TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PimHazDa Archive

View 2 posts and 70 comments by PimHazDa 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)
2

HealthPimHazDa/r/MensRights01/02/21 12:10 PM
1

HealthPimHazDa/r/MensRights08/05/21 01:55 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Lol walking around with a puffed out chest is weird for anyone to do regardless. Side 11
/r/MensRights16/01/24 11:24 PM
3

I always find it so strange how people dismiss how shallow some (often straight) women can be. Like people know of this behaviour but just say the men who make it aware are just Insecure. Though there are a lot of men Insecure about their heights (me included but for ethnic reasons), it's not helped by these women. And this whole thing is even more strange by the fact that the same people saying that men are overreacting to this height shallowness, are also who find the ick trend shallow or biza…
/r/MensRights16/01/24 11:21 PM
2

Okay, so offmychest, antimensrights and rape, were the main ones right. The first one isn't feminist so that's strange, the second is a given but rape I think is hainess to ban if you wish to contribute your experiences. Also you still haven't answered my question.
/r/MensRights16/01/24 02:26 PM
101

what's the bet they're all 'wine moms' living off their husbands also?
/r/MensRights16/01/24 06:52 AM
1

But isn't this literally men's rights advocacy? How does misandry not exist alongside the social expectations that men must work hard and gain power? That men are dispositionaly affected by the exploitive powers which socially force us into harder labour and dismis out concerns and mental and emotional health. Men are constrained by the same societal pressures as women although expressed in separate ways. Feminists' comments on the patriarchal systems which had oppressed them a lot of the time h…
/r/MensRights16/01/24 03:08 AM
2

Sorry I couldn't find anything outside of terfs muting people from r/askmen, do you have a link? Also you're evading my question. I think it might be that certain behaviours outside of men's rights advocacy in it of itself that may be why you're getting muted. What are those other subs that you're a part of which you said got you banned/ muted from feminist subs?
/r/MensRights16/01/24 02:38 AM
0

I do participate and have still never been banned from any feminist sub. What are the other 'some subs' you are talking about?
/r/MensRights15/01/24 11:47 PM
0

What other subs though? I'm fairly acquainted with reddit, I've been here for over 3 years. Idk what "some subs" you're referring to but I'm sure they are fairly unoffensive right?
/r/MensRights15/01/24 02:02 PM
-49

None really, mods review what posts you make and being anti misandry is only an issue to gate keeping feminists and some terfs. The only reason you guys might not be allowed in relationship advice or lgbt subreddits while part of this one would be if you were posting homophobic or abuse advocating stuff.
/r/MensRights14/01/24 01:34 PM
1

Listen in incels can get extreme, it's important that they're who are giving us that bad wrap. Though many women's caution is demeaning and exaggerated it does really affect us as much as the repercussions for them.
/r/MensRights11/01/24 11:04 AM
1

LOL My morality; you're literally making your comments unreadable in order to circumvent the sub's tenth rule. Also, you can be both anti misogyny and anti misandry, they're not exclusive. I care very much about the systems that affect men disproportionately. Helping men affected by unfair social expectations, biased custody cases, childcare financial abuse, and stigmas with reporting abuse is for the most part progressive. I'm fairly unveiled about wanting change and equality in these systems. …
/r/MensRights07/01/24 10:19 AM
1

I spelt one word wrong, are you good??
/r/MensRights06/01/24 01:25 PM
1

I would see it as fair, cooking is an important skill for people, putting like 10 cloves of garlic in dish for 2 is insane. To claim that she would be hysterical when asked to cook is an unwarranted assumption. I highly doubt most women can't do a sit up mate. The ick trend is definitely controlling but I don't think you're critical of it with the best intentions. Why are you bringing the military into this? Buzz cuts are a very dull style, and sure men can absolutely look great with one but it'…
/r/MensRights03/01/24 01:31 AM
1

Man doesn't understand portions, fair He had a go He ran in running short, omg so weird Sit ups are easy but it's still odd to find off putting Buzz cuts are disgusting but that's really controlling They're stereotypically pretentious but being educated is a good thing Umm just buy from independent vendors, actually understandable Lol that's long, still odd to be mad about I hate slow walking people, I get that The ick trend is so manipulative and controlling. That tik-toker with the 200+ list o…
/r/MensRights02/01/24 08:19 AM
-2

That editorial is kinda stupid and fairly bigoted. All gay content is separated onto a completely different situation that you have to seek out yourself. I don't see why it's being so passive on 12 year olds watching porn in general, that's weird, weirder that they care about trans porn. Also the piece in general is somewhat unrelated to the topic of white men and emasculation in porn. Tuba Guy is right, porn production companies make what they know people like, and to be broad they will make it…
/r/MensRights02/01/24 04:16 AM
1

