TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

INTPLibrarian Archive

View 2 posts and 56 comments by INTPLibrarian 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)
27

People, this is a troll or someone being disingenuous. The site is http://www.calvet.ca.gov/VetServices/Default.aspx Note this is the "general" Vet Services page, not the targeted groups' ones. And also the only tab -- the one for ALL vets -- that has info about disabled vets in particular. Here's the full screen: http://imgur.com/ssQuvfG The Womens and Minorities tabs have different language and links that might be of more interest to those groups, but don't seem to be exclusionary from what I …
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:11 PM
29

IF they offer a men-only version, it's not a Title IX violation, though. Just pointing that out so that an argument isn't made using wrong information.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:37 PM
7

Why did they decide to stick around until someone else practically dragged them out? It's actually a common reaction in emergency situations. Argh, I can't find an online citation right now. I read about it in The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - and Why by Amanda Ripley
/r/MensRights27/07/12 10:04 PM
1

I was talking about ethics, not the law. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And if the man in the shower knew his wife had taken the photo, I'm not really sure he could sue over that. But, IANAL.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 12:23 AM
2

Speaking of double standards, there's currently a post on my frontpage of a picture someone took on a public bus of a partially (accidentally) undressed woman. While some people are appalled by the post, there are many, many more who are making fun of the woman. (Btw, this isn't a double standard between men and women that I'm pointing out -- it's between attractive and unattractive people.)
/r/MensRights14/07/11 09:31 PM
1

Oh! I totally missed that. Sorry.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 04:15 PM
1

His wife made her mom delete it from both FB and her phone. How is his wife complicit in this?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:05 PM
2

FYI, there's no correlation between how a victim was dressed and her getting raped. THAT'S why it's ridiculous. The majority of rape victims are not dressed "slutty." The only correlation between how a woman was dressed and whether or not she got raped is that if she was dressed in what's considered a slutty way, people will say she was acting for it OR not believe her. And, please, if you even get to this and decide to downvote, provide just one citation that shows that being dressed "slutty" l…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:34 PM
2

Just an FYI, with NO intended attempt at explaining its meaning*, LOTS of ads show women without a face. I'm not sure if the same is true of men or not. *Many assume that its because a woman's face makes her a real person when the ad just wants a generic female. I think the argument made here that it's a privilege instead of an insult is one worth considering; I honestly hadn't considered that before.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 03:07 AM
6

I'm not sure. That seemed to have a lot to do with it, but when did it extend to all men? It seems like there was some sort of "awareness" campaign that got out of control. Ha. I have daydreams about getting a PhD in Psychology someday and daydream about what I'd have my thesis be about. This will be added to my daydream PhD topics. :-)
/r/MensRights02/03/10 03:49 AM
31

Wow. The idea some people have about all men being molesters (who really cares about pedophilia alone? I don't care what you think about.) is something that just enrages me. I was a daddy's girl growing up in the late 70s. If I was growing up today I'm sure that I wouldn't have had a lot of the same experiences that I did with my father. Ugh, I can't stand that even that sentence sounds creepy nowadays!!
/r/MensRights01/03/10 11:23 PM
3

I hadn't seen that comment, but yeah, that's what I was trying to explain in my comment here. I'm glad someone else could see how it could be seen that way.
/r/MensRights08/01/10 09:08 AM
0

Trust me, women are NOT freed from theirs. Some roles much more than others, but there are still quite a few we're stuck with and some of those affect certain women more than others. However, that in NO WAY means that men don't have roles they're burdened with or that they should be or that no one should be doing anything about it. But, you're right. There needs to be equal contribution, support, and respect from both sides of a relationship. Thankfully, that does happen at least sometimes.
/r/MensRights08/01/10 02:02 AM
1

As long as the converse was assumed to be true, I wouldn't mind the statement. That was exactly my point. It wasn't immediately obvious, in the OKCupid location, that it was both meant to be applicable to both genders *and directed at women who think they ARE princesses. (Instead the title made me think that the author thought ALL women thought they were princesses.) I did get it -- and agree with it -- once I understood the context, but I imagine that a lot of commenters were quick to comment w…
/r/MensRights08/01/10 01:23 AM
3

I don’t think all women are like this and am not sure how some of the commenters here arrived at this conclusion I think this is actually the cause of a lot of the anger in the comments. That is, the commenters read the post in the context of an OKCupid post, not in the context of a blog specifically geared towards "men who are in or are recovering from abusive relationships in which the female partner is the abuser." That really makes a huge difference in how to read the tone. Standing alone, i…
/r/MensRights07/01/10 06:29 PM
5

