TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PacmanWasALangolier Archive

View 2 posts and 87 comments by PacmanWasALangolier on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Our current society makes it impossible for me to follow the path of my ancestors. A hundred thousand years of men fighting back nature and building a family - all these individual achievements of human history have been crushed out under the heel of Family Court and Divorce Law. Getting married and having children is a fast track to dying destitute, alone, and bitter.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 05:10 PM
3

I have a personal theory that Feminism, in effect, functions as a criminal production engine - i.e. the net effect of Feminist social programs is going to produce a large rise in criminal behavior. You can't systematically tear apart families and eliminate fathers without some serious repercussions for the children.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 03:01 PM
9

This one event is an affront to ALL women EVERYWHERE! Somehow.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:44 PM
3

Wait, how did you see it? It isn't even out here for another week.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:28 PM
3

I'll go see it and edit my opinion later :) But I do agree this crap is getting extremely pervasive.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:21 PM
5

It is all your option, as others have said. But this is what I would say to someone close to me. It might be a bit controversial at first glance, but (I hope) it's really quite sensible if you think about it. If you're unsure or unready, and it's a new pregnancy, abort. You can always get pregnant again later at any time, when you're more ready. You'll also be making that decision without duress. Right now, you don't have clear analytical options, because you're in a position of high stress. You…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 03:55 PM
4

The industry in general does not have to force itself to conform to what a women's lobby wants. Then they'll certainly try to force it with smear campaigns and onerous laws. Sound familiar?
/r/MensRights04/11/12 04:45 AM
29

One of the comments: This article is for women who are afraid of being cheated financially in a divorce by their soon-to-be ex-husband. Hilarious.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:52 PM
8

I'd argue to those people that financial abortion would result in less sex, and more careful and/or monogamous sex if it does happen. I believe the net effect would still be less abortions overall, with the added 'less sex' bonus for religious conservatives. As in, if a couple really must be married for child support to be likely, marriages will rise and this single mom epidemic will fall.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:48 PM
19

I am extremely disappointed by many of the people commenting on this thread. They don't seem to understand the horrific slavery and punishment system in place that we call 'child support'. I think a comment I read below is a best point to respond to: But there are other factors which supercede that right. Primarily, the right of the child. The child's welfare comes first Sorry, no. This is one of the fundamental flaws in our society's stance on human rights. We basically enslave a man for the 'r…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:20 PM
2

Yes, they are now. But these effects will be long-lasting and delayed. A huge number of children are being born to single mothers now, so we'll see problems (if any) in 15-20 years.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:24 AM
3

From the stats I saw, it doesn't matter if they're in relationships. What matters is having two loving and committed parents. Step-parents aren't necessarily that. It's one of the /MR datas floating around here, I'll look for it when I get home.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:26 PM
4

Unfortunately, women on assistance (child support/welfare/alimony) have 3 times the fertility rate of women not on assistance. The overall dropping birth rate is just transforming our demographics faster. We are going to have a generational explosion of crime, ignorance, racism, etc because 40% of children are being born into broken homes, and children raised in these types of families are vastly more likely to be problematic for society.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:13 PM
3

Seems like they're just idiots to me.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:47 PM
1

Personally, I think we can improve our communications with feminists by trying to explain that men and women are inherently different. That's the other funny thing about feminism. They insist gender is completely a social construct, specifically so we can't have conversations of this type. It doesn't make any sense at all, but eh.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:26 PM
1

but why do we let bullshit get through here? Again, who is 'we'? We have no moderation and no central leadership. I agree, the movement needs much more organization. I think we first need a certain critical mass before that's a possibility. I do believe men have it in them to work together in this manner; unions are a great historical example. We just can't do it quite yet. Not when literally any prominent male can be destroyed with a false sexual accusation or other such scandal. That's what th…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:32 PM
2

I wish we were some sort of concerted group with a clear agenda and strong leadership to address these concerns, but we're not. I can't speak for people 'slandering' women, but I do believe feminism encourages and rewards the worst women. It's not unfair to say there are terrible women. There are terrible men, too. Let's say the bottom 20% of our population in terms of negative behavior. The issue is: terrible men end up in prison or financially enslaved; good men can also end up in prison or fi…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:12 PM
4

