TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JohnScottsdale Archive

View 0 posts and 34 comments by JohnScottsdale 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)
2

No, it's been the same thing. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I think you're taking the term 'should' and interpreting that to mean it has to, and should be adjusted until it does. But I'm saying it should like if you flip a coin, it should come out 50/50 with enough flips. It doesn't always, but based on nothing but numbers, it should. And for 25 year olds, that's literally a factor. There are fewer younger people running in general, so the number of people running skews older. …
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:12 PM
3

What narrative? What are you even talking about? The best candidates should hold the positions I agree. And unless you think that the best candidates consistently are men (or vice versa), probablility suggests that best people for the job will be approximately 50/50. This is very straightforward. It's not saying it HAS to be 50/50 every time. It's not saying that it should be artificially balanced, but that it stands to reason that, again unless you think men are better than women at this job (o…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:03 PM
11

No shit eh? Imagine coming into this sub to see what genuine issues men face and the first thing you see is a bunch of people complaining that for the first time in history Iceland's parliament is <50% men and how that shows systematic sexism against men. Stuff like this is 100% why the men's movement is not taken seriously.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:12 PM
4

In a situation where there is an odd number of seats, there will always be a majority one way or another. Probability indicates that there should be 50% women majorities and 50% men majorities if there is gender equality. 100% of all parliaments have had men majorities. The first women majority indicates that we coming to a time where there will be roughly 50% women majorities going forward, or at least not 100% men majorities. That would indicate a step towards equality
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:09 PM
2

Who said anything about artificially balancing anything? Based on demographics, ~50% of the population are women. So you should see ~50% of those elected be women based on a normal distribution curve. So, over time, it should start to balance out. You're reading way too far into things that aren't there.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:15 PM
6

I didn't say sexism, I said factors. For example, maybe there are 20 incredibly good members of parliament that are women and they get voted in 100% of the time for 10+ years, and the rest are split 50/50 and so they constantly skew towards women. That's a factor, but it's not sexism. Or maybe there is an inspiring candidate that ran 15 years ago, and inspired lots of women to get into politics so there are just more women than men that run, so it ends leaning towards women. That's not sexism, t…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:08 PM
11

I don't see your point. There has to be either a men- or women-led majority. Having a first women-led majority is the first step towards having an eventual 50/50 split of men- and women-led majorities, which is the gender equality they are talking about. They're not saying that all government should be female majorities, or that they should be female majorities for the rest of time, they're saying it's great that there is the first instance of a female majority because it should be about 50% fem…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:02 PM
20

Exactly. A single instance of having more women means nothing if they are elected. If it's consistently 75% women or something for an extended period, then there is clearly some other factors at play. But a single instance means literally nothing.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 04:04 PM
1

You're complaining about a single instance of 'female dominance' (a 52% majority, very dominant). While it's not explicitly applauding male dominance, it's not far from it. In a country with an odd number of seats in parliament. If it wasn't women led (which is apparently evidence of systematic sexism against men), it would have to be male dominated by default (which is apparently not evidence of systematic sexism against women). It's a distinction without a difference. Also what is your evidenc…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 04:01 PM
18

Iceland has 63 seats. It's impossible to have a perfect 50/50 split of men and women. Gender equality would mean that over time, you should have 50% of parliament be women majorities and 50% be men majorities. Up until this point, it's been 100% men majorities. So having a first instance of women majority shows a push towards gender equality. I don't see how this is sexist at all.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:49 PM
161

Is this really a men's rights issue? At no point in the article do they point out this is not gender equality and that Iceland is systemically sexist against men. Women are 33 elected members of 63 total (a 52% majority). Since there is 63 members, it's literally impossible to have a perfect 50/50 split. If they elected 33 men, is that proof or systematic sexism against women? Literally every election will be systematically sexist against one of the sexes in that case. Gender equality means that…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:47 PM
0

Isn't it sad that this is a controversial opinion on this sub? I've been trying to say for a while that this sub can't be 'all women want to do X' while at the same time decrying it when some women say 'all men are pigs'. It's far too common a sentiment on this sub and its getting worse.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 10:49 PM
3

