TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

QueenofDrogo Archive

View 15 posts and 56 comments by QueenofDrogo 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)
567

DiscussionQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights09/08/14 02:23 PM
71

Raising AwarenessQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights09/08/14 03:14 AM
64

OutrageQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:12 PM
19

Blogs/VideoQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights01/09/14 02:41 AM
11

Raising AwarenessQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights02/04/15 12:25 PM
9

QueenofDrogo/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:49 PM
3

QueenofDrogo/r/MensRights16/09/14 07:17 PM
2

Blogs/VideoQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights29/09/14 01:19 AM
0

StoryQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights29/08/14 07:50 PM
0

Misleading TitleQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:45 PM
0

QueenofDrogo/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:22 PM
0

Blogs/VideoQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights08/08/14 08:43 PM
0

DiscussionQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights01/10/14 05:56 PM
0

DiscussionQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights08/02/15 08:28 PM
0

NewsQueenofDrogo/r/MensRights05/08/14 08:10 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Interesting thought. Can you expand on this? Do you think the CDC is manipulating data or committing outright fraud? The methodology seemed pretty robust, but I don't have a lot of experience in this area -- is it possible that the experimental design is flawed? Although the data surprised me, I'm trying not to have an emotional reaction to it. That is such a SJW thing to do. If the methodology is robust (and I can't see why it isn't), I think it is important to reflect on what the data is telli…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:06 PM
1

I was a bit surprised too, but the methodology seems pretty legit. The study used a nationally representative random-digit–dial telephone survey to interview 14,155 people (7,758 women and 6,397 men). The questionnaire (PDF) is publicly available, and I don't see any obvious sources of bias.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:55 PM
1

Sorry for the inflammatory title! I just can't stand the amount of ignorance that is baked into conversations about violence. The CDC is a great source of statistics on this issue, and hopefully it will help to fuel logical, data-driven discussions!
/r/MensRights02/04/15 01:25 PM
1

That seems pretty discriminatory against transgendered identities. I'm just not comfortable with that type of position.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 02:32 PM
-1

That's just begging the question, though. What defines an adult human "male"?
/r/MensRights10/02/15 09:50 PM
-2

So what makes a "man", then?
/r/MensRights10/02/15 09:50 PM
-3

Does a pediatrician who advocates for Child vaccine laws have biases against adults? That seems to be the track your logic is following, and I'm not sure I am comfortable with where that path goes.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 10:49 PM
-2

Any system of values which 'normalizes' behavior on the basis of biological sex is inherently detrimental. Do you agree with that?
/r/MensRights08/02/15 10:39 PM
-2

No, I was being very deliberate to call your opinion stupid. Unless you are the living embodiment of said opinion, it was not an ad hominem attack. Guessing you aren't following the rest my argument. I agree, I am not. Mostly because you haven't made it very effectively.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 10:14 PM
-2

"Stop buying into zero-sum game gender wars nonsense" is a Strawman I fail to see how. You literally state that MRA and feminsist are mutually exclusive monikers. So, how have I mischaracterized your position? Ad hominem. Ah another fun one. Sadly, it wouldn't apply in this case, since I am deliberately focusing on dismantling your argument. An ad hominem would be if I attacked you, u/Zimbazumba, and not your argument.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 09:29 PM
-2

Is that a question directed at me? A strawman argument deliberately mischaracterizes the opponents reasoning in an attempt to avoid meaningful dialogue. Your comment seems intent on doing so. So, yes, I would characterize your thought as a strawman fallacy. It also has the element of a false dichotomy, wherein you posit either only MRA or only feminist. But clearly, as OP states there are other options. Philosophical fallacies are fun. Do you have any more?
/r/MensRights08/02/15 09:09 PM
-7

You say 'patriarchy', they say 'systematic normalization of gender roles, mostly but not exclusively to the historical detriment of women'. Get over the name. You sound like an idiot.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 08:55 PM
-8

Why? That's a pretty stupid opinion to have. Stop buying into zero-sum game gender wars nonsense. Edit, to respond to your edit: If the existence of "The Patriarchy" is the basis of your ideology then god help you. The world is a way more complex place than that. The historical normalization of gender roles (an idea that is often reduced to the term 'patriarchy') certainly exists. Do you dispute that? Yes, the world is certainly complicated. I would wager that OP believes there are a great deal …
/r/MensRights08/02/15 08:52 PM
1

I don't follow you. What has the fight for equality done to men?
/r/MensRights04/02/15 08:21 PM
1

Like, for a lot of guys their personal reputation is just as important if not more so than their personal health/integrity, or than we are more incensed by unequal treatment that just bad treatment, stuff like that. This may be heresy, but what I actually like about feminism is that it provides a nice theoretical framework for understanding how gender norms like those come to be and how they are harmful. That's why I think the whole 'we hate feminism' thing is so tiresome. The MR could really be…
/r/MensRights04/02/15 12:41 PM
1

It should advocate for women's issues though -- it is a gender equality movement. Certainly the emphasis should be on men's issues, but to ignore other gender imbalances or pretend that they don't exist seems stupid.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 12:37 PM
2

