TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Kerdek Archive

View 0 posts and 89 comments by Kerdek 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)
3

As though power is polarized.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:14 AM
2

A person forfeits one's ability to make clear judgements when intoxicated, and it is expected that every person should acknowledge and be considerate of that. So, one should be expected not to transgress any entitlement of a drunk person which they could otherwise wish not to have so. Reasonably, it is upon the more sober party to ensure this. You might be inclined to think that this implies absolution of drunk persons from responsibility for their actions by comparing this to the choice to driv…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:24 PM
18

Why is this a men's issue? A man or a woman would be fired for keeping playboys above their desk.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:57 PM
1

No-strings-attached.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 02:26 PM
1

Yep. Only men rape. It's also important to mention that all men need to be reminded not to because none of them quite seem to get it.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:16 PM
-3

Mmmm. Demanding that men not be expected to align with their gender role is sexist now, I see. Do you understand that this is meant to rebuke the authors of similar lists that expect as such? I'd say all's fair here.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:40 PM
7

It's ignorant of polyamorists, as a side note.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 02:42 PM
9

Twice the creativity, half the time, fifty times the production costs.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 04:22 PM
1

The way people write in this thread about women, far broader than just feminists, does not read like a backlash against unfair treatment as a result of institutionalized sexism against men being covered up by feminists. It reads like some males generalizing the behaviors and attitudes of the entire female population based on the shitty behavior of a few women in each of their pasts. I'm not saying that the stats aren't bullshit; I'm saying that attacking women or even the whole of feminists with…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 01:06 PM
1

Not a feminist. Not an MRA. I spend my time on reddit arguing with both a lot. When did I suggest a solution?
/r/MensRights18/04/12 04:01 AM
1

I mean that the female gender role directs women away from professional occupations and even from being intellectual.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 01:28 AM
1

Hence how I qualified the weak correlation with the phrase 'above the median'. Individuals with high intelligence do not tend to be in technical occupations any more frequently than those with IQ above but more similar to the mean. Where's the study on female intellectualism concluding that women are less so than men when controlling for social pressure from gender role?
/r/MensRights17/04/12 12:40 AM
1

The results seem to vary based on the type of problem, but some recent studies have found that the variability hypothesis is true for parts of IQ tests, with more men falling at the extremes of the spectrum. [10][11] In contrast, one meta-analysis found that males were slightly better at progressive matrices, while women actually had more variability. [12] Sounds not to be terribly conclusive to me except for that outliers are more frequently male. Again, though, intelligence does not correlate …
/r/MensRights17/04/12 12:13 AM
1

A wider range and greater standard deviation do not constitute a greater mean. Allow me to shift the entire conversation a little bit and focus on a problem with the discussion itself. Intellectualism is actually the (drastically) more important factor in one's likelihood to enter into technical fields, and only roughly correlates with intelligence. Allow me to amend what I said, then. Replace all instances of 'intelligent' with 'intellectual', or the appropriate form. No, I'm an agnostic atheis…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 12:07 AM
2

Either that or the fact that women in the United States were barred from those positions for a long period of time and the fields haven't equilibrated yet. Or that there's still sexism in the HR field. Heck, you could even trace it back to a lack of interest in the fields by women due to the pressures of gender roles or that women are custodial parents more often than men and may therefore be unable to maintain such a position due to their investments in their children. There's all sorts of ways…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:26 PM
2

Because biological differences don't make women too stupid to handle tasks in engineering, mathematics, business, accounting, medicine, government, and other professional occupations which do not demand physical labor and which constitute the majority of high-grossing positions. The whole biological differences argument falls right in line with reality when you look at physically demanding work which women don't even apply for as often, but it doesn't work when you're considering white collar wo…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 10:17 PM
2

It seems as though we're more focused on attacking women's activism than we are on furthering men's. The most apparent intonations of the writers here reflect an almost unnatural distrust for women.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 09:43 PM
1

Study summaries typically do not convey such statistics in an accessible manner. It's normally better to use an article citing the study. There are a number of links to Census Bureau data in the Wikipedia article from which the text was copied. I'm reading them now. I've never researched this before, and I'm not an expert, but I do know when I'm reading fishy or misleading statistics. Interpreting the meaning of stats is a good practice to be skilled in. A simple Google search yielded what I quo…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 09:31 PM
2

Even as a proponent of the movement, I sometimes can't help but think that a lot of the commenters are really butthurt over something.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 08:15 PM
1

