TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Homericus Archive

View 1 post and 55 comments by Homericus 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)
13

Homericus/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:24 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Sorry if I was unclear, I was merely trying to say how peer pressure and policing are different, not saying that for the same event one is ok and one is not.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 03:55 AM
4

I can see no distinction between what you are calling "policing" and "peer-pressure"... tell me if that's not an accurate analysis of your point I would say they are similar, but peer pressure is, well, generally done by peers, whereas policing is usually more of a cultural thing that is done even by strangers or authority figures. Because the subject of gender is involved with a man wearing a traditionally female-associated garment, that peer pressure applied to the man is inappropriate? If so,…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 04:36 PM
11

I think that a worthy goal is to eliminate the policing, but not force an elimination of the gendered behavior patterns. Basically, if someone wants to wear a dress, male or female, it shouldn't be a big deal, but in addition forcing people to wear dresses doesn't bring about equality, and is stupid too.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:42 PM
275

As usual turnabout is fair play: Teach your daughter to respect men as equals, or better yet, as superior beings. (Clearly the second half is stupid) Help her learn to listen, not just hear. (I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I get the feeling they are referring to "Listen and empathize instead of listen and offer solutions." The problem is that both have their time and place.) Make sure she knows how to mow the lawn, change the oil, and shovel snow -- and that she understands that none …
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:05 PM
1

Ok, so you are OK with both parties surrendering the child to the state then, no matter what? If so I'm pretty OK with that, as that is an equal set up.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 10:47 PM
1

What you are arguing for, though, is not LPS, but rather increased scrutiny of pregnant women who are committing illegal acts, assuming the man wants any rights to his child.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 09:21 PM
1

As long as women get the entire word on abortion, adoption and safe haven, yes it is fair to have them get 100% of the responsibility. 100% of the choice, 100% of consequences. Except this isn't true. Women do not have 100% say in adoption, both parents must agree for adoption to proceed. Safe haven laws are gender neutral as well. If a woman has a child and leaves, as a father you can give the child up to a safe haven.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:18 PM
1

Not if the man wants custody of the child; if he can prove paternity the woman is on the hook for child support.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 04:32 PM
2

This isn't a fair comparison because women have such a big monetary incentive to divorce. This doesn't mean women are more devoted and faithful, just that the divorce statistics aren't useful in determining this. Perhaps statistics on cheating would be more useful, especially cheating in non-marriage situations where neither party is "locked in".
/r/MensRights30/10/13 04:43 PM
1

How does supporting feminism make men's lives better in the long term? You are reversing what I said: Resisting feminism might be better in the long term, but is harder in the short term.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:14 PM
1

So? None of that has anything to do with the basic psychological bias that is at play in this article. It sounds like you are trying to fit anti-feminism into every situation. Just because all you have is a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail. Men generally don't resist feminism because doing so makes their lives harder in the short term, but better in the long term (maybe). Once again, people just avoiding something that makes their lives harder.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:46 PM
16

"One of the reasons we are interested in looking at who pays for dates is because it is one arena where women may be resisting gender changes more than men," study researcher David Frederick, an assistant professor of psychology at Chapman University in California, told The Huffington Post. "As social roles start to change, people often embrace the changes that make their lives easier, but resist the changes that make their lives more difficult." Let's not pretend that men wouldn't do the same t…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:25 PM
2

Thank you, I'm really hoping /r/mensrights realizes this and doesn't just become what they rail against. What could be discussed is why this is so, as you said, but to say that the wage gap is discrimination solely due to gender is incorrect.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:23 PM
25

“I don’t give a damn about statistics,” Adams said. “I feel that using statistics participates in a rationalized way of thinking about the problem that undercuts my perspective.” Wait, is she actually saying "We need to be more irrational about this"?
/r/MensRights24/10/13 09:44 PM
15

The wage gap argument is so silly because if employers could pay women less, they would. Who would actually choose to hire men if they could just hire a woman and pay 25% less? Do the people pushing this myth seriously think that the ruthless capitalists in charge of business wouldn't jump at a 25% savings in salaries? If women were paid 25% less, you would see a hell of a lot of businesses hiring only women and stomping the competition.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:57 PM
1

Thank you for this, I was going to make a similar post about how that specific statistic seems quite misleading.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 02:19 PM
2

The real overkill is the every other down thing, which is frankly both strategically and practically unsound. I have a friend who plays in a co-ed touch league and 1 in every 4 works so much better. The issue with every other is that having a good female QB becomes the only way to win, since if you don't have a woman QB every other down the men will all just double team the women, since the other men become literally unusable. With 1 in 4 you have 4 opportunities for a woman to get open or to ru…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:44 PM
1

I expect that, just as a split developed in the pro-feminist and anti-feminists camps of the men's movement in the 70s, there will come a time when the gender rejecting activists in the MRM will find themselves at odds with those of us who celebrate masculinity instead of rejecting it. I guess time will tell, though it does seem like there is a solid chance it may occur.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 07:58 PM
1