It's just a troll, dude. We have dedicated trolls who constantly change accounts and even make up whole conversations with themselves. Generally, if it's obnoxious, it's a troll.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:55 PM
6

"Even though the child isn't his, and he's burned a good hundred thousand dollars supporting a new child for four years, it's not necessarily an experience I would have spared him. Perhaps it can be a learning experience. He can ask himself: do I really need to be the biological father? Isn't a man's worth really about how much he sacrifices for women? Is there anyway I can give [the cheating spouse] more of my money and support?" /s
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:51 PM
1

I agree, which is why I think the answer might be gaining the support of rational women to overthrow what feminism has become.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:10 AM
4

Tell that to all the single mothers out there. The ones incentivized to be single mothers by the welfare, child support, and alimony systems? The basic fact of the matter is that women always have somewhere to go or some option to garner support. Men don't. Men become homeless or imprisoned. Men die. True financial hardship is solely a male burden, and solely a male social concept.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:09 AM
2

I believe radical feminism is undergoing exactly this 'justification' process. But what about normal women who lean feminist because their feelings match some of feminism's message? We can't logic our way out of the conversation, it never works.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 04:06 AM
5

I sometimes see American men as living in a carefully constructed two-part cage, thus: We must always compete, no matter what, because to do otherwise makes you somehow unworthy. Therefore we stand apart from each other and fight for dominance in a myriad of ways. It is the process that we must participate in to be counted worthy - we don't necessarily have to win it. Very successful social propaganda movements have eliminated the rewards for actually succeeding in the eternal male competition h…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 08:56 PM
1

Why should the man foot the bill? Nobody ever explains this without some sort of baseless moral stance akin to 'just because' or 'it's only fair'. Meanwhile it's completely fine for women to abandon their husbands and/or families for any reason at all, and then live posh with the man's earnings and income. The child support system does not benefit society. It has been a very large net negative. Therefore it is in nobody's interest for the man to foot the bill.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 03:06 AM
2

The man and the woman should both share in the negative repercussions that result from an action that they both did. Again, why? They didn't both 'do' anything. They both had sex, but neither was intending to create a child. That's why it's an accident. Meanwhile, all of the control and choices are on the woman (birth control, abortion, morning after pill, adoption, etc). I think this idea of shared repercussions is from some sort of sense of fair play, which is not actually represented in our l…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:06 AM
2

Goddamnit, not this garbage again. Propaganda organizations need nebulous studies that look sort of proper to justify their lobbying for money and grants. Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world look around and realize these numbers can't possibly be real, can they? They don't match my experiences at all. Well, guess what, you probably know better about your own life than any study funded specifically to support a victim narrative that generates money. Get that? They get paid based on …
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:23 PM
3

I disagree with the unstated assumptions at the core of this line of thinking. There is no 'fault'. Pregnancy is simply a thing that happens. Humans, generally, must have sex to be fully happy. That comes with a non-zero risk of a pregnancy at any given time. Fault also implies an anti-sex moral aspect that comes from religion (aka should be eliminated from the equation). Without 'fault', especially no shared 'fault', there is no reason why a man and woman should share any sort of cost whatsoeve…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:05 PM
4

Just like every other nonsense quota, it won't work out at all, and our economy will drop another few percent. People doing a job they don't want to do aren't very productive; people doing a job they aren't qualified to do are dangerous. Meanwhile, after stuffing both of these types of people into STEM fields, we'll actually be putting qualified and motivated candidates on the street. "Sorry, you're a man. We can't hire you unless we hire another woman. I'll let you know when one applies."
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:19 PM
7

It's funny that she doesn't realize everyone hates her because she's goddamn obnoxious, a liar, and a dangerous zealot, not because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:16 PM
1

If they want to slander the movement, they will - but it doesn't matter in the long term. The generation of women who buy the feminist hype about Men's Rights while living high on the suffering of men are going to have a rude awakening when their husbands, brothers, and sons end up with shattered lives. No woman is an island.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:49 PM
13

The police and professional help.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 06:06 PM
17

The most notable are the right to own land, the right to vote and birth control. While I can't speak on birth control, did you know that through almost all of history women had the right to own land and the right to vote almost concurrently with men, along with pretty much every other property and legal right? I am of course talking about poor and middle-class men. Remember that even the United States did not have voting for all males until right around the same time women got the vote. It was o…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 11:40 PM
6

