TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RealEmaster Archive

View 2 posts and 73 comments by RealEmaster 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)
39

RealEmaster/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:21 PM
7

RealEmaster/r/MensRights02/02/13 08:18 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

including photos of their family and saying "will your family survive?" after talking about judgement day. I'm not saying he was actually threatening her, but the exact quote was pretty bad.
/r/MensRights13/06/20 06:52 AM
2

I decided to read the whole story. This will probably be unpopular, but honestly I'm not surprised the dude went to jail. Rittinger has conceded that initially posts in late June were merely critical of the courts and not threats. But she alleged Vanderhagen crossed the line into illegal behavior in July when he posted a photo of himself holding a shovel across his shoulders with Rancilio’s initials scrawled on the handle, and reposted photos of Rancilio’s family members, around posts including …
/r/MensRights11/06/20 10:23 PM
3

Shhhh you're not supposed to say they are human too
/r/MensRights02/08/19 08:38 PM
2

Here's the problem: Most of the people who aren't getting results aren't actually being unapologetically themselves around women. Most men are constantly basing their words and actions around how they think the woman will judge it, trying to avoid things that they wouldn't like and showcase things the woman does like. Part of working on yourself is working on the insecurities that cause you to do such mental acrobatics in your head (usually causing much social anxiety)
/r/seduction05/06/19 06:24 AM
1

https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/12rn3g/i_am_mark_manson_former_pua_coach_self/ Just go with models.
/r/seduction08/08/18 03:51 PM
2

Leaps and bounds above the rest.
/r/seduction08/08/18 06:05 AM
22

dude nobody likes competing over some random bros attention You aren't just some random bro, and you'd be surprised at what some women want to do.
/r/seduction26/07/18 02:18 PM
1

The point flew right over your head. The video I posted was of a man seducing a beautiful woman with a boyfriend by being straight up about what he wanted from her. He "expressed his desires and terms firmly and seductively" from the first moment he started interacting with her.
/r/seduction19/07/18 12:44 AM
-1

Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMmZ0BmtSb0
/r/seduction18/07/18 02:38 PM
3

Who is in control of what location you're in?
/r/seduction01/07/18 11:05 PM
6

If all the women you date seem to have problem "x", then you are probably the source of problem "x". There is likely something you are doing to attract women who have problem "x"/ put off any healthy woman who doesn't have problem "x".
/r/seduction01/07/18 03:07 PM
22

Exactly. Models isn't about a specific goal: Its about your goal. If you are a guy who loves having lots of casual sex, then models will help you do so. If you are the kind of guy who prefers to get to know a woman and have a more meaningful interaction, then models will help you do that. Models is about being yourself. If you find that means more extended interactions/relationships and less casual sex, then that is a reflection of what you are rather than what models is about.
/r/seduction30/06/18 10:53 PM
3

Ah yes, a teacher who want to talk about teaching rather than an issue that he doesn't care about must be a coward.
/r/MensRights27/05/18 02:42 PM
2

He talks about how society is destroying men, he talked to warren farrell about how bad boys are treated in our society, and in several places complained about how badly men are treated in family courts. But who cares, I only care about 3 issues and if you aren't helping me on those 3 specific issues then I don't care and you're useless to me. Edit for grammar
/r/MensRights26/05/18 10:38 AM
3

I would venture to guess that by "not disliking" he means "not triggered by", which would also describe myself. If you put me in charge, you would see libertarian policies. If you put a socialist in charge, I will make my arguments against, try to warn people of what I think the problems are... but at the end still watch curiously to see if, just maybe this one time, they are actually doing things differently. There's only so much time and energy one can put into something as futile as politics,…
/r/MensRights26/05/18 10:35 AM
2

Yes, I agree with this exactly. However here is why I think he had it in the list: Guys who are cheap usually feel insecure about it. Their insecurity shines through and the women sense it. Just remember: the reason you are being cheap is because its YOUR money and you aren't giving it up for shit. You aren't insecure about how people perceive your bank account, you don't need to spend money to show off.
/r/seduction30/04/18 02:56 PM
1

