TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

THESHITISTHIS Archive

View 8 posts and 85 comments by THESHITISTHIS 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)
2

I never called it discrimination ... Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "given" but my intention was for it to mean "offered". Regardless of whether it's due to "discrimination" it's still a serious issue that affects men and warrants looking at why so many more men than women are either putting themselves in danger or being killed. True, you didn't directly say it. To me, it just seemed implied. Thanks for the clarification. Regardless of whether it's due to "discrimination" it's still a seri…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:30 AM
2

It's probably a combination of men being given the more dangerous jobs by the studio, their lives being seen as more disposable I disagree. War correspondents do this line of work completely by choice. These people know full well what they're getting themselves into and the dangers involved. If you want to call discrimination on this, then you have to accept common feminist arguments that say women choosing lower paying jobs is discrimination as well. News agencies can't force anyone to go into …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 12:39 AM
1

Men are more likely to chose being a foreign correspondent in a war zone. This is a choice. Let's stop trying to equate personal choice with discrimination. I agree. Men are more likely to choose this line of work than women. There's no discrimination here. I'm sure some readers may be thinking it is a cause. But, it's more of a question of why men more likely to choose to put themselves into more dangerous situations. It also serves as a good example of over-reporting of female journalists kill…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 12:27 AM
4

Influence, not control, is a more accurate term. The latter sounds very conspiracy theory-esque.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 02:50 AM
7

Asking places to find information =/= not doing my own research.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:24 AM
2

Thank you.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:22 AM
3

Yes to both. These aren't protected under law.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 02:06 AM
5

All speech should be tolerated. All speech? Harassment? Death threats? authoritarianism Please, not even close. We already ban certain types of speech. Is that authoritative?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:58 AM
1

As soon as you start banning people for slurs and stuff you end up with things like feminism. Slippery slope. The only thing I would even really consider censoring is direct and serious advocacy of violence against a group. Give me an example.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:54 AM
4

This was pretty unnecessary. Maybe instead of resorting to cursing, you could argue your point of view. Tell me why hate speech should be tolerated?
/r/MensRights02/02/13 09:24 PM
10

Which is exactly how SRS operates. Slippery slope fallacy. If we start banning radicals who constantly spread hate, then we'll turn into SRS. The United States is one of the only countries that does nothing about hate speech. Norway is one of the most peaceful places in the world, and they prohibit it. Check hate speech by country. We already prohibit certain types of speech like defamation, threats, and fighting words.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 08:07 PM
5

No, I never said I wanted people to be banned for using those words in those contexts. I think it looks bad when the sub upvotes post like those though. I don't think using dick is okay either. My original point was to just ban radicals as they come. Feminists were denied co-opting atheism, and that was a good move on the atheist community's part. But then they ended up forming Atheism+.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 08:01 PM
-2

I just don't want the same thing to happen to us, that ends up happening to any other large groups. There's quite a few atheists who give the community a terrible name, for example. I just think we should put in a lot of effort to distance ourselves with any radicals that try to congregate with us. Failing could be detrimental to the men's rights movement if it's just co-opted by sexists. Look how fractured religious groups are, feminism is, and etc.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 07:03 AM
5

I didn't direct the thread at you, it did inspire the idea, however. You didn't post anything, and that's good. That sub is just such poor taste though. The last link seemed like an angry rant about a woman who did something terrible that wasn't being punished for it. It was a pretty violent comment, but doesn't make you an advocate for violence against women. It just makes it a stupid rant that looks bad, especially if taken out of context.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:56 AM
3

If the community doesn't like something Until the community starts gaining more members who think that those things are okay. It will become more of a problem as this sub gets bigger. If you allow bigotry, it's called enabling.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:56 AM
5

It's not that content that bothers me, I've watched fight videos plenty of times, they're not inherently sexist. It's the actual sub, it's blatantly misogynistic.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:36 AM
-3

As it isn't directly inciting violence an to restrict it simply because it might be offensive to some people is inexcusable. It does entice violence, especially from others, and also promotes it. Those church members are trying to get a rise out of people. It's malicious. Explain to me how telling someone they're going to suffer for eternity isn't ' inciting violence'. I honestly don't believe hate speech should be recognized as free speech. That's one problem with America. Canada and the UK jus…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:31 AM
5

I mean, I've enjoyed a lot of your posts, they have been insightful and argued well, but this is pretty questionable. Link.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:21 AM
11

