TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FeministAcademicAl Archive

View 3 posts and 58 comments by FeministAcademicAl on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Do you attribute the fact that they haven't (according to you, there are a million super successful super famous female authors and business owners) to their innate lack of ability or to the stress motherhood?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:29 PM
1

Because if she gave up her career she'd give up her financial autonomy and be dependent on a man who would then have more power within the relationship and she would be fucked if she had to re-enter the workforce later on.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:19 PM
1

Lots of women out there are not actually unhappy. They do make those marriages work. Not everyone gets 'divorce raped.' The point is, women want to change the system to make it more woman-friendly, whilst many men's idea of equal rights is women adapting to make spaces. That's the main difference.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:18 PM
1

Just a random question: are all the women who contribute to the humanities also worthless compared to the men? All the female artists, writers etc.?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:14 PM
1

Mhh actually I am in my early twenties, def Western middle class Caucasian (very good!) and I am definitely ugly (not fat) and not at all ashamed to say it. But feminism gave me the chance to have a career, you see? That is what you keep ignoring, in favour of claiming feminism is all about blue hair and fat-acceptance movements and other bullshit. Also, I know I will never convince anyone of this because here the belief that women must stay home with the kids is strong, but I actually like to w…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:12 PM
1

By the way, very true men won't care about a woman 'not of their tribe'.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:04 PM
1

I expect men are actually better at Arts and Humanities than women are, too.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 08:02 PM
1

http://uk.businessinsider.com/coolest-women-in-science-2015-7?r=US&IR=T
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:59 PM
1

Because they have to juggle tons of different responsibilities. Imagine that a woman marries Beta Tom. He is not that good-looking, but he has a good job and she wants to make the marriage work. So she spends a lot of time at the gym. Then she works full time. Then she takes care of the kids. Then she does most of the housework (as the Guardian tells us). It gets a bit exhausting because she's doing all the traditional work plus the modern career part. How about the husband gets more involved?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:56 PM
0

How can a woman have a career and be your unicorn raising kids at home at the same time? She can't, that's the point. That is why feminism is here. To explain to men that unicorns... don't exist.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:48 PM
0

With the help of nurseries I see many women getting both. If there weren't those, it would mean that most women would not work. Women want to work, actually. They recognise the importance on not entirely depending on a man with whom things might go raw.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:46 PM
1

Ok, I understand. Thanks for clarifying that.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:43 PM
1

'Earn their keep' as in commitment, or are they not allowed outside lol. This sub has lots of contrasting opinions. I can get behind the anti-fat part, but my argument was that feminism has given ugly (not fat) women the right to have a career and support themselves which for them is a VERY good deal.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:41 PM
1

Ok, I can get behind the dislike of the 'man-blaming' and all that, but if you read my post what I was talking about is the more extreme aspect of the red pill. The 'women should not be given equality and give contributions to society because they are inferior and should not do STEM etc.' So it is a matter of how you define feminism. You seem more vested in the small modern things such as fat-acceptance movements rather than in feminism which promotes equality. As for me not having experience wi…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:39 PM
1

Well, as you admitted, there are ugly women who can't change things. One question though: what do you mean by 'feminine'? Is she supposed to stay home and not work and just cook (good luck with a single income)?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:33 PM
1

Well, women are capable of feeling empathy for people they do not know but whose stories and struggles they know. Perhaps it is just a gender difference.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:31 PM
1

Ah ok, that is far less crazy than I expected.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:26 PM
1

No, she will get attention from men who are below her in some way, so say they are superior in looks. Are they economically superior too?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:25 PM
1

And this is a slogan we can get behind.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:21 PM
0

You have not disproven my point. There is way and way to do things. Promoting one's interests doesn't have to be too extreme, and some (not all) guys here claim their lives are ruined because they do not live in the 1950s with their housewife in the kitchen.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:21 PM
-1

It is all a matter of how extreme you are in your definition of 'gender roles'. If the gender role of a woman is not to work and stay home and depend and live for her husband, then yes there are going to be problems. Not that a woman cannot do that, but the majority recognises how that limits their independence. The problem is that the unicorn at home is what many men want...
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:17 PM
1

Education 'within reason'? And why should a woman not simply have human rights as she does right now and get all the education she wants?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:13 PM
1

Women are ALL hypergamous, but even if she settles for lesser looks, you think the big bucks ugly dude won't go for the hot girl instead?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:12 PM
1

