TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RobWilard Archive

View 2 posts and 61 comments by RobWilard 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)
5

Patriarchy theory is a psychological projection. It reflects the way the world would be, genders reversed, if women were the historically dominant gender... Deep wisdom hinted at here. If we separate gender dominance between productive and reproductive resources can we get a glimpse of the effect of women's dominance of the latter and so extend and test the theory?
/r/MensRights05/08/15 09:12 AM
1

It undermines the argument that, on average, men can't live to 80 or more, as women do.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 04:06 PM
2

I have heard it argued that men's average live span (76 in the USA) is lower than women's (81) because they are men. This article states that men's lifespan in Japan is 80, which undermines that gendered argument.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 07:35 AM
3

At root, all government involves the threat of “forcible and violent appropriation of funds from private citizens, and … direct violence of uniformed agents of the state and the courts”. Anything else is anarchy. Complaining about this in the first part of the main article weakens their argument. Their better point is effectively that first world government also involves two key mechanisms: Universal Suffrage (biased in favour of the majority, women) Widespread Compliance with the system (ie mai…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 03:50 PM
1

but women are not scarce It's relative scarcity scarcity that matters. paternal instinct is pretty undeniably more important There have been longstanding successful societies where the father was not involved in the raising of his child. Never the opposite. The scarce egg explanation presupposes lifelong monogamy (Genderratic) It doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 05:09 PM
1

I doubt if individual human behaviour is guided by the survival of the species. Survival of genes, and possibly culture, is more likely to determine behaviour. The factor that might really change our species' bias towards protecting women is artificial reproduction and I'm wondering if this has been explored in any decent science fiction, yet.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 10:05 AM
1

This presumes that men can only marry women from their own society I was referring mainly to prehistory. the only reproductive resource [women] hold that men don't is wombs and eggs Scarce reproductive resources, of which one type is enough of course, but you could add breasts, maternal instinct and, possibly, a lower risk taking instinct to your list. In any one place or time in prehistory the importance of the different gender roles depended on different factors, no doubt, but a group with few…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 09:51 AM
27

Societies that believed a woman's death was equivalent to a man's were unlikely to be able to compete numerically with those that believed in prioritising the protection of women, since women hold our species' scarce reproductive resources.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 12:37 PM
3

The 'ultimate' reason is probably because early human societies that treated men and women completely equally, or protected men before they protected women, didn't survive. Women monopolise the scarce reproductive resources and a failure to protect these leads to the end of the society. As a result modern humans tend to have an unconscious bias towards protecting women. 'Protection' implies different things in different ages but the developed world now sees it, essentially, as feminism.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 10:26 AM
1

This would be a giant step towards artificial human reproduction and therefore a necessity for meaningful gender equality. As such, I predict that women will fight it tooth and nail. Should it become practical and permitted then I believe the 'aborting' women would, by default, not be held responsible for child support. Eventually, the logic of the situation would result in men who want to opt out of parenthood (before the child's birth) being allowed to do so - but only a long time later and ov…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:07 AM
83

I believe her, always Perhaps there should be another separate legal system for feminists, that enforces mantra like this. Sharia courts here in some parts of the Uk are an example of how they might work. What would be the punishments they might impose? -Not being able to marry a feminist? -Not being able to listen to the BBC or read the Guardian? Where do I sign up?
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:28 PM
2

"Anne-Marie Haller, of the Unsa teaching union, said: "How can we put out the fire? This campaign is playing on a poorly educated and credulous public. The damage has been done."" What wonderful irony!
/r/MensRights29/01/14 01:41 PM
5

I for one would be slightly more sympathetic to the equal pay demand if it came with a demand for 50/50 parenting rights. Women want to be compensated for the burdens of reproduction (e.g. in pay) but they fight like tigers against equally sharing the benefits.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 04:14 PM
5

Interpreting the past through the prism of the West's very recent cult of Individualism is just Herstory, though. Marriage used to create a completely new legal entity. Yes, the man had the legal responsibility for the management of a marriage's assets and liabilities but that was for a very good legal reason: because penalising women with children wasn't either practical or acceptable. By the time most couples were solvent the man was often worn out. Many widows owned and managed assets - and h…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 11:04 AM
1

Yes, I saw it when it appeared quite a few years ago now, I think. It is clear and powerful but has anything changed for the better since?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:00 PM
1

Perfect, perfect, perfect! Thank you. Suitably angry and appropriately judgemental. Where to after this one, I wonder?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 02:32 PM
1

The author did divorce but he kept the children with him, I understand. "'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide" doesn't fit with a divorcing man these days, either. Also, it seems to have been intended for a woman to sing, with the words changed slightly if a man sang it.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 02:19 PM
1