I've seen upvoted slurs before. One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight: this whole thread, numerous people are saying faggot nigger and being upvoted. Do we call black people niggers when they're terrible people? Just because they are bad people doesn't make it okay to use terms largely used in degrade based on skin color or gender.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:09 AM
-3

The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example. I don't think they should be protected under free-speech. There comes a point where it's too far. e.g. Acceptable: I don't believe homosexuals should marry (Respectfully stating an opinion) Unacceptable: Fags go to hell, marriage is between a man and woman (Using slurs, displaying bigotry) The latter shouldn't be tolerated, and repeated outbursts such as that should result in a ban. Could you give me some links of people who should be banned and wha…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 05:48 AM
2

Free-speech, yes, but hatred and bigotry shouldn't be tolerated.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 04:08 AM
15

A lot of that stuff belongs in /r/TumblrInAction.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 12:13 AM
23

This tidbit is pure gold.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 09:26 AM
5

Yeah. Talk about derailing.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:25 AM
5

Don't be too hard on him. He probably has rescuer syndrome. OP, if you get a halfway decent lawyer, he or she can throw the charges out. Your boss has no proof you touched or threatened her. I would also consider an STD panel, she has slept with a lot of people, and most STDs show no symptoms. It's always good to be safe. If you do decide to get tested, make sure it's not Herpeselect. That one has a lot of known problems and has many false positives. Go with Labcorp, not Quest Diagnostics.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:31 AM
3

All the ignorant responses from the SJWs make me livid.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:24 AM
3

But gender essentialism doesn't exist whatsoever. /s
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:43 PM
3

Circumcision is bad, full stop I agree. How many circumcised guys are unable to achieve orgasm? I'm not quite sure by a younger population. It does though make erectile dysfunction more likely in the future though, so I would say a lot. No love for prostate? I've tried it a thousand times. I even bought an aneros. Personally, it does nothing for me. Most of the time it desensitizes my penis (I'm not sure how) for that certain session and then I can't reach orgasm. Very strange. I also used to ne…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:16 AM
10

Oh, but I can, and I will continue. Jesus christ what has this subreddit turned into. Good on you. You refuse logic. Debate is no place for you. Most girls I know think lack of circumcision is odd. This isn't even an argument, it's a fallacy. This point makes me not take you seriously at all. You're saying we should cut off foreskin because girls like it more. Superficial much? Hey, let's remove the primary erogenous tissue on every single boy, and put them through a completely unnecessary surge…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:00 AM
6

I'm sick of false analogies like this. The penis may be the anatomical equivalent to the clitoris, and the clitoral hood to the foreskin, but they ARE NOT the same thing. That's like saying completely removing a woman's breast tissue is like completely removing a man's. The functions are different. That's what you're forgetting. The penis is the ONLY source of sexual pleasure, while women have many more erogenous zones. A man's foreskin has about three times as many nerves as the clitoris. You c…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:37 PM
1

This is the same as a drunk girl saying yes. False comparison. He said no, numerous times.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:40 AM
1

"yeah, why not" OP never said that.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 02:17 PM
0

His words said no but his actions sent the message yes. Because he was horny. She knew he couldn't resist her. He was still taken advantage of. Rape is non-consent. Clear and simple. If he really wanted the situation to stop he could have stopped it. Rape isn't only about physical force. If he wanted her to stop he needed to be CLEAR that he wanted her to stop. Can you read? He said that he said no, repeatedly. (he kept talking about how hot she is and how he can't say no). Okay. So he thought h…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 07:14 AM
1

This. His ex went into the situation, full well knowing that she could probably force sex onto him. She also trespassed on his property. It's hard to stop someone in a situation like that sometimes because you were once so close to them and the act feels natural. But mentally, he didn't want it. He said no. Just because his body wanted it doesn't mean a damned thing. The others that are saying that this isn't rape are essentially saying you can go break into someone's house and throw yourself on…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:58 AM
1

Define rape.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:56 AM
3

How is that not rape? He didn't give her consent. He said no. It doesn't matter if he could physically overpower her, by saying that, you're reverting to the argument that most women can't rape men because most men are stronger. I've been coerced into sex several times before. Just because our bodies elicit a sexual response means nothing.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:31 AM
2

I, personally, stayed in one because I didn't recognize the signs of abuse. She would break up with me roughly every week, even multiple times. Through the course of the relationship I was broken up with over 40-50 times. About half of those times I was broken up with and left for someone else. She would be constantly hold/cold. She just played with my emotions a lot and everything was always my fault. If she had a bad day, her frustrations would be taken out on me. She couldn't differ between b…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 12:51 AM
1