It ought to be. Women should. Something gives me the feeling, though, that women's skills are not trusted as well as men's in these fields, and that they do not get the job as often for that reason.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 08:13 PM
6

The statistic that yields the 22 cent pay gap is intentionally misleading. It is calculated by finding the mean earnings of males and of females, then normalizing for male pay. However, there is a more meaningful statistic for real wage discrimination. It is calculated as such: For each job type, find the mean pay of male workers and female workers, adjusting for merit and tenure. Find the ratio of adjusted men's pay to adjusted women's pay for each job type. Find the mean of these ratios for al…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 08:10 PM
3

WHAT THE FUCK? Are women infallible?
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:54 PM
2

entitled*
/r/MensRights08/04/12 04:48 PM
2

Suppose she's not actually a clueless ditz. What then? In fact, I would hope you and others would make that supposition right away. See, the trouble with stereotypes is that as long as anybody takes them seriously, people are going to be unfairly prejudged. A stereotype predicts properties of a person according to one that is not controlled such as race, gender, or sex to which they do not actually correlate. Not only is it unfair to profile by stereotypes, it's uncritical.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 03:34 PM
2

If you reverse the genders then the media would have portrayed it completely differently; it may have even be written about in an ironic tone like "Lol a woman saved a man this time instead of the other way around." It'd be covered completely differently. Why should she be written about like a clueless ditz when a man in the same situation would not have been?
/r/MensRights06/04/12 03:06 PM
0

^ This shit right here is why I moved to /r/GenderEgalitarian
/r/MensRights06/04/12 03:03 PM
-2

Yes, but that doesn't make it okay to allude to a stereotype communicating that women require a man present for their own good.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 11:49 AM
3

Most women like big, strong, sexy men. They want men who are willing to put out fires, fight in combat, and, yes, even save damsels in distress. Yes, yes, continue to demand masculinity from men; there is no such thing as a feminine male. I really don't like this article. Firstly, it never actually states that she wasn't grateful. Secondly, the media has portrayed her as a typical helpless female, and that is wrong of them to do. She's justified in being upset about it. It really seems as though…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 04:56 AM
7

Seriously. The facets of ignorance in that statement are astoundingly numerous.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:13 PM
2

HA HA MEN ARE SO IGNORANT OF THEIR PRIVILEGE THEY CAN'T HELP BUT OPPRESS WOMEN.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:12 PM
1

Even one's own experience is not sufficient to generalize on unless it is demonstrably survey-methodologically fit. I would say that discourse on an experience is an anecdote whether or not it is being verbalized to another party. I, too, can offer anecdotes from my experiences in an attempt to argue things like 'all skinny men are compulsive liars', but, again, I would only be offering anecdotal evidence. If I actually believed something like that based on my experience, then I would be basing …
/r/MensRights23/03/12 01:48 AM
1

Foremostly, what I attacked was the delivery, not the individual. An insult is a personal affront, and no affront was made against him; rather an admissibly harsh and hasty criticism of his rebuttal was written. I did not and will not disagree with what he wrote; I am only unsettled by his sarcasm. That particular style of sarcasm is one of the most irksome to me, in fact. I felt that none more needed said but a brief expression of disapproval rather than an entire explanation of why I think sar…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 01:41 AM
1

I use the word dictate in a sense related to the word diction, more synonymous with the word 'explains' than with 'mandates' or 'requires'. DO: Moderate based on quality, not opinion. Well-written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. DO NOT: Mass-downvote someone else's posts. If it really is the content you have a problem with (as opposed to the person), by all means vote it down when you come upon it. But don't go out of your way to seek out an enemy's posts…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 01:34 AM
1

I find that sarcasm carries a strong tone of condescension which is not entirely polite in nature. I find it better to demonstrate a point overtly. If you want proof of my consistency, which should be irrelevant as it is an Appeal Ad Hominem, I did downvote OP and I left a thoughtful comment explaining why I think his mother's conclusions are unsupported by her premises.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 04:49 PM
3

From Merriam-Webster a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident What you've presented fits the criterion of being biographical, and is, therefore, an anecdote(s). Whether or not the forthcomingly independent women you've been involved with represent a methodologically correct sample of such women from which to draw that generalization remains to be evaluated and has low initial credibility. Such is the Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence. Granted, my gut wants to ag…
/r/MensRights22/03/12 03:36 PM
1

By the way, if you read the thread, you'll note that I've also left a comment disagreeing with OP. Don't be so hasty to assume that I'm a typical ignorant MRA, as it might be convenient for you to judge me for.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 02:28 PM
-1