Seems more to me like a bunch of people who can't tolerate that someone might define feminism differently than they do or who spend more time focusing on some issues related to feminism than on others are having a hissy fit. I don't think any Feminist site is required to perfectly and equally represent each and every individual Feminist out there. I hope people reading the boycott posts are actually reading them to see if they agree instead of blindly boycotting (or not). Unfortunately, I don't …
/r/MensRights17/11/09 07:21 PM
1

This is exactly what people need to do. It was an intentional movement to get people to be aware of breast cancer and the need for funding for it that led to the huge awareness and funding it has today. If prostate cancer needs the same (which I believe it does) then the same kind of work needs to be done. (FWIW, my cousin is currently dying of breast cancer. He's a man who figured out he had it when he read a Breast Cancer Awareness Month in a waiting room.)
/r/MensRights09/11/09 05:57 PM
3

I thought that was the best part -- that she taught him how to deal with it if he did get teased. How many kids could have used that knowledge, plus knowing one's parents would back them up, growing up?
/r/MensRights07/11/09 01:21 AM
2

Oh, statistically single parent families are mostly fatherless. I don't like that they're assumed to only be fatherless. As if motherless families didn't exist. My main findings were that children of single-parent families due to death were not significantly different than children of two-parent families except that they were less likely to divorce.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 12:09 AM
3

This list holds true even when controlling for parents’ race, income and socioeconomic status. Just FYI, I did a small research project in college about a similar topic and found that what DID make a difference was the REASON the child didn't have a father around. Death of a parent doesn't affect kids in the ways listed in the article. (Not that it doesn't affect them at all, but the effects are different than from either abandonment or divorce.) It's just a personal pet peeve of mind that " sin…
/r/MensRights28/09/09 06:03 PM
1

Edit #2: citation
/r/MensRights04/09/09 07:47 PM
1

It lessens the risk of a woman getting AIDS from an infected man. I'm assuming that's why they did the study... to see if that was also true of male-to-male transmission. *Edit: Apparently there's conflicting data about whether or not circumcision helps prevent male to female HIV transmission. There is evidence that it helps prevent HPV and Herpes infection and transmission, though. <--- not using that as an argument for circumcision, btw, just reporting what I found.
/r/MensRights04/09/09 07:37 PM
9

According to Dr David Holmes, a psychologist at Manchester Metropolitan University, women are having more affairs than ever - recent studies say the figure is around 20 per cent for men and a bit over 15 per cent for women How does that show that women are the biggest cheats? Btw, I can see how the article is relevant to MR; I just think the headline is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights04/09/09 02:08 PM
2

WTF? That's insane. You're right. I didn't read the law in detail, I admit. I was just shocked that only women could be raped and so did a quick search to see if that was really true. Then I found the male rape section. (And checked the punishments parts since I figured those might be different.) Ok, some more searching came up with: -Adultery is a crime in Idaho Incest is "punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed life." Sex while unmarried "shall be punished by a …
/r/MensRights20/08/09 05:43 PM
6

Wrong. It's just that it's specifically called "male rape" in their statutes. Title 18 Crimes and Punishments, Chapter 61 Rape, 18-6108 MALE RAPE The punishments for both "rape" and "male rape" are almost, but not quite identical. I'm not really sure what the implications of the difference between them are, though. 18-6104.Punishment for rape. Rape is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one (1) year, and the imprisonment may be extended to life in the discretion of the D…
/r/MensRights20/08/09 04:22 PM
2

Medical cost for the pregnancy (assuming the man isn't actively involved in all this), yes. Full responsibility for raising the child? Financially, no. Otherwise, yes. And in cases where she doesn't know who the father is, which this law would then force her to bear the child, yes to all of the above. Again, I'm only speaking about when the man doesn't want to actively be involved in being a father. I'm also not commenting on the fairness or unfairness of the financial part, just stating what us…
/r/MensRights22/07/09 05:52 PM
4

Paternity tests can be done as early as the end of the first trimester. Oh wait, that's usually the deadline for having an abortion, too...
/r/MensRights22/07/09 05:49 PM
4

"You know, because if you're a slutty whorebag, you should be punished with a pregnancy you don't want. " - no, but perhaps you should exercise some adult responsibility, y'know? Thinking out loud here, even though I already replied to this comment... so, this isn't necessarily a reply, but what I quoted is what prompted my thoughts. I think the punishment the blog author meant is that you're stuck being pregnant if you don't know who the father was. And I interpreted your response of "adult res…
/r/MensRights21/07/09 06:37 PM
11

