TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

HerrDrKaine Archive

View 0 posts and 66 comments by HerrDrKaine 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)
4

Unfortunately, almost all of the companies that claim to be dialing back DEI are not, actually. You should look into BRIDGE, they're an organization that's leading a partial-rebrand, partial-restructure of corporate DEI to try and sneak it past people. The vtuber Kirsche covers their bullshit pretty regularly.
/r/MensRights20/01/25 04:37 AM
1

Bro this thread is five months old what are you doing
/r/MensRights30/11/23 08:48 PM
9

Bad news, man. Feminism and leftism are inseparable, as feminism is a left-wing ideology. It's the same oppressor-oppressed matrix of Marxism applied to gender rather than economics. The Frankfurt school called it cultural Marxism, you break everything down into that same model. Same thing with the left's obsession over race, sexuality, and all of their other pet identities. It's all just ways to falsely dichotomize society to spur resentment and revolutionary sentiment. You can try to isolate y…
/r/MensRights12/07/23 03:23 AM
4

Ceding linguistic territory is a losing game, always. They will just demonize the new term, and you lose social coherency as you move on to newer and newer "friendlier" terms.
/r/MensRights01/01/23 04:50 AM
11

Okay, are we going to employ logic itself as a mod for the subreddit, then?
/r/MensRights26/12/22 06:50 PM
21

Here's an experiment you can conduct right now to understand for yourself:Take one of your hands, it doesn't matter which one, and hold it out in front of yourself, palm down. Then take your other hand and run the tips of your fingernails across the back of the hand you're holding out. Pay attention to how that feels. Give it a score from 1-5 on how intense it is. Now, flip the hand you're holding out to be palm side up, and run your fingernails over your palm. Give that a score. Does paying att…
/r/MensRights13/08/22 04:26 AM
16

I don't think that's a fair summation of incels. Certainly there are people like that among them, but I don't think it's the majority of them. Most of them are just really awkward dudes who have been failed by society (and often by their single mothers) and have an understandable frustration at their lack of romantic and sexual success. Not advocating some of the vitriol that springs from that frustration, but it's a real problem and it's not wholly their fault, and that vitriol is not the whole…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:32 PM
3

Yes.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 02:29 PM
100

I'm not speaking for the mods, but I'm glad they do because language policing of that sort isn't productive IMO. People who sling around the word incel like that reveal a lot about themselves by doing so and I prefer to learn those things rather than to protect my eyes from reading an offensive word.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 11:50 AM
5

What Matt's position lacks is the acknowledgement that despite it not being "consequence free sex" (if I were more cynical, I'd say he phrased it that way on purpose); abortion is an abdication of the responsibility he's so insistent fathers take. Every argument he has against financial abortion works equally well on physical abortion. "What if they don't want to carry the child to term?" "Well then, don't do the act." He also seems to skirt around the fact that "responsibility" for men involves…
/r/MensRights25/11/20 03:45 AM
1

Wow, the position understander has logged on. ​ So in your logic they should be allowed to kill on their property, after all it is their property and the state should stay out? No, I don't believe you can arbitrarily kill someone just because they're on your property. You can use violence to remove someone who's entered your property illegitimately, and the law supports that, rightfully so. But if you invite someone peaceful onto your property and then kill them, that isn't justified, because yo…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 11:20 PM
2

The Constitution does not dictate morality, and never claimed to do so. It's just an outline of the basic powers and limitations of the US government. Private citizens and their behavior aren't even covered by it. Read the text, it's all limitations on government. "Congress shall make no law," and "the right of the people shall not be infringed." And I agree, public property should not be able to discriminate, because it's ostensibly owned in part by everyone. *However*, private property is owne…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 04:49 PM
3

I have no idea if that's true. I'm against the government owning any gym (or any business at all, actually). But if we're going to have government gyms, they shouldn't be able to discriminate, especially against men, since men will be their primary funding source.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:31 AM
22

Business owners should have every right to discriminate however they like. Women-only, men-only, whites-only, blacks-only, gays-only, whatever. Why would I want to go to a gym owned by someone who would kick me out based on an immutable characteristic? I don't want to support such a person and I'm glad their bigotry is in the open. The only problem is if it's legal to discriminate in one direction but not the other.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:01 AM
11

We certainly concern ourselves with social issues regarding men, but our main concern is rights issues. You're correct that we talk a lot about feminism, and let me explain why: ​ Women being better child-rearers is actually a post hoc justification. Women receive custody by default due to proto-feminist activism in the late 1800s. Prior to the institution of the Tender Years Doctrine, men were given presumed custody of children in divorce because it was our responsibility to provide for them. N…
/r/MensRights19/11/20 11:12 PM
15

A little bit ashamed that people are responding a post that admits to a position being devoid of critical thought as if it were seriously advocating that position.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:30 PM
5

