TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FITEY_DAVE Archive

View 0 posts and 29 comments by FITEY_DAVE 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

Men have always been dominant in manual labour work. The ratio is actually going the other way. There are multiple "women in" groups working to bring women into this industry... but of course this reality doesn't suit the narrative /men being victims.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 04:41 PM
1

I didn't start this debate with you. You're putting straw man arguments in my mouth then lambasting them. The only person you're arguing with is yourself. My point was only that 'men are becoming an uneducated working class' is a massive overstatement and misrepresents the data presented. The rest of it is you jumping on your hate horse and blaming me for every injustice you see in society.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 04:22 PM
1

My point has nothing to do with 'equality when it's comfortable', it's to do with not making misleading and / or false statements to support your point. I have an equal opportunities attitude to bullshit, and men's rights gets no free pass.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 04:08 PM
1

And you spend your time on ppd because you enjoy violence against women? This post history ad hominem bullshit is nonsense. You aren't worth engaging with.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 03:54 PM
1

This is an overstatement of the information presented. The overall higher education ratio is close to 50:50 STEM graduates have significantly higher earnings potential If you make misleading exaggeration of the information, you reduce the credibility and voice of men's rights. Going further. This situation actually creates a more substantive problem for men's rights: We are 'over-represented' in STEM STEM is more valuable Society expects equal page Women with equivalent qualifications going into…
/r/MensRights15/12/18 02:44 PM
2

Enjoying our cordiality... can you offer some thought on why the revised version seems at least as antagonistic?
/r/MensRights14/12/18 09:42 PM
3

Apologies, first version question was needlessly antagonistic, so I rephrased. I thought I'd been able to correct that before you saw / responded.
/r/MensRights14/12/18 01:58 PM
-5

I don't get your point.
/r/MensRights14/12/18 12:23 PM
1

Taking point 1, which I like, sequence (simplified) is: men must wear suits > add women to workforce > start reducing pressure on men to wear suits (also women's standards for business wear are relaxing too, but I'd agree from a lower base downwards). If that's true, that sequence doesn't support the notion that women are making men wear suits, which was my point. I agree with everything in your second para.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 09:10 PM
1

Nice points beautifully articulated. I agree with point 1, but if men are complicit in building the system for sexual selection it's a bit rich to berate women for it. I think I agree with point 2. I'd say men have it harder at selection, and women have it harder at retention... but that doesn't challenge your point (whether or not I'm right). I still wouldn't blame women for it though.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 09:04 PM
1

I see, interesting. On triggered: Difference between inference and implication. I only intended to convey that I didn't want to provoke (as stated), and not that you are over-sensitive. On 'oppression' I already directly explained that I was using it as shorthand. The principle of the point is best conveyed with simple terms. I definitely did not project your feelings of oppression. I'm surprised you inferred an insult from that point. I encourage you to assume good faith. It's a shame you don't…
/r/MensRights08/12/18 08:31 PM
1

Good re your tolerance around triggering. I was talking about my intent to discuss instead of fight, rather than your laid back response. The result is the same either way. I don't see how I insulted you, I definitely didn't intend to. Can you explain? I don't think you addressed my points. Is that insulting?
/r/MensRights08/12/18 08:06 PM
1

Discrimination: Prejudicial treatment of a group based on qualities of that group. You don't need to consider them discrimination, but in that case the word means something different to you than it does to me, and indeed to the compilers of dictionaries. I'm happy you have worked out how you want to deal with things. This group exists to point out and address gaps in the feminist-driven gender equality debate. You are now essentially walking into a deliberate movement and saying "I don't conside…
/r/MensRights08/12/18 06:00 PM
1

You blame the HR rep for a company policy set by the senior management, who are majority men in the vast majority of businesses? Is this some cunning ruse to make men's rights look stupid? There are genuine issues with gender equality and double standards for men. Don't undermine those issues with wilful ignorance.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 05:49 PM
1

Brilliant. You don't need to prove anything to me, fella, and you don't have to clarify if you don't want to. You do you 👌
/r/MensRights08/12/18 05:43 PM
1

