TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RobertCatherine Archive

View 2 posts and 65 comments by RobertCatherine 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)
32

Legal RightsRobertCatherine/r/MensRights25/08/18 10:17 PM
3

Legal RightsRobertCatherine/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:31 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The briefest way I can state it is that this study design is one of the most careful I've seen and seems to be careful about being gender neutral. "Data collection. We reviewed all daily and weekly U.S. newspapers listed in Lexis-Nexis -- most of them local -- and coded every article mentioning the keywords 'rape' or 'sexual assault.'" This introduces a significant gender bias in that when a rapist penetrates her vagina with the victim's penis without his consent is is often not recognized as ra…
/r/MensRights16/09/18 06:42 AM
1

The other place it happened before this time was \/r\/Libertarian, so it's something going beyond just a Feminist shitposting here.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 02:13 PM
1

Seems like that has been happening a lot more often in the last couple weeks, where people just say "I disagree." with no explanation. Might be part of a paid campaign.
/r/MensRights13/09/18 01:53 PM
1

So much for following the facts, then?
/r/MensRights13/09/18 06:48 AM
1

"Areas with more X have more news reporting of X" seems like a more rational interpretation of the correlation than "Areas with more news reporting of X have more X". It's also relatively clear that the researchers adherence to Feminist rape culture means that their discussion of "rape" effaces the majority of rape victims. You can't ignore half the problem and pretend to have a whole solution. This interaction produces four possible outcomes: (1) the perpetrator does not commit rape, (2) the pe…
/r/MensRights13/09/18 04:05 AM
1

She was just being satirical, like Valerie Solanas.
/r/MensRights12/09/18 03:44 PM
1

"Victim blaming" in its original clinical sense referred to something the victim did to themselves. It's a nonproductive thought processes obsessing over preventing something in the past (which is impossible) or planning for it happening again (which is improbable). The recommended approach to victim blaming, btw, is to emphasize that the traumatic event is unlikely to be a recurring thing. For instance, telling people that they live in a "rape culture" would be exactly the wrong thing to addres…
/r/MensRights12/09/18 03:27 PM
1

Before subreddits were implemented, everything was in one big uncategorized bin moderated by what are now the admins. When subreddits were rolled out as an option, that one big uncategorized bin became /r/reddit.com (which is still moderated by the admins, btw). After that whole subreddit thing took off and the site grew, they got tired of moderating the one big uncategorized bin, and it was archived on 18Oct2011. So you can go to /r/reddit.com and get a reasonably good snap-shot of what reddit …
/r/MensRights12/09/18 01:41 PM
1

you can go look at /r/reddit.com and see how great things used to be
/r/MensRights12/09/18 08:47 AM
1

"He should've thought of that before he had sex." /s Are there any other multi-victim crimes where it's the norm to further harm one of the victims to mitigate the harm to the other victim (and/or further enrich the perpetrator)?
/r/MensRights12/09/18 06:19 AM
1

I'm pretyy sure these deplatformung efforts with Alex Jones, Roosh V, and other sorts of unpopular speakers are testing the water. Once they've established that people can be convinced that censorship is acceptable, they'll move on to more popular targets. Iterate until the social cleansing is complete and the sterile monoculture is attained.
/r/MensRights12/09/18 06:10 AM
1

What would better represent Men's Rights Activism than the website of someone on record explicitly stating they are hostile to MRA? A satirical Feminism-as-PUA cargo cult subreddit , of course!
/r/MensRights12/09/18 06:00 AM
1

Looks like they really hate asians.
/r/MensRights12/09/18 05:48 AM
1

The basic idea of finding Your Own Way™, being unapologetic about going it, and not letting yourself be distracted/manipulated/exploited by whoever/whatever wishes to join their path in life with yours sounds like a pretty good one in theory. In practice, the type of people who want to talk about MGTOW, TRP/Satirical-Feminist-PUA, and Incel/Non-Satirical-PUA and thus inhabit the associated online discussion spaces for such things all seem to share a similar pile of complaints about women's sexua…
/r/MensRights11/09/18 07:51 AM
1