(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if a girl is still mad you the next day, dead sober, for NOT fucking her... she definitely wasn't asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act was occuring (or in this case not occuring). PS I never downvoted you, that would be mean. Edit: Just sa…
/r/seduction18/04/18 11:29 PM
68

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if a girl is still mad you the next day, dead sober, for NOT fucking her... you definitely had consent no matter what she consumed.
/r/seduction15/04/18 05:27 PM
2

Go ahead and completely revise what you think about girls. He doesn't ignore the subtext, he addresses it directly. The fact that he is willing to directly state what he sees and thinks, even when he is directly talking about what she is sub-communicating, is itself a sub-communication that he is comfortable talking to her about his sexual desires, even if that means rejection. By simply being straight-up with a girl, and telling her what you want even when it means she might reject you, you are…
/r/seduction21/03/18 11:45 PM
1

Nah dude. He did a great job. If this is what your flirting looks like keep doing it. Room for improvement of course, but it was clearly successful and lots of it was great.
/r/seduction21/03/18 11:39 PM
3

Some of the criticism is obviously bad. Some people here are completely misunderstanding what the girl says. One person was dumb enough to say she didn't give you any sign of being interested in sex (Wonder what "Doesn't mean other things are off the table" means, if not an invitation?). Someone else said you had zero reason to bring up sex... as if the pictured text is the entire history of your interaction. Lol. Most of these A*holes don't care about the context. These things are good to point…
/r/seduction21/03/18 11:29 PM
1

There is no objective thing called "interesting". Its subjective. If you think what you're doing is interesting, then it is interesting.
/r/seduction27/11/17 07:13 PM
10

Its also important to say this: interesting by who's standards? If you like your job and love what you study, then you will have interesting things to talk about there. If you are an interesting person, as said above, then you will be invited to interesting things. If a woman won't date you because studying something you love isn't as interesting as traveling the world you wouldn't want to date her anyway. A good woman isn't attracted to the things you do, she's attracted to you. If you fix your…
/r/seduction27/11/17 07:11 PM
6

This pretty accurately describes my experience. All throughout grade school, I never had to study because I was smart. I rarely even paid attention in class. When I went to college, I stayed in honor's roll every semester despite ever trying. Then when I decided to enter into one of the world's best (and intellectually toughest) careers, I found that I am actually unable to do it, because I'm unable to study. It doesn't matter how smart I am: I will never actually be a genius because I have neve…
/r/seduction06/03/16 09:12 PM
2

While working as a waiter at a small restaurant, I was once working alone and had only two tables of two people, so I had plenty of time to talk. The target was a young cutie, who was eating with her father. I had about as much worry as you could get. Instead of trying to go for her too much, I was just making easy conversation. I guess the key thing I did differently was that, other than a few emphasized smiles and eye contact (maybe some other body language stuff, I don't quite remember it was…
/r/seduction11/02/16 02:53 AM
1

Oh please tell me you have a link to the original, this has got to be hilarious
/r/MensRights20/09/14 08:53 AM
1

Right, asking someone to back their claims up with evidence makes me a dick. My bad.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 06:56 PM
1

Meh, I mean sure you can always say "Meh, enough for me" but when others ask for the proper evidence requirement as has been established by statisticians and scientists over centuries of conducting this exact type of research you probably shouldn't get your panties in a bunch.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 04:47 PM
1

So to summarize what you said: "I don't know how to address your argument, so I'll just say that I'm older and smarter and better educated than you and ignore the actual argument you made" Thanks, yet another condescending old person who forgot everything they learned in college yet still insists they haven't forgotten anything and finds it impossible to think that they could ever be wrong. BTW its BSME's like you that make stats too easy of a course because the curriculum is dumbed down when BS…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 10:30 AM
0

No, your point is not valid haha. I mean it kind of is, but it isn't. I'm sorry but as a math/statistics major just about to graduate I find the lack of statistical understanding of literally everyone I know to be a little annoying haha. Quick stats thing, I hope this is ELI5 enough to be understandable haha: you are assuming binomial distribution. Thus each hour you spend with child has x% chance of you abusing them. You can multiply your number of hour spent with child, multiply by x and divid…
/r/MensRights20/02/14 04:56 AM
1

