TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

L1M3 Archive

View 0 posts and 35 comments by L1M3 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)
5

You're 100% right, the problem is that it's a term that's just asking to be taken the wrong way. I think the word "machismo" would be a better choice, but maybe it doesn't have the same faux collegiate ring to it.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 01:39 PM
9

Uneducated is not a synonym for stupid. I am uneducated in the matter of Philadelphia state bird law, that does not mean I am stupid.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 06:00 AM
2

Ok, I'm going to try one last time to get this across. Closing a women's health clinic because you believe abortion should be illegal is a valid response. Closing a women's health clinic because it receives government funding is not a valid response. A valid response would be to take away the government funding. (I'm not even trying to argue whether that would be a good or bad idea)
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:53 AM
6

Even just defunding Planned Parenthood is a different argument from closing women's health clinics altogether. Here's an excerpt from my comment that you replied to, it seems you missed it the first time.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:28 AM
6

You're not understanding my point. they literally view it as state sponsored baby killing. That's why I said they should be educated, because while a health clinic receives money from the government, that money does not pay for voluntary abortions. I understand why pro-life people want abortion to be illegal. Again, what I am refuting is that tax dollars is a reasonable excuse to close women's health clinics. Even just defunding Planned Parenthood is a different argument from closing women's hea…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:11 AM
17

They may use taxes as an excuse, but if that's all they cared about then they wouldn't be trying to close almost all locations that provide the service and making the service illegal. Very little tax money goes into abortion procedures, and places like Planned Parenthood offer numerous other services that are nothing but positive. I'm sure you agree with most of that, I'm just refuting the pro-life argument you posited.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:42 AM
1

The YouTube channel CGPGrey has a good video about it, but basically when you get one vote per person and the winner is the one who gets the most votes, people are going to compromise and vote for the person who is the most likely to win that they hate the least. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party option, and many believe this split the conservative vote and caused Bill Clinton to win.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 03:55 AM
9

It could have to do with level of education/licensure. A woman doesn't need much to be considered a potential babysitter, pretty much any woman above a certain age would be at least considered. There will also be more women desperate to make some money, so they may ask for significantly lower wages in order to get more work. On the other hand, if a man is going to try to get paid to be a babysitter then he is likely going to get some form of official license or certificate in order to counter pr…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 12:57 PM
32

If a woman is made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a man, the man is asked to leave. Why isn't the same true the other way around? If a man even admits to being uncomfortable by the mere presence of a woman then he would likely be called derogatory names that question his masculinity. People would probably dismiss his feelings as weakness. That is how modern society regards men. It certainly is getting better than it used to be, but at the same time these men in locker rooms are expecte…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 08:42 PM
1

I think she means they stayed because they were creeps, not that they were creeps because they stayed.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:30 AM
19

It seems you aren't aware of what /r/nocontext is. He knows what nwz123 was saying. What he's doing is taking it out of context and posting it somewhere else to make it sound ridiculous.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 09:58 PM
18

The baby sloth says go on, so... The father told his son to stop and didn't tell his wife right away because he thought it was taken care of and he didn't want to embarrass his son unnecessarily. However, the son didn't stop and the father had to tell the mother, who was mad it wasn't immediately brought to her attention. Then the mom confronted the son, who denied everything, and the mom turned on her husband, going so far as to accuse the father of being the one who molested the dog. They sepa…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:13 AM
14

I think he's trying to say that it would be sexism because you're assuming that girls are so weak that they could never deal with being hit, and therefore it's misogynistic. It could be considered sexism, but I don't think it's either misogynist or misandrist. Misogynist would be saying to never hit a girl/woman with a closed fist but only with an open hand, and a misandrist would say that a man never has the right to hit a woman because men are aggressive and cruel and if we let them hit women …
/r/MensRights05/07/12 08:34 PM
3

So apparently the judge thinks the daughter may be lying about having lied in the first place? And there would need to be a new trial to determine if she was really molested? I guess that kinda makes sense....
/r/MensRights07/04/12 09:24 AM
10

Here's something I've been considering: people assume boys are less victimized by statutory rape because boys are supposed to want it and enjoy it. However, could it be that this very attitude make boys more vulnerable? Because they might dismiss discomfort leading up to the actions as normal nervousness and/or being a "pussy" or "wimp"? Perhaps they tell themselves that this is what they are supposed to want and that this is how men act?
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:30 AM
2