It's now fairly standard practice for women to file domestic abuse charges with divorce. Typically nothing specific, just "I feel afraid", and the man is ordered out of the house. Once that happens, she almost always gets the house.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 11:33 PM
9

/MR has a huge amount of trolls from other subs who come here to make it look bad. Sounds like the dude you talked to, that sparked this post, was one.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 11:31 PM
12

More, it's the result of massive and unending feminist propaganda, the 'victim narrative'.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 02:52 PM
2

oh, true
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:34 PM
2

Right, but we're talking about general studies and statistics here, and they very specifically did not measure output in the big 77c lie. They simply took the wages of anyone who worked 35 hours a week or more. That means some under-employed women and a huge amount of over-employed men working overtime, harsh conditions, etc. Men in the same position working 60 hours a week and a woman working 40 were counted as the same, for example.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:24 PM
2

"He asked me for more" does not. Yes, it absolutely does. This is my issue with non-business people discussing business issues. The business world is a massive social network, and interactions are a big part of that. Asking for more money is a thing, and warping our society even further to somehow 'stamp it out' is nonsense. Many types of managers love forward and aggressive employees who know what they're worth and go for it. Meek people don't get promoted and don't get raises because managers …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:51 PM
2

But they're not measuring output. I'm pretty sure such a thing is impossible, there just isn't enough granularity and objectivity on such a thing.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:30 PM
1

Have to agree there. Also, I don't think feminists actually want their touted problems solved, because then their victim narrative would collapse, and the money would stop.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:50 PM
1

But not once in any of these discussions have I ever heard anyone talk about output. I think most tiptoe around the idea that highly motivated men produce more, aka it is NOT the same job just because it has the same title.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:49 PM
2

I find it strange that nobody talks about the next step. So if there is a 6% pay gap, besides the fact that it's temporary and will swing around constantly, what are we supposed to do about it? There is no cure that isn't plain worse than the hypothetical disease, because 6% is vanishingly small joke of a problem. Any widespread legislation to just straight up give women money or restrict men will damage the economy in a massive way.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:24 PM
1

This is the kind of thing that undercuts competitive business. We need self-motivated people to have incentives. If they can't get incentives because meek employees feel bad, then the entire economy will suffer.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:21 PM
3

a 5 or 7% gap based on discrimination is still unacceptably high - outrageous - It isn't, because it's not in individual jobs, it's all women vs all men. would you accept a 5% pay cut for no reason other than being male? I don't get a choice. I am already the recipient of extreme penalties in insurance costs, the legal system, family courts, divorce court, job safety, social welfare, and societal disposability. In contrast, women benefit directly from the suffering of men in all of these areas. …
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:07 PM
4

That's the 'leap to outrage' they want. That's why they state the figure. If they qualified it with 'although most of that is the result of women's choices', it would completely neuter the statement.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:40 PM
2

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-26/commentary/32859540_1_gender-wage-women-staffers-higher-paying-fields very relevant explanations of all the bad comparisons
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:34 PM
12

There are also a ton of trolls here posting just to make the sub look bad.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:31 PM
1

Still not 23%. There is absolutely no reason to ever expect such disparate groups as men and women to make exactly equal amounts.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:28 PM
4

For men and women who work 30 to 34 hours a week, women make more, 109% of men’s earnings. I am spamming this from now in response to every wage gap myth talking head. It's that perfect mix of disconcerting and disruptive.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:23 PM
3

I can see it now, "Streetgate". Build an entire brand of radical nonsense blogging around how an evil woman complimented you on the street and therefore all women everywhere etc etc
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:59 PM
3

The worst part about this is that crime statistics are derivatives of these already-biased metrics. When someone says 'more men committed a certain type of crime last year', trying to paint men as inherently more criminal, what they're actually saying is that more men were arrested or more men were convicted of that crime. As in, their statistics are already based on two or three rounds of extreme sexism and racism.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:14 PM
17

This thread looks filled up already, but here's a different perspective. There are several enormous and unconscionable threats to my livelihood. They are all legal frameworks created by feminist lobbying and defended by feminist lobbying. These frameworks warp my entire life. I can't safely get married because of onerous divorce laws and alimony laws that can permanently ruin my life and everything I've worked for. I can't safely have kids because of onerous child support and custody laws that w…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 04:28 PM
7

