TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

On_the_Cliff Archive

View 1 post and 48 comments by On_the_Cliff 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)
171

DiscriminationOn_the_Cliff/r/MensRights11/04/25 03:22 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
14

Advocates for the disabled rightly point out that some disabilities are not obvious just by looking. This is like Disabilities Awareness 101. So, what's the proof the men sitting are not justified in using those seats? https://invisibledisabilities.org/what-is-an-invisible-disability/
/r/MensRights12/07/26 12:06 PM
20

"Women and Children First" = "Men Last" It's just another way of putting it.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 10:58 AM
3

Now we know what it takes to turn Norwegian feminists into staunch complementarians: The prospect of being treated the same way men are.
/r/MensRights10/06/26 06:33 AM
22

Actual differences between the lives of women and men must be taken into account. Women make an important contribution to society by becoming pregnant, giving birth and breast-feeding. Get back to us when becoming pregnant, giving birth and breast-feeding become compulsory in Norway.
/r/MensRights07/06/26 09:10 AM
51

From the article: The economists find that college-educated women are, on average, hitching up with this top-earning tier of non-college-educated men. Of course. Further: "And what's left is a pool of non-college-educated men who are really struggling," Chambers says. "And that makes up the market of available men for non-college-educated women, which we think might be why they've seen such steep declines in marriage rates over this period." So: Non-college-educated women see non-college-educate…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:27 AM
23

In the USA about 100 years ago there was indeed government-sanctioned forced sterilization of some segments of the population. It was considered good policy at the time. It has since become regarded as a gross violation of human rights. It seems the current notion is that men aren't due human rights, because men aren't... well, you know.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 03:17 AM
14

From the about the author lines: Working toward a culture of healthy masculinity. That's always the tell: When they're concerned about masculinity, not about men.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:21 PM
1

I'm all for appreciating letting men be whatever they want to be. I'm all against permanently altering the bodies of those who don't consent to it. I don't see how any human energy can be "feminine" or "masculine". Surely anyone's personality can have a mix of characteristics? There's no benefit to defining any those ways. There is nothing inherently "feminine" about long hair. That is purely a cultural definition. Everyone ought to know they can see it that way or not. So you make some good poi…
/r/MensRights09/03/26 02:51 PM
12

With some quick web searching, here is what I found: You can’t tell if someone is nonbinary simply by looking at them [...] That is what the Advocates For Trans Equality organization says about it. https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-nonbinary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive I'll go with that.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:11 PM
24

This opinion piece about the event has some interesting lines: https://saratogafalcon.org/18768/opinion/cis-gender-men-crashing-the-2023-grace-hopper-conference-serves-as-a-dangerous-reminder-of-the-tech-industrys-gender-imbalance/ Consider: Although men are not explicitly banned from the event, the attendance policy is an honor system based on trust and goodwill. As has been noted elsewhere, banning men from the event would run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws. So: men are faulted if t…
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:03 PM
6

Nonbinary, or gender fluid. Those would be congruent with how those gender identities are described. How could they disprove those?
/r/MensRights01/03/26 05:10 AM
139

As always, women making the first move isn't even considered, let alone mentioned. Hooray for expected sex roles!
/r/MensRights06/02/26 01:32 AM
312

As Rachael Jones, 38, was led away to the cells, a judge warned that her actions could prompt men to think: 'No way am I stopping for a lone female, however distressed she looks.' Just "could"? Seeing what happened, and the vastly different outcome had Mr. Ullah not recorded the encounter, it SHOULD prompt men to think exactly that.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 01:13 PM
2

I respect every man's choice, but what it has come down to distress me. Men's contribution to physical reproduction (let's just call it sperm) is considered cheap because men have made it cheap. It can be obtained for mere money, and like this post describes, is sometimes just given away, with (ostensibly) no strings attached. Those are not the characteristics of something considered valuable. I wish men would require more before disbursing their gametes. Men aren't getting the opposite sex's co…
/r/MensRights06/01/26 02:58 AM
4

Because military conscription does not affect women, and women are not going to let it affect them. A take of "Nobody should be drafted!" in response to only men being drafted does not change the status quo for women (whether that comes to pass or not). So that's the most that they need to care about to make a show of fairness. Notice that currently by and large women are not doing anything to change public policy to make sure that nobody gets drafted. It's not an issue for them, because they're…
/r/MensRights15/10/25 06:50 AM
24

