TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Qwarked Archive

View 0 posts and 48 comments by Qwarked 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The specifics would depend on the job in question. But, for example, hours worked would be a factor in the total pay of workers like waiters, retail workers, etc.
/r/MensRights14/11/21 03:11 PM
2

To add to that. It's not even really a disparity when you normalize for the factors that account for pay.
/r/MensRights13/11/21 10:33 PM
1

This reads like satire.
/r/MensRights04/03/21 03:38 PM
2

This is how its like for men almost all the time lmao
/r/PussyPassDenied09/04/20 11:23 PM
3

upvote for reason
/r/PussyPassDenied08/04/20 12:32 PM
1

I used write you guys off as losers, that could be because the sub has both reasonable and unreasonable opinions. But almost certainly, it is the more unreasonable and extreme opinions that get reposted other places and make it seem like the sub worse than it is.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:36 PM
-27

do you have any sources that say he begged her to run against Hillary?
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/20 03:26 PM
-5

you asked me to find a society that was ruled by women, and then you literally cite a woman who ruled over an entire society. There are plenty of women who ruled over nations and empires. and you completely missed the point of my original comment. So let me just lay it out for you very simply. men dominated The time period when societies were starting to form - Because of their physical strength - And that patriarchal structure carried forward through most of history. now, if you can’t extrapola…
/r/MensRights21/12/19 04:03 PM
-8

I mean that’s kind of a dumb argument, considering that society originated from a time where physical strength was the primary factor in determining who excelled and who didn’t. not to mention the fact that Women have been historically subjugated and marginalized by men and even other women. so women would have just that many more hurtles to climb if they wanted to achieve a position of power. so while I agree that the notion that women would make better leaders in today’s society is shortsighte…
/r/MensRights21/12/19 03:43 PM
1

👀
/r/PussyPassDenied20/11/19 01:17 AM
7

there is also the fact that she’d be (potentially) compromised to blackmail. Assuming she doesn’t want the world to know about it.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/19 06:20 PM
1

Loving how they put the BbC’s rational response at the very end.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/05/19 02:47 AM
-12

To be fair, the military casualties are because women haven’t been able to serve in active combat. And the prison thing could be because men commit more crimes. But I’m assuming it’s meant to imply that they just get incarcerated more than women even though the crime rates are the same.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/19 03:39 AM
0

I can see your point of view. but then how would you explain why is the stem field is dominated by men.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 02:53 PM
1

He* wasn’t hiring someone based solely on sex, he was using it as the last deciding factor of two applicants were otherwise completely equal.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 12:14 PM
0

You’re not wrong. I’d prolly make the same decision too.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 12:13 PM
-15

this would actually point to a system of male privilege, because the implication of the study is that women would be hired far more if they were Evaluated the same as men
/r/MensRights08/04/19 12:10 PM
2

Well said
/r/MensRights13/03/19 03:04 AM
1

Is this the same one that only looked at one company?
/r/MensRights12/12/18 03:38 PM
22

I feel like stuff like this is beneath this sub. Come on.
/r/MensRights08/12/18 03:08 PM
1

"bad marriage"
/r/MensRights05/12/18 12:12 AM
-6

My feelings tell me this is good Edit: That might actually not be so bad. If they genuinely have a problem with attracting talent from those demographics.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 02:53 PM
7

Thats not what my feelings tell me
/r/MensRights29/11/18 02:45 PM
1

Should’ve just said you identify as a women, who has anxiety and your gay or bi. 3/4 aint bad.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 02:22 PM
16

Seduced by the dark side he was
/r/MensRights14/11/18 10:49 PM
1

I'm late, but well said.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 11:22 PM
0

Ok buddy.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 10:02 PM
-1

Nice.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 09:38 PM
0

By facts do you mean evidence? Establishing a pattern of behavior is one of the ways you determine the credibility of allegations like these. So her testimony is relevant. Ya, I can't imagine why a women would want to keep the fact that she was gang raped to herself, if she could even remember. I also can't imagine why the guys who did it wouldn't want to broadcast that to the world. /end sarcasm.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 09:36 PM
1

