TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Frensel Archive

View 2 posts and 119 comments by Frensel 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)
0

Is it a "screw up" if he loses the career race to a woman? Maybe it is - but that's not a very feminist idea! The problem is that people skate over that line whenever they feel like it. If men are outpacing women, it's "waah waah evil oppressive patriarchy! change now!" If women are outpacing men, it's "man up, losers!" You are engaging in some really sneaky spin here. He is saying: I am concerned that if a woman outpaces me career wise SHE will not be happy with the relationship. You are saying…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 04:19 PM
3

Like Jordan Peterson says that the Canadian C-16 bill makes using the wrong pronouns a hate crime. TRPers will already believe this without ever questioning it for a second simply because it makes feminists look bad although people that can read will simply open up that bill and see that his interpretation is merely a paranoid conspiracy theory. This lawyer testifying on bill C-16 is not a paranoid conspiracy theorist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn9Wejn9Po#t=6m29s https://www.youtube.com/w…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/17 05:22 PM
1

Revolutionary leftism is masculine. Being revolutionary, fighting, is masculine. Right-wing politics can be from libertarianism to fascism and those are radically different ideologies. Yes. Libertarianism is an attempt to dodge the masculine role and responsibilities, fascism is an embrace of them. Leftists are feminine men? In the US maybe, but if you come to places like Greece you would see very different things. Left wing politics are only feminine when they are not revolutionary. Gimmedat le…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/17 06:40 PM
3

The one woman per man maximum benefits men more than women. Look at sex ratios at birth for societies that strongly enforced monogamy - compare with societies that didn't. The boys:girls ratio is significantly higher when women have no chance of reproducing if they can't get a man to commit to her exclusively. No surprise there.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 03:26 PM
1

Is this a better source?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/17 11:08 PM
2

A rather small proportion. So I'm curious, in a country that is roughly 50/50 men women Very misleading. It becomes majority female at middle to high ages because of higher male mortality, which aren't the most important time as far as 'SMP' is concerned. In the past there was a lot more early male mortality, which had a great impact on SMP dynamics. You can see that impact in the sex ratio at birth - something like 105 boys are born for every 100 girls to parents of European extraction. The dra…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 03:30 PM
1

He didn't lose billions to his first wife. By her account got her to sign away some of her rights to his property during the marriage, after he got rich. He didn't lose billions on his first divorce to this girl. It's fairly unlikely that he loses billions here.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/16 04:58 PM
0

That doesn't really prove anything, you know that right. It strongly indicates that 'white supremacist' is a really poor label. Asians are said to have the highest IQ Jews have the highest IQ. This is well-known in the HBDsphere. Does that make it (and psychometric testing generally) a tool for Jewish supremacy? I guess you wouldn't be alone in that line of thought.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/02/16 03:49 AM
1

Explain why 'white supremacist' is a great label for a group or an individual that makes the claim that asians and jews have higher IQs than whites.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/02/16 12:55 AM
2

At some point the 6 becomes a 4 and so on. How people view others is not entirely relative. It is partly relative for sure, but it is also in large part non-relative. You can see this easily at the extremes - a morbidly obese person who smells like death is not attractive even if completely surrounded by fellow morbidly obese stinkers. On the other end, attractive people approach an ideal - an ideal of symmetry, smooth skin, appropriately masculine/feminine features, etc. You can't be arbitraril…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/16 11:47 PM
1

Simplest solution - restore status quo ante. Women haven't been the deciding authority on who they get to marry or have sex with for long, and it doesn't seem to have worked out. Alternately, make who women choose to have sex with relatively inconsequential - leave them the right to fuck whoever they want, but take away the corresponding right to have children with whoever they want. Who has children, and with whom, should not be up to women. I believe even this less onerous version of patriarch…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/16 10:45 PM
2

when they come home with me they are giving implied consent for me to pull out my favorite seven-inch dick and ravish them Sure, that's fine. Implied consent, the most important kind of consent, can always be cancelled out by implied nonconsent - also by far the most important kind. The way you imply nonconsent is to actually do something. If the guy doesn't do anything when you set up to fuck him with your strapon, then there's not much of a problem with you proceeding to fuck him with your str…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/15 09:36 PM
1

If you don't have any income you can still be forced to pay child support. If unable to find work, they can still send you to jail for not paying. men below the poverty line pay substantially less than men above the poverty line Why should men below the poverty line be levied a fixed sum every month, at all? Why should it be possible to throw them in jail even if they have no money to pay? As for that dripping shit of an article - typically women aren't physically forced into intercourse. Does t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/15 12:46 AM
0

Yes, there was indeed a time when Europe wasn't anything special, when China and other places were far more advanced. Thankfully that aforementioned brutal repression happened, and the violent impulsiveness - toxic masculinity, if you like - was bred out. For what humans look like without that breeding process, all you need to do is look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Far more masculine - and comparatively worthless.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/15 09:53 PM
0

Who's gonna build shit, defend a nation, or innovate other than masculine men? Um, unmasculine men? Seriously, European and Asian men are the least masculine breeds of men, and they're the only ones that built societies worth a damn. The brutal repression of masculine men who settle their own scores and don't take shit from anyone is what resulted in the explosion of wealth and progress that we're currently enjoying.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/15 09:30 PM
6