I don't what other shitty things they've been doing, but I'm not sure I'd agree with a ban if it was just more of the above. OTOH, they've now switched to PMs to continue to rave about hating the Jews, so... Yeah, dude probably would've ended up banned after a warning anyway.
/r/MensRights11/09/18 03:25 AM
1

Of what importance, then, is ancient scripture? Precisely, none. Yes, exactly. This whole "making it illegal to mutilat children's genitals is anti-Semitic" argument is equally as ridiculous as "Israel making it illegal to murder homosexuals in anti-Semitic." So, why are intactivists so obsessed with the 150k rather than the 9m, 60 times as great? False premise. "All children should be protected from genital mutilation." contains no mention of religion, much less some ornate heirarchy focusing o…
/r/MensRights10/09/18 11:36 PM
1

The religious prescription to murder teh gays is right there in the Pentateuch. Clearly Israel must be anti-Semitic. So So special.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 04:35 AM
1

It's becoming a convention to take screenshots and edit out people's account details to avoid the situation where someone who uses social media to show stuff to a handful of their friends is suddenly dealing with the attention from hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world. Even if the attention is positive, it often renders the platform unusable until the clamoring horde abates. And then, months later, without warning, it gets reposted somewhere and it all happens again. And then …
/r/MensRights10/09/18 02:34 AM
1

Gay people are anti-Semites because they object to being murdered. The whole "murder is bad" thing is just a front for their abject hatred of the Jews. This post is so special.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 01:55 AM
1

1 & 2 are largely a matter of who was willing to appear in the documentary. She had several more-relevant Feminists withdraw support once word got out that it was going to be like her previous documentary work and not a hit piece. IE the Occidental College event. IIRC the anonymous reporting tool allegedly being spammed with false accusations was what prompted the publicity and discussion. It's not known who did it or why, so presenting it as an example of "MRAs behaving badly" would just put yo…
/r/MensRights10/09/18 01:20 AM
1

Does the person intend to connect different parts of their publicly available information? If not, then you're crossing a boundary they've set by publicising the unintended connection. Even in cases where there is no apparent attempt at compartmentalization, it's still kinda creepy to dig around in people's internet history and report what you've found.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 12:29 AM
1

As illustrated in the imgur comments, this is probably intended as a dog whistle for anti-immigration folks.
/r/MensRights09/09/18 11:26 PM
1

But you're making a distinction that doesn't make any sense. Yeah, the "friends not food" distinction is pretty arbitrary, but sentimentality is not required to make sense. Hell, people do it with mass-produced commodity objects that are literally interchangeable: "there are many like it, but this one is mine". A fish is a fish. If you have to not kill "these as pets" cruelly by suffocating with bleach, then you have to not kill "those we eat" with suffocating by yanking them out of the water wi…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:12 AM
1

I'm pretty sure even the larger pet fish are still caught with nets. And the fish caught recreationally or for eating (on hooks or in nets) generally seem to be different types than the ones kept as pets. But, yeah, I agree those points aren't relevant to the case at hand and can be disregarded.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 08:11 AM
1

Help at all? When you fish, you send a sharp edge piercing through somethings mouth. Then you either disembowel it right there, or you let it suffocate and then disembowel it. Fish that small would be caught with a net, not a hook, and I'm unaware of a market for disemboweled pet fish. I believe most people in the UK prefer their pets to be alive. Do you not think this is also the case in the US? But pouring chlorine is "cruel". If you had to euthanized a pet and were given the options between i…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 07:24 AM
1

I'm unable to parse your question. Did you accidentally a word?
/r/MensRights08/09/18 06:24 AM
1

Animal cruelty in the UK isn't an FBI matter, love.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 04:26 AM
1

You greatly underestimate the brain's ability to automate processes. People who sleepwalk are unconscious, but can clearly drive. Someone's actions being the result of their brain "automating" their decision making or their actions being a result of deliberate choice would be externally indistinguishable. It's a consideration of no more consequence than someone waking up in the drunk tank with a DUI and insisting they'd never choose to drive blackout drunk while sober. There are children born wi…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 07:12 AM
1

