TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RaggedScholar Archive

View 2 posts and 27 comments by RaggedScholar 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

Understanding is fine. Critiquing things is fine. Then move past it and find a way to make things work better, instead of just decrying the feminists and the feminist movement as purposefully trying to hurt all men everywhere, as though there weren't plenty of people who would call themselves feminist who just want equality. I have seen hundreds of bad eggs in the feminist camp, but it won't help anyone to start a war because of them. Point out the problem, get the moderates who want equality on…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:35 PM
-1

The worst way to grow a group/movement is to throw out anyone who wants to help and isn't speaking exactly the same message you want. If you want the world to accept men's rights as it has feminism and actually effect a change, then you need to not be insular and hateful.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:32 PM
0

I had a similar problem with /r/feminism and stopped looking at anything from that sub because of the amount of hate coming from it as well. I'm not trying to say one side is better than the other, and frankly the whole of it is very disappointing. No one is reaching out with any olive branches for peace or progress, and each side has plenty of loud, radical members denouncing the other side as evil. Don't let them push out the moderate middle ground.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:30 PM
-1

As Hypersapien also said, there are plenty of ways to try to fix a problem without resorting to violence or illegal acts. I would say these (the non-violent, legal ways) are the best methods for us to fix problems. Just because violence has been taken off the table as a method doesn't mean we should stop doing anything productive.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:27 PM
12

In a way, it does - it'll be incredibly difficult to achieve all of the goals of removing the gender roles for guys, letting guys have feelings, use Easy Bake ovens, etc, if the entire fight is focused solely on benefiting men. An easier path would be to work on breaking the sexist thoughts for everyone, and letting everyone benefit at the same time.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:44 PM
83

Eh. It's a true statement, and the reverse is also true. For every boy who takes a step to create gender equality, there's a girl who finds her own path to freedom made easier. Just because it said something involving a girl doesn't mean it's hating on men.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:47 PM
2

This is a really good point: the gendered statements should also include examples of single-gendered harassment. Because it also is.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:51 AM
1

Here's a good reason to include stereotypical situations: When someone answers "No" to a question like "A female boss calls her male employee gorgeous every time she calls him into the office" and "Yes" to a question like "A male boss addresses his female employee as sweetie when he greets her in the morning.", that's something to talk about, because it reveals a problem in the thinking. If everything were written gender-neutral, this sort of biased thinking would be hidden. Most people would pr…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:50 AM
2

Alright. Just because someone else is engaging in poor behavior doesn't mean we should as well. Take the high ground and call them out on their bad behavior when they do it. Don't let anyone get away with abusing statistics; it leads to all sorts of terrible and erroneous conclusions. As for your examples, holy crap. If 50% of women were killed by their SO (not "50% of women who are killed are killed by their SO", or in other words, "of all of the women who are killed, 50% of those women are kil…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:45 PM
1

Many of the questions are stated in a his/her manner, except reversed from the standard (her/his), displaying the stereotypical behavior (like the fourth one) before the astereotypical, but still showing both. I think it's a great step forward that they're making the effort to show both sides. The fact that it isn't perfect on its first try doesn't mean it's time to gather up the lynch mob. Personally, I have a hard time imagining a female manager giving a gift of revealing clothing to a guy. I'…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:42 PM
5

Exactly this. It sounds like a great idea ("don't destroy people's names by accusing them of stuff") but we really really really actually want public trials. We want to see that people are accused and given trials in the light of day instead of being snatched away and maybe they come back innocent. The problem is that people don't think the courts do a good job of punishing the guilty (too many people "get off", or "get away with it") and that they're mixing up being accused and being guilty. Th…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:33 PM
11

I feel like the numbers quoted aren't very good representatives. If two women became killers, and one killed a stranger and one killed her husband, and those were the only two recordings, we'd say 50% of the victims of killers are spouses, ex-spouses, or boyfriends, and it would come across as a pretty shocking number. But that's still only one person. If the absolute number of spouse, ex-spouse, and partner victims are in fact 4 times higher for female killers than male killers (because men and…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:04 PM
11

You mean this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf? The "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005" sounds very much like a violence against women act.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:46 AM
0

ITT: People don't understand the power of statistics. And literally the power (as a statistical term) of a study, which magnifies whatever effect may or may not be seen in a small population to draw conclusions, to a certain confidence. Assuming none of the math has been fucked up, and there aren't any systematic errors confounding things that haven't been taken into account (experimental errors like imprecision in measuring the size should be taken into account by the math of the statistics in …
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:00 PM
1