I believe males will be charged less, and overall the profit gain for the companies won't be that large. Possibly it's supposed to be equalized.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:51 PM
29

It is also activism purely to see society for what it is and hold these truths. Every single person who opts out of the problems going on is one more person doing the right thing and understanding what is really going on. Imagine twenty years from now, with no successes in - let's say family court and divorce court. The marriage rate will hover around 20%, that last spartan holdout from heavily Christian areas. Men in general simply won't be marrying, because the knowledge is getting out there t…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:44 PM
3

My SO and I fucking love NBC thursday nights! Up All Night hits us right where we're living every time, The Office, Parks & Rec, and 30 rock! And none of those shows use horrible gender cliches.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:38 PM
4

Sorry dude, I'm quite aware of how statistics work, and how they are being used to promote agendas. But in this case, this whole article and its studies are silly.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:29 AM
2

Nope, but correlation is not causation, as Redditors so oft repeat
/r/MensRights06/10/12 11:45 PM
5

But it is a requirement, especially here in America, where this gender discrimination is ongoing. American men are basically paying a $2k+/year 'gender tax' for being male that we cannot avoid except by giving up our jobs/SOs - not having a car here is not an option.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 11:33 PM
4

Companies that are charitable and focused on social responsibility are more likely to promote women out of a false sense of affirmative action. It is not the case that women just bring some sort of fucking magic by their mere participation. The spin on this is complete bullshit, and insulting to both men and women. Also: “We are looking for fabulous women who understand the retail produce business,” he said. There's that 'fabulous' code word again.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 09:33 PM
8

It's disturbing that this is so prevalent that 3 random dudes here have the same story within an hour...
/r/MensRights06/10/12 05:11 PM
1

Eliminate alimony. There are more than sufficient alternative options and programs for divorcees to get on their feet.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:45 PM
7

Leave the country now. Not a bad out, all things considered, as America is rather forcibly on the decline.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:32 PM
9

The last girl I slept with tried the "can't get pregnant" routine, including a sob story about how she was told she had problems with her uterus and it would never happen... and this is why I didn't need a condom. I decided to use one anyways and a few months after we broke up, she called to tell me she was pregnant. Fortunately, it's her new BF's problem and not mine but it easily could have been if I'd trusted her. Shit, this happened to me, too. Word for word.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:31 PM
11

Her actions did not warrant having her life taken. A bold statement ;) but seriously, it warmed my day to see someone make such a powerful statement, especially from your situation. We seem to have a culture of fast-food-morality, where people think the easy way out is the right choice, and make up any rationalization to excuse it... glad to see some people don't buy it.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:25 PM
3

Car insurance is required in many places, and becoming required in others. Therefore, higher rates for men become a 'gender tax', and are therefore morally reprehensible. Once something becomes an obligation and a requirement, then it must be applied evenly, or it becomes sexist.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:16 PM
2

Plaster this everywhere, please.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:14 PM
6

Hey RealQuickPoint, I hope you use this argument as well: car insurance is required in many places (and becoming more so). If you have no choice in the matter, then gendered premiums turn into a 'gender tax', making male life harder permanently just because they're male. AKA once something is an obligation by law, it must be applied evenly, or it becomes sexist.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:14 PM
19

Unfortunately, insurance has become more of an obligation, requirement, and right rather than a luxury or privilege. If you must have it (which in many places you do, including where I live) then it must be fair. Otherwise it becomes a 'gender tax'. I pay $2k more a year in car insurance than my girlfriend, just for being male, and car insurance is required, so... what? Is my life just harder permanently because of my gender?
/r/MensRights06/10/12 04:10 PM
-2

Well, they won't, because nobody does. Everyone acts in their own self-interest, even if a belief system (politics, feminism) corrupts what they think their own self-interest is. They're well aware of their hypocrisy, and they don't care, because the victim narrative works. If you could win the lottery at the expense of a group of people you considered violent and worthless, wouldn't you? Individuals can answer 'no', but groups can't, for some peculiar reason.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:10 PM
-3