I can handle reality, thank you, but the way this redditor goes about expressing his argument is utterly distasteful and excessively inflamatory. I can agree with the premise, but its verbiage is simply an unpleasant read. No matter one's correctness, one should take care to present a dignified platform. I can only hope that this comment stays buried at the bottom of the thread so that the submitter doesn't get the opportunity to incite something.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 02:21 PM
1

Just as a reminder, rediquette dictates that each post should be voted and commented on solely according to that post's merit. If you are tagging users, please continue to refrain from prejudging their posts based on the tag.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:07 PM
1

Why has it become fashionable to make 'nice guy' into a bad thing? Are there no nice guys?
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:04 PM
-1

What misogyny did he commit?
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:00 PM
0

Please, understanding the rules of a language can never elevate one's talent for expression. Plus, personal attacks don't help the issue.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:59 AM
-3

Downvote for putrid sarcasm.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:56 AM
1

My father is a cop. Yes, cops generalize. They are also the most accurate and realistic generalizations possible; it's a duty-survival technique. Nonetheless, the generalizations made here are too broad for the chosen sample.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:54 AM
3

You're evidencing this with anecdotes; you can't draw a trend from that alone.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:44 AM
-2

I wish I could agree with this, but it tries to defeat feminism without addressing very many of its core values. It's a genetic fallacy, to be exact. Mainstream feminism takes legitimate contention with the issues of casual misogyny, victim-blaming in rape cases, the difficulties of prosecuting rape, so-called slut-shaming, abortion and contraception, and this, again, totally fails to address how feminism falls short in these ways. This does, however, attack radical feminism to a reasonably thor…
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:35 AM
2

Excuse me for being unfamiliar with SA.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:18 PM
11

It's on the thread topic. The first post. OP. It's right there in the user pane. EDIT: FUCK. Is that the account creation date? I'm idiot.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:37 PM
-2

Bodnoirbabe Apr 30, 2007
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:29 PM
-4

OH, is that a post from 2007?
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:18 PM
0

It's important to note that 'men' is an interest group. So, you have to be a man to support men's interests. /s
/r/MensRights18/02/12 11:40 AM
1

Personal attacks are simply not okay. Stop it.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:09 PM
1

Are you really going to defend the stance that a person has every right to treat another with disrespect? The quote was to make it clear that slander and libel are cases of disrespectful treatment of another. I'll withdraw my claim that people have a right not to have their feelings hurt, but I still hold that each person has a right to be treated with the respect that is due to them. Whether or not happiness is guaranteed is irrelevant to whether or not a person has a right to impede another's …
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:08 PM
-2

Don't be ignorant about the wage gap and that men are seen as smarter and more capable and about social superiority.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:41 PM
1

You are an idiot. And, enough with the demeaning language. It's tacky.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:40 PM
0

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. A basic property of human rights is that no person has a right to transgress another's rights. Treating a person disrespectfully does exactly tha…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:10 PM
1

That alone expresses some very anti-social ideals.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:02 PM
1

I tried my hardest to make it such that the comment also makes sense when you change the words 'freedom of speech' to 'jizz'.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:44 AM
0

*internet high five*
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:42 AM
-1

Time for bad grammar. You can freedom of speech all you want all over any ideas, but if you get your freedom of speech onto any body who didn't want it all over them, those guise have been violated. DONT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON NON-CONSENTING PEOPLE. There lies the divide.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:23 AM
6

You can certainly call it a privilege! Problem is, its value is significantly outweighed by the loss of one's ability to handicap.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:12 AM
0

This is as etymologically ignorant as the term womyn.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:07 AM
0

Every person has an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is within no person's right to transgress that.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:06 AM
-7

This is some great trolling. AHEM As personal attacks abound in this redditor's comment, he shows very well his inability to differentiate between legally protected rights and actual human rights. It's sad that he doesn't realize that, in the United States, slander and libel are provided against constitutionally, and that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable human right; to hurt another's feelings or treat another with contemptuous disrespect is to violate that. He then goes on to demonstr…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:06 AM
-5

Dear Florian, Every person has a right to feel safe, and a right to be spoken to with due respect; if a person violates that, they are in the wrong. There are a number of things that can be said with respect that hurt feelings, nonetheless. Take, for example, the phrase "I don't really feel that way about you." In cases like that, it is up to the person whether or not to feel bad. You have a right not to get your feelings hurt, and you are in control of it as long as you are treated with respect…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:13 AM
-2

