TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Malthius Archive

View 1 post and 46 comments by Malthius 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)
5

Malthius/r/MensRights15/07/11 02:08 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
64

The argument for the second point can be made as "I have a right to attend this lecture as part of my enrollment in this course. If you do not remove the triggering parts of the lecture you are discriminating against me on the grounds of me suffering a past trauma (e.g. sexual assault) which is illegal. If you refuse me enrollment in the course itself because I cannot participate in some lectures you are still discriminating against me on the basis of a past trauma, which is still illegal." This…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 04:28 AM
1

Queensland is a state. USA != Entire World.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:13 PM
8

Actually, marriage isn't necessary - depending on your jurisdiction, when two people live together for long enough the same legal process for dividing property is used for married people and de-facto partners. Frankly, marriage and divorce is separate from the property settlement. Divorce and marriage don't change a relationship into a business transaction, the business is business, the relationship is the relationship.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:35 AM
1

Rantgrrl pointed out that some of the provisions of the current Family Law Act are likely to be amended that could affect the outcome of this case. For visibility, I thought I'd copy my response from a comment here. I'm not sure that it is thrilling reading, but the Australian Parliamentary Library published a digest/summary of the responses to the bill and an explanation of the contents of the bill here: It lays out each of the interest group's positions, but it doesn't really contain any surpr…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:53 PM
1

I'm not sure that it is thrilling reading, but the Australian Parliamentary Library published a digest/summary of the responses to the bill and an explanation of the contents of the bill here: It lays out each of the interest group's positions, but it doesn't really contain any surprises - mens rights groups opposes, women's rights groups say it doesn't go far enough, etc.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:49 PM
3

I bet the father won't obstruct the mother seeing her children unlike if the situation was reversed. I agree, and that is part of the point. I don't agree that its only because of the strangeness of the mother though - trying to obstruct the other parent from having a relationship with the child is an important factor in these cases under the current Australian law. The strangeness of the mother is definitely what makes it newsworthy though. :)
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:58 AM
1

I thought this one might be of interest. A few times recently I've taken other MensRights readers to task for generalising the experience in whatever state of the US that they live in to the rest of the world. People seemed surprised that in Australia women didn't automatically get full custody of children. This one is an example of how it works in Australia. The starting presumption is that it is in the best interests of the child to have equal contact with both parents and that both parents sh…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 02:14 AM
1

I'm not sure what the stats are in Australia at the moment, but shared parenting has made some very significant inroads into who children of separated parents live with, as well as the ability for both parents to be involved in major decisions regardless of who the children reside with. As for your sarcasm, I wouldn't have taken issue if you'd said "women had been doing exactly what this website suggests not to for decades and had seen virtually no ill-effect from their actions before the shared…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:42 AM
3

You clearly didn't read / comprehend the article. I can't see what possible issue you could take with it from an equality standpoint other than some sort of "they did it for 40 years, men should be allowed to do it for 40 years without women doing it to get even". All of the things in that article are mistakes for either party to the dispute - doing those things will either reflect poorly (reducing the chances you'll get the outcome you want) or cause difficulties after the shared parenting plan…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:08 AM
1

Bail is often set relative to the means of the person to act as a deterrent to absconding. Note that the man was able to make bail but the woman was not. Unless you know the relative income and assets of both people, you've got no basis for your statement.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:04 AM
3

Bail is often set relative to the means of the person to act as a deterrent to absconding. Note that the man was able to make bail but the woman was not. Unless you know the relative income and assets of both people, you've got no basis for your statement.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:03 AM
2

I got into an argument in this subreddit yesterday with someone who felt that women who are in abusive relationships are at fault because they are attracted to violent men. I don't think you can claim that everyone is completely on board with this list. In fact, see Demonspawn's comment (the second highest voted comment) regarding 'both genders can be illogical'. His response is pretty clear that far more women are illogical than men. The only choir here is the one that votes you up because the …
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:56 AM
1

I got into an argument in this subreddit yesterday with someone who felt that women who are in abusive relationships are at fault because they are attracted to violent men. I don't think you can claim that everyone is completely on board with this list. In fact, see Demonspawn's comment (the second highest voted comment) regarding 'both genders can be illogical'. His response is pretty clear that far more women are illogical than men. The only choir here is the one that votes you up because the …
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:16 AM
1

Fair enough then. I've used facts, you've called me names. Nothing more to say.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 03:30 AM
1

If a woman makes a domestic violence allegation, it will be acted on with the assumption the man is guilty. See this comment above: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i2wv5/pussy_pass_at_its_best_or_worst/c20lmt4 You call me a liar and claim that what I'm saying is bullshit, but I can cite a CMC report, based on evidence, critical of the police handling of domestic violence. "Only half were satisfied with the police response [...] officers did not take the matter seriously [...] even th…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 12:34 PM
1