I'm a little confused by this. If some MRAs reject gender, some want to be traditionally feminist, and some want to be traditionally masculine, but ALL of them want the freedom to do these things, and think that Men's Rights should fight for this freedom, where is the conflict?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 05:26 PM
1

Championing masculinty and a sense of brotherhood among men is what I believe in, but it's not the role the MRM has set for itself. I agree that while it doesn't address this directly, it is an indirect goal to allow masculinity to be an option for how individual men could behave. I can see how if you this is something you believe in strongly that the MRM wouldn't be the group to join with wholeheartedly.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 05:15 PM
1

I think I see what you mean, but take "rejecting gender" a different way, as in gender shouldn't force you to behave a certain way. I take this to mean that if you want to act traditionally masculine, it is your decision, and since this is something that actually get pretty widely criticized by society nowadays I'm not sure how it wouldn't fall under Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:55 PM
1

But shouldn't Men's Rights include the right to be masculine, if that is your inclination? I was under the impression that it did, and that what it was looking to do is to allow the option for people to live how they wanted to without being shamed. Now that doesn't mean that people might not argue against how you want to live, but it shouldn't be shamed on principle unless you are actively hurting someone else.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:13 PM
1

So in order for the traditional model to true - meaning that men have far more partners than women - a huge majority of men would have to be sharing a small minority of women. As well as being logistically difficult, it raises problems with the statistics as well because the total number of partners remains the same. If they reported the median and mode as well as the average this would be easy to discern.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 06:22 PM
1

No problem, thanks for being inquisitive instead of dismissive.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 02:46 AM
3

While your circumcision went well, there is ~1.5% complication rate. Imagine a 1.5% chance your penis is messed up, I think that is pretty serious for something that is not necessary except in certain rare cases (phimosis). The primary argument is that circumcision is unnecessary, not that people who are circumcised are screwed up necessarily in some way. I'm circumcised and like you, everything works fine. The idea is that unless there is a benefit, since there are risks, and it is a permanent …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:32 PM
1

I agree, I think the first part is mostly overblown and is generally more of a mental thing for guys than it is for women. As for the "inch of skin" there is substantial evidence that circumcision reduces sensitivity of the penis head, so it does make a difference, though less so than clitoris removal for instance.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:17 PM
4

There are two "deals" with circumcision. The first is the idea that there is a cultural bias one way or the other in terms of look (i.e. women like men circumcised more, or the opposite) leading to men disliking their bodies/penises more or less. The second is that circumcision is an irreversible bodily change performed without consent on an infant most times, and many people think this is morally repugnant.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:59 PM
5

I think this is something that is being missed here to some extent: for a large amount of women (the statistical majority) they prefer trim men with a more "normal" amount of musculature. The hyper-muscular men are really more of a power fantasy for men. This poster is not solely for women, it is a combination of what women generally like (low body fat, abs, etc.) and what men want (power, weapons). My wife, for instance, actually complained when I started putting on more muscle because she actu…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:00 PM
2

I find this highly ironic, because the entire reason men don't have traction in academia is because of the hegemony that feminists have in academia. Look at how Farrell was excoriated by feminists when he dared to say well researched things that disagreed with them. Remember the glass ceiling feminists love to talk about so much? Same principle, if you don't agree with the viewpoint you can only rise so high in academia. Is it because of the ridiculousness of the MRM position, the obvious fact t…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 06:57 PM
3

I think the reason that there is no establish archetype for female "creep" is threefold. First, women are much much less likely to make the first advance than men, limiting the exposure of it altogether. Second, many times when a women is very forward or awkward she is thought to be being "easy" or "a slut" instead of creepy. Third, "stalker" is used as a substitute sometimes for what would be considered "a creep" if it were a man (consistent unwanted online contact, for instance).
/r/MensRights04/03/13 06:07 PM
1

Yep, in fact I think that a direct comparison side by side would be interesting. That having been said, it would be hard to tell whether or not the courts bias towards women getting children would influence this as well. We might see single mother perform, on average, worse than single fathers because the only single fathers around are those where they both want the child much more than the mother, and she has serious issues.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 05:56 PM
2

This distribution makes sense in an evolutionary and a biological way: Since men have more to gain from risking and succeeding then women (in terms of offspring), having genes which promote more extreme traits are not selected against as strongly as women. We also can look at the X and Y chromosome, both in terms of size and how they might influence this. The X chromosome is present in everyone, and so if it had significant variability it would, over time, be selected against for a more consiste…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 05:52 PM
1

Thanks for the links.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:44 PM
1

I would love to see the studies, but it makes sense to me now after reading your and thro_way's comments.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:50 AM
3

Wow, that makes perfect sense now that I think about it. Thanks for the heads up.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:50 AM
13

So the two Neuroscience PhDs are insufficient for you? A PhD student is also a student, in case you were wondering. So? When I was in my 5th year of getting my Ph.D. in Chemistry I was essentially at the level of when I got my Ph.D. It's not like something magical happens when you get the letters after your name, it's just a title.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:02 PM
2

Here is the CONSAD report outlining in detail the lack of wage gap that can be statistically verified.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:59 PM
19