Sorry for taking so long to respond. ... giving her a very high ratio of abuse instances to hours of caregiving. Seems to be easily interpretable by this model. Huh, thats weird. It seems that your "ratio of abuse instances to hours of caregiving" might be a predictor of how many hours you spend with children, just like I said. That would mean that the number of hours spent with children doesn't provide a linear model. Assuming that science holds everywhere has nothing to do with the fallacy of …
/r/MensRights20/02/14 04:45 AM
1

Whats the point? That my reasoning isn't necessarily true? Well yeah that was MY point, not yours. You made the claim, and I simply am doubting your opinion. I'm not making the claim that increased time with kids isn't a factor, I'm just saying that you have absolutely not evidence for your claim, and I have no reason to believe it at all. Once again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I am right, I'm simply saying that I have no reason to believe your claim, and neither do you.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:25 AM
1

You are making a slight composition fallacy: For the Dalai Lama it might be a linear relationship, and for you it might be one too. However what is true of the individual is not necessarily true for the group: For example, lets say I had a kid and my gf/wife started abusing the child, and I didn't know until it happened, say, 20 times. If I immediately took all the children away and never let her see them again, she would have spent the least amount of time with the children, but did most of the…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:21 AM
1

You are making a slight composition fallacy: For the Dalai Lama it might be a linear relationship, and for you it might be one too. However what is true of the individual is not necessarily true for the group: For example, lets say I had a kid and my gf/wife started abusing the child, and I didn't know until it happened, say, 20 times. If I immediately took all the children away and never let her see them again, she would have spent the least amount of time with the children, but did most of the…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:20 AM
2

That's my point exactly. In statistics (sorry I'm a math major, just about to graduate) to prove that A does not equal B, you first start off by assuming that A does indeed equal B. You then ask "Is the data reasonable for my assumption?" If you find that the data disagrees that assumption (that A = B) in a strong way, then you can finally conclude A does not equal B.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:02 AM
1

Don't see why you're getting downvotes here. Are you sure it isn't that Alcoholics are more likely to have alcohol around all the time? Does A cause B or does B cause A? Since we are in the business of choosing whatever example seems to help us, I choose to use hanging yourself as an example. Would you say that the odds you attempt to hang yourself is a function of the amount of time you spend handling rope?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:45 AM
1

I like the thought, however I must counter it with this: You can divide any two quantities to create a ratio, however that doesn't mean that the ratio has anything to do with reality. Further, the phrase "incidences of abuse per hour of caregiving" assumes a linear relationship. By such logic, given enough hours of caregiving, every single parent in the world would abuse their child.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:37 AM
2

"And I would question why that assumption is made in the first place." You start with that assumption because that's how statistical thinking works. Figure out what you want to prove, (Women abuse children more than men). You then assume the opposite, and that women abuse children equally (saying less than or equal to doesn't change this actually), and then see if the data you gathered contradicts that assumption in a major way. In other words, if you want to say that women and men abuse rate at…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:28 AM
5

I know that it looks like I'm struggling for equailty, and I know that fallacy all too well What I'm asking is this: "Are we absolutely sure that this data contradicts an assumption of equal abuse rates?" Because if it doesn't, than we can't try to make the claim that women are bad parents... although as MRA's all we really are looking for is equal treatment so the data should easily be good enough for our purposes.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 05:40 PM
2

Lets pretend your mother sat you down, and she said that once upon a time she had been mugged, and it was a very terrifying experience for her. Given this knowledge, would you think that the fact your mother had been with your father for 20 years (for the story, they are not divorced) would mean that he was most likely the perpetrator, or would you say the fact that your mom is still with him 20 years later is pretty damn good evidence against it? Perhaps an abusive person is less likely to have…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:56 PM
46

Could the biased courts be a better explanation? For example, lets pretend fathers and mothers WOULD abuse at equal rates given equal treatment at family courts, so mothers and fathers are equally abusive. However divorce courts favor giving children to women, so abusive mothers often get the child instead of a non-abusive father. Since the courts are so biased against men, it is much more rare for an abusive father to get custody of the child. Therefore, even when men and women are equally like…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:47 PM
1

