1

I think you need to reread your own comment dude. "It's okay to bash women because they deserve it." "I never bash women!" Uh huh.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:32 PM
-1

Just look at the top comments on this thread. Jesus, no reason to be an ass, some people are using phones to reply. Calm the hell down.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:29 PM
2

"I think it's okay to bash women" "Because women are mean" Well, thanks for providing me an example.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:42 PM
2

No, you're purposely misreading. You told OP to just downvote and move on. I said he probably has.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:41 PM
1

Legolas' comment is right there at the top of the page. IF you don't agree that it's an issue that's fine--I'm just pointing out that it's silly to assume someone would feel it's an issue but not downvote it.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:01 AM
1

Just because men's rights on it's own is a good thing doesn't mean that the MRM doesn't also attract misogynists.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:53 AM
2

You post and agree with a lot of them.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:51 AM
3

You really think he isn't already? The issue is that the community at large is in support of such BS.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:47 AM
1

Yes, a double standard exists. No one's denying that. However the comment I was actually responding to did place the blame on women instead of the religious background of the tradition.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:18 PM
1

You keep ignoring everything I'm saying about MGM being acceptable to people because of religion.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:09 PM
1

You...don't think Judaism is patriarchal? Am I hearing that correctly? Or did you not read my post completely? | MGM is socially acceptable because it's part of the majority religion/culture in the US, a culture/religion which I will note is highly patriarchal. Yes, Judeo-Christian religion is patriarchal, and Judaism, the religion that started MGM, is extremely patriarchal. Moses was not a woman who hated guys' dicks. Again, people in general don't have a problem with MGM because it's a long-st…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:37 PM
1

..."just as often". Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's not a misandry thing, so the person I was responding to jumping to the conclusion that a man wouldn't have done it to his son was silly.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 07:32 PM
1

I think you're missing the point. There's no religious group or culture in the US that has female circumcision as part of their practice. MGM is socially acceptable because it's part of the majority religion/culture in the US, a culture/religion which I will note is highly patriarchal. This isn't a "feminists have double standards thing". This is a religious double standards thing.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:17 AM
2

That's some interesting...speculation?
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:16 AM
2

If the concern is "I want my son to be desired by women", that's something both a mother and a father are going to want. The mother isn't looking to bang her son herself. But yeah, the whole revenge theory was just whack. Wiggity whack.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:02 AM
-1

Nothing, because I'm not the only one who occasionally just clicks RES image links while glancing over a post. shrug I wasn't saying anything rude to the person who posted it, I was saying "I should stop doing that, it's a bad habit". I swear, some people will look for any excuse to jump on someone else's ass. (Not you, more the silly downvotes. :P)
/r/MensRights12/08/12 01:36 AM
5

I'm sure many do. But it's silly to act like this is a "female war on men" thing, it's not.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:48 AM
-1

Good lord, I really have to get out of the habit of just clicking on any image link that isn't marked NSFW.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:08 AM
3

You're...aware circumcision isn't something just perpetuated by mothers on sons but by parents on sons, right? I mean, the whole custom didn't get started because women were demanding it happened. It started because men demanded it. Just saying.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:06 AM
2

Absolutely horrible. :\
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:04 AM
1

It's illegal because it isn't part of the Judeo-Christian culture to do it to a woman. If you want to argue that the ancient Hebrews were actually modern feminists, that's cool.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:03 AM
1

Strange, no one's answered.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:17 AM
0

And the same doesn't apply to MRAs?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:41 AM
0

Just because one of your mods is a misogynist doesn't mean everyone here is.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:45 PM
4

Feminist here. /r/mensrights is winning some serious points here with the responses to the /r/beatingwomen crap. Good to see we're all in this together.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:24 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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