TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Skareymc Archive

View 3 posts and 90 comments by Skareymc 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

Yes, everyone should just get a flat income, regardless of what they do. (Note: this income should be very low.)
/r/MensRights23/10/11 12:59 PM
2

I agree, and I honestly don't have a problem with it. If you're with a woman who trains you like a dog and you put up with it, that's your problem, and likewise vice versa.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 04:10 PM
10

These comments are interesting. if men\ chose to shoot themselves in the foot by not graduating high school or college, why is that women's fault and men need a "Mens Rights Movement" to rectify? I'd agree, if it was acceptable to use this same argument when discussing why there are less women in the hard sciences. Since there are clearly societal pressures for both circumstances, this is nonsense at best, and the worst sort of egocentrism at worst. I think most women are looking for equality fo…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:51 AM
3

So stealing a kiss is rape? How about copping a feel? I'm not saying any of these are good things, however I wouldn't call them rape.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:22 AM
3

This isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 03:18 PM
3

The shit indeed.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 12:53 AM
3

I don't think this is fair. Feminism is a movement, where as being transgender is not.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 05:49 AM
3

UPDATE: While Edible Canada didn’t respond to my emailed questions, they have now spoken to Sun reporter Denise Ryan. The bistro says the stickers are a joke. There is a follow up here.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:48 AM
4

I first thought this as well, but upon a second reading, I think she may have been comparing the wages of young females in the present to young women in the past, and not to young men. I sincerely hope that this is what she meant anyways. Regardless, it behooves the reporter to clarify her remark.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:08 AM
8

This woman has actually done me a great service. I will admit that I have some prejudices against trans-people, and for a long time I was okay with it. I didn't act upon them, and I didn't try to restrict the way people dealt with their own issues. Now, looking at this horrible, hateful woman, I can see that I was in many ways part of the problem. I still have issues with trans-people, that is something that goes deep, but now I am trying to purge myself of those issues. I suppose I should thank…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 05:15 AM
1

Chosen to be their jews. Are you referring to the fact that Jews have historically been persecuted wherever they go, and you are saying that now "nice guys"(NGs) now face the same problem? I suppose I can see this parallel, when NGs are with women they are degraded for being "manipulative", and expecting sex for "not being an asshole", while when NGs are with men, they are told to "man up". You should probably clarify this if it is what you mean. At first glance your title looks rather antisemit…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:22 PM
2

Thanks for posting that. It's a good example of someone who appears to be quietly crazy, as opposed to the loudly insane examples of feminists that often appear on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:59 PM
1

The girl recanted parts of her story, not all of it. From this story it's impossible to make an informed decision on this case.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:03 AM
5

I think you may have missed my point.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:48 PM
1

Guys, don't worry about it, it's clearly just her 'time of the month', and she's being affected by some crazy hormone cycles. Oh wait, that isn't a valid reason to dismiss someone, is it?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:28 PM
0

I can understand why women don't go on this show, it is plainly hostile to women. Just take a look at all the mansplaining that's going on here
/r/MensRights27/09/11 03:31 AM
3

I read the article, and it sounds like this was reporting on a study that was done. In other words, they weren't assuming any type of persona, they just found that this was the reaction from (I assume) a randomly selected group of women.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 06:21 AM
2

Yes, the state should be gender blind in these sorts of matters.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 05:25 AM
1

Not in all cases, just as the state shouldn't always get involved when it's a single father. In this case the state was already involved.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 05:24 AM
2

When I say that it shouldn't be an automatic decision, I don't mean that it shouldn't be the standard decision. In general, the father (or mother) should have custody rights, however in cases like this, where the state is already involved, the state has a responsibility to ensure the child is put into a safe home (notice I didn't say safest, so long as the father can meet minimal standards the child should be his).
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:56 PM
1

Not at all. Fathers should have default parental rights (i.e. assuming inaction on the part of the state), however they shouldn't have guaranteed parental rights, nor should the mother.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:30 PM
6

Hopefully this is the case that leads to this statute being expunged.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:24 PM
2

My thoughts are, when it comes to parental custody, anytime you say something is automatic, there will be issues. Should children stay with their parents? Yes, except in a lot of cases. Is it good for a child to grow up with their father? Yes, except for in a lot of cases. And you can go on forever, any generalisation you make will always have exceptions.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 09:37 PM
2

This author actually makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I'm not sure I agree with everything written, but there's nothing in there that I find really objectionable. At no point does she say that the father shouldn't get custody, just that there are some foreseeable issues with making it an automatic decision.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 08:46 PM
1