I think it's mostly the trend of whiteness being the assumed "category", and women also tending to be the focus. So if you look up a certain position, relationship etc. the site will assume you're looking white actors unless you have interacted with the algorithm enough for it to suggest different. And since porn focuses on women as it targets men; when you look up an ethnicity it will assume you're searching for the women's. So white men being emasculated through porn is an unintended result of…
/r/MensRights02/01/24 03:52 AM
1

I don't think many under 25 year olds are divorced with children for there to be step parents amongst them.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 06:18 AM
2

The point is that the issue is with the what demographic is perpetuating these issue but the total population of them. The post is saying that others claim the issue is with 'all men' ever, but in actuality claim is with those involved in causing the issue are 'all men' within.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 07:50 AM
-5

I think op doesn't get that the issue isn't the what percent of the population are perpetrators, but actually what percent of perpetrators are who. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of reported assaults are committed by men against women. Now I know that number is definitely skewed due to the taboos of men appearing weak, but although these men only make up 0.2% of the total population; they are in the vast majority in the population of perpetrators.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 01:19 AM
1

I reckon it's toxic behaviour either way, definitely not as exaggerated as this article. I've seen plenty of women do the same as this post describes. They even call other girls dirty for not doing the same. I know someone who told me she wouldn't date bi women because they are tainted. (She also said that being bi was made up to not cause others alarm for being gay). Swearing off women because none like you also sounds incel like, but like cmon
/r/MensRights10/08/22 09:51 PM
1

I reckon it's toxic behaviour either way, definitely not as exaggerated as this article. I've seen plenty of women do the same as this post describes. They even call other girls dirty for not doing the same. I know someone who told me she wouldn't date bi women because they are tainted. (She also said that being bi was made up to not cause others alarm for being gay). Swearing off women because none like you also sounds incel like, but like cmon
/r/MensRights10/08/22 02:39 AM
2

I'm pretty sure the joke is that it is a girl they circumcised. Dgmw still weird either way
/r/MensRights17/05/22 11:20 AM
1

Wait I read your comment wrong then, Idk I am not a lawyer
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:05 AM
1

That's what I am saying
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:04 AM
1

That's a contradiction, I'm saying it can be used as evidence in court, but it usually only to show someone may have a hypocritical claim, if for a trail it can't be used as such as it doesn't provide proof, usually the evidence is there to prove it.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 10:59 AM
0

Yes, but it doesn't provide proof. Idk ask someone in law
/r/MensRights17/09/21 10:12 AM
1

It is a statement usually, but they separate the two because when someone makes a statement in a court it's a claim
/r/MensRights17/09/21 10:02 AM
2

No, statements in a court setting are what are trying to be proved or disproved. I think you mean testimonies.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 09:46 AM
2

Like what countries?
/r/MensRights17/09/21 09:31 AM
1

boi i am not going to, stop, idc
/r/MensRights28/08/21 11:18 AM
1

dude, I am not going to argue with you, all I am going to say is that "on the basis of the equality of the sexes" contradicts your statement. I am not going to argue equality with a sweaty who doesn't think proper feminism stands for equality.
/r/MensRights28/08/21 07:50 AM
-2

I really don't need to prove it, it's the whole reason it exists. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2017/03/08/what-is-feminism-and-why-do-so-many-women-and-men-hate-it/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjA8qLUudLyAhXRW3wKHa-KDJ0QFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3sFEDu79woKUYxSbEOW9JZ&ampcf=1 . https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism&ved=2ahUKEwjA8qLUudLyAhXRW3wKHa-KDJ0QFnoECAMQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1lgXrRR2l…
/r/MensRights28/08/21 12:27 AM
0

Yeah true feminism involves men's rights. The idea centres around equality, so these women know that they need to improve certain things for men as well. But there seems to be a bunch of instances where people both use men's rights or feminism to target the other gender as oppressive or horrible.
/r/MensRights27/08/21 11:47 PM
3

I guess they can have a say, but it doesn't become that simple. I think if either wants to keep their biological child they have the right to, but either should have the ability to civilly disclose the outcome, both should be entitled to being able to keep or not a kid, if neither want it, easy case. But if either the man or woman wants to keep it they should be given the ability to. One shouldn't prevent the other from having the child if they want it. And if one wants to not keep it they shoul…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 12:46 PM
53