Women are more likely to be concerned about height, while men are more likely to be concerned about weight. Both are very superficial. One is more easily-controlled by the subject (weight)... and yet, discrimination based on height is so acceptable it's an option on the app, while discrimination based on weight is chauvinist piggery. That's a double standard. A great deal of men's rights is about addressing double standards as we unfold the various privileges and issues that come with both sexes…
/r/MensRights08/12/18 05:23 PM
1

Ignore 'oppression' no intent to trigger, just a shorthand for trying to discuss the issue. Your argument was clear and simple. I'm saying it doesn't hold as well if it's men who are making men wear suits. That's definitely the situation in my office. You repeated your assertion, which doesn't really answer my challenge. What do you think now I've clarified? I absolutely agree that people endeavour to make themselves sexually attractive, and that's how evolution works. That whole 'animal instinc…
/r/MensRights08/12/18 04:20 PM
1

I'm not sure exactly the point you're making. Feel free to go straight in with "I disagree with this point because..."
/r/MensRights08/12/18 04:09 PM
1

Interesting point. Two counters... Women were a tiny proportion of the office workforce when suits were adopted as uniform. I don't think the sexual attractiveness thing would stand then, so I am inclined to say your extension to characterisation of now is speculative at best. Women also dress in a way that's sexually attractive (lower necklines, bare legs / tights showing form). So, both sexes are in on this particular sexist oppression. Not sarcasm, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to characte…
/r/MensRights08/12/18 03:34 PM
1

I agree with his sentiment, but it's not women telling men to wear suits.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 03:17 PM
1

Wait, what? Its a complicated topic, but denying women have ever been oppressed is bonkers. It makes you look like you're denying uncomfortable truths to fit your position. When militant feminisists do it, we call bullshit, and the same standard goes both ways.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 03:15 PM
1

lol get that shit out of here fucko Don't feed the trolls
/r/MensRights08/12/18 01:16 PM
1

Lightning strikes hitting humans are also rare, but quite unpleasant for the people involved. I recommend you don't play golf in a thunderstorm and I recommend you reduce your chance of being poisoned by some vile arse in a bar. Where is the hysteria?
/r/MensRights08/12/18 01:10 PM
1

Opposing female genital mutilation is not 'taking one for the team' you fucktard.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 09:05 PM
1

I don't know how you inferred a statement about relative scale of effect from that. Two logical fallacies, equally worth dismissing. Like saying 'all Brazilians are gay' it's equally nonsense, regardless how destructive each position is. I'm sorry you're having a hard time, but please don't project a political position onto me for making a logical point.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 08:38 PM
1

Relevant anecdotal point: https://i.imgur.com/eZupn9X_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium (NB, imowe can laugh about this moron without thinking it proves anything substantial about more than one person). Agreed. Redefining words, concepts and even truth is unfortunately common when people feel strongly about things. I would say it's a continuum to things like holocaust denial: "that's not in line with my narrative, so I'll pretend it isn't true". Militant feminists do it when they ma…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 01:56 PM
1

This is a great study. Talk about hypothesis - > test -> proof. Thanks for sharing. Also, clear, well-articulated, well-sourced argument. Without disputing anything in the article, I think there's still an open question on where 'we' draw the line on engaging with feminism... these movements are predisposed to tribalism and selecting only information that supports their narrative (this sub is equally vulnerable, without commenting on whether that vulnerability is handled better) feminism has doc…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 01:42 PM
1

:) I'm not being kind (or cruel) about feminism. People legitimately study the feeding patterns of nematode worms. Feminism is undeniably a major political and social force, and versions of it have done tremendous things, as well as awful and dumb things. Studying the thing doesn't indicate agreement / alignment (or the reverse). Here's a fite though... Dismissing feminism as unworthy of study is intellectually weak. It's easier to say, "that thing is so stupid I don't have to engage with it" th…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 10:25 AM
1

To be fair, politics can be an academic pursuit. Studying feminism is just a subset of anthropology.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 09:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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