Reddit seems so awesome as a lurker, and then as soon as I type anything downvotes pour my way. Meh, I guess Men's rights hates me just as much as the rest of the world. Stupid of me to think that people wouldn't immediately hate me the instant I make my existence known. Mind explaining what it is about my comment that makes me a douchebag?
/r/MensRights24/12/13 08:38 PM
-25

Lol that sounds like a line I would hear on "Big Bang Theory" hahaha
/r/MensRights24/12/13 01:26 AM
2

Thank you for this, as a stats guy in school I cringe at stuff like this. My first reaction was "this is complete bullshit" because I have a hard time believing that is possible. But what really makes me wanna vomit is when people get stats wrong. Those F-words are worse, but it doesn't hurt as much haha.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 05:57 AM
0

You act like an immature gf who says "remember that one time you said something stupid" Sure, she said something stupid, and I might not want to be her friend, but if she said 2+2 = 4 I'd say she is right, and defend her correctness against anyone.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 08:29 PM
4

Hey so I'm pretty big on economics. I can tell you the economic effects on women. There are plenty of arguments about how it is unfair to favor women, it is morally incorrect or whatnot. Others here and elsewhere give very eloquent arguments in that respect, however that wouldn't be my argument. Instead I will borrow from Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and other economists that have inspired me. This is the effect affirmative action has on any group anywhere: Members of certain group are favore…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:16 AM
2

Did you have anyone read the last sentence before turning it in? So to should the we define... Other than that, great paper! Repost your teachers grade/response
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:47 PM
21

I feel like the second school would be worse than the first. I could deal with not being the hottest guy in school, but not making it onto the nice list? Ouch. Not making it on that list means no one likes you: not your looks, your personality. I can't imagine something more shaming than rating people based on their personality. Thats the one thing people with low self-esteem have to run to.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:42 PM
1

Well I actually do agree that real men don't rape. I don't like the insinuations, assumptions, and the reasoning behind people making that message. But it really is hard to disagree with the statement "real men don't rape". But I guess thats the point of "loaded rhetoric"
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:51 AM
1

It was indeed sattire, but just because killwize misunderstood the post doesn't mean he should be downvoted that much lol
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:49 AM
1

I like your comparison, but I still don't really see how it applies. I mean, show me some cases where men were favored in custody court just because they were men, and then proceeded to use the children as weapons against the women. I could be completely off base here in the same way. I mean, no one really knows about males being raped because its not in the spotlight, and that could be the case again here, but I just dont know of any cases where men have had this power. As far as I know, this i…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:46 AM
1

lol I see what you did there
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:53 PM
1

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't really see how a man could do that against a woman. Women have the power to take a child away from a father (legally speaking) Women have the power to use children to strip a man from his money I mean, how can a man use a child as a weapon against a mother?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:42 PM
7

Hey great great post. I love statistics, and showing how bad some can be. Are you the author?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 05:00 PM
2

The evidence gives enough doubt that it can't prove him guilty, but not enough to prove her guilty. Its supposed to be guilty until proven innocent, so that means if you are unsure as to whether the crime happened or not, you don't say "I know for sure it did" or "I know for sure it didn't". Insufficient evidence to convict isn't sufficient evidence to prove innocence. I think that a video should be compelling evidence, however I am not an expert in the reliability of such evidence.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 04:51 PM
1

Males are also more likely to work at nicer restaurants than small town diners... Its very difficult to compare. Men may take more hours, they might have earned seniority, they might take the better (busier) shifts where they make more money. They might be working at nicer restaurants. You can't just straight average it out.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:42 PM
3

I've been a male server for 4 years I like to think I've been really good at my job. This has happened to me before, and I've even been laughed at for applying. First, I would like to say that there is a point to hiring women: Due to the gender empathy gap customers like them more. Customers who like their server more are more likely to be happy. However I overcame that quite easily, and any good manager will know that you, and your attitude is a MUCH bigger factor. In my experience, any manager…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:24 PM
2