Wrong. AA is a black privilege and a hispanic privilege and an orphan privilege, and a privilege of a few other groups. There is no such thing as a non-privilege, so you can't say that it's a white non-privilege. It is a privilege of everybody that fits the criteria for assistance.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:11 AM
-9

Wrong. Verbal abuse is wrong. Florian also should not feel bad, because she(?) is not being attacked. The OP is attacking a claim, not a person, not women. Every person has a right to feel safe, and a right to be spoken to with due respect; if a person violates that, they are in the wrong. There are a number of things that can be said with respect that hurt feelings, nonetheless. Take, for example, the phrase "I don't really feel that way about you." In cases like that, it is up to the person wh…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:08 AM
-11

The trouble I have with this is that the photo is from a bygone era, and OP is trying to use it to say something about male privilege today. It's temporally irrelevant. Furthermore, it seems to insinuate that male privilege is no better than this. Unfortunately, privilege-checking is a must in a conversation about race, gender, sexuality, and the likes, and the value of men's privileges in the states is greater than the value of women's privileges, still. The MRA's thesis is that there are insta…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:01 AM
0

The reason I posted with all of them is to demonstrate to you that I've the functions of the accounts don't intersect. I've never used them to sockpuppet myself. Instead, I have used them to divide matters of differing levels of privacy.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 07:04 PM
-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/chapter_5_arguments_experience/burden-of-proof.htm
/r/MensRights07/02/12 06:36 PM
0

I try to say a lot with few words, and sometimes I go overboard and sound like I'm trying my hardest to be contrary.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 06:12 PM
1

You know that /SRS is a joke created by SA users, right?
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:58 PM
0

As a matter of fact, sir redditor, the burden of proof is on you to show that the group of "Aging women who affirmative-actioned their way through life, treated men with contempt, slept around until they weren't wanted anymore, [were] raised on a steady diet of materialism and disney-princess entitlement, who can and will likely just divorce and take half" constitues almost all of women. However, everybody knows at least one woman like this, and we all hate her. Even worse, Hollywood and televis…
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:57 PM
6

If you'd read my comment history, you'd know that I'm ten times as critical of feminism. I'm not an anti-feminist, nor an anti-MRA, but I am a Gender Egalitarian. My best role is as a commentator and critic; I try to attack verbiage and arguments that are irrelevant or unhelpful to the problem, or otherwise bad.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 04:42 AM
-3

Your bitterness is showing. EDIT: OH SHIT GUYS SOMEBODY'S BEING CRITICAL WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. Let's downvote him! Further edit: The article is profiling men. You're profiling women. It's no different; cut that shit out. Sonofabitch, do I really have to be explicit about it? The critic in OP's link was correct in every point he raised, although his tone was often excessively sarcastic. The women writers held beliefs that seemed to be a strange combination of chauvinism and misandry. It pisses…
/r/MensRights07/02/12 04:23 AM
1

Because it's totally rude to warn somebody that the iron is hot before they pick it up.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 04:59 AM
1

You have more downvotes than I have up and down combined.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 04:58 AM
5

Outcome was laughable.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 12:16 AM
-3

So right.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:39 PM
3

To add to that: Every flare-up is un-called-for. Certain ones are excusable on the grounds of emotional distress.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:37 PM
1

It is still polite to humor a person, and to listen fully if any value is to be gained.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:34 PM
2

You are correct, then. But, that still does not mean that the opinion should not go unheard.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:32 PM
1

In the forum of marriage or a committed relationship, that time is always.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:28 PM
1

I think that hearing opinions, solicited or not, is an important component of critical thought.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:11 PM
9

Number nine is reflective of a social problem. No correct help should go dismissed; it's ignorant to do so.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 09:02 PM
3

Wait, are you suggesting that ALL MRAs are just butthurts and trying to use that to justify the existence of a female-only charity and to defeat propositions for a male-only charity, even in light of the fact that most of the specific cases discussed here are legitimate cases of sexually discriminatory treatment that deserve attention? I will grant that foul is cried against women as a collective all-too-often here, but you can't justify sexual discrimination anywhere.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 05:46 PM
1

This explanation is completely evasive. It doesn't explain why men are ruled out as even potential recipients.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 05:38 PM
3

Best answer. Period.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 04:52 PM
4

I love how feminists get up in a tizzy when a man hates a woman. They seem to think that it must be driven by sexism, but it shows that they see women as infallible - you couldn't have a reason to hate them - in that the number of claims of sexism are disproportionately large compared to other cases of death wishes.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 07:38 PM
1

On a barely related note, this.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 02:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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