Fairly certain OP is being sarcastic, mate.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:25 PM
9

Of course. Some of the most prolific figures in the MRM are women: the Honey Badgers. They're the ones that helped me become an MRA in the first place. I know Allison Tieman (u/TyphonBlue) is a mod here and I believe she's pretty active.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 09:11 PM
20

No idea. Maybe they're banking on the idea of women seeing this ad and buying Gillette for their SO's. It's the only explanation that makes a lick of sense to me.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 07:46 PM
62

Women spend a majority of the consumer dollar. This is also part of why commercials never depict men getting the upper hand on women.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 06:27 PM
3

Unless you're in a highly tailored environment, you're likely going to find people uncomfortable with some facet of your identity in every sufficiently large community. I haven't noticed this sub being particularly virulent against trans people, compared to the general population. But I'll fully admit that I haven't really been looking, it just hasn't stood out to me. For what it's worth, I'm happy to have anyone in this sub who wants to have a productive and/or engaging conversation about men's…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 10:20 PM
1

Dislike of trans people is not a facet of the right wing. All of the TERFs I've encountered have been hardline socialists.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 10:13 PM
5

I'd actually contest that people who disagree with us aren't welcome here. I'd be very happy if more people came here and saw what we were actually about instead of accepting the lie that we're all somewhere between Roosh V and Elliot Rodger.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 10:09 PM
2

I'm not trying to say that the government is pure evil. Of course it does some good things, and of course there is some governance that is better than other governance. I'm very glad to live in America over say, a socialist state. And I'm very glad the Constitution has helped to protect what it has (although the Articles of Confederation were better). But here's the thing: limited government always finds a way to unlimit itself. America basically started out as an experiment in minarchy and almo…
/r/MensRights27/11/18 05:08 PM
1

Wait a minute, your go-to example for how the government doesn't always just listen to its people is the War on Drugs? The boondoggle that has wasted over a trillion dollars of money stolen from productive people; cost hundreds of thousands of lives globally (most of them men); ruined even more by putting nonviolent people in prison (also mostly men); driven the militarization of the police; created dangerous black markets; and hasn't even accomplished its goal, seeing an overall increase in dru…
/r/MensRights27/11/18 11:17 AM
2

That's arguing, fam. Anyway, if you are going to argue; if people are too stupid to not have someone forcing them to live a certain way, then we certainly shouldn't have a democracy, at the very least. Why do we want to live according to the whims of a stupid majority?
/r/MensRights27/11/18 01:04 AM
2

If you're not going to argue, why respond?
/r/MensRights27/11/18 12:40 AM
2

Society=/=the state. People can and do cooperate without government coercion. In fact, MOST cooperation exists without someone forcing it to happen.
/r/MensRights27/11/18 12:21 AM
3

The Industrial Revolution made men no more disposable than they already were, and in fact led to them being a lot more valuable than that. It's not as if there was some great abundance of goods and liberty that was suddenly snatched up by greedy capitalists in the late 1700s. Before capitalist investment in goods and automation, men's labor only purchased them subsistence living—usually by growing their own food. The multiplied productivity of the open market is precisely why we can afford (both…
/r/MensRights27/11/18 12:20 AM
3

Yes. The IRS steals primarily from men for services primarily for women (although getting your means by stealing from anyone for any reason is bad enough). Men can reclaim almost all of their natural rights through self-determination in an open market, without the coersion of the state. And those that they can't can only be achieved through social change brought on by education, which the state is also terrible at.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 03:09 AM
6

Honestly, if you're in favor of men's rights at all, stop supporting the state in any way; and support everyone who undermines it without harming an innocent. There is no greater enemy to the rights of men and boys than the state.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 01:51 AM
6

I'm unconvinced that you have ever, in your life, known precisely where you are, what you were doing there, or what you were saying.
/r/MensRights25/10/18 12:30 PM
11

1.) In most "civilized" nations, it is legal to surgically and/or ritually mutilate the genitals of male infants, but not female infants. 2.) Domestic violence policies treat men as the problem, even when they are the victim. A man can get stabbed by his wife, call the police, and then get arrested because he shoved her off of him when she stabbed him. 3.) Funds that are stolen disproportionately from men through taxation are spent disproportionately on issues that do not affect us, or in ways t…
/r/MensRights12/10/18 07:28 PM
6

I agree wholeheartedly. The funny thing is, I'd say these things probably could be adequately termed "toxic masculinity". The problem with that phrase is that the overwhelming majority of people who use it believe the toxic elements of masculinity are basically all of the ways it's different from femininity
/r/MensRights06/10/18 12:51 PM
2