You've got two complaints - 'men are playboys' and 'men are fat slobs.' The fat slob issue is symmetrical by gender, or close to it. The 'playboys' thing is exactly what women seem to want, and give their most valuable youthful years chasing. You're the gatekeepers of sex - men will serve up what you order. And you're ordering pieces of shit. This dysfunction in the sexual marketplace is not the fault of men, because men simply don't get to set the standards in the SMP.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/15 11:51 AM
3

You're unclear on what I mean by utility. You're unclear on what your post implied. 'AWALT' clearly has less 'predictive power' than 'MWALT' - but it has more utility in terms of engendering the behaviors you want. Saying 'AWALT' when you actually believe that 'MWALT' or 'enough women are like that for women to be dangerous' is the epitome of sacrificing a statement's predictive power for utility. That's why I wrote my post criticizing your idea that 'you cannot sacrifice truth for utility.' It'…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 11:50 PM
3

Utility is truth. It isn't, though. Or at least, you can go ahead and apply that philosophy, but you're going to find that you're much weaker for it, because you vastly reduce the scope and applicability of your statements. The law of universal gravitation is "true", because it tells us what's going to happen when we drop something. Ah but this is a particular kind of utility. Specifically not the kind of utility that leads to statements that the OP criticizes. Let's say you have cancer. You hea…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 01:40 PM
1

No they aren't. Obviously. They are just things that increase your probability of succeeding. Plenty of fatties get pussy, and the rest is even less important. Nothing in this realm can be described as "necessary" or "sufficient." There's just some curve with SMV of the person you want on the x axis and probability of success on the y axis, and there's variables that raise or lower the curve.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/15 01:58 PM
1

Good info can be gleaned from this thread. Read the tumblrs of the girls posting there and you'll probably find more relevant information sprinkled around.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/15 02:27 PM
2

Well, I think it clarifies the task before you. Be better than most men. Be better dressed, be fitter, be more socially connected, be richer - as many of those as you can manage. Then, you should be able to experience what "normal" used to be. Which is pretty damn good, as the fact that no population has more girls than boys at birth should attest. That is, if you don't actually mean just "get laid." If you do, then you're in luck - hire a whore. Much easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 11:49 PM
2

EVERYWHERE more boys are born than girls. That means that boys were a good bet, that creating more boys than girls was selected for. Why? I think the answer is, when men WEREN'T on the right side of the sexual scarcity model, they tended to kill each other until they were. And then they cleaned house. Of course women are the safer bet, since they don't die as much. But that only goes so far. Not far enough to make more women born than men in any population. The times have changed. Not only are m…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 05:25 PM
2

Warren Buffet did for much of his life and no one says shit. Warren Buffet is a modern figure! The lord caste has never frowned on men having multiple partners. Indeed it has. Indeed one of the oldest and most distinguishing features of the West is just how much interest the 'lord caste' (mostly the Church, which really was a great power in the old days) took in the reproductive arrangements of the citizenry. Nothing new. Nothing changes. I strongly disagree! This is very, very new.
/r/TheRedPill31/07/15 02:23 PM
3

I've had more than one LTR at a time, publicly, and no one ever harmed my path over it. The times they are a-changin.' Most guys I know are married to pot or video games or Netflix zombie movies. What's more plausible - that this is because of an ideological shift, or that this is because of a demographic shift compounded by the allowance of various analogs to polygamy?
/r/TheRedPill31/07/15 02:09 PM
3

The unstated red pill reality you are grasping for here is that there is a larger age-range of men chasing after a smaller window of more youthful women. True - but it exacerbates an already existing demographic issue. The skewed sex ratio at birth is now persisting well into adulthood, thanks to modern medicine and the relative peace that has prevailed since 1945. Women begin to outnumber men only in the 35-39 age group in the United States and in the 40-44 age group in the United Kingdom. That…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 02:07 PM
2

Even if you starve, or at least suffer greatly and likely have your children die, if you don't have the support of a man? And men are banned from supporting more than one women? Those are the conditions of the ancient past, at least where polygamy wasn't allowed. Incidentally, where polygamy WAS allowed you see significantly lower sex-ratios.
/r/TheRedPill31/07/15 01:51 PM
2

105 boys are born for every 100 girls being born. Correct! Thanks for pointing out the typo. For clarity, my post read "105 boys are born for every girl" before I edited it. A 5% difference seems to be a pretty reasonable amount of variance, or at least it doesn't seem like a strong enough variance to explain the behaviors you describe in your post. It's not necessarily a "5% difference" compared to what came before - we get to rough parity relatively quickly, by around 40 yrs old in the hyper-p…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 01:48 PM
2

Look more closely. Is the fact that women start to greatly outnumber men at post menopause/mid-life crisis ages super impactful to the dating market?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 01:40 PM
2

You'd better look more closely. http://jonathansoma.com/singles/ Yes, 18-64 has more females. But look at 20-29 and 20-34. Hell, look at 30-39! Only you get to 40-49 are you flooded in red. Do most people get married post-40? Do they do the most hooking up post-40?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/15 01:38 PM
1