Nice song, thanks for pointing me to it. But unfortunately it strikes me as very resigned to the terms of the separation. As if there isn't there enough confidence and love to inspire indignation and fight. So disappointing in that respect.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 01:53 PM
1

I'm looking for artwork that expresses the emotional aspects of divorce from a father's perspective convincingly. Any suggestions?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:39 PM
2

Really? You think that deciding to surgically remove a part of an infant's body is equivalent to deciding what clothes they wear?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 08:51 PM
3

Also, ask the feminist how it is that she has managed to turn around women's oppression so quickly, mostly in the last 50 years, and with so little opposition while her great... grandmothers all remained so horribly oppressed? Why are she and her sisters today so much more capable and independent than their great grandmothers were? Answer? They're not, of course. It's feminism's perception of history that is grossly distorted, not the capabilities of women through the ages.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 08:45 AM
0

They don't do the right thing and wait until he's old enough to decide for himself, though. Just like Jews and Muslims don't.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 09:14 AM
2

The way to minimise the damage is to make infant circumcision both unacceptable and punishable, not to participate in it. The damage to infants is the responsibility of the people performing this barbaric act. Relieving them of part of this responsibility is making the act more acceptable. It isn't a war on two fronts, it's war or peace. You can't have both.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 11:17 PM
2

Best, then, to reply to the actual comment that you take issue with. Explain that you understand their pov but that the topic will get more support from the circumcised if comments focus on the future - because criticism of past actions can unintentionally alienate potential supporters.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:25 AM
1

Abortions aren't performed on un-consenting women. Cultural infant circumcision is an attack on the defenceless infant's rights, whether it leads to immediate further health problems for the infant or not. The issue that needs addressing is the circumcision itself. Circumcision should be eradicated, as you say. Official participation is not the way to get a ban going. I am disgusted by the NHS' approach on this. So should you be.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:14 AM
6

Unfortunately, in some parts of the UK, the NHS do now perform religious or culturally motivated circumcisions. They require a contribution to the costs but the pressure from some communities has been such that they have decided to operate themselves rather than have some backstreet slasher operate. A political decision I believe to be both deeply flawed and misandrist.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:39 AM
14

Could the OP be clearer that the issue is about consent, yet you interpret this as 'its bad to be circumcised'? Any suggestions as to how Intactivists can make the case against future infant circumcisions without making you feel bad?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:30 AM
1

'Neither decision looks like a bad one' ... Unless the parent had to actually watch their baby boy being circumcised, I guess.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 10:25 AM
1

I hoped I'd addressed most of those points in my post, but I guess I failed. My main point, though, is that - as much as we'd like to treat (in this case African) men as children and protect them from people we regard as lying abusers - we Intactivists should be careful not to overstep our remit. Adults can choose, and must be allowed to choose, for themselves. Our focus must be on those too young to choose. If the program is re-framed to fund the circumcision of underage boys then it should get…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 09:18 AM
15

It's voluntary and it's for men (not infants). If you're over 18, would like to have your foreskin removed by someone paid for by the USA taxpayer and prefer a 4000% higher risk of contracting HIV (assuming the dubious african HIV trials produced accurate results), all rather than use a condom - then that's your choice, I guess.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:22 PM
1

An easy way to prove your contention that circumcision is 'far too sensationalized' is to find an intact adult man and see how he reacts when you attempt to circumcise him. If you're left with any fingers afterwards, post your conclusions here.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 04:02 PM
9

Over-inflated? Not to most of us who have a foreskin. If you doubt that, try taking one away from someone your own size who hasn't consented.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:08 AM
6

Large parts of the developed world don't circumcise infant boys and don't suffer these 'proven' disadvantages. No, my advice is to steer clear of medical science because it is not yet able to be objective enough on this subject (just read some of the academics statements on how they have to avoid upsetting their jewish colleagues and their non-partisan funders). Instead, concentrate on the YouTube videos that show babies screaming in agony while being circumcised and that show the blood and gore…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:59 PM
1

The questioner implies that the benefits to society of specialism (ie the correct answer to her question about why single mothers are poorer than she thinks they should be) should be subordinated to her notion of equality - but she doesn't notice that she only applies her notion of equality to the productive spheres of human endeavour, and not to the reproductive spheres.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 11:08 PM
1

"It wasn't lost on me that today is Father's Day. I think a lot of us came from great men and we have the responsibility to them to show them what great men can be." Justin Rose, 2013 US Open Champion, 16th June 2013.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 08:12 AM
1

The justification actually given in the article is one of the deepest and soundest available to evolutionary theory, although it doesn't take many words.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:29 AM
1

I was on the 'doorstep' of Buckingham Palace yesterday.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:51 AM
1

