TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DarylHannahMontana Archive

View 0 posts and 17 comments by DarylHannahMontana 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)
1

Ok, yes: there are different types of privilege, and some women have access to some of them. In this case, white privilege. I hope that isn't a revelation for anyone, and I hope that no one (including feminists) would try to deny that, or be forced to reluctantly admit that, etc. But the above post misrepresents the extent of that privilege with regard to women slave owners a couple hundred years ago (or later), attempting (I think) to connect that with privilege today. My point isn't that the c…
/r/MensRights09/07/12 08:28 PM
-1

What? You're completely misrepresenting the content of the document you linked. As far as I could see, the relevant paragraph is: In 1815 European women owned 24% of those enslaved in St Lucia. In Barbados 40% of properties with 10 or less enslaved people were owned by women. In Bridgetown, Barbados women were the principal slave owners, using slaves in domestic occupations. So, in St. Lucia and Barbados, women were slave owners, but if we're talking about an American man's (American) great-grea…
/r/MensRights09/07/12 03:56 PM
4

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has no idea what's going on here.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:05 AM
7

If I made a golem out of toothpaste and brought it to life, and then it stole my neighbor's car and got caught (I know, obviously couldn't happen but I'm dealing with hypotheticals), the toothpaste golem would be found guilty of grand theft auto and have to do jail time.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:04 AM
1

The massive chip on your shoulder makes it impossible to discuss / argue things with you; there's no point in constructing a great argument, because you exaggerate, take things out of context, and don't appear to be able to type more than one sentence before losing your temper.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:36 PM
1

You're a ridiculous person.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:57 PM
2

... I'm not trying to say custody sexism isn't a relevant issue with serious effects. The hypothetical was meant to be hyperbolic, and I apologize if I've offended anyone close to this issue. I'm saying that it's pointless and irrelevant to try and minimize the problem of custody sexism in order to advocate cancer awareness/research. Further, it's kind of insulting and inflammatory to people affected by/passionate about custody sexism.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 01:49 AM
1

What? That's a false dichotomy. Saying "you should not always talk" is clearly not the same as saying "you should never talk." What if, every time men brought up a certain MR issue (say custody sexism), a bunch of people stepped in and said "Testicular/prostate cancer is a far more pressing issue for men, it actually kills people, and no one has ever died as a result of an unfair custody hearing. It's ridiculous to even consider your custody issues as a struggle until cancer has been cured." Tho…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 10:37 PM
5

Well, the same thing happens in reverse all the fucking time too. Ok? I don't think that's appropriate either. Second, why do people even need to talk about FGM? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There's no need to constantly compare and contrast them, and decide which problem is worse, to try and minimize the issue you are less passionate/affected by. It would be like if, every time you started talking about sexism and custody, people came in and said "I don't know why you even need to ta…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 10:20 PM
4

I'm going to get downvoted for this™, but here's a non-echo chamber POV: I think it's inaccurate to portray the situation as all feminists are perturbed by all MRA. On the other hand, I won't pretend that perturbation doesn't exist, and that a lot of it is unjustified. But on the other hand, here's an example that might explain why MRA can bother people. Take, for instance, a discussion on female genital mutilation. This conversation can not go long at all before it turns into a conversation abo…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:34 PM
1

Sure, why not.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 08:54 PM
0

You are a ridiculous person.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:27 PM
2

I agree that it is prejudiced to assume the man must have done something wrong, because there's no way the police would possibly act unfairly, that there's no bias in the system, etc. But that's not what I think happened above; I think people were merely trying to say "It's possible the police acted fairly, we don't know the facts". It's natural that people expanded on scenarios explaining this; usually you don't get away with positing something on the internet without explaining how it's at lea…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 11:56 PM
2

You want to rub someone's face in the fact that they didn't want to jump to conclusions?
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:54 PM
0

Good point.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 02:07 AM
-6

But like a typical woman, she completely focuses on justifying herself and absolving herself of blame. What a typically male thing to say.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 09:56 PM
4

I had been saving up jars of sperm to give to the Salvation Army this year for Christmas, but I guess that plan is fucked now. Thanks a lot, busy-body government types.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 12:33 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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