Not all women can take the pill. (Still a good point you're making, but since I'm one of those women who can't take it I feel the need to point that out.) Adding to your point, I think: women can choose (assuming we're talking about consensual sex, of course) not to have sex with men who won't wear a condom.
/r/MensRights21/07/09 06:08 PM
5

A woman would have to show a police report or other court document showing that it was rape. For incest, you must provide either a police report or a paternity test. So, yes, I would imagine that false rape reports to the police might become more common. (Not at ALL endorsing that, just speculating!)
/r/MensRights21/07/09 05:28 PM
5

That's what I first thought, too. Whenever people would trash Anna Nicole Smith for marrying the billionaire just for his money, I'd ask if they thought he'd married her for something other than just her looks. Neither of those reasons are good ones for getting married, but I guess the best outcome, since we live in a world where people DO think like that, is if those two types find and marry each other.
/r/MensRights08/07/09 12:47 AM
0

It was the greater "criminal" part -- I personally don't think prostitution should be illegal at all, but prostitutes are arrested and incarcerated by far at a much higher rate than johns are, even taking into account the higher number of interactions they have. As for the perception of either of them, I really believe that more people, in general, think the prostitute is "bad" than the john. But, that could be debated. Which one is treated more like a criminal is pretty obvious, though.
/r/MensRights17/06/09 02:51 AM
2

Which ones does that happen in? I'm not claiming it doesn't... I just can't think of one, so I'm sincerely asking.
/r/MensRights16/06/09 08:02 PM
2

lol! I seriously never saw it that way since I usually would make the same claim with the genders reversed, but you're right! I could kick myself for not recognizing that that goes both ways in romcoms. Thanks for pointing it out.
/r/MensRights16/06/09 05:57 PM
2

I GET the point and I agree with him as far as this movie goes! But some of his other examples are, IMO, ridiculous. "Who, for example, is considered the greater criminal, the hard-working, saintly prostitute or the evil businessman who frequents her?" He's got to be kidding! That's the most ridiculous one; others I simply disagree with. On the other hand, the points about older women and younger men as opposed to the other way around are valid AND relate to his point. I was just saying that his…
/r/MensRights16/06/09 05:54 PM
6

Reverse sexism is sexism, what hurts one gender hurts the other Exactly! Which is why I think the term "reverse" is kind of silly. Sexism is sexism. Racism is racism.
/r/MensRights16/06/09 05:04 PM
-1

I only didn't bring up what the points were that I disagreed with because it would spark (maybe) a discussion that's beside the point of the article. Maybe "undermines" was the incorrect word? I meant that what he had to say about the movie needs to be said. But with all the other unrelated info/opinions stuck in there, too, it's difficult to focus on that.
/r/MensRights16/06/09 05:02 PM
0

He's got a good point about the movie, but he has so many ridiculously false statements in his article that it undermines the main point.
/r/MensRights16/06/09 04:16 PM
4

Correct spelling.
/r/MensRights05/06/09 08:36 PM
2

Ugh, I wish I hadn't gone to look at those comments. They make me feel ill. I'm sure that there ARE women who never encounter those kinds of attitudes, but a lot of us have. I'm not claiming that just as many women would be good at tech jobs as the number of men that are. I have no idea if that's true or not. What I do know is that some of the women that are good at it -- even if you believe they're rare -- choose to do something else instead. Can't blame 'em.
/r/MensRights24/04/09 02:08 AM
1

BA vs BS: At George Mason University you need General Ed +39 credits for a BA At George Mason University you need General Ed +54 credits for a BS No, that's not correct. For the BA you need the general ed courses PLUS an additional 13-16 credits (depending on your foreign language level) PLUS the 39 subject credits. The BS is general ed courses + 54 subject credits. That's a difference of 1 to 2 credits either way. At JohnS Hopkins, that's true if you pick the right BS to compare to the right BA…
/r/MensRights03/03/09 02:26 AM
1

Teaching can be extremely physically and mentally exhausting, but I won't argue that it's more physically exhausting than most manual labor is. Like I said, I wasn't defining "difficult" that way, so we don't necessarily disagree there. I do disagree that a BS requires "more schooling" than a BA. How so? Not in years or number of classes required. Again, unless you're claiming that math is inherently more difficult than composing a well-thought out essay. I think that's entirely dependent on the…
/r/MensRights03/03/09 12:44 AM
1