But the question is, are women 'capable' of making contributions aside from mothering? I agree that being young is better, I am not trying to change biology, I am only saying that many women focus so much on their career because they feel they simply cannot get commitment the way a killer beauty can. It is the female equivalent of being the 80% male, only working on their careers won't make them more attractive. And I mean, even if you are 23, if you are ugly you are ugly. At least with a career…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:10 PM
1

No, I should have phrased that better. I was referred to how men do not acknowledge those achievements because being intelligent and successful does not make a woman more desirable.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:02 PM
1

The point is, an ugly woman with shit features can be fit and not ride the CC but will not get commitment from decent men. So her other option is having a career. Feminism gave her that option.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:01 PM
-3

Haven't you inadvertently just confirmed my point? About men having zero empathy for women unless they want to fuck them?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 06:57 PM
-1

What you are talking about is not the result of feminism. It is the result of a fucked up diet, us living glued to our phones and too much technology/video games. It transcends gender.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 06:56 PM
1

But can't you see their reasoning? They cannot actually find commitment, so mostly they had to develop other interests, including politics. Other women can talk about absolutely nothing and it does not matter because they are beautiful. And let's be 100% honest, do you think putting something different in their profile would make a difference? Despite the lack of looks?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 06:51 PM
1

I was referring to the past. There are plenty of great female writers nowadays. Do I need to mention them?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 06:45 PM
-3

That is a very interesting perspective. It also speaks volumes about the 'nice guys' who are not actually nice, but use that facade to get sex.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 06:42 PM
2

They do not 'like' Islam, they merely welcome Muslims here because they do not have that territorial tribal male instincts, and they tend to target Western patriarchy more because they live in the West. But in general most feminists hope Muslim women become more liberal if raised in the West.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:58 PM
-16

I am talking about the patriarchy of the past here in the west, and how many men here want to go back to that, apparently. Because having women in the workforce is 'destroying society', as they say on this sub.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:55 PM
2

My post excluded fat women, by the way, and was about genetics. But in any case surely you can see feminism has been about a lot more than 'body positive' movements? It have women the right to go to universities, have careers, support themselves etc. ?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:53 PM
2

White knighting has a very bad connotation. My post was about whether treating ugly women like trash (and therefore 'not white knighting' because anything better than that is white knighting apparently) is all that great. Treating incels like trash is not something this sub advocates, after all.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:44 PM
2

Plenty do it because they are feminists, especially women with a passion (science, writing, whatever) who know the freedom to pursue it would have been denied to them one century ago.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:42 PM
-2

But women, unlike men, also want commitment. And ugly women do not get commitment from the 'decent' betas, see? So for their standards, life is not better than that of incels. I agree that there are differences between male and female brains, but there have always been female scientists (Marie Curie) female writers (Bronte sisters, Mary Shelley etc.). What men here say, apparently, is that female brains are made for what, raising kids? That it's 'unnatural' for a woman to be in the workforce, ba…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:40 PM
2

You are reasoning through stereotypes. What about normal women who identify as feminists?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:31 PM
-24

Patriarchy goes a bit further than telling women not to get fat. It bars them from going to university and owning property.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:30 PM
3

I am not necessarily talking about every single feminist out there. What I referred to in my post was how feminism gave ugly women the right to go to university, have careers etc. and how this sub demonises them for it because men are angry that the beautiful girl are going to university too instead of becoming marriage material for them. It is the perspective of the 'ugly girl'.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:24 PM
0

Yet an incel does not like to be told he 'needs help' if he talks about his struggles, I imagine? Why would it be different for ugly girls?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:15 PM
0

Does an ugly woman who can't get commitment because she was born that way get treated the same as a beautiful young woman? It's like comparing an incel to a Chad (and the fact that she can be pumped and dumped whilst an incel cannot does not improve her life, access to university does though).
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:13 PM
6

This is a post meant to offer a different perspective from those women for whom feminism is at the basis of their being allowed to live at least a free, decent life. You are not ugly and a feminist, that's great. But that is not what the post is about.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:11 PM
2

All this is true, but again you are talking about beautiful women. An ugly incel back in the day (imagine Nikola Tesla) could still make something of himself even if he did not marry. An ugly woman was barred from education, there was no hope for her to get an alpha, and she was forced to endure the sexual abuse (sorry but that is what it feels like to her) of a husband she felt nothing for just to survive. And her looks would not get better with the wall, would they? So unlike an ugly man who c…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 04:55 PM
1