Like his calendar that had an party with the exact people she described? EDIT: You're not claiming the accusation was political, just Feinstein's handling of it.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 09:30 PM
0

She knew the general time. She said Judge's employment records could narrow it down even further and that was a piece of evidence the FBI was specifically not allowed to go after. Edit: and she said specifically that it was him.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 09:29 PM
-3

They weren't vague, she was quite clear on what happened and they weren't impossible to corroborate. I would suggest interviewing the other women who accused him. I'd suggest interviewing Brett himself. I'd suggest not limiting the investigation to less than a week. I'd suggest not limiting who the FBI can talk to. I'd suggest not limiting what evidence they can seek out. I'd suggest releasing the final report to the public. For starters. I'd also recommend a large number of other things related…
/r/MensRights12/10/18 08:01 PM
0

Literally the entire news cycle for 4-5 days the were conducting the "investigation". Just google it.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 07:51 PM
6

Setting everything else that could disqualify him aside. The political statements are disqualifying because the supreme court is supposed to a-political to a near divine level. It's also a lifetime appointment, so the standards for impartiality are (should have been) much much higher.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 07:44 PM
-14

No they weren't. Nobody knows it because the FBI weren't allowed to conduct a real investigation and the report they did produce isn't being released.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 07:40 PM
-14

For a supreme court nominee yes. Even if you think his general demeanor was ok, his choice to politicize the accusations should have been disqualifying.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 06:25 PM
0

Thanks for not reading my post.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 03:52 PM
3

They use the national average from the 70s/80s (can’t remember which off the top my head) as evidence of pay inequality. there’s practically no pay gap when you normalize for things like industry, education, hours worked, years worked etc.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 01:19 AM
0

You can have a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence, but if you don't have all the evidence your conclusion will be farther from the whole truth. The FBI could certainly find out more than you or me. But the conclusion of a week-long hamstrung non-criminal investigation won't give us the facts we need. Also how people respond to trauma is subjective. However - objectively speaking - in your example you were barely conscious and don't have a clear recollection. Where as Ford was …
/r/MensRights03/10/18 11:18 PM
2

Thanks. But I do assume people just rail the headlines before they comment. That's why I wrote that.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 11:12 PM
6

I didn't read the article but.. Don't men make up a significant portion of domestic abuse victims cases? There's some hard stats right there.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:52 PM
3

That's pretty funny.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:37 PM
1

I think the polygraphs are done by lawyers because many people still think of them as reliable. It gives you some PR points. Also the "coaching" mentioned is just her telling a friend not to worry. She wasn't teaching someone how to beat it.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:36 PM
0

They don't move on, and they still do care. But you are right about it being hard to prove. Emotional is one thing, but he was making very political and very partisan statements in his defense...when he is up for a job which - in theory - is supposed to be completely apolitical. So ya, that is relevant. And ya, perjuring yourself should be disqualifying for a supreme court nominee or any judgeship. WTF is wrong with you.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:34 PM
-1

He specifically refuted claims he got blackout drunk. That's why his drinking is significant. Also a number of people have said that he gets aggressive when drunk. So there's that.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:30 PM
-2

It's more like a he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, at the this point. Also you can't seriously think that a week is enough to conduct a thorough investigation? Especially when it started it limited to 4 people and the fact that it's not a criminal investigation.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:28 PM
1

Her lawyers had her take it.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:25 PM
3

This isn't a very good article. It's kinda running gauntlet between partisan propaganda and ethical journalism. For example... It repeatedly uses the word "coaching" which many people will assume involves telling someone how to beat a polygraph test. Only half way through the article does it mention the relevant quote from this - so far - anonymous witness - “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” he said. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polyg…
/r/MensRights03/10/18 05:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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