TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CuzDam Archive

View 0 posts and 34 comments by CuzDam 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)
17

Honestly I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to disconnect from their families. I've got a feminist mother and I just don't bring up a lot of men's rights stuff around her and we get along great. Obviously there are exceptions to this if they are being unbearably abusive but in general convincing people to cut family ties is cult shit.
/r/MensRights22/03/21 01:00 AM
3

A man has as much responsibility to stop other men from being violent as a woman does.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/21 01:07 AM
31

Imagine a guy and girl, both on the very almost lowest rung if the economic ladder. They both had some shitty rented basement suites. He can't get a girlfriend because he is barely employed most of the time. The girl gets kicked out because she can't hold down a job because drugs. She's not toothless yet but she's about to be homeless. Suddenly this dude ain't lookin so bad to her.
/r/MensRights08/09/20 04:51 PM
66

Also, since women tend to date up economically, a homeless woman can generally shack up with a guy and suddenly she isn't homeless any more. How many woman would take in a homeless man? Basically none.
/r/MensRights08/09/20 04:34 PM
4

Words mean what we say they mean.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 01:47 PM
2

The chart showing the murder rate by the different genders for each category is pretty misleading looking as well. The 38% vs 4% rate for spousal violence might lead someone just glancing at the graph to believe that women are almost 10 times as likely to die as men in domestic violence. But right away the numbers come from twice the men being victims of violence generally. For all those bars in the graph you can probably cut the female bars in half and double the length of the male bars to get …
/r/MensRights22/02/20 08:07 AM
2

"Won't someone think of the children!!" It is still not an excuse to treat men and women differently. You may want to check your assumptions that men even commit more child abuse than women https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/childmaltreatment-facts-at-a-glance.pdf There are lots of other ways to protect adopted children than with discrimination, better background checks, follow up from child services. Heck you could even ban single people from adopting. And yes, I know I can't convince y…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:16 AM
3

Regardless of the total number, it is a small percentage of men who abuse children. And again, holding men responsible for "the patriarchy" is still just holding a gender responsible for those who have come before. The difference between that and your example of a disgraced politician is that the politician is an INDIVIDUAL so of course we can hold him or her responsible for their OWN actions. This is what you're advocating here: "some people who look like you did a bad thing, so you bear that r…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 08:57 PM
3

You are literally holding a whole gender responsible for the actions of a few. There is no justification for that.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 06:23 PM
5

Well, to be fair, you are in favor of the discrimination of men so it is a reasonable assumption.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 05:48 PM
44

Is there a link to that?
/r/MensRights13/12/19 09:03 PM
9

Family court is excessively expensive. You don't think men are doing a calculation of their likelihood of success vs the crippling cost of a lawyer?
/r/MensRights19/09/19 02:25 AM
23

Stop looking at this as just a deflection from reactionaries for a second, it sounds like you're not considering the point. What everyone is saying is "hire based on talent, not gender". No one here is saying "what about the men", they just want the best person for the job to get hired, regardless of gender. It wouldn't matter if it was all women as long as it was a merit based hiring process. People are saying sit down and shut up to anyone promoting gender based hiring, which should be what yo…
/r/MensRights13/09/19 04:13 PM
0

You're right, he isn't just asking a question to learn something. He is arguing with you. He is doing that by challenging your position with a question. It's sort of a "gotcha" but it's not arguing in bad faith. The thing is, if you had a well reasoned position that you were confident in you would be comfortable answering such a "gotcha" question.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:32 AM
9

Public mischief, which is the false report of a crime.
/r/MensRights21/03/19 08:30 PM
11

So the definition you use is anytime the head of state is male it is a patriarchy? With this definition I guess I would have to agree with you. A better question would be: does this "patriarchy" benefit men over women? This is where people here might disagree with you, for good reason. Use of this definition might not be very wise for your argument: If Hillary had won the election, would this become a matriarchy? The fact that she was allowed to run at all shows that this "patriarchy" is fine wi…
/r/MensRights13/02/19 07:45 AM
8