Not actually true. People who successfully plead insanity get more time than people who don't (not eligible for execution, sure - not much solace.) Juveniles are very often "tried as adults" despite having none of the rights of adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/15 03:17 PM
1

[Partial repost!] We have recorded cases of "women and children first" being ordered and/or attempted. What recorded cases of "men and children first" being ordered are there? None. That's an asymmetry. One that reflects a "norm" about how women's lives are valued, compared to men's. It damn well should be used as an example of male disposability. We also have the example of how male Titanic survivors were treated: ...Among them was famed Guelph, Ont.-raised fashion designer Lady Duff Gordon, wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/15 03:13 PM
1

Couldn't we reasonably assume that even if all of the ship wrecks were chaotic, that the faster sinking ships would have more chaos than the slower sinking ships? In ABSOLUTE TERMS yes. NOT in terms of sinking time divided by number of passengers. Imagine you're a captain, and something fucky is going on with your boat. Does it take you a hundred times longer to realize there is a problem if you have 1000 passengers instead of 10? The Titanic and Vestris were outliers on sinking time. Most sinki…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/15 03:07 PM
1

The answer is no, since women's relative survivability appears to be independent of the level of panic. Nonsense. Women were put on the lifeboats first whenever there was an opportunity to do it - that is, when the sinking was slow, when there was no fire, when there was no mutiny. The Vestris took 2-3 hours to sink, the Titanic close to three hours. Neither had a fire or a mutiny going on. Both put women and children on the lifeboats first. If you want to argue that women and children first was…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/15 03:02 PM
7

I have looked into this study. At one point I reviewed every single timeline of all the sinkings included in the data. This study is complete, utter nonsense. First of all, they categorize 'sinking time' by the time it took to sink divided by the number of passengers. This is completely ridiculous as the time it takes to realize the situation and get things organized does not depend particularly on the number of passengers. To make it clear, think of a ship with ten passengers sinking in seconds…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/15 02:55 PM
2

That's not what that means. In this case, the claim is that 80% of the sex goes to 20% of the people. And that claim is more or less true. The reality is that there is very significant variation in terms of how much sex a given man (or woman) will have, and if you isolate the top end of that you'll find something very significantly over the average. It's not a claim that the bottom 80% don't get any - 25% of the fuck-like-rabbits top 20% is a hell of a lot more than nothing. If we're looking at …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 02:58 PM
11

TRP claims that average women are constantly being offered commitment by decent looking, reasonably successful guys in their youth I don't think this is true. TRP really doesn't focus on the female experience much - except in regards to getting sex. And it's undeniable that women can get sex MUCH easier than men. Woman asking for sex vs man asking for sex. while average men remain sexually frustrated and untouched until their at least their late twenties I haven't seen any TRP folks claim that. …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 10:37 PM
7

Then what are TRP members doing here? Look at what's done, not what's said.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 08:49 PM
3

I thought she was very conventionally attractive in a really obvious way. She is. Some people just take pride in being (or claiming to be) very very picky about women, for whatever reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 08:29 PM
2

To do anything that involves fucking the opposite sex. That runs the gamut from ONS to marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 07:50 PM
2

subpar qualities Liking fit, confident men is standard, not "subpar." spoiled, narcissistic, childish woman Another way to say that is that (young, beautiful) women are extremely valuable, and are often aware of it and act like it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 07:47 PM
4

Dude, like, what are your goals here? To create and maintain interest from the opposite sex, and to generally be successful in the modern social environment. horrible, self-involved, greedy whore-monsters Attraction is amoral. It's fucking stupid to condemn people because of what they're attracted to. Even stupider when we're talking about bog standard human sexuality. manipulating women to ride this rollercoaster Dude, you're so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 07:40 PM
3

"LMR" is when the woman, well, resists at the last minute. There are various strategies suggested to "overcome" this resistance. For instance, ignoring the girl and letting her make overtures towards you in order to continue. I don't think physically forcing yourself on her was ever a popular idea. The point is to do things that make her stop saying no. Acting as if the "no" or "LMR" never happened may or may not be one of the suggestions, I don't recall. I think it's pretty unambiguous, even wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 08:51 PM
2

Let's look through some examples. 1 A claim about how frequently women are drugged and raped. True or not, not "rape apology" by any stretch. 2 Cumming on your significant other's face isn't "rape." Taking a video of it and spreading it around is being an asshole, but so is punching her in the face - neither are "rape." This post demonstrates a Red Pill attitude, that you should take your own vengeance when you are wronged. It's one of the things I don't like about TRP, but it isn't by any means…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 07:24 PM
1

Well, it's strategy. Think of it as haggling. If you state what you want to end up on right away, you're at a tactical disadvantage. Especially when there's a norm like "the truth lies in the middle" in effect - then you need to move as far as possible to the opposite side of your enemy, and dig in. The price of this game is that truth is buried beneath layers of moves and countermoves. A price too dear for me. But not for most people.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 06:51 PM
3