You don't need a masters degree to be a teacher, you need a teaching certificate which does entail some college. My point however is that auto manufacturing is a more difficult job and also more prone to injuries yet the two fields are compared the same insofar as which gender makes the more money. This isn't equal work but they are being judged equally. So, to you "more difficult" means more labor intensive? I don't think it's as simple as that to most people. I would consider a job that less p…
/r/MensRights03/03/09 12:08 AM
2

No, what you hear when people discuss this subject is how women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. It's a measure of the median pay between full time women workers and full-time male workers, not a measure of men and women's earnings in the same field or even the same job. I know I've read what the cents per dollar is when it IS in the same field/same job. It's higher than the overall, but still not equal in most, but not all, fields. If I can find the citations for this, I'll post it. …
/r/MensRights02/03/09 10:09 PM
0

Then you're just ignoring it when you hear it. The call for equal pay is most commonly "equal pay for equal work." You're also ignoring what I said about relaxing entrance requirements. You're reading it just how you want to read it, when that's very clearly not what I said. The medical office I most often visit has 2 or 3 men and 2 or 3 women as receptionists, actually. If you're actually "MENSA level smart" and applied yourself, there's no way you'd be either a manual laborer OR a receptionist…
/r/MensRights02/03/09 03:16 PM
2

women are inherently privileged over a large section of the male population in certain areas of life FTFY
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:26 PM
1

True, but unfortunately a lot of people think it is. Same goes for men in traditionally female jobs.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:24 PM
1

Well, depending on what type of construction you're talking about, flag wavers can be one of the most dangerous positions (such as in road constructions.) But, it's a good question about whether or not that's all they're allowed to do or is it what they choose to do.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:24 PM
4

I don't have hard evidence to support this, but I'll take a guess. In jobs that are already strongly male dominated, women are actively discouraged from entering the field BY the men already in it. My impression is that women who try to enter one of these fields get insulted, harassed, sabotaged, sometimes assaulted. I am not turning the tables and "blaming" men-at-large for this! I'm not entirely sure if that's true and I have no idea how to go about fixing that if it is.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:22 PM
2

Generally, that's probably true -- but I do know of guys working manual labor who are doing it because that's what they wanted to do. Just adding my own anecdotal piece. All those that I personally know of are in construction, btw. I don't know anyone who wanted to be a ditch digger or a miner, but I don't know any ditch diggers or miners at all.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:18 PM
-1

I've never heard anyone seriously argue simply that "women want to get paid the same as men." I'm not saying that sentence hasn't ever been uttered, but in formal arguments, the phrase is usually "women want to get paid the same as men do for the same work." They ALSO want the opportunity to do the same work. Without relaxing any entrance requirements, unless those requirements were set up simply to exclude women and not because they're actually, you know, required.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:15 PM
1

Jobs in mining, logging, and construction are NOT jobs that no one wants to do. I'm sure a lot of men in those jobs don't want them, but there are also men (AND women) that DO want them. There ARE organizations (as someone above pointed out) supporting women who want to enter these fields. I guess it's true that there aren't organizations encouraging women to enter these fields, but are there groups encouraging men to?
/r/MensRights01/03/09 06:12 PM
1

Oh, sorry, I guess I misread you're question. Yeah, there's an assumption that unless you put women in front, it could very well be only about men. I think this is especially true for studies about the heart. There were a lot of studies done in cardiology that had only male subjects, but then the results were assumed to apply to everyone. Then someone figured out that wasn't a good idea. Apparently men and women (often) have very different symptoms of a heart attack, for example. I think for a l…
/r/MensRights06/02/09 10:07 PM
2

It's because a lot of the articles that are really only about men's heart health don't have that phrase in them. They're just "heart health." Try this: "heart health" men And, I just did a search on Medline. Searching for Heart Diseases/Prevention limited to Male = 6854 limited to Female = 5418 10737 articles don't specify gender.
/r/MensRights06/02/09 09:48 PM
1

Wait. Wasn't this the same plot as the episode of The Closer I just watched?
/r/MensRights16/08/08 06:00 AM
0

I'd agree with the title of the link if the "always" was removed and replaced with "often." But, the bit by Maher was really irritating. "Children are more important that people." Huh? Last time I checked children are people. Men and women don't share any of the same fantasies? Very wrong. Do they share ALL of the same ones? No, but I think Maher would be shocked to find out what some real women's fantasies are. Could go on and on, but Must stop ranting.... sorry. Couldn't resist.
/r/MensRights10/08/08 11:06 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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