So it's a gender supremacy movement that tolerates hate speech as exemplified above? The MR is certainly about gender equality, if you think otherwise, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask why.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 12:35 PM
4

People like you at the reason feminism exists and is still relevant today. cunt Seriously? On a subreddit that advocates for gender equality, you are denigrating the female body to insult someone. I think I speak for everyone when I say, "no, you fuck off".
/r/MensRights04/02/15 01:45 AM
3

Why not? A common complaint on this sub is "feminists don't advocate for male issues". It would be hypocritical of the sub to not give thought to issues affecting women.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 01:42 AM
0

Key excerpts from the article: “Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church,” Cardinal Burke complained, “leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gi…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:12 PM
7

their rights to be bought up to those of a normal man I agree with the sentiment. I cringed at the use of the word, 'normal' however. Using words like normal are dangerous because they insinuate that whatever is not 'normal' is transgressive.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:00 PM
-2

What's wrong with English literature? Some of the smartest people I know are English majors. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that any other discipline prepares you to talk intelligently about important social issues.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 04:36 PM
-2

Um what? Also nice conspiracy theory, dude...
/r/MensRights16/09/14 08:15 PM
-1

The latter social pathology [that young black men are more likely to be aggresive than young white men]is not caused by "too much" masculinity, it's caused by the absence of proper male role models -- a product of, among other things, the mid-60s "man-out-of-the-house" government policy that paid poor women to rid the household of adult males. Did we just flash back to the sixties? That sounded an awful lot like Moynihan Report drivel.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 07:25 PM
1

I've used RES to tag you as embittered, impolite and inarticulate. Congrats on 15 years.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 04:52 PM
1

So, your argument is: 'I'm so much smarter than you that I can't be bothered to explain myself to you. Take my word for it.' You are an asset to this subreddit.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:19 PM
3

I eat 'intellectuals' like you for breakfast. And yet all you've had to contribute to this conversation is "uh...umm...apolgist!" and "no one likes feminists" and "we're mean to feminists because it works". Truly the pinnacle of argumentative conversation. I have yet to hear from you why feminists should be the object of the MR's ire when the issues most pressing for many MR's predate feminism. You're crashing into the walls of your own echo chamber, dude.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:48 AM
1

Go choke on a red pill you sanctimonious little prick. I'm not an apologist. I'm interested in real change. You just seem interested in getting your jollies off by being mean to a subset of naive, idealistic women. So go crawl back into whatever cave you came from, you troglodyte. IN general people don't mind political correctness. It keeps casual racism, sexism and other offensive stereotypical dialogues out of popular discourse.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:32 AM
1

Didn't mean to make it seem like I was calling you out specifically; I am more generally frustrated with the attitude that I see on this sub which often paints feminists as a arch-villain matriarchy and ignores bigger problems. The study looks interesting, I'll have to give it a more thorough read, thanks :)
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:17 AM
3

But that's such a myopic view on the issue, man. Who gives a shit if some ivy league women want to march for abortion rights? I'm much more concerned that my government, the one that we (men included), elected still enables forced conscription of men. I'm mad that our medical system, which is predominantly run by men, thinks its ok to mutilate the genitals of little baby boys. I'm mad that our justice system, mostly staffed by men doesn't take the issue of domestic violence against men seriously…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 12:52 AM
1

I'm not saying 'don't attack feminism', rather that there are likely bigger sources of male oppression out there that we should be targeting. The value systems that enable male oppression predate feminism by centuries, if not millennia. It just seems like a fools errand to pretend that feminists are the exclusive (or even predominant) force enabling this value system today.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 12:48 AM
2

For the sake of this discussion, I was assuming we all had a pretty similar understanding of the terms. I was more interested in exploring why MRAs spend so much time working to oppose feminism when most MR issues have their origins well before the feminist movement. I worry that we might be attacking the wrong thing.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:47 PM
0

But today it's called feminism and it's the state approved gender ideology. I think it's a great idea to remind people that something was going on before feminism came along (to combat feminist revisionist history) but feminism is the biggest target to go after. I like it. The feminist movement wasn't a movement to combat gender inequalities, but rather a movement bent on reinforcing them. I'm not sure if that makes historical sense, but it feels right. they don't want to hear about how the elit…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:43 PM
2

I have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean. The point I was trying to make is that most MR issues precede the feminist movement and the formulation of the patriarchal ideals. This suggests it may not be appropriate to blame feminism or the patriarchy for MR problems. Yet we seem to spend an awful lot of time doing just that. It seems to me that the other ways in which our social system is hierarchized (capitalism, meritocracy etc.) likely also fuel MR problems. Sadly, this sub doesn't de…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 08:08 PM
0

Did anyone read the letter? We believe that everyone, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion has the right to play games, criticize games and make games without getting harassed or threatened. It is the diversity of our community that allows games to flourish. If you see threats of violence or harm in comments on Steam, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook or reddit, please take a minute to report them on the respective sites. If you see hateful, harassing speech, take a…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:18 PM
6

It just frustrates me to take that lying down. I'm going to stop going to their site until I see a similar post for great feminist leaders.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 03:32 AM
2

