TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Gezza44 Archive

View 0 posts and 23 comments by Gezza44 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

It's not a systemic issue, it's a choice. You just misunderstand what systemic means, if something is a result of a system rather than individual interactions. maybe another example resulting from a choice will help you out; A woman chooses to have a child, the fact that labour of pregnancy/childcare is unpaid labour is systemic, since money being paid for working for an employer is a system. The fact that it may cost her her job may or may not be systemic. It has nothing to do with choice, just…
/r/MensRights10/03/18 09:28 PM
3

Edit: this was a big wall of useless text. Condensed; Regardless of if "SJWs" and "feminists" hold this incorrect belief that all men are violent monsters or whatever that does not invalidate the position that single parents are both valid and oppressed since this position does not require the belief that all men are violent monsters.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 12:28 PM
32

I genuinely believe that you are just misinformed, if you are secure in you're beliefs then you should have no problem seriously considering my argument below. On one hand we hear that single mothers are amazing Yes, being positive towards single parents is a good thing. They are inherently disadvantaged compared to two parents families and were historically seen as invalid, they need support. and such a family structure is just as valid and great for kids as any other Yes they are valid, no the…
/r/MensRights10/03/18 09:30 AM
1

Do you know what "at least" and "at most" mean? It means that in your reality you believe that men have the right to a potentially greater say in women's rights than women themselves, while the opposite does not apply to women (which it most probably should). I would like to be able to complement your comprehension, but you'll have to put in a bit more effort next time.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/18 06:27 AM
6

at least 50% of a say So women get at most 50% of a say? Regardless of the content of your comment, your language betrays your sexist tendencies
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/18 03:50 AM
1

I dont argue with 6 year olds, my bad
/r/MensRights05/10/17 05:13 AM
1

Im sure you know how to read, so I refer to my previous reply
/r/MensRights05/10/17 05:01 AM
0

Please specify the difference between the two. Please specify the meanings of words which I have confused. Unless you can provide these you... are... full... of... shit "For now on go a little slower" How could you have any idea the speed at which I read, so how do you think this insult makes any sense or would affect me In any way. also Nice ad hominem.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 09:36 AM
0

No, it doesn't need to be contradictory. It just needs to be out of context. READ THE DEFINITION I COPY-PASTED: As I said, "appeal to definition". Read about it in the context of a debate please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking Not "selectively choose from what is available in order to present the opposite". Just "selectively choose". so by your own logic your entire response is riddled with "cherry picking" again appeal to definition, do some reading please GTFO, dropping the mic. y…
/r/MensRights04/10/17 08:30 AM
0

appeal to definition tho, merely picking something is not cherry picking, the picked thing needs to be clearly contradictory to the majority of things present. I never said I have misinterpreted you, I dont believe I have due to the context in which you wrote that, I was merely correcting the word you used. I understand youre not speaking about all women you are, as you said, speaking about "most of the ones (women)" . It is sexist to simplify most women into two extremely demeaning categories. …
/r/MensRights04/10/17 03:53 AM
0

"many" literally one, a single person "I can tell you're just trying to pick a fight." I explicitly stated this "all the actually Men's Rights sub users here understand the relevance and contradiction of the meme. Pretending you don't is absurd." So why do you refuse to explain it to me? you people try live in fantasy land.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 10:58 AM
0

You obviously have no grasp of what cherry picking is, I think the word you are looking for is "misinterpreting" but I wouldn't really expect much from someone who holds such a sexist ideology.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 10:48 AM
1

1) read your sources "When women considered him for a long-term relationship, owning the sports car held no advantage relative to owning an economy car". Also dont supply a source behind a pay wall, what are you trying to achieve. Furthermore you missed the point, I dont not care If the generalization is true or not, I was criticizing you for not clearly expressing that it was just a generalization 2) You completely misinterpreted my point, I am criticizing "It becomes a catch 22..." for compari…
/r/MensRights03/10/17 10:35 AM
1

"It (women) falls into two categories:" this is your worldview, you're comfortable saying something like that. I cant even begin to understand what events in your life lead to the development of this ideology, honestly pathetic.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:54 PM
0

"relevant to some very obvious Men's Rights issues" Which ones? male domination of low paying manual labour? no. Disproportional prison populations by gender? no. Legal discrimination surrounding the family court? no. Higher male suicide rates? no. Just seems like some classic anti-feminism woman shaming
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:39 PM
0

I'll paraphrase it for you; "could you explain the difference" "are you serious, I will if you are" "I am, but you should know I to intend argue against your points" does not explain
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:34 PM
1

1) making a generalization about "women" without acknowledging it as such 2) comparing systematic oppression of women with not being able to date someone with more money without acknowledging the vast difference in severity 3) conflating wanting something and wanting more availability of something; someone can want something and simultaneously not advocating for it to become easier or more available e.g someone going to the Olympics as an athlete for the prestige 4) If abolishing the gender pay …
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:26 PM
0

Thank you for your contribution. Really. Amazing.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 12:08 PM
0

"women want to..." generalisations like this make you seem bigoted, that shit feels dirty to say. you realise in a world where people got payed equally across the classification of gender, as long as people are unequally paid across any other classification a person from one gender could marry a person form another who earns more money? I honestly dont see where the contradiction is, I think youre confusing wanting to be with a richer person and wanting more richer people to exist
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:32 AM
0

Seriously, but for the purpose of arguing so its not in the best faith (not sure if I used that expression correctly)
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:24 AM
1

"for every woman" nice straw man of a straw man. The woman in the meme wants to marry someone who makes more money than her, nothing is said about "every women (woman)". And I hope that you're aware (if not provide a new argument please) that there is no contradiction between advocating for gender equality and wanting to marry someone who earns more money than you, the two are not implicitly related.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:14 AM
1

Could you explain the contradiction for me?
/r/MensRights01/10/17 12:56 PM
0

that's the opposite? the meme features two "bad" things that (supposedly) exclude each other while "having your cake and eating it too" is two "good" things that exclude each other.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 12:49 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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