I'm considering this in the context of Domestic Violence, where your significant other is the one perpetuating the violence. (Child abuse is a whole different issue for the purposes of my advice). If you're in an abusive relationship, you need to end it, simple as that. (Obviously easier said than done, but it remains that it is a simple concept).
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:49 PM
1

I disagree. If someone hits you once, out of the blue, you should then take a step back and be prepared to defend yourself. If they hit you again, then hitting back would be appropriate, if it is necessary to escape. The obvious exception is where they are so much stronger than you (or if they have weapon), that if they hit you again you would be helpless, then you would be justified in using violence up to the point where you can escape. In my mind, when you are being assaulted, escape to a saf…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:37 PM
1

I think that this article is ridiculous, but I don't know about the team reference. I'm pretty sure none of the emmy winners think about me as being on their team, and I don't see them as being on mine. I don't clear space on my mantle every time a man wins an award.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 10:56 PM
2

Sorry, I didn't see that, and when I submitted the link it didn't indicate that it had already been posted.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:26 PM
4

Is that a quote? If so, can I have the source?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 10:51 PM
6

The example given in the article is an interesting one. "Amanda and Bill meet at a party. They spend the evening dancing and getting to know each other. Bill convinces Amanda to come up to his room. From 11:00pm until 3:00am, Bill uses every line he can think of to convince Amanda to have sex with him, but she adamantly refuses. He keeps at her, and begins to question her religious convictions, and accuses her of being “a prude.” Finally, it seems to Bill that her resolve is weakening, and he co…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:16 PM
-4

I don't see how that's rape. That's like saying someone going to work is slavery.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 09:50 PM
-7

I do think that refusing to have sex with your spouse should be grounds for divorce. As far as punishable by the courts, maybe. Jewish law has a number of rules regarding sex within marriage.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 06:17 PM
-3

It doesn't matter to me what they would call it. What I'm saying is that sex is an expected part of marriage, and if either party refuses sex consistently, then there is something wrong.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 05:31 PM
-2

I don't think these are the same thing at all. There is a difference between saying that sex is a necessary part of marriage, and saying that without sex a person can be denied food.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 04:06 PM
-8

I am splitting hairs. I think that others are being too quick to be offended. There is no need for name calling.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 02:40 AM
-6

I hear you, and I agree they could. I just don't really think it's necessary. While there is a serious issue with people not understanding that a good percentage of DV is caused by women, I do not think that alternating pronouns would help this.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 10:49 PM
-10

I'm not sure about that. This one, and this one are ambiguous. This one may or may not be a man. And this shows a women who is being abused, but the abuser could be anyone, male or female.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 10:32 PM
-15

I have found that the masculine pronoun is generally used in cases where gender is ambiguous. I don't read anything into it when it's something innocuous, so to be fair, I don't read anything into it when it is possibly offensive.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 10:21 PM
3

That's interesting. I thought this blog was talking about rape. We all know that rape isn't about being sexually attractive at all, so it really doesn't matter how ugly this Eric guy is, he could be raped just as easily as the next man.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:39 PM
1

If feminists can unlock the power of telepathy, then fuck it, I'll become a feminist. I would pretty readily give up some societal and legal privileges for a super power like that.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:43 AM
0

I would say that it is true. Condoms are not the only method of barrier birth control either.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:14 PM
1

What would they use? I'd definitely be worried about something that decreases fertility.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:37 PM
-1

I personally am against a male pill. I am also against the female pill. Barrier birth control is good enough in my opinion, messing with hormones is a bad idea. I disagree with the author on condoms being primarily the female's responsibility. Although my evidence is merely anecdotal, every guy I know who goes out to get laid always carries a condom in his wallet.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:01 PM
4

It seems to me that the only legitimate complaint here is that having tubes tied has a zero copay, while vasectomies do not. I do not believe there is really a male equivalent of the other options. Men have less birth control options, pretty much just condoms and vasectomies, and condoms aren't medical. Although I am a Canadian, so the idea of anything having a copay seems absolutely insane to me.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:29 AM
2

The book Proofiness shows a lot of examples where "bad" statistics are used. I won't say feminists are innocent of doing this, I'll just say that the problem goes deeper than any ideology.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 04:53 AM
3