Very well put. Overall I think the criticisms used against comics are much more than they deserve; over sexualization is everywhere. But, as you said, comics are opening up to a much broader audience, which is a good thing, and pretty much needed for the industry to grow. I'm sure that those who make the comics are just as, or even more, resistant to dramatic changes. I bet they'll be able to find a nice balance, if it's needed, without losing the classic feel.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 01:52 AM
0

I think the big difference between comics and Bond films is that comics are still associated by many as things for kids. And I would say that when the average adult thinks of Superman and Batman they would think of the movie versions as opposed to graphic novels.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:18 PM
0

I agree that's it a stupid generalization. But it does happen.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:14 PM
1

You're probably right from a general standpoint, but lately I've seen a lot of articles talk about it on sites like Cracked and IGN.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:11 PM
-6

I think its fueled by a desire for comic book nerds to have their favorite medium be seen as genuine, worthwhile art with cultural value instead of a teenage male sex and power fantasy. They feel like things neednto change for comics to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 07:46 PM
1

If anything I think boys may need the protection even more than girls sometimes. Teenage boys are so full of hormones that there's absolutely no way for most of them to have the willpower to say no.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 06:43 PM
7

Here's how I would rephrase it: "Am I wrong? The whole thing made me sick. I would never be abusive but a couple times her mother pushed me around the house, and this attitude that only men are abusive makes me ill.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 10:24 AM
1

Well, mostly just trying to make sure people know this. Ever since I discovered this fact a few years ago I have a habit of bringing it up whenever anyone mentions statutory rape laws simply because i want people to realize that it's not just 18 everywhere. However, yeah your point is a good one. Especially when someone under age conspires to have sex and gets someone else into trouble.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:16 PM
1

Do cases like these even go before a jury?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:45 AM
2

16 is the age of consent in 33 states.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:43 AM
2

I misread this at first as well, but the story says she is "a girl under the age of 17" Texas also has a 3 year age difference rule, so the girl must be 15.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:39 AM
5

17 is the age of consent in Texas, so it is a big deal that is under 17. There's also a section stating that the age difference must be more than three years, so this girl must be 15.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:37 AM
1

This happened to me and my friends as well, in 4th or 5th grade. But we just had to have recess suspension.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 07:40 AM
6

This is in British Columbia, Canada, not Washington state.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 04:15 AM
12

Don't they have to have a paternity test done?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 11:01 PM
5

Near the end the article says men should care about closing the "wealth gap" just as much as women because men should not be the only provider. The direct quote: Chang argued that the wealth gap is not a “women’s problem.” Men should care about decreasing the gap not only because it affects the economic wellbeing of the women in their lives, but because they should no longer bear the sole burden of providing financially for their families. Well, that's great, and I'm all for that, but maybe we c…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:51 AM
14

A million times this. A person makes the conscious decision to get so drunk that they behave in ways they might not partake in while sober. And if a drunk man has sex shouldn't the woman he sleeps with be guilty of rape? What about with two men?
/r/MensRights13/02/11 07:11 AM
2

Right. Except the clitoris is 99% internal with a network of internal erectile structures as large as a penis. Right. And there's a theory that the clitoral nerve can be stimulated from inside the vagina. This is commonly referred to as the G-Spot. But without the clitoris there isn't much you can do to stimulate the nerves as compared to having the clitoris there. And I know what the difference between the glans and the frenulum is, thank you. I was phrasing it plainly. And the underside of my …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:00 AM
1

Except the clitoris and the penis are basically the same organ. Every baby starts out as a female, and when a Y chromosome is present what would be the clitoris develops into the penis. Also, removing the clitoris will likely eliminate a woman's ability to orgasm. Meanwhile, circumcised men orgasm just fine. Also, just to point this out, the most sensitive part of my penis is the underside just below the frenulum (aka the head). And I don't know for sure, but I think this would be covered by for…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:55 PM
-3

The problem I have is that circumcision is compared to removing the clitoris, which isn't true. Removing the clitoris is akin to removing the entire penis. It makes sense to me that circumcision would have benefits for people living in dry, sandy areas where sand could get under the flap of skin and baths aren't as easy to come by. And it's probably not nearly as beneficial for the Americans most likely to do it as it might have been way back. But hey, kids might not want booster shots, and thos…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 11:37 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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