A commonly appearing term in caselaw regarding "a drunk person who cannot consent" is the phrase "wholly insensible", that is, unconscious or nearly so. A wholly insensible person cannot "start 'initiating' themselves" any more than they could start a car and drive it. This is why the whole sidebar about "people are held responsible if they choose to drive drunk, why not if they choose to have drunk consensual sex" is dumb. 'Too Drunk to Consent' doesn't mean your consent doesn't count, it means…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 06:44 AM
1

So he should be good since she was 15 and he was 18. No, 18 years plus one second would not be "between 15 to 18". And the lack of charges in the both-people-are--minors cases is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, not law. If they fucked while both underage they are both statutory rapists as far as the letter of the law is concerned. Whether or not they had intercourse in that time frame, as far as I know, is impossible to prove. I know I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of my head th…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 06:12 AM
1

That where we pretend women's choices and actions shouldn't matter and tgat sex is something men do and women have done to them? Yeah, miss me with that gender malagency shit.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 05:26 AM
1

Its really simple, actually. The fact that it might be impossible to discover who was the sexual aggressor does not mean there is no sexual aggressor. There is no such thing as "mutual sexual aggression". SOmeone has to proposition the other, and the other must 'consent', by 'recipient of sexual query' standard. Consent is not a one-and-done type of thing. During an ongoing intimate encounter, the roles of propositioner and recipuent can be expected to swap back and forth several times. Hell, ro…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 05:12 AM
1

ND appears to ignore consensual sex when both statutory rapists are between 15 to 18, though there is no official "Romeo&Juliet" code. The main areas of concern would be if she was under 15 or he was over 18. It's unclear about the timing of their birthdays and the start/end of the relationship, but even if they started dating shortly before her 15th birthday and stopped shortly after his 18th birthday, it would not be implausible that they did not bang during those time periods. Might be diffic…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 05:04 AM
1

Wary. Herd mentality. Also, what is a True Feminist doing in Australia? Shouldn't you be in Scotland?
/r/MensRights03/09/18 02:13 AM
1

The Levering Act loyalty oath comes to mind: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office according to the best of my ability; that I do not believe in, and I am not a member of, nor do I support any party or organization that believes in, advocates, or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government, by force or by any illegal or uncons…
/r/MensRights03/09/18 12:18 AM
1

You sound kind of like the Americans who argue that the 1st Amendment is about Congress, and thus violating people's right to freedom of speech is not a problem when other entities do it.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 01:32 AM
1

Semi-relatedly, Alexia Fast is a qt3.14.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 01:00 AM
1

The charter has nothing to do with that case. The case was brought to HRTO, under the OHRC. [...] It has nothing to do with the charter, further to note, the charter applies to governments, and government agencies, not to private entities, that is handled by the provinces human rights tribunals. If the Charter did not present discrimination against people on the bases of race, national/ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental/physical disability as explicity legal, the Provincial code…
/r/MensRights02/09/18 12:28 AM
1

Explain the example case, then, as I guees I'm woefully uneducated on the Canadian history of oppression in bar cover charges that "Ladies Night" seeks to correct.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 11:22 PM
1

Discrimination against people on the bases of race, national/ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental/physical disability is explicity legal in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 15(2).
/r/MensRights01/09/18 10:56 PM
1

Don't be too put off by the name or it's history. The 2005 reauthorization added language clarifying that the Act does not prohibit coverage of male victims. The 2013 reauthorization prohibited organizations and projects recieving VAWA funding from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to 2005, if you were doing research in this area and your results found, for instance, that women perpetrated 70% of nonreciprocal domestic violence and that the majority of victims of intimate par…
/r/MensRights01/09/18 05:06 AM
1

Does the state benefit from such tests? Yes. This sort of fraud and abuse would not continue at its current rate if the incentives were removed (or reversed). This ultimately results in fewer child victims (as the abusers no longer have the assistance of the state to enrich themselves at the expense of the adult victims of the fraud). Further, the adult victims do not have their prospects and earning potential derailed, and thus their net contribution in taxes over their lifetime would likely be…
/r/MensRights31/08/18 03:42 AM
1