First there is 'absolutely no justification'. Then, once one is pointed out, there is 'no deeper analysis'. Had you replied 'Ah, I missed that, but then how...' I might think you were in the market for a decent discussion. As it is, I don't.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:50 AM
2

The issue is not about how much healthy skin is cut off, it's about the abuse involved in cutting anything healthy off someone who can't consent. If you consented to be cut, fine. If you're offering post-hoc consent then that's generous of you, but it mustn't be assumed in others. There is no reason and no excuse to circumcise healthy infants or children. It is a barbaric practice. Adults who genuinely wish it are free to be tattooed, pierced or circumcised. The distinction drawn here is about c…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:40 AM
3

Tell them what you believe and why (but remember that it isn't what they believe yet). If you are secure in your beliefs you'll also tell them something about what other people believe (or don't). Then let them choose for themselves when they are adults.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:19 AM
6

Few here object to you cutting off whatever you like once you're old enough to understand and agree to it. Knock yourself out. Many of us violently object to someone forcing it on someone else, though, whatever bronze-age mumbo jumbo they say they believe in.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:20 PM
4

You are right to be angry and to protest about this barbaric practice. Unless we do we're letting down future generations.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:16 PM
7

If you mean any of what you say you'll give your sons the right to decide if they will be circumcised when they are men, and old enough to decide for themselves.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:12 PM
1

Long gone. But we still have to pay their exorbitant salaries and gold-plated pensions. It's a political belief system known as: Islington Socialism.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:18 PM
1

'Hurrah for those who never conquered anybody! Hurrah for those who only ever copied others!' (With apologies to Amie Cesaire)
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:48 PM
2

I understand e.g. 'equal before the law' but I don't believe humans feel good about their legal system treating men and women equally. Because of the effect on children and because, in general, men and women behave differently and experience different motivations.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 09:19 AM
2

Many MRAs believe equality is meaningful and achievable. I don't, because I think that specialism is an essential element of humanity. But I do believe that Western society would benefit from men having reproductive rights that better reflect their reproductive responsibilities. That is why I identify as an MRA. I don't think it is appropriate to reflect on the the end of feminism's influence on men's reproductive rights yet. That battle hasn't really started.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 09:26 PM
6

A fanatic is both extreme and unreasonable. It is entirely reasonable to disagree with feminism. There will be fanatics in every significant movement, MR and feminism included, but you don't have to be one of them. It's up to you.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:56 PM
2

'...there is (only) one major European-descent group (NZ) with a replacement-level birth rate... what do you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?'
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:36 PM
26

All infant circumcision that isn't medically justified should be illegal. Any pro-cutting arguments (none good IMO) can simply be met by leaving the decision to the child, when he's a man and old enough to take it.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:15 PM
1

'What is not up for debate...' Everything is up for debate here. Don't confuse this with r/Feminism. '....says much more about RobWilard...' Ad hominems say much more about... ;-)
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:00 PM
1

Procreation = f(sex,x) Technology may change that in the future, i agree, and I sincerely hope it does. Things will then get very interesting indeed! However, I doubt if human behaviours will change so quickly.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:50 PM
1

I speak for myself - and sasha doesn't speak for me. I did not say sex is the only thing women offer.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:51 PM
2

If roofs were the only thing that produced children then, yes, a large influx of roofers would affect you (or at least most people).
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:39 PM
1

It isn't possible to subjectively experience the post-hoc rationalisation of moral emotions. You need to check out the objective research.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:17 PM
2

Most people can't explain their moral emotions. It doesn't mean they are stupid relative to the rest of humanity.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:35 AM
4

'...something two or more people do because they want to'. Sounds just like trading goods/services for money, then.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:22 AM
3

Improve it, then, why not?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 08:59 PM
7

Prostitution reduces the value of other women's sex, just like counterfeiting banknotes reduces the value of other people's wealth. (Previously, it also undermined important family ties and spread serious diseases, but feminism and prophylactics have neutered such threats nowadays.) If your lifestyle relied on your sexual value then you'd probably perceive prostitution as a crime, too, although you might try to rationalise your feelings as protecting vulnerable sex workers, encouraging moral beh…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:35 PM
8

We're not 'anti-circumcision men'. We're 'anti-chopping-off-babies-healthy-body-parts men'. Do it when you reach maturity, by all means. Knock yourself out.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:27 PM
0

It doesn't matter what I believe to be true. What matters is what works. If a group of people find that adopting one specific belief makes them more successful than other groups, for whatever reason, then the belief itself will tend to be successful. Until things change and a new belief is found to work better. The belief that women can contribute more to the productive life of a community while men continue to be largely excluded from its reproductive life works better now than the age-old divi…
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:12 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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