List of ways in which men are discriminated against If you look at the right hand column of this /mensrights, you will find that this link, among others, happens to be there.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:06 AM
3

Men and women don't always want the same thing... I think its odd for people to assume that there would be an equal representation for all genders, religions, ethnicities and stuff.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:58 PM
1

Yeah not trying to understand a crime by saying it was simply done by a monster is incorrect, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:00 PM
1

I have a feeling the gym doesn't have the authority to send a man to jail. OP said they followed the same procedure with her as they would with other members. I see no reason to call the OP a liar.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:46 PM
1

Another tangential point one the likelihood of crime is exagerated everywhere in the USA. Most places are extremely safe. And the areas that are considerably less safe are still more safe then most peeople realize. I agree with all of that, however What we are saying is that there is no geographic area in the country where women are more likely to be victims of crimes then men. I feel like I haven't seen any info on that subject. If someone told me women were more likely everywhere I'd ask them …
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:29 PM
1

If you take out white knights, and replace any group of men of your choice, it is quite likely to still be correct. It is in our biology to want to get laid, and who the hell doesn't want respect?
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:47 PM
2

I've seen this premise a number of times now, what evidence is there for it? If it were my kids, I would sure be more comfortable with them walking through Beverly Hills than Compton or Harlem. I further think it would be highly unlikely for all locations across the US to have uniformally low probability of being a victim of crime. Further, it would also make more sense to me for different locations to have different likelihoods of different crimes. However I am new to this subreddit (and MRA in…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 06:44 PM
2

First they ignore you, then they mock you, then the fight you, then you win Or something like that?
/r/MensRights25/02/13 04:02 PM
6

To the guy who put this link up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8 Thank you. I have never, ever, found an older woman with short hair to be so attractive in my life.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:29 AM
2

Did anyone check out the comments? "Eyeroll Puh-leeze! Wow, I'm so glad you grew up in an environment that totally nurtured women. I'd like know where this place is, because I remember growing up in the 70's. Regardless of my parents' attitude, I felt surrounded by sexism EVERY DAY. All the famous scientists, artists, musicians, etc...we learned about in school were MEN. The message was clear. Men rule. Women just don't make the cut. Somehow, I think your son will survive feeling left out of the…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:34 AM
1

SOO crazy!!!
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:05 AM
0

I'm not the one comparing, the people on that forum are. However, I am annoyed by people who are acting like alex jones who immediately assume that Norton is immediately some conspiracy to destroy all men... Maybe you should let them get their shit together, and see how they respond now that it has been brought to their attention before calling them bigots and assholes who are trying to instill feminist propaganda on our kids.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 12:33 AM
-5

Supporting why these sites are okay, and debating that radfeminist sights are more (or at leas equally) hateful is great discussion. However immeditely jumping on symantec calling them censors and propagandists or whatever is just uncalled for. They are working on it, let them work on it, and after they make their decision you can call them whatever the hell you want.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:28 PM
1

No, its not even close to accurate. Maybe saying "using the pull out method is like playing russian roulette" that wouldn't bother me. I think its an overstatement, and an exaggeration, but I understand that. It isn't a stupid statement. Saying "using x is like using russian roulette for body armor" Is equivalent to saying "You are worse off using the pull out method than by not using it" or "The pullout method is more likely to get a girl pregnant than using no BC and cumming inside her". Is it…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 12:22 AM
1

^^ well of course, you don't want to depend on ANY one method of birth control with a regular sex life. Nor am I saying it is an amazing use that everyone should depend on. But when someone is combining it with a condom, and female birth control, then having the balls to say that they are playing russian roulette is a fucking joke. Taking something that DOES HELP when reducing chances of pregnancy, and comparing it to willingly playing russian roulette is stupid. If he wants to make that compari…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 06:55 PM
0

It is a legitimate form of birth control, and it isn't anywhere near worthless. In fact, perfect use pull out method is more effective than most other forms of birth control. Try researching your shit before making witty comments implying others stupidity in claims that you think are "obviously" false Edit: took out a stupid insult
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:06 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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