I just don't see why it has to come with all the rape apologism What rape apologism? Point to it. stuff about women sucking so much I think you can do better than that. What's the central question of TRP's value system? It's "do (hot) women want to fuck you." Everything revolves around that. It certainly can't be summed up as "women suck." I'm sure women can develop healthy self-esteem without hating on men They sure do a LOT of hating on men though. At the end of the day a species that values p…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 06:43 PM
1

I think the "modern" part is ridiculous because there were quite a lot of STDs flying around in ye olde times for people to have been angels back then. As for "scum of the earth," that's hyperbole used for effect. Women can do some pretty fucking scummy shit, for sure. It's best to be aware of that, and the best case is that TRP is a counterbalance to the modern "women are angels" trope. I don't particularly like that - I value accuracy over trying to shift the cultural dynamic. But then I'm not…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 06:37 PM
2

I find this hilarious, because it trashes TRP's political ideology (not that the politics is really the point of TRP, but whatever.) Let me break it down. What this finds is that the less universalist a population's ethical system is, the more totalitarian its government will be. If a country is full of "all I care about is ME and MY FAMILY" edgelords, then it takes an iron fist to keep order. If on the other hand it's full of people with a "blue" perspective that every life is equally valuable,…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/15 09:39 PM
2

You only need as much strength as you need. That's a lot higher for men. They have had to compete successfully with other men, and hunt/build things. The pressures on women in that vein are far smaller. Instead, there are different pressures, that produced the prominent breasts that we know and love. And even in the harshest of environments there is lots of crucial labor that doesn't require lots of physical strength. Endurance, yes, and men's and women's endurance don't diverge nearly as much a…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/15 03:53 PM
1

So... Being hurt more severely by words than by actual physical actions isn't weakness, then? Y'all are crazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/15 05:05 PM
1

In my experience someone inflicting physical pain leads to mental pain... More than any words could.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/15 04:10 PM
1

...By a lot less than 20% of the population. By a shrinking portion at that, and to do A LOT more than keep people fed and sheltered. There are more hundred-KW class personal vehicles than people in the US. I know you don't have a sense of how monumental our capabilities are compared to what it takes to keep people fed, but trust me - they stopped being in the same ballpark a LONG time ago. By the way I find it kind of funny that you could put "sheltered" and "clothed" on the same level as "fed.…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/15 11:03 AM
0

Because one in five men is enough to keep your women sexed, but it isn't enough to keep your men and women fed, clothed, and sheltered. Man, you're off the deep end here. We passed the point of being able to (over)feed, clothe, and shelter everyone with less than 20% of the population's labor a long time ago. It might be bad news for society, though -- one in five men aren't enough to keep your women happy. Women want relationships, even more than men do. A Japan-style rift widening between the …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/15 10:59 PM
13

My thoughts are that sometimes people are assholes, no matter their gender. Do you really think men hand out nearly as many rude rejections as women? This "no matter the gender" disclaimer shit would be fine to me if it was applied everywhere, but it seems people only toss that shit out when women are getting flak...
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/15 10:46 PM
3

Rapists and pedophiles: you fight them. You don't "ignore" them, you don't "laugh at" them, and they don't "win." There may be marginal cases where this happens, but overwhelmingly what society does is fight them, and nothing else comes close in importance or prevalence. You only think this quote applies to everything because you either don't understand the quote or don't have any notion of society's attitudes towards various groups.
/r/TheRedPill27/05/15 06:39 PM
0

You've NEVER heard pedophile jokes? Comedians make fun of just about anything. That does not mean the subjects are considered 'funny' subjects. 9/11 jokes are made all the time, it does not mean that it is considered culturally 'funny.' Exactly the opposite. Those jokes are funny precisely because they subvert the seriousness of the subjects. There are plenty of cases of child rape and child molestation going unreported for a variety of reasons Plenty of murders go unsolved too. Any crime that h…
/r/TheRedPill27/05/15 06:04 PM
3

Never seen anyone laughing at pedophiles or rapists. Or ignoring them, for that matter. The only example you raised that actually fits that quote is the 'SJWs'... Who actually have won. Not an absolute victory, but there's no such thing.
/r/TheRedPill27/05/15 05:45 PM
1

Um, no. This is total horseshit. MRMs tend to be like your country cousin with 15 guns republican ...That would be a conservative. MRAs are almost by definition not conservative.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/15 12:08 AM
2

Not all persons in the US pay income tax, and persons who pay income tax is generally what people mean when they say taxpayer. I thought it just meant someone who pays taxes. But who cares, it doesn't impact the main point - which is that you don't get to spread liabilities evenly across a population to make a rhetorical point without also spreading assets and income. When my 6 year old goes to the corner store and drops 5% GST on that pack of bubble gum, he's not generally considered to be a ta…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 01:45 AM
1