To be fair, this is a paradoxical outcome. I think that most people would have issues understanding this right away. If you look further up that page, you would see that there were two treatments for kidney stones, one that works 83% of the time, and one that works 78% of the time. Going just from that data, it would be reasonable to conclude that the one that worked 83% of the time is better, however that is clearly not the case. I don't think the problem is that feminists don't understand stat…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 10:10 PM
7

I've never understood the idea that you can't take pictures of kids playing in parks. If you're in a public place, I think that there is an understanding that someone might watch you, and that you might be recorded. Even if someone is a paedophile, what harm will them taking pictures of children in public places cause?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 09:50 PM
4

Downvoted for title.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 03:19 AM
4

I agree completely. Furthermore, why is this in MensRights?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:06 AM
10

People like what? Those who put the idea of certain fantasies to be politically incorrect, or those who are influenced by those people?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 10:24 AM
1

I think we have different definitions of chivalry then. Mercy and kindness to those less fortunate than yourself, courage to strive for what is right, a quiet faith in God, and graciousness towards women. I can see not liking this idea because you might consider it condescending to be gracious to women, however I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the time that chivalry was first coming up in. Even nowadays, women are, in general, physically weaker than men, and the friendly blow I…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:28 AM
3

Why would you argue this with her? You're basically saying that she's a horrible person, with no moral fibre. How would you feel if she told you that if you got angry you could rape her? It's pretty much the same argument, unless your size differential is such that you are physically incapable of overpowering her.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:10 AM
2

The problem with rape is that generally, the only thing to differentiate it from a perfectly legal act is the victims word. I have no doubt that a lot of rapists go free because that word isn't good enough. Thinking about that, I can understand why many people become worried when past behaviour is used to determine how "good" that word is. Someone who lies, cheats, and is generally promiscuous is just as liable to be raped as a nun, but much less likely to be believed. Thus you may find rapists …
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:06 AM
1

I think that this is a men's right issue irrespective of who the attacker is. This is an example of being accused of being a rapist being detrimental to a man. It sounds like rape was called, and some people decided that accused = guilty (or that's how they decided they'd justify their actions).
/r/MensRights30/06/11 10:24 AM
1

What was it you actually meant than?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 02:27 AM
-2

anal?
/r/MensRights27/06/11 11:40 PM
7

Having spent time in Japan, where pretty much every car has cameras, I think that they really do add a lot of safety.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 04:56 AM
-1

The blindspots on SUVs are a big problem, especially around small children. Every time you add a safety feature you will get people complaining about it. Look at side view mirrors, safety belts, air bags, etc.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 04:22 AM
6

I would hate for this /r/ to become a subsect of r/atheism. I am religious, and I think that mens rights are important.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 03:08 AM
15

This is absolute shit. I would write this off as stupid trolling, except for all the up votes this got. First of all, this has no place in this subreddit, it's not about mens rights at all. Second of all the title is simply wrong. There is no personal gain going on.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 01:33 AM
1

It seems to me that "check your privilege" is more of a maxim that you should approach every issue with. In this case, it is women who have the privilege, and thus need to "check it". (This isn't what I think, but it is what I think the commenter meant.)
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:30 AM
3

It seems to me that "check your privilege" is more of a maxim that you should approach every issue with. In this case, it is women who have the privilege, and thus need to "check it". (This isn't what I think, but it is what I think the commenter meant.)
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:29 AM
3

I believe the comment about men losing was in regards to men losing jobs during the recession.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:17 AM
10

This title is very misleading. The article it links to says that there is a problem because the life expectancy of women in some parts of the U.S. has fallen. There is no mention of the life expectancy of men. This is obviously a website that focuses on women issues, they make no claim to considering issues from either an unbiased, or a male oriented position. I see no more problem with this, than with r/MensRights not covering the issue of women having difficulty accessing abortions.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:33 AM
2

I believe that that comment was talking about women "checking [their] privilege". The first paragraph points out how Men have it worse than women do.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:03 AM
1

If that's the argument, why not release the name and identity of the suspect, but not the crime?
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:07 AM
0

So there is fear that by having anonymity, a man who is accused of rape may be found "not guilty", and can go about his life with no consequences, while some feminists believe that if a man is accused of rape, he is actually guilty?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:17 PM
3

Surely at some point the question has been put to a feminist who doesn't like this idea, and I have a hard time believing that her answer was as simple as "I don't like it".
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:12 PM
-2

Women obviously lie, there have even be false rape claims that have been proven beyond a shred of a doubt to be false. Is this one an argument that some feminists will actually use? I can see this in some feminists for sure, but what's their justification? This point works well with the last point, but again, what's the justification?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:10 PM
1