The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission is an independent body that has broad compulsive powers to investigate police and other government agencies. They undertook a review of the policing of domestic violence in Queensland in 2005. Since you are an avid student of "how the 'law' works", I'm sure you'll be interested. You can read the report here: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/73653001131400781353.pdf For our discussion, I'll just excerpt this from the general fin…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 12:27 PM
2

he tried to leave once, in 2000, after a police officer managed to make her understand one day Rodney Falls would probably kill her. But she went back after he threatened her family and endured another six years of torture until, four years ago, she fought back. She went to the police, made a complaint, and they recommended she leave her husband. I guess talking to her sternly counts as 'action', so you are correct?
/r/MensRights19/06/11 08:59 AM
2

Well... I live in Queensland, and have personal experience with domestic violence and the law here, so I'm not sure how you can claim to have validity when I've told you that the facts don't support your position. The woman in the story went to the police. It is in what I quoted - "he tried to leave once, in 2000, after a police officer managed to make her understand one day Rodney Falls would probably kill her. But she went back after he threatened her family and endured another six years of to…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 08:58 AM
2

I thought it was interesting that in the news story it was reported clearly that she left her husband because a police officer convinced her that her husband would eventually kill her. I assume that was a proven fact, since it was relied on as part of her defence. So... a police officer is convinced that her husband is going to kill her... but her husband didn't seem to make it into custody and wasn't required to say "Holy fuck". My family member reported to the police that a pillow was held ove…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 08:53 AM
1

In case you are wondering why people poke at /r/mensrights ... pssvr is factually incorrect, but he gets the upvote and I get the downvote. Its not like its a flood, or I care about Karma, but it is things like this that prove what some people allege about this subreddit. (My other comment, on personal experience with the Qld Police in domestic violence matters and the facts regarding the current law in Queensland, is also at 0 points. Funny how that works.)
/r/MensRights19/06/11 07:34 AM
2

Biased police and court system... how much personal experience do you have with the Queensland Police? I had a family member report serious domestic violence to the Queensland Police, and their advice was that there was nothing that they could do due to lack of evidence. They took a police report so that if a provable assault happened in future there would be a record of contact that may help. I'm not sure where you live, I understand some US states have 'Mandatory Removal' laws for domestic vio…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 03:57 AM
2

The welfare fraud ended when she killed her husband. Also, you seemed to miss this point: But she went back after he threatened her family and endured another six years of torture until, four years ago, she fought back. This is exceptionally common in Battered Woman cases - they leave and then go back out of fear of their husband / partner. This repeats many times, leaving the woman feeling even more trapped and helpless.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 03:25 AM
3

What pushed Susan Falls to kill her husband? RODNEY Falls was a proud man - he ran his own online business, had a family and liked his home to look good. He liked to keep himself looking good, too, and was a devoted body-builder. Sometimes, to keep those big muscles hard, he used steroids. The steroids were expensive so he maintained a crop of cannabis to make a bit of extra money. On occasions the Falls family dogs would dig up his garden or damage his precious cannabis plants. He killed nine o…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 03:23 AM
12

One other thing - often those 'lounges' are used by breastfeeding mothers, and there are still some issues around that in some countries.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 01:29 PM
1

Even if I agreed with you on all your points (radical feminists would disagree with your second paragraph somewhat, and most legal academics would at least pause to consider whether the 'lack of legal privilege' really means the legal system would not benefit from at least some feminist activision in certain areas) ... I don't believe that is relevant for this particular discussion. The question was about the validity of substituting the word "black" or "jew" for "man" in a feminist's argument t…
/r/MensRights16/01/11 11:22 PM
2

Yeah, I do mean, but they were the ones who made the rules for everyone, so the point still stands.
/r/MensRights16/01/11 09:13 AM
2

When historical events continue to have an impact, it is relevant to the current discussion. We aren't talking about an apologist for white slave owners, where other races keeping slaves is possibly relevant. The question is "can I properly substitute X for Y in her argument", and the answer is (IMO) very much along the lines of what Levelate posted. Until recently, white males have held exceptional power in our society. I don't apologise to every woman I meet for that, but I am also mindful of …
/r/MensRights16/01/11 12:45 AM
0

Treating someone different for reasons based on their race IS racism, regardless of how good your intentions are. That doesn't fit with the generally accepted definition of racism (that the differences between races mean that one race is inherently superior). Obviously we are done discussing this though. You've staked your position clearly now: everyone should receive identical treatment, regardless of their individual circumstances. I fundamentally disagree, and calling me names isn't going to …
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:45 AM
1

My point is that 'this is different' (than forced racial segregation on public transport in the US) and I've repeatedly given the reasons why I believe that to be the case. I'll give one final example, but I note again that you aren't advancing any argument as to why you believe that they are the same, merely attacking me personally for believing that they are different. Australia has reasonably strong anti-discrimination laws. Until somewhat recently, Indigenous Australians were not full citize…
/r/MensRights04/01/11 05:55 AM
2

My point is actually that treating men and women differently is not sexism if it is a reasonable measure in response to some issue, and those issues may differ in different cultures. I'm against sexism, I just don't think this particular example (women only train carriages in Indonesia) can be used as evidence of sexism in the US (or other non-South East Asian Muslim/Christian fusion countries). That is why I pointed out that I think making assumptions about the existence of a single global mono…
/r/MensRights04/01/11 05:38 AM
2