Sorry, but this is just economic innumeracy. Saying each person's "share" of government debt is [government debt/population] is exactly as valid as saying that each person's "share" of the countries wealth is [national wealth/population], which comes out to $260k. Of course neither calculation is valid - the share of wealth, income, and tax burden isn't remotely close to flat. At least if you're symmetrically naive you'll come to the right conclusion - US government debt is nothing to worry abou…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:22 PM
1

economic classes This is HUGE. Divorce rates are way lower for the rich than for the poor. And while you lose more money in absolute terms, it's way, way different when divorce costs you your yacht or summer home as opposed to your rent money.
/r/TheRedPill14/03/15 04:15 PM
1

Do democracies create prosperity (which reduces crime and dysfunction)? Or do prosperous times create liberty and democracy? Well, this is bigger than democracy. The trend towards more state power and higher standards of living/sophistication has been going for a lot longer than democracy has been the way we do things in the West. There's really nothing you said that refutes the assertion that our governments are spending money irresponsibly and that this state of affairs can't last forever. In …
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:43 PM
1

The mistake of the commenter who took issue with me stems from a moralistic stance rather than a practical one. You're on shakier ground practically than morally. We've seen an incredible decrease in violence in proportion to increased state power. All the evidence is pointing to the larger government you seem wary of being the best thing that has happened to humanity. "Compassionate policies" cost money, and humans, like most animals, are prone to selfishness and laziness when they can get away…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 12:18 AM
3

Also asians have a higher median household income than whites in the US. Are asians oppressing whites? Do we need to tackle the white-asian pay gap? EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, SLANT-EYES! Mmm, somehow doesn't seem like it would take.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 04:48 PM
0

The redpill is a combination of masculinism + pickup + men's rights + anti-feminism + conservativism/traditionalism. The redpill is very focused on gender relations, and seems to take an extremely similar - almost indistinguishable - approach to them when compared to the approach advocated by PUAs. I would disagree with the notion that TRP is about "men's rights," since there is a very explicit individualist/anti-political thread running through it. So you saying that TRP is "closely related to …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:19 AM
-1

I was very active in the pickup community for about 3 years until I met my wife and had kids. In that time, I never once came across anyone espousing that "if you don't want to talk to girls you should kill yourself." Good for you. Want a goddamn cookie? It doesn't change what I saw. The thing is that even if you did come across that very statement by some individual, you are using it to generalize an entire group of people and multiple schools of thought. I dunno, it's the most severe example, …
/r/MensRights01/09/14 07:57 PM
0

The first video I saw from a pickup/seduction forum was the one where the guy said that if you don't want to talk to girls you should kill yourself. That's not "nothing else," sorry. There's a very toxic attitude towards men who don't conform to certain values running deep through TRP/pickup community. And towards women who are the wrong kind of woman, too.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 06:26 PM
0

Some people don't think marriage is worth it- I'd say a lot of MRA's would say that. RP'ers instead talk about managing their relationships. You're just wrong. There's plenty of talk on TRP about how traditional marriage is a raw deal. There's plenty of linking to pickup sites. The overall attitude is that being with a woman who is older is not worth it. That's a solidly PUA attitude towards relationships. I'm sorry that you're incapable of seeing the obvious. Rogers didn't have to be actually a…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 04:36 PM
2

Red pill is about understanding how evolution affects relationships- short or long. And has come to the conclusion that marriage - long term commitment - is currently not worth it due to the modern legal and political arrangements. So it's largely about pickup style relationships, which don't have to be one night long. Just like feminists would say that Mens Rights and Eliot Rodgers come from the same cloth, and they're wrong, you are wrong here. Terrible comparison. Rogers wasn't remotely conne…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 04:22 PM
15

Cross post from the blog: I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the manosphere. First of all, it is divided into two parts that are quite distinct: The Red Pill/Pickup, and the Men's Rights movement. The Red Pill/PUA community is explicitly and proudly amoral. Their motto is, you're losing? Well, it's your fault for sucking so much, here are some things we think might help, if you don't like it get fucked. Like, seriously, one of the first videos I saw from the PUA/TRP community had someo…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 12:33 PM
6

Everyone has the right to enter into contractual agreements, in my opinion, even if the agreement is a bad idea. Marriage is NOT a fucking "contract," it is an institution designed to allow a huge amount of leeway for a judge to do whatever the fuck he feels like if your ex is good enough at whining. http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/prenup-trashed-brooklyn-court-dumps-marriage-contract-unprecedented-action-2013-03-11 http://info.legalzoom.com/overturning-prenuptial-agreement-20913.html Over…
/r/TheRedPill07/08/14 08:54 PM
1

So the fact that women didn't have the right to vote is in no way shape or form a policy of oppression? Not unless there is some evidence that the vote along with the responsibilities that had come with it was something that a big majority of women wanted, and some evidence that not having a vote made women politically impotent. Both things seem to be quite clearly wrong. This policy was just arbitrarily the way it was and speaks nothing to the gendered delegation of political power? The formal …
/r/MensRights23/07/14 12:22 PM
1

Women didn't have a say in WW1 because they didn't have the right to vote. Wrong. Voting is not the only way to 'have a say,' and it is by no means the most important either. See: prohibition. Tell me how historically men had it much worse, specifically because they were men not because they were poor, or because they were jewish, or whatever else. The draft... Being a higher proportion of murder victims and victims of violent crime in general... Being forced into hard, dangerous labor... Please…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 12:57 AM
1

