TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CollegeRuled Archive

View 0 posts and 34 comments by CollegeRuled 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)
3

None? I mean, if there weren't people who stole radios because they needed money no one would have them stolen. Your point makes no sense. The real problem is with people who steal. That is what needs changed.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 11:42 PM
1

So a men's rights movement isn't about social justice, or am i missing something here?
/r/MensRights22/12/15 04:42 PM
-4

Gender roles are socially constructed. Sex is a biological reality. This difference is essential to understanding the modern reality of gender and sex. You cannot analyze gender roles solely by appealing to their basis in sex differences. Although I agree with you that these differences have a constitutive effect on gender roles, beyond a mere base coat they aren't very useful in describing how roles affect our behavior. For one thing, we come into the world as already partially formed subjects.…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:42 AM
-5

Since the economic system of the almost the whole world today is founded upon competition over resources via a classed society of laborers on the bottom and owners on the top, competition becomes the mobilizing force of production. Be a winner, be an aggressive competitor, and you will produce more than everybody. Therefore, you will be one of the most valuable members of society. Don't forget that this idea of competition as a means to weed out the weak has been around for thousands of years, s…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:22 AM
-7

What are you even saying here? I certainly don't believe that men are inherently more aggressive or competitive, or that those qualities are beneficial to society. In fact my post was meant to unveil how feminist theory treats these concepts as worthy of critique. I never said anyone was a victim. The person I was responding to, however, made it clear they thought that men were victims of a massive assault on their ideology by 'feminism'. There is no guilty party here. No group of people is to b…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:57 AM
-3

What makes you think men don't have the majority share of influence in the world today? Hell, just look at the course of Western history throughout the past 2000 years. Plenty of evidence there, too. Like I said already, the reason men are a privileged class is because of a combination of two things. The first are the things we consider to be masculine traits: aggressiveness, desire for power, lack of emotions, individualism, and a host of other variously defined things. Secondly, at least in th…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:46 AM
-9

You are confused. Feminist theory has dealt with this issue many times, usually by addressing the root cause of those "traditional gender roles". That root cause is the desire for power, influence, and domination. Because these roots have been so successful at ensuring their own survival in society, we now have a system geared towards them. Competition necessitates those qualities and it is for that reason alone we still have major differences between how we treat masculine and feminine traits. …
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:17 AM
-8

You are a very stupid person if you really believe what you just posted. Like all idiots, however, I'm sure you are quite happy to wallow in your pools of ignorance.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 08:48 PM
4

I love how you can just instantly generalize a huge, diverse group of people here, and automatically everyone takes it as if its the Truth. First off, you provide zero evidence for your claims. All you do is put shit in caps and make gigantic generalizations. It would be nice if you could source your complaints (NOT from twitter, facebook, or meaningless 'feminist groups' on college campuses). Preferably sources from people who devote their lives to studying gender issues. Secondly, most people …
/r/MensRights21/01/14 08:36 PM
0

Because, as we all know, surgeons with MDs attached to their names know absolutely nothing about the disease know as the flu! Four years of med school and five years of residency? Psh...
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:16 AM
1

We don't have 'tree' ethics, or 'ant' ethics, because it is ridiculous to count them as moral subjects. Without an experience of the subjective how can we say anything moral at all? Isn't our morality predicated by feelings and emotions such as pain and suffering?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:51 AM
1

If you were to look up the legal definition of murder, you would become aware that one of the central issues with defining it like you did is that it makes certain human beings we ought not to call persons, persons. Fetuses would be an example.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:24 AM
1

Murder is immoral because it involves the killing of a moral subject. And you can only be a moral subject if you are something that suffers!
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:13 AM
1

If the medical consensus was that it was a permanent coma, then no it would literally be impossible to murder them since they would no longer be a person. Well, what I actually said is 'persistent vegetative state' which is a stricter concept that just 'coma'. You can't murder things that are not capable of experiencing suffering.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:03 AM
-10

But I think you also have to look at the history of women with respect to their children. It hasn't always been so 'easy' for them to get custody. This was probably the case in the 50's when men were generally regarded as 'head of household' and such other elements of the traditional model of parenting. Perhaps men just think they are losing out when in reality the playing field has been made more equal.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:52 AM
-3

I don't believe it's as cut and dry as you think here. A judge isn't going to slap a dad with thousands of dollars of child support without at least some kind of reasoning. Both parents are responsible for their children. Both. Not one, not the other. What happens to the relationship between two parents might be unfortunate, but ultimately in the eyes of the law you are BOTH responsible for the child.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:40 AM
-8