Seriously, all you could see was me whining? 80 out of 110 words in that specific reply were completely on topic (on the assumption that there is one worldwide monolithic culture, or at least that Indonesia, Canada and Australia have one 'culture). Overall I probably contributed more than 1000 words in this topic before your post.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 01:48 AM
1

If you can't see the difference between making a female only train carriage and keeping all children away from all women, there isn't much for us to discuss.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 01:42 AM
1

My only purpose here was to engage in a discussion rather than lurking as I normally do, because while I think there are a lot of worthwhile issues discussed in this sub-reddit, this doesn't appear to be one of them. Getting de-railed (pun intended) by every individual time that men and women aren't treated identically (not fairly, but identically) simply weakens the 'mens rights' movement. You know how people here love to point at things radical feminists say and laugh at them? They'd do the sa…
/r/MensRights04/01/11 01:21 AM
2

Thanks for summarising my position so well: "Proposals for women only train carriages in Indonesia are not evidence of wide-spread sexism in Western democracies." I'm sure I commented somewhere that there are better things for the fundamentalists in this sub-reddit to worry about; perhaps we could paraphrase that as "Women only train carriages in Indonesia are not evidence of wide-spread sexism in Western democracies, so focus on things that are rather than being distracted by irrelevancies."
/r/MensRights04/01/11 01:14 AM
2

Go downvote everything I've ever posted if you like, I've got like 200 karma in total, so it should be pretty obvious I don't care about my Karma. I was trying to make a polite point about people downvoting comments they don't agree with rather than comments that don't add to the discussion (like yours). You might even note that after the comment you replied to, I made another substantial comment in this thread, so I'm pretty sure I'm not backing out of anything.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 01:09 AM
1

I think you replied to the wrong comment of mine, so I'll assume that you are referring to my reply to you above. I reject your position that a women's only train carriage is 'sexist' because I reject your position that women's only train carriages imply that one sex is better than another. Lets say that some of the posts here are accurate and that women on trains in Indonesia are no more likely to be assaulted by a man as a woman, and/or that the incidence of these assaults is so low as to not …
/r/MensRights03/01/11 01:25 PM
1

I'm not sure I can afford the comment karma hit of continuing to contribute here, since I seem to get downvotes for not abiding by the subreddit's hive-mind rules, but... If you want to talk about assumptions: You and I don't even live in the same hemisphere, and the OP's women only train carriages are in Indonesia, a post-colonial South-East Asian country struggling to fuse democracy, Islam and Christianity (along with other disparate cultural and ethnic backgrounds). You and I don't live in th…
/r/MensRights03/01/11 01:04 PM
1

Ok, you win. You've just presented what appears to be a serious argument that women only train carriages will lead to the internment and decimation of the male population. If there is a "Poe's Law" subreddit, this deserves to be cross-posted over there.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 12:57 PM
-1

At most, it says "Statistically you may be a threat, so you have to ride in one of the other carriages", and more realistically it says "Some women are worried about being assaulted by men on trains, and it is a public good that women use public transport, so you can pick any carriage other than this one".
/r/MensRights03/01/11 04:38 AM
-1

I've never lived through any formal segregation in that way, and yes I certainly wouldn't support segregation by race without some "very good" reason (and I can't think of one now). To answer your question though ('What's the difference?'): this isn't the sort of segregation you are discussing. There are no 'men only' carriages, and women aren't barred from travelling on the remaining carriages. I would assume that, for example, there would be seven 'normal' carriages and one 'women only' carria…
/r/MensRights03/01/11 04:35 AM
-1

It implies that some men can't be trusted in public places around women; alternatively, it implies that women in that city feel safer using public transport if they don't have to sit with me, whether or not there is any empirical evidence that supports that feeling.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 04:23 AM
3

How exactly does this degrade you? I don't assault women on public transport, but I don't feel that (if this occurred in the city where I live) this is in any way denigrating me personally or men generally. It looks to me to be a method of increasing public transport use by women that is adapted to the specific culture in which it is used.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:45 AM
0

Online surveys are meaningless, but you advance your own personal experience as relevant?
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:41 AM
5

Update: Granny dearest gets 9 months jail and probation [...] FTFY.
/r/MensRights23/12/10 12:32 AM
4

To be a 'rational' fear, does it need to be of something that has more than a vanishingly small chance of actually occurring? I'll stipulate that it's an immensely damaging thing to the falsely accused person, but so is being hit by a meteorite. I don't believe that a fear of being hit by a meteorite would be a 'rational fear'. Does anyone know of a properly reviewed study that gives some context on the actual number of false rape allegations that occur in a given population in a given time? As …
/r/MensRights07/12/10 05:07 AM
3

That's why you don't stick your mind in crazy, at least without the proper protection (I'd suggest wrapping your mind in some sex-positive feminism and lubricating with a critical theory).
/r/MensRights26/11/10 06:00 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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