Well, actually I always say that patriarchy was created (with the agrarian revolution) not because men hate women, but because they love them too much. Top men were getting sex anyway. It was the ugly ones who wanted a woman and could not get one. But alas, to women being given to a man they do not want is sexual abuse pure and simple. Men don't think about it in these terms because they are not programmed to seek out the best genes. You have to imagine that each time a woman has sex with a man …
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 03:30 PM
2

The same way men en-masse can't stop being biased towards women. The same way we can't stop hypergamy, male infidelity etc. I mean, everything about human nature is either beautiful or tragic, depending on how you look at it.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 02:06 PM
7

Conversationally, if all women stopped being attracted to masculine men and all began to like effeminate betas instead, the red pill and masculinity in general would be gone by 6 am.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:58 AM
2

Male sexual instincts were not contained within a patriarchal society. That's what brothels were for. There is a lot of hamstering in this sub regarding what 'female nature' is because on one side it is acknowledged that what we see today is natural, unshackled female behaviour, yet on the other some here keep hamstering that 'feminine nature' is about loving one beta in a lifetime, wanting to be a virgin for him and taking immense pleasure from cooking his dinner, rearing his children, and suck…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 07:35 AM
2

Or they get fucked without commitment. But many (like 5/10 upwards) can have the so-called 'fling' with the top 20%. And they are happy during the fling even if it does not last, and he is happy too because who isn't happy about getting loved? That's why most women would just dismiss the red pill. Because the red pill glosses over how much women actually love that 20%. They would never understand why men here claim they hate men, because they love that 20% truly genuinely. The point is that they…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 05:16 AM
2

Why did you divorce so soon? Didn't you know her well already before you got married? How long were you two together?
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 04:21 AM
1

The thing is, women ignore 80% of men, but they love, love, love the remaining 20%. They really do. They have very positive feelings for them. That is why they are puzzled when men accuse them of 'hating men'. They don't hate the top 20% at all. A man in the 80% who is bitter will only see a relationship between a girl and the 20% as negative. She's a slut, he 'pumps and dumps her', she's hypergamous and damaged blah blah blah. It's his bitterness talking. But even if indeed the 20% man won't ha…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 04:18 AM
21

Dogs are a human's best friend. They will never abandon you. We owe it to them to return the favour.
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 04:02 AM
1

http://hunter-gatherers.org/what-hunter-gatherers-eat.html I quote: 'Some have said that the typical equality of women found in h-g groups owes to the fact that women actually bring to the group more food and more colories than the men in most h-g societies. There is great importance attached to hunting, and meat is desired by all and is important for general nutrition, but it seems that the men only infrequently, maybe once or twice in a week, go hunting, while women forage daily and do the coo…
/r/TheRedPill22/09/16 03:57 AM
1

You pretty much nailed it. Of course, our technological society gives rights to both the 80% of men and women because the only society you can sustain if only the top 20% of men are in power is, well, a hunter gatherer one.
/r/TheRedPill21/09/16 08:02 PM
-1

Their wombs kinda made them the non-disposable sex, and that helped them get power. Instead, an individual non-20% man in a hunter gathered culture would not get raped of mistreated, he would get simply killed. Possibly cannibalised. It is only within an agricultural OR technological society that the weaker men can thrive. So the existence of modern society which grants women freedom is something they like, too. And as I said, men had to listen to the decisions of women before patriarchy, back w…
/r/TheRedPill21/09/16 07:46 PM
1

The top 20% of men is better at accumulating resources within a wild setting (which we had in the hunter gatherer society). The advent of technology turned the tables entirely because now even someone like Hawkins (definitely NOT in the top 20%) and women can contribute to society in resources. It was all thanks to technology. Also, accumulating resources still did not mean men could make things the way women made cloth etc. Patriarchy began when men accumulated resources and therefore did not n…
/r/TheRedPill21/09/16 06:53 PM
1

Although it is true that men are physically stronger than women, what gave them leverage over them within a societal setting was only the accumulation of resources, aka the agrarian revolution. Countless studies have shown that hunter-gatherer societies often accommodated the will of its women, they were decision-makers, and they often chose to live in a society that shared resources and was compounded of mostly unrelated individuals (it was a primordial version of globalism). Men did not necess…
/r/TheRedPill21/09/16 06:01 PM
1

If you were such a great and strong man, you could answer the post instead of just using beta-ish ad hominem fit for a frustrated teen.
/r/askTRP13/08/16 04:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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