If you watch the end of the video their credentials are given, many of them either have PhDs in Neuroscience or undergrad degrees in it, and are presumably PhD students in it. Some are Psychology PhDs, and some Psychology undergrads who may or may not be working on Neuroscience PhDs. Honestly, your comment is both not factual and biased in a quite silly manner.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:51 PM
2

Huh? Maybe I am missing something here, but wouldn't it by y-linked intelligence, since that is the chromosome men have that women do not? Also, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:24 PM
1

Wouldn't this mean cheerleading is the most dangerous sport, not the toughest. Then again, toughest seems like a pretty subjective word that is not well defined. "Tough" has so many different facets.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 04:32 PM
1

This is what I don't understand, do the people who are doing this know nothing of Herd Immunity? The crazy thing is that this policy isn't only sexist, it's idiotic.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 03:04 PM
1

I'm curious, are there any establishments you go into that ban guns? If so, what do you do in that situation. I say this because living in Minnesota there are a number of places that ban guns (because conceal carry is pretty easy to get) so I would wonder what someone with a gun would do in that situation.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:39 PM
1

Actually, he can take leave, up to 12 weeks(though it is unpaid, which quite frankly it should be.) Why should it be unpaid, that only guarantees the man will never take it. If you now have a new child, and new expenses, is it really reasonable to think anyone is going to want to make less money right after the child is born? There might be some extreme exceptions, but there is a reason you basically never hear about men taking paternity leave. It should at minimum be paid, and possibly required…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:45 PM
9

Of course it makes sense. You're asking one party to divulge a secret at while not asking another to do the same. Men's Rights is about equality. The reason we started was because feminism took things to far in their direction. Because men and women are physically different in terms of reproduction, this is an area where exact equivalences are impossible. Men have 0 say in things like abortion, and I support that, even though it is "unequal". The proposed form is "unequal" as well, but ends up w…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:49 PM
10

A man cheats on a woman 9 months prior to a baby being born. Nothing is mentioned of it on the birth certificate. And? This makes no sense...there is not baby involved here, which is the entire point. A woman cheats on a man 9 months prior to the baby being born. She's now forced to either commit perjury, or confess. Especially with a new baby she won't be thinking clearly. Right, but the issue here is that the man is on the hook for 18 years if she lies. For your above example, the woman is not…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:33 PM
12

What is terrible is forcing people who aren't in shitty relationships to testing, more laws, and felonies. How does this force testing? Testing would only occur if the father desired it, if he trusts his wife she just signs the form and they go on with their relationship. Your entire rant is based off a false premise: that this idea mandates paternity testing, when it does not.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:29 PM
1

Well, it kind of does because he was discussing islam at the time, here is the full quote: "At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you sa…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 03:46 PM
2

At higher levels of education, I entirely agree with you, but what I was referring to begins much earlier than that. I recall being 'pat on the back' for every little thing I did in school even though what I was doing often did not warrant a significant response; and this is not just the case for me. While positive reinforcement is very important in families and at school, I believe the over-emphasis on self-esteem has led to situations as outlined above. Unfortunately, it begins so early in our…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:27 PM
8

After a cursory look at the article a much better title would be: "Boys may outnumber girls in stem fields due to higher IQ performance in the Mechanical Reasoning subset." It is actually a pretty interesting result, and it could be theorized that more boys go into STEM because few people would enjoy going into a subject they find difficult.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:35 PM
2

(2) The general idea of encouraging individuals when they do not necessarily deserve that level of encouragement is a societal issue that is imbedded in our primary school systems. This is not a result of feminism. I think this is a huge issue that really stems from educators and parents warring over whether or not a student is qualified to take a course. Without a hard and fast way to not allow students into a course (such as a pretest that is required to be passed) educators end up getting for…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:28 PM
1

Say she doesn't want the baby and wants to get an abortion, do you have any suggestions about how to handle this? What if she does and he doesn't? What would you suggest as a solution? Someone else talked briefly about Legal Paternal Surrender, here are a few links that discuss it in further detail: Link1 Link2
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:58 PM
2

You could write about the successes of feminism that led to the oversuccess of feminism and its move form pushing for equality to pushing for women's advantage. Tender years doctrine, etc.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 05:34 PM
42

If you look at the article, it links to another one containing text messages from that night, quoted here: A little after midnight on Aug. 24, the male student now facing expulsion texted a female student asking her to “come over and drink” to which the female student responded with “I’m honestly so far gone right now,” according to a text message conversation from the male student’s phone. Around 12:15 a.m., the female student said someone was walking her home, and that she would call the male …
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:26 PM
1

My understanding is that it was just a contaminant that ended up in Agent Orange by mistake, specifically as a contaminant in the synthesis of 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 05:32 AM
1

Just a heads up, the defoliants themselves were not especially toxic, rather a contaminant in Agent Orange (the defoliant you are talking about) called [TCDD](2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin) was the cause of the birth defects and cancers. Not that this makes it any better, just an interesting factoid.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:29 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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