Then the next question for AOC needs to be: "How tall would Stephen Miller need to be for you to support his policies?" And don't engage in any other discourse with her until she either gives a specific height measurement or she owns that height is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights07/10/25 03:01 PM
1

I'm a Taoist with Pagan affinities. In all, I'm completely non-theist. I go for Taoism because it has only one premise based on faith alone (that there's a universal influence that pervades everything), and that's the limit of what my consciousness can accommodate. It comports with my experience. The Pagan undertone of my religion has to do with what the natural world can show me about life (and death) and existence. It helps ground me to where and when I am. To me spirituality is a process of a…
/r/MensRights27/09/25 02:27 AM
15

"Haven't met" = Doesn't exist That seems to be the premise.
/r/MensRights24/08/25 11:09 PM
11

Like I had a choice?
/r/MensRights24/08/25 11:07 PM
3

She felt unsafe. That's all that's required.
/r/MensRights05/07/25 02:38 PM
34

Completely missing from the column is any consideration of what wasn't working for men in the old paradigm.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 05:12 PM
73

In the USA about 75 years ago (pre-Civil Rights era) an "acceptable" African-American/Black person would be be described as "a credit to his/her race". So, same patronizing attitudes, same premises about the group as a whole.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/25 06:49 PM
26

“Instead of going: I’m anxious and I’m scared of all the feelings which we’re attached to, I’m like: fuck fear. I’m flipping it.” - Stella McCartney Some simple googling informs me that Stella McCartney’s net worth is around $75,000,000. Maybe her statement would make any sense to me if I were as wealthy.
/r/MensRights21/04/25 03:00 AM
27

How heartening! Now little girls everywhere can see it IS possible to be a feminist AND have an uber-wealthy, highly politically-connected fiancé. Shoot for the stars, ladies.
/r/MensRights17/04/25 05:28 PM
12

Men are [...] not discriminated against on the basis of being men. That's the foundational premise of the entire essay, so take it for what it's worth.
/r/MensRights09/02/25 12:35 PM
11

Bingo. What really brought it home for me about ten years ago was reading a waiting-room magazine (Real Simple, if I recall) article on how it was possible for you - yes, YOU, dear reader - to pull off a sabbatical from your busy career. (You CAN convince your company to give you those five months off to explore the world - just show your HR department that it'll make you a more valuable team member when you return! Who knows - the CEO has possibly taken a sabbatical himself, so he'll probably u…
/r/MensRights07/02/25 02:00 PM
2

So... having to work to earn a living is stressful. Gosh, who knew? Wanting to avoid it doesn't make anyone particularly special. Being able to avoid it is a... what's the word here? Oh, right: privilege. To each their own. But it IS a failing of human culture if all competent, able bodied adults aren't interested in supporting themselves. If nothing else, I appreciate the article for giving me my heartiest laugh of the week by introducing to me the term "stay-at-home-girlfriend".
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:12 PM
5

Was it ever a consideration if the man in question was "ready for" losing a limb from being forced to fight in a war? Don't count on it.
/r/MensRights05/08/24 03:06 PM
3

Ms. Bairachna, who often travels outside Ukraine, said she had been struck by the dual reality. “Why do our men have to suffer so much when women can just go abroad and have a martini in Milan?” she asked. Because... The PatriarchyTM always oppresses women and favors men? Isn't that the only acceptable answer?
/r/MensRights05/08/24 02:34 PM
1

My answer would be: "Oh, I had my earbuds in - don't you know that means I don't want to have anything to do with you and that you shouldn't even try to get my attention?" Anyway, she's made her choice: the bear can come to her defense.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 07:18 PM
3

Concerning that third point, lest anyone forget: "Usually it was expected that blacks would step off the sidewalk when meeting whites or else walk on the outer street side of the walk thereby 'giving whites the wall.' Under no circumstances could a black person assume an air of equality with whites." from "Racial Etiquette: The Racial Customs and Rules of Racial Behaviour in Jim Crow America" By Ronald L. F. Davis, Historian California State University, Northridge
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:20 AM
2

A word that literally does not show up anywhere in the article: "women".
/r/MensRights04/04/24 02:07 AM
3

That's a really big flip from "our behaviour" to "a man". The rank generalization is staring us right in the face.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/24 11:34 PM
3