That's not what this said at all. It's saying misogynists like big breasts. Be more careful when reading scientific conclusions, it turns out the wording is EXTREMELY important.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:44 PM
1

Interestingly, this says testes size and testosterone are both weakly negatively correlated with caregiving, to a statistically significant effect, while testes size is not statistically significantly correlated (even weakly) with testosterone. Which goes against what a lot of people are saying, "of course: big testes, more testosterone, less likely to be good parent". Good thing we have stuff like science and data to actually check any of these thoughts.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:41 PM
1

Why not? It seems handy to have a word to describe someone who hates a particular subset of people, like "homophobe" applies regardless of the sexuality of the person being described. Misogynists hate women, misandrists hate men. Chauvinists think their gender is superior. Maybe we've all been using the wrong word all along?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:57 PM
16

I don't? This sounds like a very similar issue to what I've seen complained about on her several times re: the definition of rape as "by a man", etc. There's nothing essential about being female, as far as I know, in being a misandrist. Bonus fun with definitions: chauvinism applies equally to all genders, and always means that the chauvinist believes their gender is superior to the other. Bust that out next time someone says misandry isn't a word.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:16 PM
7

News flash! There's nothing wrong with being offensive! There's plenty wrong with being offensive. Don't be offensive to other people. Don't call them sluts, don't call them cunts, don't call them fags, or neckbeards, or virgins, or basement-dwellers, or idiots, or whatever. Be nice to people. It IS an issue that people on the internet are assholes. And we should all try to fix it and be better to each other, regardless of who the other people are.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 03:40 PM
3

I've been around a bunch of hormonal teenage girls surfing the internet and drooling over guys in homeroom. And none of them were athletes in uniform. Either nearly-naked rappers, or very femme J-pop stars. Granted, it's a small population, but it's not like I've never talked to women about what they find attractive. The uniform (of a police officer, or solider, or businessman) is more of a signal of status and character than a display of their physique, since like most men's clothing it covers …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:48 PM
4

It's a check all that apply; while 2 is correct, some of the others are worth looking into as well. 3 seems like a natural follow-up to 2, for example. Get more impaired, suffer more blackouts. I don't know the statistics, but 1 might be true. Worth checking in whatever reading materials you were given. 4 seems really tricky because they've strung so many things together, and all of them need to be true for it to be a correct choice.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:44 PM
3

Sports are so different from gladiatorial combat. Just because there's conflict doesn't mean it's combat. Maybe you could make a case for something like MMA fighting. But even then, the analogy is a bit strained. You know, like consensual sex being like modern-day rape of your female slaves. Could it be because many women get off on looking at and fantasizing about men in uniforms that accentuate the male physique? Clearly we're looking at different uniforms. All of the pictures of attractive at…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 12:18 PM
7

She sucks at writing, but a lot of people here are misinterpreting what she's saying. "the way I see it" is a comment on societal views, which she is refuting later with her statement of "I don't believe anyone is more valuable", as /u/Mrmojoman0 says.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 01:07 PM
0

You're missing the point. Physicists won't ever publish a newly discovered law of nature which says that a woman is incapable of cycling (say) more than 100 miles in a single 24h period, that she'll be going just fine until then, but hit this great big invisible wall of force whereby she is physically prevented from going any further. It doesn't matter if every single woman in existence can only ride a bike for 20 minutes at a time and barely make it 10 miles. You still shouldn't write a rule sa…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:14 PM
1

Or it could be based on how far an athlete could cycle, based on gender. This isn't a thing. There aren't hard and fast physical laws of the universe which say a female can't do stuff, because of her gender. So where does this information come from? Population statistics. And a person is not a population. If it turns out that none of the female athletes can actually perform as well as their male colleagues, and one of the teams still wants to include a female on their team, that should be their …
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:10 AM
2

I would think that having an institution set up a rule which limits what members of one sex can do would be a pretty obvious case of institutionalized sexism. It doesn't take into account the actual stamina of the athletes, because it's not a rule about the athletes, it's a rule about the gender. At best, it could be based on the population statistics of athletes at the time, or maybe on the performance of the top female cyclist, at the time. Do we actually lose anything from letting them compet…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 02:24 AM
10

Jesus Christ this title is misleading as fuck. And I wonder if anyone in the comments has actually read the article. The article says ...the Union Cycliste Internationale, has rules in place limiting the distance women can ride in a single road race. Since that distance is much shorter than that of men's races, that rule would either have to be changed or there would have to be different start and finish lines for men and women to compete in the Tour de France at the same time. So, this actually…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:13 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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