The normal use of "toxic masculinity" in conversation is to engage in casual gender bigotry, and then pretend it's an inoffensive academic concept if called out. Considering whether the concept has merit is to let yourself be derailed; the term's rhetorical purpose is to whitewash hate. "Toxic femininity" is just a sardonic pisstake foil, intended to highlight the above. That said, ideas similar to the "inoffensive academic concept" can be found in non- and anti-feminist discourse as gender mala…
/r/MensRights25/08/18 05:33 AM
1

Full PDF of the article.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 08:54 PM
1

I might put in more effort if I actually thought the previous poster was authentically interested in a source.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 07:06 PM
1

Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932 Ian J. Dearya,*, Graham Thorpeb , Valerie Wilsonb , John M. Starrc , Lawrence J. Whalleyd a Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UK b Scottish Council for Research in Education, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK c Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK d Department of Mental Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, Aberdeen, Sc…
/r/MensRights19/08/18 06:45 PM
1

Sure. Oh goo, we agree your argument is incorrect. What's your point? You argument is incorrect. The "false premise" that snuffing out a human life is not a right? that "false premise"? heh. I was mainly being sardonic about your historic inability to present a coherent argument and didn't even bothering to think about your claim. Do you actually want to try to make a case for your position this time, or are you going to be a waste of time again?
/r/MensRights17/08/18 05:05 AM
1

It is not a "violation" of anything if a contract is willingly signed by both parties. Terms of willingly signed contracts are routinely declared unenforceable and unconscionable, so that's a pretty pointlessly weak argument. I also strongly reject your false premise that suggests that snuffing out a human life is anyone's right. Well, *pbbt*, I strongly reject your false premise, so nyah!
/r/MensRights17/08/18 04:43 AM
1

Are you trying to suggest that violating women's reproductive rights (e.g., forcing them to gestate a fetus "embyo" against their will) is "giving men reproductive rights"? That's some pants-on-head bullshit, so I've assumed that's not what you meant.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 04:16 AM
1

the idea of giving men reproductive rights via the marriage contract, It sounds like you're proposing the exact opposite of that, where marriage creates a justification to violate men's reproductive rights, but that you think that'd be cool because it would create a justification to violate women's reproductive rights, too. But I don't want to violate women's reproductive rights, so the idea holds zero appeal.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 03:39 AM
1

The MRM posits that it is feminism, as well as the rights afforded to women through it, that is the reason(s) why men suffer; that gains for women have resulted in losses for men. Sure. This is a result of current Feminist thought having an ideological basis in Marxism. The profits of the bourgeois capitalists are necessarily derived from the exploitation of the proletariat. With that sort of world-model defining the problem as zero-sum, proposing a solution that is helps women and harms men is …
/r/MensRights17/08/18 03:21 AM
1

The "severe economic penalties" that currently exist are substantially a result of the lack of reproductive rights. If men have equal effective access to Legal Parental Surrender, similar to what women currently enjoy, then those "severe economic penalties" are pretty much eliminated. Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 02:42 AM
1

The 1975 example is still within the Lesbian Separatist and Genocidal Feminist community of which Gearhart was/is a part and in no way sanitizes the hate slogan's origins.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 01:39 AM
1

I imagine you'd be fairly upset if you were denied toilet paper or had to pay to have just a reasonable amount or simply go without. This happens routinely in prisons. The limits are in place due to the problem of prisoners deliberately clogging the toilets and other misuses of the provided items. And also just because states want to spend as little as possible on prisons and prisoners. The historical lack of concern for the plight of (male) prisoners thus provides a fairly robust legal basis fo…
/r/MensRights15/08/18 01:28 AM
1

Alimony Alimony should be generally abolished, but not prohibited, as I can see a case made for voluntarily including provisions for spousal maintenance in prenuptial agreements or prepared divorce settlements. Even voluntary agreements shall be limited by duration (e.g., no longer than the marriage, maximum of 5 years) percentage of payor's income (e.g., 10%), and absolute amount (e.g. poverty level). In no case would a former spouse's choice to prioritize family over work, and the associated n…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 03:07 AM
1