If you have a SAHM at home you are literally paying for their entire life, all of their food, housing, shopping, and vacations.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/19 07:44 PM
6

The thing is we shouldn't be applying averages to individuals. It would be the same as not renting to a black person because they are statistically more likely to commit crime.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:20 AM
2

I'm curious to know if simple supply and demand was considered as a reason. You have a field dominated by men, and as they say in the article "when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less...". Might it be that when you have a large increase in supply, the value goes down. Wages are inevitably going to drop (or at least stagnate relative to inflation) when you increase the number of applicants. Just to be clear, I am certainly open to the possibility that the d…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 03:44 AM
1

Alright guys wrap it up, change the laws, this guy had sex at 14 and was ok with it. No one else can ever claim to have an issue with getting fucked by an adult at 14.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 08:26 PM
1

I'll agree with you that the title is poorly worded because it could imply that a woman is allowed to "forcibly" rape a 14 year old boy. This does not seem to be OP's intention though. I would guess what they meant was "statutory rape". Both can come off a little silly since Canada no longer has an offence of "rape" in the Criminal Code, as it has been replaced with sexual assault and other offences (such as sexual interference). However, in the case of a woman having non-forcible sex with a 14 …
/r/MensRights08/01/18 08:24 PM
2

Sexual interference: 151 Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two …
/r/MensRights08/01/18 04:35 AM
5

Jumping in here, the only thing I would say that was actually wrong was taking photos of people in a place they would expect privacy (which is actually illegal). I'm not sure if there was some other component to this that you think makes it sexist.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 07:01 AM
5

TIL no one riots
/r/MensRights06/01/18 06:33 AM
29

I'd rather the police investigate crimes instead of schools.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 05:47 AM
1

Probably only charged if they lied.
/r/MensRights15/05/17 01:27 AM
0

Here, I have copied part of a judge's decision from another case in Canada involving an acquittal for sexual assault (the principles of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are the same in Canada and the UK). This is from the case of Jian Gomeshi which was significant for men's rights activists. [140] My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exis…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 06:26 AM
0

Yes, "in law" they are treated as innocent, all that means is that generally the law will treat them as innocent until proven otherwise. Can you wrap your head around the possibility that someone might commit a crime and there is not enough evidence to convict them. People have been found not guilty on such technicalities as the police officer forgot to read them their rights when arrested, and then obtained a confession. Were talking about someone who confessed to the crime, like, between me an…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 06:09 AM
1

Quote me on where I'm assuming anything? I'm literally saying "don't assume" and consider the possibility she did not falsely accuse him. To say she definitely falsely accused him would be to assume. My other point is that we don't know with certainty (at least based on the article alone) that he did not in fact do it. I would say if he was found guilty, we can be fairly certain, barring a gross miscarriage of justice, that he actually did it. The same cannot be said the other way around, becaus…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 05:37 AM
3

Ahh so you have no idea how the law works. He was found not guilty, the courts do not say he was "innocent". As I said, people who really actually committed the crime get found not guilty all the time. The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very very high. The not guilty verdict means he cannot be punished by law, but with regards to this discussion we can definitely wonder if he did it or not. With how he is making statements to the media after the verdict about how no men should…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 04:34 AM
2

Look in the mirror dude. Everyone in the thread was jumping to the conclusion that because he got a not guilty verdict she was automatically falsely accusing him. My message was too say stay open to the possibility that he might have done it. This is still in addition to the possibility that she falsely accused him.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 03:00 AM
-15

So your saying that's not a possibility? No teacher has ever sexually assaulted a child?
/r/MensRights17/04/17 01:58 AM
-15

I don't know where in my comment you found that I was making an assumption or an accusation without proof.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 12:44 AM
-32

While I agree with everything you've said, let's be sure not to get too carried away, in this case the accusation was not proven false, the accused person was just "not guilty". That can certainly include the possibility that he did actually sexually assault children but the evidence was not there to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The article was vague on the specifics of the alleged offence so I don't know if there's reason to believe it was a false accusation, but just a not guilty…
/r/MensRights16/04/17 10:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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