Any sentiment that comes before the word "but" is bullshit. Even if there was literally not a single case of falsely reported rape in history; the standard of evidence for social consequences needs to change. Before a trial even begins, and regardless of its results; a man can lose his career, education, social life, and even his actual life. False rape accusations were weaponized against black men to provoke lynchings in the Jim Crow Era. These issues are primarily what MRAs are talking about w…
/r/MensRights24/09/18 01:48 PM
6

I get your frustration, I really do. All I'm saying is that, if you don't have the energy to fight, get off the battlefield for a while. One tired soldier makes the whole shield wall weaker, you dig? I just finished my response, I'd love your input if I did miss anything important.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 10:24 PM
14

we do live in a patriarchy where men hold vastly disproportionatly power in just about every area. So, what you're engaging in here is called an apex fallacy. Men make up the bulk of CEOs and politicans; but they also make up 75% of the homeless, 70% of suicides, 93% of workplace fatalities, and 93% of prison inmates. Most of the people on the top of the heap are men, but most of the people on the bottom are also men; and there are a lot more below than above. That's not a patriarchy, that's an …
/r/MensRights10/07/18 10:11 PM
6

C'mon man, "educate yourself" doesn't work for the feminists. Why the hell are we using it? If you're telling someone that they're wrong, you gotta give them some clue as to in what direction the right answer is.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 09:27 PM
10

Morality can be derived deontologically from first principles, and refined through observation of consequences on others. No authority, divine or otherwise, is required to establish morality; and indeed to have such would cheapen it as the whim of an entity rather than demonstrable logic. Also, democratic societies are not free. They are more free than many other forms of government, but the state-democratic or not-is the biggest historical and present enemy of men's rights. It's because we have…
/r/MensRights02/07/18 05:40 PM
2

That's definitely what I said.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 08:30 PM
5

Don't undermine the men's agency here. They're the ones who chose to stand next to the people with a history of throwing gasoline at people who look like them. But you are correct that we shouldn't listen and believe just because it's amusing or convenient. If you have principle, you've gotta stick to it.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 07:43 PM
12

Meninism is literally a joke. It's just taking feminist talking points and plugging men in as the victim with occasional further bodging for added troll value. If you see anyone seriously critiquing meninism just inform them that they've fallen for a silly and stupid joke and move on. Incels are not a men's rights issue either, at least not directly. Arguably, they are a symptom of larger issues we care about, and there is occasional overlap in membership (using that term loosely here); but anyo…
/r/MensRights03/06/18 04:48 AM
31

All those folks saying "having sex is consent to having a child and you have to take responsibility if you do" better also be against abortion and putting children up for adoption.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 05:27 AM
1

Looking back on our conversation, I think actually this is our major point of departure, rather than the definition of discrimination. Yes, it's true that men get in more accidents, so of course those individual men would be charged more and that would drive up the average cost for men when you look at aggregate statistics; and that isn't discrimination. BUT, insurance companies also use this trend to raise the initial prices for men before they've been demonstrated to be unsafe drivers. This is…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 03:50 PM
3

"Safe driving" is an individual merit, yes. But, if an insurance company has no information on how safe a driver actually is, they will base their judgement of that partially on whether that person is male or female. This is backed by a trend, but it doesn't actually tell them whether or not the person they're dealing with is a safe driver. Because "men tend to be unsafe drivers" is a statement about trends, not an individual man. There are safe male drivers and unsafe female driver. Therefore, …
/r/MensRights01/05/18 03:29 PM
4

Maybe it was untoward of me to imply dishonesty on your part. I think we're just getting tripped up on definitions here. Going from group to individual is the definition of discrimination. That 100th, non-red-haired boy is what makes it a trend for men, not a characteristic of being male. In those numbers, it's a pretty overwhelming trend, and you would be pretty justified in saying any random boy is probably red-haired. But, when you treat every boy as if he was red-haired, that is discriminati…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 03:13 PM
4

No. This type of word trickery is the exact reason I asked that question. Here, I'll answer for you: the opposite of an individual is a group. Because they are opposites, you cannot determine the qualities of one from the other. You can't say "John is a boy. John has red hair. Therefore, boys have red hair." This is basic logic. Now, if you look at a large number of boys and find that a lot of them have red hair, you CAN say "John is a boy. Boys tend to have red hair. Therefore, John is likely t…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:51 PM
4

What is the opposite of an individual?
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:39 PM
6

When you base your treatment of someone on their category rather than individual performance, that is BY DEFINITION discrimination. Even if you have evidence that makes discriminating a prudent choice, it's still discrimination. And by the way, I don't even have a problem with companies discriminating. I think people should be able to run their businesses any way they want. The only problem I have is when people care when women are discriminated against but are fine with discriminating against m…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:34 PM
5