Non-peer reviewed study that shows 162 per million face increased risk of heart problems but also states: Evidence from studies show it is unlikely for boys to suffer either heart problems from the vaccine or be hospitalised by Covid. The study is not linked anywhere so it's hard to determine their actual methodology as to how they came to these numbers. Take from it what you will, but it doesn't seem like a men's rights issue. It just affects men more than women.
/r/MensRights10/09/21 10:29 PM
0

Okay, you're clearly just trolling at this point. Enjoy the rest of your day.
/r/MensRights10/09/21 10:18 PM
0

Two things: One. It's not proof of consent because per the first part of my comment, consent can be withdrawn so it proves absolutely nothing. Two. I didn't say it means they want to rape, but that it would probably give me some rape-y vibes depending on what is in the form. If the contract just says 'I agreed to have sex with X' then it's still dumb because see the first part, and would probably weird a girl out because it's certainly an abnormal thing to do. But if it says something like "I co…
/r/MensRights10/09/21 09:21 PM
5

Do you honestly believe that all women just want to ruin men's lives? That's a pretty fucked up view of women if that's the case. It's like saying that all men want to do is rape women. Edit: To the people downvoting. How is making sweeping generalizations about women any different than the brush that feminists use to paint men as rapists? If you're against it when they do it, we shouldn't be supporting it when men do it.
/r/MensRights10/09/21 05:43 PM
1

I definitely find it quite weird, for a couple of reasons. First is that it's a completely useless thing to do. Consent can be withdrawn at any point. If she asks you to stop in the middle, you have to stop. So even if consent with given before you started, it's not a free-pass to keep going if they want you to stop. Secondly is it would give me some rape-y vibes. You want me to sign a form that says I'm consenting to sex. I guess it kinda depends on what it says, but if it says something like y…
/r/MensRights10/09/21 05:38 PM
1

Literally the comment that started this was "grab her by the neck and throw her outside so she pisses herself". They followed it up and meant collar, but that's not what the comment said. Nor would it matter to someone trying to get this sub banned when that comment is sent to the admins for advocating violence. Others: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pkaqhd/a_woman_barges_into_a_busy_mens_room_at_disney/hc2dldw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pkaqhd/a_woman_barges_int…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 11:33 PM
1

From my personal experience there are definitely more misogynists within in the men's rights movement than in general (as a %). For example, I help out at a men's shelter in my city doing some work for them and they get a few volunteers that help from time to time. You would probably be surprised at the number of people they have asked to not come back because of the stuff they say. Obviously it's not everyone, there are lots of people who genuinely want to help, but it's definitely a surprising…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 09:02 PM
-1

The first line of the article: A woman is facing fierce backlash on social media after she tweeted that she felt 'violated' when a man used a gender neutral-bathroom while she was in it. Followed up with: The woman received so much backlash, she ended up making her Twitter account private. However, people had already taken screenshots of her tweet, and they have since been shared on Reddit and Imgur, where she has received similar criticism. She received huge amounts of criticism for it and noth…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 08:07 PM
1

It's not, and why you instantly turn to some sick fetish because it's a woman needing to be beat up this time speaks more about your insecurity than anything else. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You wished someone would have grabbed her by the neck and assaulted her. This isn't the sub for that, it's about men's rights, not fantasies where you get to physically assault someone. Also, I said that MRA's are equated with incels and misogynists. I'm not sure if you misread what I…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 07:45 PM
-4

Different person, but I'll give my perspective. It's because those highly upvoted posts show that the community agrees with the post. When it's a post that is about helping men and it receives a handful of upvotes compared to a post about a woman acting shitty that gets hundreds of upvotes, it shows that this community doesn't actually care about men's rights and it's turned into an anti-woman sub. Some other notable examples of where a similar thing happened are pussypassdenied and mgtow, and g…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 06:17 PM
3

CAn we please keep this type of stuff out of this sub. This isn't a sub for your fantasies about beating up women. It's comments like this as to why MRA's are equated with incels and misogynists and will be the reason this sub gets shut down.
/r/MensRights08/09/21 05:43 PM
-4