How is helping people with mental illness have anything in relation to oppression against women. These protesters make me sick to my core, one of the worst displays of human indecency I have ever seen. How could they even called themselves SJWs or ERPs if they pull shit like this. If the situation was for anyone else than these people would back it, but once you make it about those most likely to kill themselves, you shut it down because it is designed for men. Whatever happened to the 90s femin…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 11:40 AM
2

this reminds me, a few of the states in the USA have a law that legislates that a woman after becoming pregnant may state someone as being the father. And that man is required to take a DNA test or except paying childsupport if absent, even if they are not the actual father or met the woman. I really remember the specifics, but if you want to show similar or that law you can, this is all I can really contribute in terms of this.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 10:44 AM
1

going it both ways, this is sickening
/r/MensRights13/12/20 09:54 PM
1

Who would have thought we were contrasting in what we have said? "During this time, two main political groups formed, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies(1867) and the Women’s Social and Political Union. (1903)" cmon, the 'imagine' bit no matter, could we agree it was to seek attention to the suffragettes No shit that your point from earlier was not just invalid, but what you have been doing. you said; " Of course they didn't, they were chained up at home. "
/r/MensRights01/12/20 12:29 PM
1

that was the chemical structure, not its form, but the double helix, they were different instances, Rosalind Franklin had nothing to do with Francis Crick and James Watson
/r/MensRights01/12/20 12:14 PM
1

Try 6/118 in actual maths. Including Natural undiscovered elements. Though what you said does sound correct. Science can be restricted by law and men though. WTF- Bruh Seriously? ethos means morals, pathos means emotion. " If it had been left to women we would still be sewing animal skins together using bone needles. " my point but I have and you just can't think of a way to disprove it, which I am still waiting for
/r/MensRights01/12/20 11:58 AM
1

leaving out context again " But this photograph was not taken by Watson, nor by Maurice Wilkins who showed it to him. It was the work of Ray Gosling, a PhD student supervised by Rosalind Franklin. And Franklin had certainly not wished Watson to see this photograph. "; this is referring to the DNA sequence, an image of their model. https://www.sciencehistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/rte_full_width/public/watson-crick-dna-model.jpg?itok=Qa7645Jc 'It turns out, with a little searching' you wi…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 11:43 AM
1

actually, I was wrong about the date, 1880 was when Emmeline Pankhurst joined, she was their leader until she founded the 'Women's Social and Political Union', but the women's suffrage movement began in 1867, and began their movement for votes for women in 1880. The suffragists were members of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and were led by Millicent Garrett Fawcett during the height of the suffrage movement they were from 1890 – 1919. To be honest I thought they were ma…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 11:27 AM
2

that was the structure of DNA, not their double helix, which Rosalind Franklin discovered. Basic physics would have you know Marie Curie discovered the Theory of Radioactivity. She and her husband began investigating the phenomenon recently discovered by Becquerel. The Curies extracted uranium from ore and found that the leftover ore showed more activity than the pure uranium. This would also prove the discovery of half-lives later on. Florence Parpart was the creator of the electric refrigerato…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 10:54 AM
1

1903 was when the suffragettes became the 'Women's Social and Political Union', they began in 1880. Do you have proof of that claim; "So did women.", yes they may have been disgraceful and some women wouldn't want to run a risk of involvement or association, but the only women who would see low of them would be women of prestige. I am taking of working-class women having their children claimed as they were thought to be unable to care, this ramped up when the suffragettes caught wind. Here is a …
/r/MensRights01/12/20 10:26 AM
1

Bruh
/r/MensRights01/12/20 10:05 AM
2

That is a sexist non founded remark, where is your evidence for such a claim.I would think progress would be at the same rate.
/r/MensRights01/12/20 09:21 AM
1

In history, the sufferage movement most associated with the suffragettes were the women, and those women were fighting for their vote, does it make it invalid if they did so afterwards, I would say not, and as men did have a long time to fight, the 40 years the suffragettes were around for the vote is considerably longer, much more than the men's 10. Emily Davidson was indeed an attention seeker, the reason for the suffragettes' distancing from her is, from what I have already said, those of pow…
/r/MensRights01/12/20 05:35 AM
1

so does it make it invalid if it 'suited' them, I guess then black rights don't count since they were concerned about it only suiting themselves. the voting law mandated in early 19th century was it if you owned your own land, which yes did not reach the majority of all people, but the universal manhood suffrage ended that in 1884 with the third reform act. So what if those who were under landlords couldn't vote until then, does that take away from the fact that women were left out, no. And for …
/r/MensRights01/12/20 05:08 AM
2

non-reflective glass, for modern glasses, fibre 5 in kevlar, electric fridge, the theory of radioactivity, DNA double helix, modern syringes, Ada Lovelace's algorithm, radium and polonium, women are just as capable as men.
/r/MensRights01/12/20 04:52 AM
1

I try to not hinder you but this reply you wrote is an example of it, being hostile isn't a bad thing, it is just an attribute. and the fact you choose to not read further afterwards makes me worried over the lack of help you are having yourself receive; if necessary. Sorry that I am trying to assist you.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 05:27 AM
1

