TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

General_Carrot Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by General_Carrot 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

You're right, the 'nuclear family' has no literal meaning other than a closely-knit set of family members that are responsible for the upbringing of a child. But this phrase has become a shibboleth for those with very specific views on what ought to constitute this nucleus. In that sense, I feel the phrasing conveys a great deal about the views of the source. Edit: Also, what adrianbye said.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:14 PM
1

Running away? Far from it. When your opponent in a debate is forced to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've already won.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 08:29 AM
1

You disagree with my argument, so you reach instinctively for the ad hominem. Poor form, my friend, poor form.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 09:53 PM
-3

I think when the argument descends into ad hominem attacks such as these, it is a good point to call it a night. You're right about one thing - I really don't think I've achieved anything here. I'm just a little more jaded about peoples' attitudes, and pretty disappointed about the kind of place Reddit is.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 09:42 PM
1

I agree that a true feminist should oppose the things you mention. Many of those I have spoken to do, in fact, oppose these things.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 05:00 PM
-1

HAHAHAHA Edit: Seriously, I'm changing my name, goddamn that meme!
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:53 PM
1

I admit, I have never seen a study with these kind of findings. I would need to know more to make any informed comments on this study. Could you send me the original study? (I can only see the table linked by qwyeth)
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:51 PM
2

I didn't downvote you (for the record)
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:47 PM
-8

Oh come now, I would think that a "movement" as "valid" as yours could withstand a little constructive criticism, no?
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:46 PM
3

Sorry, which actions? And how do these actions compare to the constant stream of violence and discrimination thrown their way?
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:44 PM
1

opposing the feminist hatred of men This point seems very far from solid to me. Where is the evidence for this? Feminism is NOT about hatred of men, it is about protecting womens' rights. valuing the nuclear family Where have we heard this phrasing before? Oh yes, that's right - Christian fundies use it to demonise homosexual couples. It troubles me that people don't see the parallels here with the nasty side of illiberal politics.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:04 PM
1

Je ne regrette rien =)
/r/MensRights31/10/10 04:00 PM
-7

Ever the reasonable 'men's rights' activist....
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:59 PM
-4

I would venture that most domestic violence in any country is committed by men.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:58 PM
-7

You've missed the point. legal equality defined as you have defined it only encompasses the passing of laws. I maintain that the relevant concept of legal equality is that passing and enforcing of laws. In this instance, laws guaranteeing female equality are woefully inadequately enforced, suggesting that in fact, women do not have legal equality at all. But you are right to point out that 'social equality' (however defined) for women is very, very far from being realised.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:55 PM
0

Point well made - I concede that typically, an 'ism' implies a rejection of one idea in favour of another. In this case, however, what is being rejected (by the concept of feminism) is the idea that one group is superior to another - precisely the opposite of the meaning pssvr would attach to feminism.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:52 PM
4

Au contraire: liberal feminism Your phrasing suggests to me that, as with so many 'male rights' activists, you have selected an ad hoc definition of feminism which supports your own prejudices. I have never heard any self-respecting feminist describe feminism in terms of gender supremacy.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:44 PM
-5

since they have already gained legal equality Your definition of 'legal equality' is very narrow indeed. To take a parallel example, following the passing of the Fifteenth Amendment, African-Americans were 'legally' entitled to vote. In practice, they were harassed, deceived and intimidated, with the effect that de facto, most African-Americans could not vote (source). This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point: passing of laws prohibiting discrimination is inadequate, where these l…
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:35 PM
-1

by definition feminism is a movement for the advancement of women I strongly contest your definition of feminism. Feminism is about combating barriers to female equality, not advancing women's interests, regardless of the cost. If you want an example of an 'ism' that seeks to treat different groups consistently, try 'liberalism' (at least, in its classical sense), of which 'feminism' is considered by many to constitute one branch (see liberal feminism). someone cannot be a feminist and think tha…
/r/MensRights31/10/10 03:26 PM
-10

These guys totally misunderstand what feminism is about. Mainstream feminism emphatically does NOT stand for female supremacy, but rather is about combating misogyny embedded in everyday conduct. I've encountered many feminist groups at university, and I would not consider any of them to be man-haters or female supremacists. On a separate note, there is a clear parallel here between men protesting their "oppression" at the hands of feminists, and Christians protesting their "oppression" at the h…
/r/MensRights31/10/10 01:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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