How do you know that she knew this? To me, it sounds like she wasn't in a reasonable state of mind. I'm just making assumptions, however it seems like you are as well.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:46 PM
2

I think a possible way to look at these sorts of things, is to not try to imagine them with flipped gender, but instead without reference to gender. Here's how I would read the story without gender: Terry Tully has pleaded guilty to defrauding Centrelink of almost $80,000 while living with an accomplice, Quinn Quagmire. Terry is hoping to avoid jail time, arguing that, "Quinn forced me [Terry] to commit the crime". Terry made headlines when a court ruled that Terry was not guilty of murdering Qu…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 09:04 AM
2

When you use the word "coerce", what do you mean? Are you throwing the booze on them if they don't have sex with you? I think instead of "coerce", the better term might be to take advantage. Of course, to take advantage, there has to be disparate levels of drunkenness. Thus, it seems to me that the only time that you can really have true, consensual sex, is when both parties are equally intoxicated.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 05:56 AM
1

be a man!
/r/MensRights17/06/11 08:31 AM
2

There does exist medical reasons. http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm And if you cannot tell the difference between circumcision and a disability, then we clearly have nothing more to say to each other on this topic.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:41 PM
-6

reductio ad absurdum. The logic follows the same route.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:39 PM
-11

To use a hockey analogy. Male circumcision is like a love tap with your stick, while FGM is swinging it baseball style at the other guys neck. Superficially they're the same thing, but on such a different order of magnitude that they cannot be judged together.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:11 PM
-8

And how about a ban on injecting someone against their will too? Let's also ban naming someone against their will, dressing someone against their will, and educating someone against their will.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:50 PM
-14

If you can't see the difference between female and male circumcision, then you clearly don't understand at least one of them.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:48 PM
2

Sure, and I have no problem with a discussion on the merits or detriments of circumcision. My problem comes with the presumption that it is wrong and harmful, and additionally, that I can't understand how wrong and harmful it is.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:39 PM
1

That first link was interesting. Although if you read closer he's not a man who is against circumcision, he decided not to do it to his children, but he does not feel personally harmed by the circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:32 AM
1

I disagree that it is the same thing, however I would be interested in hearing from someone who was circumcised as an adult. If you look at the next sentence, I clarified that I was talking about infant circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:07 AM
1

No one has a frame of reference to understand the difference. It is not possible to both be circumcised as an infant, and not circumcised as a infant. To show why I consider this insulting in a different fashion that may be more relatable to this subreddit: It is insulting when a woman tells you that you don't understand how much harm society has caused you as a man in a patriarchy, because you don't have the frame of reference.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:00 AM
0

I'm talking about two adult males, one who is circumcised, one who is not. They both have the option to change. In most cases, neither one would exercise that option. Just because an adult would not get himself circumcised, does not mean that he wouldn't be happier if he was circumcised as a child, and vice versa. What an adult would do, does not necessarily correlate to what should be done to children.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:38 AM
2

I don't need help, I am not in a position that requires help. People are basically telling me that I am not capable of understanding what I want, or what I need, and I find that insulting.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:33 AM
2

What happens if they don't?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 10:21 PM
1

I'm sick and tired of all these articles against circumcision talking about how men who are circumcised may not understand the harm that they have experienced. Does anyone not understand how incredibly insulting that is? I think the person who is best equipped to tell if I am experiencing harm is me.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:48 PM
2

I'm not familiar with this. What is it exactly?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:33 PM
-3

I am a circumcised male, and I was going to fill out this survey, but then I started reading it, and it is just incredibly biased. If there is a non biased survey out there, I will fill it out. My fear now, is because I clicked through the first option, they will use that stat to say that I am against circumcision. Is circumcision a bad thing? Possibly. Is it a good thing? Possibly as well. I have seen studies that point to a correlation between decreased chance of contracting STIs and cancer, a…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 12:51 AM
1

I don't believe the author is saying women shouldn't wear nice clothes. I believe the point being made is twofold. The first part is that women wearing revealing clothes doesn't make people rape, anymore than leaving your door unlocked makes people burglarise. I believe that is as far as the analogy extends, and up to that point it is quite correct. The second part, is that women who wear provocative clothing should understand that they will get a response from men due in part to those clothes. …
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:15 PM
5

I think that Equa1 was talking about girls in their preteens or even younger. I think that it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children wear, and step in if it is something inappropriate.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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