Women do make themselves look weak, to get out of menial labour as young adults and teens, grow up mate, a point the suffragettes had was that they were strong and smart enough to vote: though their actions convinced otherwise. prior to and still after the suffragettes, women were to work, pay tax and serve under the crown, yet couldn't vote in democratic systems as men could. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_franchise_in_the_United_Kingdom_1885%E2%80%931918 http://www.nationalarchive…
/r/MensRights30/11/20 05:05 AM
1

they were gaining attention in order to have people know of their cause. they were the ones to get the ball rolling in order to have more equal rights among society concerning women. none is a generalisation, it can be used to sum up that close to everyone is not. also what is with your whitewash hook, they were the majority and race had nothing to do with their stance, I have explained of how then, England was filled with white people, the fact that they were has nothing to do with the issue. B…
/r/MensRights30/11/20 04:50 AM
0

What? you may think it but my priority with the more recent posts have been to inform you of solutions, help does exist, and that fact you are so hostile to the idea of that is frightening, there are helplines specifically for men and for their abuse and recovering from accusations. there is no risk or chance taken from getting help, it is there, in fact, to help you not get screwed over. there is no need for sacrifices, we only leave those of harm, please see there are alternatives other than s…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:49 PM
3

it is so sad that this is true, apparently being "woke" is better than not being sexist. "It's not sexist if it is towards men" right?!
/r/MensRights29/11/20 01:03 PM
1

help does exist, in shrinks and lawers and gatherings and much more. but optimism is more than what is to come, it is about the now as well, I wish for you to see that. yes, domestic cases screw men the large majority of the time, but you can persist and you can appeal for change and advocate an official who will have it come about. my initial main point at the start was to have all genders included and not entirely separate, to show that men are not "wife beaters" and to help men be more open. …
/r/MensRights29/11/20 01:00 PM
1

your life would not be ruined from seeking help, the connotations from the comments from earlier were there due to sexist like points, but you are clearly just weary and cautionate, which may be contributing to pessimism or hostility, I wouldn't exactly know. My latest replies are telling you to seek help and not avoid all women, it would beneficial to seek help instead of "just sitting and taking it".
/r/MensRights29/11/20 12:33 PM
1

that is letting the problem continue, just as bad.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 12:11 PM
0

I mean the separation of genders in mix gendered schools.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 12:09 PM
0

I said their cause is justified, not their actions, they were "giving" it because they pleaded, not because they were just being nice. men back then didn't let women vote as it was too much of a strain on them and they were not competent to do so, and many of the additional tactics, other than rallies, were stupid and allowed those heads to say that women were as unable as they stated. Women's' arguments were that they should be doing the same as men, they had no obligation because they were not…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 12:02 PM
0

so we agree then, you care not for my point in addition, that is all?
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:46 AM
1

avoiding the problem is never the solution
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:44 AM
0

yes the court systems, particularly in America, deem to favour domestically and unfairly, to women, which does need to change. but court is still a viable option, you just need to have an extreme cause. Sorry for you and for myself and everyone one else, but court is better than nothing, better than pouting and better than not help. and the segregation point was an example, not an argument directed at you.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:34 AM
1

sorry I was generalising, would you like me to edit it to say "separation with genders in schooling"
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:28 AM
1

I do not say men should be abused, I am saying that women should not be segregated. if a woman or anyone is abusing you; take it to court, safety is your right, but also is no exclusion. I was just pointing out that your points of segregation and operating till they can behave has the same connotation as it did 60 years ago.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:25 AM
1

but shouldn't people have the right to choice?, sorry I should have said that we shouldn't have the conformity to go to a single-gender school, just that we shouldn't separate for the irony of the post or the reason of segregation as said below.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:15 AM
0

Sorry, one more thing, this is really reminding me of a 1960s racist this post, just all of it, if you replaced 'women' with 'negros'. Dude, seriously segregation?!
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:07 AM
-1

These are great points, it would seem you are right about it fitting into the terms for terrorism, but you cannot say they didn't fight for equality, though they killed a handful, you cannot say their cause was not justified. as I said I do not agree with their old tactics, but you need to also realise that that was late 19th century working England, they were punching up with peaky blind tactics, all I do not agree with. But your sentiment is off, there is no reason for segregation, would you s…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:02 AM
-1

define terrorism, none of their acts were violent, yes they conveyed their messages but none instilled terror. I do agree many of there tactics were not entirely wise, as men could pin them as idiots (being mailing themselves and jumping in front of horses); but you are definitively exaggerating their actions. and with the " Don't re-write history. " thing, don't say they were terrorists if you don't know the term, and women pressed to join the first two wars, it was men preventing women to join…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:06 AM
-1

Women should make false claims about men, or anyone, that does not mean they deserve to be separate from everyone else, that is what suffragettes worked hard to prevent, and why men's rights are required; to stop separation between genders (usually due to the efforts of modern feminisim).
/r/MensRights29/11/20 08:52 AM
-1

both parties are in the wrong, we should remove single-gendered schools, yet teach the differences in anatomy and similarities in achievement and worth.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 08:27 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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