No, that's an individual merit. The heuristic is not "this team is made up of women, so we pay them less", it's "this team made us less money, so we pay them less." It's based on that team's performance on the market. The insurance policy is "you're a man, so we're charging you more", not "you personally take more risks, so we're charging you more." Edit: It might be fair to say that the AUDIENCES that make up the profit base are discriminating, but the companies that pay the teams aren't necess…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:27 PM
8

Discrimination is to base treatment on category rather than individual merit. Better grades and being a veteran are individual merits. Being female is not an individual merit.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:12 PM
12

That literally is discrimination. "To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice". Discrimination can have reasons behind it, but that doesn't make it not discrimination.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:06 PM
-2

To be fair, teaching men to physically resist being attacked by women would only result in more men being jailed.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 02:35 AM
2

Read what I wrote again. I just said that in the context of that particular discussion, I don't agree with the person you linked. But they neither claimed to be a rapist nor that you couldn't say no. You were correct in your discussion with them, but you have misrepresented what they said here.
/r/MensRights26/04/18 03:01 AM
3

I didn't say you were. I said that person sees it as leading on, which is a position I understand but don't share. Regardless, unless I am missing something, they're not saying that they would force themselves on you, or that you lose the right to revoke consent when you do something that leads someone on in their eyes. They're merely telling you that in their view, that particular action is hurtful.
/r/MensRights26/04/18 02:52 AM
4

Yeah, none of these guys claimed to be rapists or said that there is any circumstance under which a woman doesn't have a right to say no. One of them says it's a shitty thing to lead people on with your actions eve if you're being honest with your words; one of them said that there are some people (they weren't even including themselves in that, by the way) who will rape if denied sex in an intimate situation, which is an awful but true fact; and the other was criticizing you I assume based on s…
/r/MensRights26/04/18 02:44 AM
8

Being that you've made a horrible accusation without even attempting to substantiate it, and seem to be coming to us rather than the police (which would be MY reaction if I found a bunch of people claiming to be rapists); my instinct tells me this is some disingenuous gotcha or flagrant misinterpretation. But I'll give you a shot. What makes you say that?
/r/MensRights26/04/18 02:17 AM
2

why the hell are we fighting this Us vs. Them battle?? Because if they acknowledge that men can be victimized, their entire gender-as-class narrative breaks down. Men can't be a monolithic oppressor class if they are oppressed, and women can't be monolithic victims if they victimize. And if both genders suffer in comparable amounts and there IS no unidirectional oppression, they can't justify their movement of exclusive increase in the rights and interests of women. It is a matter of self-preser…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:25 AM
9

It stands for Men's Rights Movement, and its members are MRAs, Mens Rights Acivists (or Advocates, depending on who you ask) We're a loose collection of individuals and activist groups concerned with the human rights men lack, which include but are not limited to: *Equal treatment in criminal courts: Men receive over half again as long prison sentences for the same crimes as women, and women are much less likely to be convicted at all. *Equal treatment in family courts: Family courts are heavily…
/r/MensRights03/04/18 08:55 AM
11

This. If you abandon your principles when they become inconvenient, you didn't really hold them in the first place.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 04:49 AM
5

To be fair, like TIME's "person of the year", MW's word of the year is not an endorsement of that concept. It's a word that encapsulates a concept they think was singularly influential over that year. And I think the only people who deny that feminism is influential are those trying to astroturf it.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 03:15 AM
6

So, if the Huffington Post prints that 2+2=4, and the Mayo Clinic says 2+2=50, you'll side with the Mayo Clinic?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:40 PM
5

Geez. Alright, at least you're consistent. Let me frame it like this, then: Let's say you do have a son, and you do have him circumcised. Assuming the operation is successful (which is not guaranteed, botched circumcisions can have terrible consequences including impotence, loss of the penis, or loss of life), there are three possible outcomes from that action once he grows up and becomes more aware of what it means. 1.) Your son is indifferent, you have neither helped nor harmed him, mentally. …
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:32 PM
4

You're making an argument from authority here, buddy. The Huffington Post, while I genuinely dislike it, is not inherently less valuable because it's the Huffington Post. Each individual article from them is more or less valuable because of its truth content (or more often, lack thereof). 2+2=4 is still true no matter who says it, and if someone you dislike says something true, it's still true, and anyone can correctly point out the flaw in a study's methodology. If you think what was printed in…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:14 PM
14

I think tattoos are infinitely more attractive than unadorned skin. Should I be allowed to have my baby tattooed?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 04:14 PM
12

I have always maintained that advocacy IS activism. Part of the difficulty of fighting for men's human rights is that you're swimming upstream against the current of historical and present gynocentrism. To that end, any influence we can have upon the larger zeitgeist of our culture is important. Yes, boots-on-the-ground activism is important and vital change can be fought for right now, but we won't achieve really quality without winning hearts and minds, which is done through discussion and edu…
/r/MensRights17/05/17 06:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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