Half of the child's genes are yours. The baby is not just the mother's or the father's, but is something that both parents are jointly responsible for. This is internationally recognized and has an extremely robust legal precedent. Claiming 'you weren't ready to have a child' is not a defense for either parent. And any competent judge is going to see the difference between a deadbeat dad just trying to shirk his responsibility, and someone who has an actual case to be made that they shouldn't be…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:29 AM
-2

You can't murder something that isn't capable of suffering. And yes, there is a difference between suffering and pain. Suffering requires consciousness, memories, and at least self-awareness. But a fetus has none of these. Murder is bound by definition to apply solely to persons. You can kill something that isn't a person, such as a plant, but you cannot murder it in the moral sense of the word. That is fact. So if a fetus is not a person you can't murder it. It really is that simple, but pro-li…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:00 AM
2

This is a horrible argument. If all it took to be a person was sperm + egg, then we should be convicting women of murder every time they have a miscarriage. And what about human beings who are in a persistent vegetative state? Are they people? Say they are: then it seems likely that they have a right to decide what happens to them. But what if they left absolutely no directions for whoever else before they became vegetative? Who gets to make that choice? It can't be anyone else because persons h…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 08:48 AM
-2

If the consequences of unprotected sex were equal for both men and women, sure, you'd be right. But since it is women who have to undergo pregnancy and not man, they have a little more say in what happens inside their bodies.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 08:38 AM
-2

There's the catch! 'Leadership' has been traditionally associated with masculine traits, but the people who got to make those associations have historically been men. I mean leadership in general. What makes men better suited to the role of leadership than women?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:00 AM
-3

When you said that men's role as leaders has been sacrificed in the name of elevating the status of women. Like I said, you can't claim that without first proving that leadership is exclusive to men.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:50 AM
-3

Who are the vast majority of the richest people in the world? Are they, perhaps, white and male? The agenda of Western society is set by those with the oftentimes unearned privilege of power, and both 'white' and 'male' fall into those categories of unearned privilege.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:29 AM
-4

You have made an unproven assertion, so I cannot possibly be the one who needs to provide that proof.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:26 AM
-5

People in power like to cling on to their power, to the point of total delusion and madness (pathology) in some of the more extreme examples of power-grabbing. The slave role exists because someone in a position of power determined that it must exist, for the benefit of the powerful. In the same way I could be here because as another consumer, another mindless generator of repeated social and cultural cliche, I am a useful tool. This is to be repeated until there is nothing left in the world for…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:24 AM
-5

People who set agendas usually determine who carries them out. Like I said, white male christians have been setting the agenda for hundreds of years and it is no different today. The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds are perfect examples of this.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:59 AM
-7

Uhh...white men have been in positions of leadership for hundreds of years.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:51 AM
-1

Were you contributing constructively to the conversation by insulting them?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:40 AM
1

Shh...don't tell anyone here but that is what feminist theory really stands for: egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:40 AM
-4

And your sources for this are, where, exactly? Rationality demands proof, and masculinity has always welcomed itself to the rational as its founding principle. As for 'tabula rasa', which in its origin comes not from discussions about gender but from discussions about the mechanics of thought, this objection you raise can be dismissed readily. Observe that biological sex is determined by certain primary sexual characteristics, all of which deal solely with reproduction. Observe also that there a…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:34 AM
-5

Women's protection from harm was always the highest good and when men's social role as 'leader' was placed in direct competition with women's emotional 'well-being'(I want to be a strong, independent woman!), men's role was sacrificed. Demonstrably false: You assume that men's traditional social role as leader is better than leaders in general being picked from all genders, a premise that you have not proven. And yes, you must prove that premise because it is essential to prove your conclusion t…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:23 AM
-5

If you are talking about protection in only and strictly the physical sense, you would be half right. But you don't even have that! Face the facts dude: you cannot meaningfully go from the biological sex of a person to the sociological gender of a person. This article, and its comments, have left no argument, no theory to explain exactly how biological sex determines sociological gender. The closest they get is similar to your comment here: Men somehow possess this 'unique' property of being abl…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:13 AM
-7

Yeah, it's pretty great to see him reach the profoundest levels of ignorance and self-hatred! Women are emulating men > men feel threatened and 'butt-hurt' > men hate the very qualities that these women are emulating. Which are nothing but the things this backwards man wants out of his sham idea of 'masculinity' and a return to the 'patriarchy'.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:04 AM
-8

Hah, I find it quite ironic that you said this: it's about time men joined in on enjoying life instead of just being a slave to society with no reward. ...when for almost the entirety of Western civilization women were slaves to society with no reward.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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