Yours is the perfect take. I don't know if this is a new thing for Planned Parenthood in some areas, but they're where I got mine here in Texas 20 years ago. (I often say it's the most cost-effective $300 I ever spent.) Anyone considering getting a vasectomy needs to leave the concept of "reversible" out of their deliberations. Count on it being permanent. For some men, that fits the bill. You'll have to be sure you want to never biologically reproduce from that point on. And if that's you, gett…
/r/MensRights04/03/24 06:22 PM
6

Once again, a swing and a miss by those who think their ideas will help men. The tell is that their primary concern is with "masculinity". Not with men's liberation, but with masculinity. Do the feminists ever reflect that their project to advance womens' lives was always more about releasing women from obsolete arbitrary social roles and restrictions than it was about what kind of "femininity" women should have? Show me ANY feminist literature from the past 55 years that puts considerations of …
/r/MensRights11/01/24 02:21 AM
2

What will happen once the science confirms it definitively? That's one big unfounded assumption.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/23 02:46 AM
21

Earlier in the week, the organization addressed calls to ban men from the conference by saying that "male allyship is necessary" to work toward overall inclusivity and also that federal law prohibited discrimination based on gender. Wasn't it feminists decades ago who pushed to get just such a law enacted in the first place? Well looky what happens. Thrive by the federal anti-discrimination law, perish by the federal anti-discrimination law.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 03:35 AM
67

Let's all say it together: "Men don't owe you protection." Repeat as necessary.
/r/MensRights08/08/23 04:58 PM
7

And if that "The Problems of Modern Women" article was 90% concerned with women's femininity: what sort of femininity should women have, and does there need to be a New Femininity that takes all the good, traditional, aspects of the femininity of the past and incorporates them for the benefit of male/female relations... Honestly, describing such an article makes it sound like something written in 1973 by a stodgy middle-aged man (picture anyone from the Nixon administration) trying to figure out…
/r/MensRights21/07/23 03:21 PM
57

She's putting an extra condition (one that benefits her, of all surprises) on having a relationship with you. In other words: you, as you, are not of sufficient interest to her. I suggest you return the regard.
/r/MensRights19/07/23 04:58 AM
2

"Even if they couldn’t name those principles, fathers used to guide their sons toward these things by assuming roles such as protector and provider." It's nothing but urging us men to the same old expected social gender roles. This is no sort of liberation for men. I'm pretty new to these men's forums, but from them I have learned something valuable to know, that keeps getting proven every day: Women have had their movement to free them from their gender roles - and their successes in that were …
/r/MensRights19/07/23 03:54 AM
7

When feminist women were figuring out how to throw off their socially-assigned gender roles, they didn't ask themselves: "How can I improve my femininity, even if it means defining what a New Femininity could be?" They rightly saw that as irrelevant; it was never the issue. So it is with men now. What are the social gender roles we're expected to live up to, and do they really benefit us? Raking over what is or isn't "masculine" is irrelevant at best, and a misdirection at worst.
/r/MensRights11/07/23 06:57 PM
12

Feminists have a current mantra: "Women don't owe you pretty." They're right about that, of course. Men need to draw analogous lines in the sand: "Men don't owe you provisioning." "Men don't owe you protection."
/r/MensRights11/07/23 06:47 PM
26

“[...] a list of characteristics she has decided, with the help of her Twitter followers, are typical of men when they are at their best. It includes things like [...] ‘protective’” Protective. We're supposed to believe this is new, liberating thinking for men?
/r/MensRights06/07/23 01:31 AM
2

"At least five people have been sentenced to death [...]" Maybe they ought to also count how many of those people are women. How striking that they didn't say.
/r/MensRights22/11/22 02:14 AM
1

It stops being purely a friendship situation once doing anything only in exchange for money gets involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/22 04:20 AM
2

Exactly! This is why patronizing prostitutes never held any interest for me. I'd always be thinking: "She wouldn't be doing this if I weren't paying her." (And a fair enough choice on ANYBODY'S part to not opt to have sex with me. In fact, that's the current take of the vast majority of people.) And that's not a sexual interaction that interests me. Also: It'd be an explicit valuing of my contribution to a shared sexual experience as being, in an of itself, worth absolutely nothing. Again: Fair …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/22 04:15 AM
1

Right? There's too much conflating of "masturbating" and "watching porn" going on. Neither one requires the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/22 04:03 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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