Yes, within the context of draft during wartime, being a man who can't vote yet gets drafted is worse than being a woman who isn't drafted. Being a woman who lives in a society that will stone her if she commits adultery is worse than being the man who gets a much lighter sentence. Men don't 'get a much lighter sentence' - they are often stoned right alongside their fellow 'sinners' if they are found out. Also, academic feminists are essentially never part of societies where these stonings take …
/r/MensRights22/07/14 07:40 PM
1

Rather than arguing who "had it worse" feminism (in an academic sense) looks at the source and system of oppression that stems from gender/sexism. Academic feminism is obsessed with who "has it worse." This is implicit in everything they say, and becomes impossible to ignore when you look at their policy recommendations. Basically deciding who has to/gets to fight in a war strictly along a gender line is a sexist notion that oppresses both genders in different ways. Yes, this is precisely the so…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 04:04 PM
1

And the moment all people (whether men or women) were given a say, what did they vote for? Greater power and expansion of the state over individuals. The state did not increase the net amount of coercion. It just muscled out other coercive elements of society. When the state was not involved in all the myriad things it was involved in, something else filled that power vacuum, and the average individual was not more 'free' in any real sense. If it's not police in the 'armed individuals protecting…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:56 PM
1

NOTHING is "solid evidence" in the way you seem to want, if we're talking about witness based evidence. That's the reality of the world. All we can ever have are indicators to tell us what is probably happening and what probably happened. When you're relying on testimony, the past reliability of the witness' testimony is as solid as it gets.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 12:32 AM
5

Can you explain how someone with no income has control over finances, behind that granted to her by the breadwinner? If you don't 'grant' her money she can fuck your shit up majorly. And, more importantly, you're automatically fucking yourself up because you depend on what she does with the money. Unless you're rich enough to eat out for all your nutritional needs, which you aren't if you're the vast majority of men through history. Can you explain how someone who looks after children all day ev…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 06:53 PM
8

No, the traditional role for women is: you're not earning the money so you get no say in what we buy, what we do and where we go unless I say so. This is nonsense. Women have always had a great deal of control over domestic finances. After dinner, I might want to go drinking or to play poker. You don't get to do that, ever, because you have to stay home with the kids. Women have never been prevented from meeting with friends in analogous ways... Women weren't cloistered with the children 100% of…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:36 PM
7

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638049/7-dead-drive-shooting-near-UC-Santa-Barbara.html He posted in 2013, 'If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.' If you …
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:16 PM
1

Sensationalist title, she didn't rip them off, she squeezed and pulled them them hard enough to produce bruising and laceration. That's a very important distinction...
/r/MensRights05/05/14 05:41 PM
1

Oddly enough, I stole that quote from a TRP denizen called /u/demonspawn. So clearly not all red pillers subscribe to AWALT. "NARPALT!" But that doesn't really matter any more than NAFALT, fundamentally. There is a very definite ideology among what I would call the "red pill elite," even if the community is more willing to be contrary than the feminist community. Um... so? People have a right to decide who they will or will not date. Don't they? Yes... And when they imply that their various "rul…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:50 PM
1

Generalities exist. To claim there are no exceptions is bigotry. To claim everyone is an exception is stupidity. "AWALT" So here I am, reading an article that posits an idea that, while I know it doesn't apply to me You "know it doesn't apply to you," but before that: LOL on the short haired women are crazy thing. Maybe we are Huh. Anyway, it DOES apply to you, since the ROK dude has a "no-dating-short-haired-girls" rule, and a large segment of the RP sphere seems to agree with him. Same thing w…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 12:49 PM
1

Well, lots of nasty things get said and get upvotes over there. Like that short haired women are crazy and should be avoided. Or that you shouldn't get into a relationship with a woman with kids. It seems a little strange to me that you don't have anything against TRP. Evil incarnate - no. Often quite nasty and fond of oversimplification? Yes. Though there is good to go with the bad over there.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 03:24 PM
1

No one in the red pill is saying everyone "should" be a particular way. Sure they are. I wouldn't call it the "elite" position but it's certainly a very prevalent mindset.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/14 11:12 PM
8

Goddammit think a little bit for fuck's sake. they forced women to have children at the age when they would have the healthiest babies No. They didn't have the pill back then, or condoms, or the fucking mind control necessary to stop most women from banging someone during their sexual peak. Women had children early because they couldn't not have children early and have sex. They got married early, in order to be able to provide for said children - who may or may not have been from the person the…
/r/TheRedPill29/03/14 05:21 AM
5

Young childless women now make more than young childless men. College matters.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 09:50 PM
2

Whatever. Back in the "golden age" of men being men, they were fucking dying for the sake of women, in huge numbers. How fucking "alpha" is that, when we're putting things in terms of gender relations? The fact of the matter is that groups of proto-humans that put women's needs and desires first outreproduced groups that didn't. It's a biological reality that in our formative evolutionary period a woman will nearly always be a better investment than any man in her group. Women produce more peopl…
/r/TheRedPill21/03/14 06:38 AM
10