It's an angry comment, but I believe that's exactly what they'll do long-term. Imagine government programs designed to house and educate men. It's crazy to think that right now, I know. Programs to encourage men in the places they're needed most (America has a dearth of highly skilled workers and it's getting worse). That across the board 'upshift' will also reduce the numbers of homeless men and pull them up into higher tiers. If a homeless man doesn't have a disability, and you take him, train…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:58 PM
-1

I believe it will. Scarcity is a self-righting problem, as more resources are poured toward pursuit of that which is scarce. It'll have to get bad, first, though - and we're already seeing that for men.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:54 PM
1

Wow, he actually had to quit? Skepchick is the worst thing that's happened to atheism and the country this year...
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:56 PM
8

This is just a consequence of the fact that the bottom 60% of men are invisible to women, as supported by a variety of research. Or, to put it another way, when women as a group describe an 'average man', their average choices fall squarely on the 80th percentile. They consider every man below the 80% mark below average. Furthermore, throughout all of history, only 40% of men have ever managed to pass on their genes (this would be the 20% of men above and below that 80% mark). For contrast, 80% …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:15 PM
2

Can someone explain who this person is?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:07 PM
-1

That was in one particular country. US elections, where feminism has a stranglehold, always favor the female candidate.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:36 PM
11

Get out from those people. & you're not an adult until like 27+ these days anywho, so keep on with your business. You've no idea how awesome that is!
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:40 AM
5

You don't even have to have sex. They can just claim that you did. You are a man, and therefore you are always a woman's whim away from jail.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:34 AM
1

The difference in sums exists, but it isn't a gap. That's what I'm saying. A gap implies that two pieces of data are on the same track or scale, but these two items (sum of women's money) and (sum of men's money) are not, in any meaningful sense, related - except for triggering misinformed outrage. Maybe my analogy wasn't correct. Let me try this one: the sum of Yen in the world, versus the sum of dollars in the world. These two things exist in the same global economy, sure, but nobody is insist…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 10:14 PM
17

This is why I'll be working hard to send my kids to a private school that has more male teachers, or homeschooling them + socialization activities. It's insidious, really. I think back on how fucking boring and horrible school was (K-12) and it's only in the last year or two, reading /MR, that I understand why I hated almost all of my classes but looked forward to gym class and science class as shining hour-long gems. Pure fun, pure interest - male teachers, male learning style. It leaves me wit…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:45 PM
16

I'm a feminist, but I hate feminists who degrade men Then you're not a feminist, you're an egalitarian.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:17 PM
3

Right, there are no differences now because they are both very far to the right. But one party is a little bit more left, and continual pressure in that direction will move everything left over time, the same way continual pressure to the right got us in the situation we're in now.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:36 AM
2

oh lol, well yes. I agree on that and the second part. All this 'litigation for women' helps nobody but that small percentage of the population who are sociopathic and prone to wielding any power they can. Meanwhile businesses suffer, gender relations are strained, it's just a mess.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:32 PM
3

That's not the correct action. Each vote for the left (currently Democrats) pushes our entire society a very small direction left. A great way to visualize this: if 300 million people suddenly voted left, the next election would be a drastic scramble to move left. Democrats and Republicans would suddenly be fighting hard to be seen as 'the most liberal'. Since that won't be happening, we have to just keep pushing left over a long period of time if we're ever to get back to center. Not voting giv…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:29 PM
28

No, it literally does not exist. Men as half the population make more because we are doing deadly things and working longer hours as a group. This is not a 'gap' in any meaningful sense of the word. It's like saying construction workers as an entire group make a sum of money that is only 40% of the total sum that all financial advisors everywhere make, and then insisting we 'close the gap'. It's a non sequitur. Neither logic nor morality find that the sums two unrelated groups make need to be eq…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:19 PM
3

It's already happening. I'm voting Democrat because the Republicans are terrifyingly bonkers; meanwhile, I'm well aware the Democrats are enablers of feminism's terrifying war of subjugation.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:10 PM
14

The wage gap doesn't really exist. In some areas, women actually make more.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 09:37 PM
2

Hah, yeah I saw that. Best thing to do is to ignore those people, though. I hate that the contentious gender feminist is always part of a long chain of comments in reply arguing with her insanity. They should just be individual comments that nobody replies to.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:17 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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