I provided the Imgur link in the OP. Actual link here.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 02:41 AM
2

Ha. Looks like it's been around for a year. No activity though, so I'm no sure what the creator hoped to use it for.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 08:23 PM
2

I would imagine it has Wiki's tacit approval given that the majority of people who edit those types of articles are doing it from IP addresses linked to the institution they are editing.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:48 PM
1

I don't know, this doesn't sound terribly convincing. You'll see under "Bias" that someone claims that we should change "Notable Instances of Misandry" to "Alleged Instances of Misandry" based on the fact that a feminist wrote in a book in the 90s that basically misandry doesn't exist and that the only times women feel hatred to men it's due to the fact that men have privilege and keep the womynfolk down. I think this is actually a point in Wiki's favor. If you look at the actual misandry page, …
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:25 PM
2

Almost all major corporations are guilty of this. All academic institutions are guilty of this. Many NPOs and many private individuals as well.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 11:48 AM
7

Is TwoYChromosomes a real thing? God I hope not, that would not say much about our education system.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 03:03 AM
1

Can you provide examples of this? That is not my experience with Wiki. Articles that correctly reference reputable peer reviewed sources almost always stick. Blogs and YouTube videos don't. And to be honest, that's sort of how I prefer it.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:51 AM
2

Dude, just stop. You are embarrassing yourself and everyone else in this sub. Yes, linking to blog articles and YouTube videos results in deletion so by the Wiki editors. Vandalization of other pages results in deletion by Wiki editors. If you, or someone else, post well-referenced articles with links to reputable research from high impact journals, guess what? It is much, much less likely to be deleted. That's how Wiki works.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:40 AM
3

WikiProjects are encouraged. There's one for Men's Rights too. WikiProjects have transparency, accountability to Wikipedia's rules, the ability to encourage on-site discussion and conflict resolution, and better access to the required expertise/editors. In contrast, giving outside groups, off-site, a call-to-action about specific pages, encouraging them to directly edit-war instead of using the WikiProject pages as portals... yes, that's discouraged. This is a crappy false equivalence, overlooki…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:29 AM
1

Why would you believe that?
/r/MensRights29/08/14 11:51 PM
1

Yeah, despite my concerns, I do find the show mostly entertaining. It just seems to have such an agenda that I was worried and wanted some opinions from other MRAs.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 09:56 PM
1

Just because there is a woman in a strong leading role does not mean there is something wrong with the show. I think you are mischaracterizing my concerns. I am not concerned because Buffy is a woman. I am concerned because of how the show systematically depicts men and women. There appear to be clear gender roles on the show, with men falling more often than not into the stupid, evil, only good for sex category. I assume you're going to keep your child from seeing ANY violence? I mean, most of …
/r/MensRights29/08/14 09:54 PM
2

Ha! That's probably the best advice in the thread :)
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:55 PM
0

I hear what you're saying, but at the same time I just can't shake the feeling that something is wrong with the show's agenda. Take how violence is depicted on the show. I worry that it is giving the message that women can hit men without consequences (it may even empower this line of reasoning). That is so dangerous in the world we live in where woman on man violence is all too often unreported and men who are the victims of such violence are made to feel inferior. I'll give it some more episod…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:54 PM
1

This blog post gets to the heart of a lot of my concerns. Buffy is a show that even its creator describes as having an overtly feminist agenda, & in fact that is true, it does. And feminism is a hate movement. Which inevitably leads to misandry - a contemptuous disregard for men's suffering & humanity. So you see my problem. and There are no 'empowered' men in Buffy The Vampire Slayer. The only male characters that are strong & self-possessed are monsters & demons, & so, by definition, evil. and…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:46 PM
1

I used to use this account to troll people at r/conspiracy because they think vaccines cause autism -- which is stupid. A lot of my older comments have negative karma as a result. Then I went and forgot the password to my main account, so I said screw it, I'll just keep using this one.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:35 PM
0

It's far more egalitarian Maybe. I haven't seen that many episodes. My fears were based on the observation that the show is based on a female group of friends (sure, there is Xander, but he is a stereotypical dumb, stupid man) who go around killing mostly male antagonists. I don't think the show would pass the gender switch test. Then, there is how Buffy interacts with other men on the show. The Angel and Spike characters just seem to be objects of sexual gratification (that is when they aren't …
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:23 PM
1

No troll (although I do enjoy a good trolling of the folks at r/conspiracy every once in a while). The reason I became concerned is because the show seems premised around a group of female friends (with a token, half-wit male friend, Xander) running around killing mostly make bad guys. It just seems to me, if the genders of all the characters were reversed then feminists would be up in arms.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:15 PM
0

Well he can distinguish between fiction and reality. I am more concerned about the ideology of the show. I haven't seen too many episodes, but it essentially seems like a group of friends with a token, half-wit male (the Xander character) run around killing inevitably male bad guys. Can you imagine if the genders off all characters in the show were reversed? Feminists would be screaming murder.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:13 PM
2

Great point! I wish I had considered that. I didn't see a single line in the article that even considered the possibility that she had made the story up.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 10:57 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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