Being too fucking scared to pick up your damn jacket is a "red pill" story? What?
/r/TheRedPill21/03/14 06:10 AM
2

What most Redpillers that I've interacted with though don't just believe that men and women are fundamentally different, but that men are fundamentally superior and more deserving of liberty. You'll have to back that up. Being angry with women is not the same as asserting that they are "less deserving of liberty." Neither is trying to get them to sleep with you, and sharing tips on the subject. Oh, there is also a tendency to maintain that all men are a certain way, and those that aren't should …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:38 AM
7

What you did was pick out a post that expressed a very prevalent sentiment on TRP, and tried to use it as evidence that TRP perspective is harmful/wrong. Here's what TRP is "about," put simply and briefly: They think that men and women, due to differing selection pressures, are different in certain very important and fundamental ways. They think that the general societal practice is to ignore these very important and fundamental differences, to the great detriment of everyone involved. That's ba…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:57 AM
2

It wasn't clear, but the "with the children" bit seems to indicate that the man will live with the children, as in he got custody. If that's the case things make a lot more sense.
/r/TheRedPill02/03/14 03:02 AM
1

I was 5' 2 and 100 lbs all through high school "All through high school" = until you were 17 or 18. You didn't grow ten inches since then.
/r/TheRedPill08/01/14 03:46 AM
1

Working out made you six feet tall... Sounds legit as fuck.
/r/TheRedPill08/01/14 03:22 AM
2

The bottom two or three tiers are fulfilled. Not necessarily true... Particularly the "sex" part, which you should be well aware of considering that you spend time on Reddit and Youtube, home to masses of sexually unsatisfied young males. And besides lots of people don't have secure access to employment and the food and shelter that employment provides. In fact most don't these days - most people could get fired and find themselves in a very precarious position. No, I think all major first world…
/r/MensRights28/12/13 01:28 PM
1

That is, a woman who is capable of performing masculine roles is seen as "value added" if she is still reasonably physically attractive. I don't know about that. Men, in general, don't take all that well to being out-competed by their mates, and women don't tend to take well to men who can't out-compete them. It's not necessarily a good thing to be a woman relatively high on the socioeconomic totem pole, especially as men are teetering downward. I think Japan's present is our prologue, and we wi…
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:13 AM
3

With spiders, the females are the bigger, more ferocious gender There's basically one situation where males aren't bigger, and that's where they don't often physically compete. For creatures below a certain size, that's the rule rather than the exception. For creatures our size and larger, we're well within the point where a male can relatively reliably intercept other males en route to do the fuck with their girl. Also female spiders are hardly "more ferocious." They are larger. But they still …
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:11 AM
11

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 06:50 PM
1

Wait... so if the government takes $20k from me in taxes, it somehow supplies more than $20k of services to me, and the services which I actually desire? Yep. Listen... you're stupid for making that argument. There's no other way to explain it. Listen... You're stupid for not understanding the importance of government services. There's no other way to explain it.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 09:58 PM
1

Egro, to reduce debt, then the next generations must experience a decrease in lifestyle, either by reducing government benefits (reducing expenditures) or by experiencing a lower standard of living because they are paying more taxes (increasing income). Increased taxes do not imply a lower standard of living. If anything, the correlation is strongly inverse.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 04:21 AM
3

And how will they pay that back? Did you see the numbers? Well they certainly can't enjoy the same level of government services during the time, can they? Did you see the numbers?
/r/MensRights04/10/13 04:36 PM
2

US wealth - 118 trillion US GDP - 15 trillion US public debt - ~20 trillion US total debt - ~40 trillion Purchased on borrowed money No. the debt is not nearly high enough for that, especially if, like most people, you're referring mostly to government debt. The money we borrow is actually trivial given our wealth, we produce enough to mostly pay off our public debt every year. People like to (stupidly) compare the us gov't to an individual or family that overspends on debt - well, individuals c…
/r/MensRights04/10/13 04:13 PM
1

"Normal" is for breasts to not be there except when a female is lactating. For example, a cow does not have visible udders except when it is lactating. No other animal, as far as I know, has breasts outside of lactation. In addition to being unwieldy, they signal that a female is nursing young, which means she's at her least fertile. This is all pointed out in lindybeige's video.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 06:14 PM
1

I suppose... I guess the problem with that on its own as an explanation is that we have to explain how breasts went from being very unattractive (as Linddybeige pointed out) to being attractive. Something that signals a female's infertility being up in your face is not really a good thing for that female. It had to have switched from attractive to unattractive somehow, and my bet is that that happened only as they started to appear on fertile women. And so I need a reason why women started to ha…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:31 AM
1

That is probably the point where post-natal father investment became the deciding factor in survival. It really doesn't matter how good your genes are if you die within a week of birth because you're so helpless and vulnerable your mother can't adequately protect you and feed herself without serious assistance. Concealed ovulation would have facilitated this new paradigm not because females could then choose who to have sex with when, but because it eliminated aggressive mate-guarding from domin…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 04:36 AM
2