Legal service as a process was created to deal with people who are avoiding notice in an attempt to stall or later invalidate a proceeding. Delivering notice to someone's last known address (even though they do not live there and they will not recieve notice) is "legal service". Posting notice as a classified ad in a paper of record, which the recipient may never read, is "legal service". "Legal service" is a way of saying "hey, we tried to notify them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" and then continuing the proceedi…
/r/MensRights08/08/18 02:37 AM
1

Do I really have to explain the obvious? it should go without saying that in, for example, cases like tax evasion, there is no distinction between men and women, to even bring it up is pure unadulterated idiocy. Sooo... Your previous assertion that you'd never support gender neutral anything was you saying something stupid. "Pure unadulterated idiocy", even. Glad we've worked that out. Whoever said that is a moron. A woman's inconvenience does not outweigh a human life. It's not being weighed ag…
/r/MensRights07/08/18 09:07 AM
1

Drivel. You do this sort of thing a lot when people gamely point out you've said something stupid. If you just acknowledge you've said something stupid, we can move on, but you do this instead so ypur stupidity persists in the discusdion. Differences exist between men and women. The law must observe these distinctions. And how do you propose "the law must observe these distinctions" in the cases of burglary, tax evasion, and drunk driving? Again, the classic example is abortion. It is impossible…
/r/MensRights07/08/18 06:15 AM
1

I would never advocate , nor support "gender neutral" anything. Huh... What sort of explicit gender bias do you advocate for the laws regarding, say, buglary? Or tax evasion? Or drunk driving? The sexes are not equal. Jurisprudence is (supposed to be) fair and even handed. It is not supposed to be "equal". And writing laws that fit the first case can be tricky in areas of law that are directly impacted by biological differences, but for a lot of areas of law it would be unnecessary, and somewhat…
/r/MensRights07/08/18 05:06 AM
1

You can write a putatively gender neutral law in a way in which people are treated fairly and equally, or you can write a putatively gender neutral law in a way which creates or enables gender inequality. A law like the second case is undesirable, of course, but I'm doubtful that replacing it with an explicitly biased law would be a better solution than replacing it with a law like the first case.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 04:39 AM
1

First: This qualifies as notice. In the unlikely event that you are declared the legal father, any back-dated child support and such would potentiall start from now. If your budget can handle it, start putting money aside in savings for this possibility until the matter is settled. Second: The quickest way to settle it is a paternity test. As a scam, she'll ask you to pay for it, but she'll offer to handle the testing. She'll then pocket the money and say you're not the father... a quick way to …
/r/MensRights07/08/18 12:39 AM
1

Maybe, maybe not. Millions of people have lived in NYC. 99.9999995% of women in NYC have not had their achievements recognized with a statue while only 99.9999855% of men in NYC have been similarly ignored. If you examined 99.9999th percentile humans for basically any other trait you'd care to measure, you'd probably find and even greater gender skew due to men generally having a wider/flatter statistical distribution. Thus the observed result in NYC statues is not unexpected.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 06:25 AM
1

When you're with a group of black people, understand you're now a pack, so making sure no-one in the group does or says anything that might scare a white person more, is important. Remember, it's your responsibility to accommodate bigots!
/r/MensRights30/07/18 06:09 AM
1

The naive framing of "better ten guilty go free than one innocent suffer" thing would apply to women accused of making false rape accusations, too. If you understand the Blackstone quote as being about the relative potential for harm caused by the State being much much greater than the potential for harm caused by an individual criminal being found not guilty, then the issue of false accusation is put in a different light as the harms caused by false accusation are often enabled, if not directly…
/r/MensRights30/07/18 04:31 AM
1

The context that is lost in the Blackstone quote is that it considers only the suffering inflicted upon innocents by the State. Those ten guilty persons that go free presumably have inflicted suffering on 10+ innocents. Another way of framing it would be that it is better for ten innocents to suffer the harms caused by individual criminals than for one innocent to suffer the harms caused by inadequately checked violence of the State. It's a considerably more complex assertion than it appears in …
/r/MensRights30/07/18 12:27 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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