You think a woman going into the men's bathroom would result in the men in the washroom getting in trouble? Get out of here with your persecution fetish bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/09/21 05:41 PM
1

Mgtow talking about women is about as normal as subs like stopgaming talk about video games. But there is a huge difference about how they are talked about. For example stop gaming talks about personal stories about why the need to stop gaming, or how they stopped, or advice about what to do in their spare time. A lot of the posts are about encouragement and generally positive. I'm sure there are negative ones, but I'm not subbed there so I don't see all the threads. MGTOW was less about that, a…
/r/MensRights13/08/21 01:56 PM
3

What about FDS? That place is open misandry to the highest degree and Reddit doesn’t give a shit about that. You're right, they don't. That's called corporate hypocrisy and it's everywhere. Corporations don't have morals and don't give a shit about doing the right thing unless there is financial incentive or societal pressure (which creates financial incentive through lost revenue) to change. It's not going to change, so get used to it. Additionally, if FDS were banned, I would completely unders…
/r/MensRights11/08/21 10:10 PM
-4

MGTOW has its own set of problems, and I can definitely understand why it was banned. I subbed to it because I deal with a lot of those types of people, so it provides an insight into what/how some of them are thinking. But there were so many posts that were just about women, and very few that were positive or had much to do with going their own way. I saw many posts/comments about how women want nothing more than to steal your money, how they don't provide any value and some comments that were …
/r/MensRights11/08/21 04:55 PM
0

The post says 'women offer almost nothing now and expect more than ever'. It's a generalization that women contribute nothing to any relationship they are in. Not a specific woman, just that women contribute nothing to a relationship. That's a) a huge generalization, and b) false, and c) has nothing to do with men's rights. Let's flip that comment around and see if you have a problem with it. Men contribute almost nothing, and then are upset when they're (mistreated/left/cheated on/treated unfai…
/r/MensRights20/07/21 04:32 PM
1

What? How did you come to that conclusion? Of course men can expect things from their partners, just as women can from their partners. That's part of being in a relationship. What does that have to do with anything? You asked for an example of a comment that says women don't contribute anything and I gave you an almost verbatim comment as an example.
/r/MensRights20/07/21 03:39 PM
0

https://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/omh5c9/_/h5m4kf6?context=1000 These types of comments
/r/MensRights20/07/21 02:06 PM
-1

Yeah no shit, because it's easier to post a meme than it is to build a fucking shelter, dumbass. What? Nowhere did I say it's not. But it takes the same amount of effort to post something positive as it does to post something negative. Why are you calling me a dumbass? Are you always this hostile? For instance: if 100% of all women would stop tricking men into fathering another mans child, we wouldn't need to fight for father's rights. It's literally women dropping their side of the relationship…
/r/MensRights20/07/21 12:16 PM
-4

Sure, sometimes. But this sub is also becoming more full of threads like this (this was just one that I saw recently, and on mobile so sorry for shitty formatting, I linked the top comment because I don't know how to link actual threads on mobile) https://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/oml14s/_/h5loxkk?context=1000 This is just someone complaining. There's been a serious uptick in threads that are complaints about how easy women have it and they don't have to work because men will provide …
/r/MensRights20/07/21 04:01 AM
17

This is the type of post that I appreciate seeing on this subreddit. Far far FAR too many posts recently have had nothing to do with men's rights and have just been shitting on women who act shitty. Posts that just shit on women have nothing to do with men's rights, so it's nice to see a positive post for a change.
/r/MensRights20/07/21 02:24 AM
3

I'd have no money and have no hope of finding love. This sounds like a very naive view on life. Lots of men have jobs that they love and are married. 99% of what a woman is attracted to is personality, not money or status (there are obviously exceptions). There are rich people who are complete assholes and full of themselves who can't find love and the number of stay-at-home dads is increasing showing meaning that you don't need to have a good job to get married. Just reading through some of you…
/r/MensRights18/07/21 01:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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