How many immigrant workers have children, didn't bring their children with them, don't send money back, and never plan on returning to them? My guess is very few. As for the removing intellectual and skills capital from countries, yes, but usually those countries have done one or several things to fuck up and make their country a bad place to stay. People generally don't like to move, and don't unless they have a good reason to. I don't think things would be better if we forced potential immigra…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:52 PM
1

Do the people who say this ever actually do anything to reach justice for men? Uh, who says this? Certainly not most feminists, they think that men are already favored in society, including the courts. Saying "justice for men" both implies that they don't even already have just treatment - an affront to their ideology - and that women are favored, another affront. There is basically nobody calling for "justice for men, not injustice for women." Not the "don't be soft on crime" conservatives, not…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 04:44 AM
4

A movement is what the majority perceive it to be. Utterly nonsensical. It is extremely well documented that people within groups are generally terrible at assessing them objectively. Look at sports fans, look at religions, look at cults, hell, look at groups of teenagers. Seriously I have no idea how you could come to such a ridiculous conclusion.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:08 PM
1

Because even if one subscribes to the belief that all perceptions and interpretations are equally valid, one can dismiss the validity of another person's perception by applying problematization. Well, you can't... That would be a direct contradiction. Nobody actually believes that all perspectives are "equally valid," that's not what the rejection of the notion of an "objective" perspective means. What it means is that there isn't an "objective" perspective to come together towards in the first …
/r/MensRights30/06/13 06:18 PM
2

This is the thing that annoys me about these sort of defense of "nice guy" conversations. The definition of the "nice guy" is completely wrong. Of course when you define "nice guy" as a well intentioned but socially awkward and misunderstood (but basically decent) human being, women will look like assholes for mocking him and desiring something else. The "nice guy" isn't misunderstood and decent, he's an asshole, thus the ironic "nice guy" title he has been given. Willfully ignoring the definiti…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:00 PM
2

They do not control the fundamental elements of their life, rather, their life is lived by others, predominantly large technocratic organizations What? They control the "fundamental elements" of their life just as much as anyone else does, as I see it. They have not developed any particular skill that gives a man pride or dignity It's not a "particular skill" that gives people and animals pride and dignity. Pride and dignity are the result of social conditions. A person or animal does not have t…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:52 PM
2

OK. The biggest problem I have with your post is your attempt to tie the social ineptitude of men to their "new" dependence on various things. The thing is, we have always been dependent on each other. That hasn't changed at all. Whether you live in an apartment or a mansion or a fucking brush shelter, you're utterly dependent on other humans for your continued survival and comfort. The relevant change is the change in social behaviors. I could postulate lots of causes for that, but there is no …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:44 PM
4

Based on the # of OP upvotes compared to the downvotes/general discussion in the comments section, I'm convinced its a vocal minority of embittered gender warriors propelling the discussion with the same victim mentality of angry rad-fems. Idiot. 1: People upvote good discussion topics, they don't necessarily agree with the title text. 2: The more in-depth discussion is in the comments, which much more accurately reflect the positions of the subreddit population, but still 3: The comments & vote…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 10:57 PM
1

The dot-com bubble didn't mean that investing in the internet is a bad thing. The opposite is very much true. The housing bubble didn't mean that it's a bad thing to buy a house. The opposite is very much true. The education bubble doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to get a degree. The opposite is very much true. All that a "bubble" means is that under certain specific circumstances people get badly fucked in that area. With the dot com bubble it was speculators who invested in shit. With the h…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 11:37 PM
4

All of feminism's political, real life successes are in the same vein. That is why we oppose feminism. The problem is "cafeteria feminists" like you who are for "equal rights yay" and give your support to a movement that is very unegalitarian.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 10:56 PM
1

That being said, had she maced me I'd fucking crush her. You're an idiot then. You'd be caught on camera and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The correct thing to do when anyone is antagonizing you is to withdraw whenever possible, but that goes quintuple if it's a female antagonist. Most fights, even if you win you lose, but if it's a female there's a good chance you'll incur serious charges along with your stay in jail. Don't fuck around with that shit, and don't have a cavalier attit…
/r/MensRights26/01/13 06:57 AM
1

And their prisons are significantly safer. Not to say that female prisons are nice, but they aren't as horrific as the male ones. Which I honestly don't think is a bad thing - we need to treat men in the criminal justice system the way we treat women, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 11:23 PM
1

Reddit, a blog, and youtube are all extremely effective ways for her to spread her viewpoint. A book in addition to that would be great, of course, but in terms of time efficiency I think that making youtube videos and reddit posts has got that beat.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 05:53 AM
6

There's nothing really wrong with being circumcised, just like there's nothing really wrong with not having fingernails. There's plenty wrong with both! Circumcision, even if it goes perfectly, removes lots of nerves, reducing sensitivity. And it often does not go perfectly. Not having fingernails would suck, it would be a lot harder to tear things open, which is one of the main things you do with your hands.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:52 AM
1

I took a vacation to Europe a couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure around 50% of the women there were taller than me. They aren't that weak. Taller than you ≠ able to take you in a fight. You're probably built more solidly than them, and testosterone is one hell of a drug. Seriously, the physical differences between men and women are pretty damn significant.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 07:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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