Sorry. I didn't mean you specifically. I mean't a general statement to a lot of the replies here and I couldn't reply to all of them at once so I picked the highest post on the chain. I agree. The last two sentences are unnecessary, but that is because it's flawed logic.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:25 AM
1

You all are over complicating it. No one thinks it's degrading to be a women. Men are chastised for being feminine because they're breaking out of traditional gender roles. Feminism had liberated women but not men in this aspect. That is why men can't wear whatever they want but women can. There's still problems though, manly women are still be criticized but it is still more socially acceptable than a feminine male. I really dislike this argument. It's just another way of attempting to tie all …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 01:19 AM
2

This was my response to it: Oh, Because women have a monopoly on victimization, right? Despite men significantly being more targets of violent crime. It’s mind sets like these that help create the invisibility of men’s issues. It wasn't until recently, that men could legally be raped. Which has being skewing rape statistics. The death toll for prostate and breast cancer (don’t forget, men get breast cancer too!) are roughly the same, but the funding for prostate cancer research is only half of t…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:20 PM
3

I actually lol'd.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 10:22 PM
4

Also, HPV is nearly undetectable in men.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:19 AM
54

This seems fake. No one is going to say "I'll just tell them you raped me" on a public forum, that's the guy's evidence right there to clear him of charges.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:10 AM
2

Thanks. I just don't want a repeat of a certain older member. The one who contributed to the bad reputation of the MR movement in the first place with his crazy conspiracy theories.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 01:05 AM
3

Can we not include conspiracy theories in MR discussions? They have no merit. If there is a correlation between more women in the workforce and reduction in population, it's more than likely an unintended consequence to the feminist movement pushing for more working women. This shouldn't be used as a basis to try and justify such an assumption. Stuff like this makes MR look bad, no offense to you, but it really does.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 08:09 PM
14

Yeah dude. Remember since STEM fields are majority of men, science is inherently misogynistic. /s
/r/MensRights27/10/12 03:11 AM
3

I had one teacher in 3rd grade that tried to get a great majority of her male students on medicine for ADHD, including me. I even went and got checked, and of course, it turns out I didn't have it. She never did this to the female students though.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:03 PM
1

Nice response!
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:27 PM
-1

You can't compare laws actively hurting men to the anti-abortion movement that hasn't succeeded and will never overturn abortion laws. It has been legal in every state since 1973. No one's rights are being violated. Seriously though? So a minority group pushing feebly for anti-abortion laws is WORSE than routinely cutting off infants foreskins, forced paternity, and unfair cases of child custody and alimony?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:03 AM
1

Thanks! I was looking for anecdotes like this. Well thought.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:52 AM
1

Sadly, I did just that. She complied and said "Okay, I'll get my son circumcised, and you get your daughter's clitoral hood cut off." I need to stop talking to people like that. It's impossible to change their minds and I just get frustrated beyond belief.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 10:08 PM
0

To say there is no legislation against women is bull. As of right now, there are laws seeking to take away reproductive rights that we have, Yes, and those laws haven't passed. It's very unlikely that they ever will. There have been over three hundred bills involving abortion in the past year or so, and they've all be shot down. Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. The majority of Americans support abortion. It's like fundamentalists trying to have creationism taught alongside evolution. It's …
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:46 PM
13

From my original post: Now, I'm not denying that women have issues. I'm just wondering why it's apparently worse for them, I also am not implying that men have it worse. I agree with you though. Everyone faces inequality.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:50 AM
9

I've read this study before. I enjoy your feedback though, because not everyone may have seen the study. I was just trying to make the point that even if discrimination was a significant factor (it's not though), that using the 77¢-$1 is being used as propaganda, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Under any circumstance actually, that figure is being used to deceive people.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:19 AM
18

Thank you for the feedback. I just fear that this is becoming an epidemic. Men's issues are laughed at more than often. I really can't understand how or why. It's extremely disheartening. I have actually had 'feminists' tell me that they were going to get their sons circumcised in spite of me. They see nothing wrong with it, yet they fight for personal autonomy. That's beyond hypocritical. I know that doesn't speak for the majority, but still. I'm sincerely hoping all of these people I encounter…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:11 AM
5

Thanks. I always appreciate perspective.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:03 AM
1

Where do you get this number from? I'm curious.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 01:28 AM
1

Well, A+ is very small. So for the time-being atheism as a whole seems fine. The atheism subreddit has over a million subscribers, A+ only has a thousand something. So hopefully it isn't doing too much harm...
/r/MensRights12/10/12 12:43 AM
3

Well, that sure is frustrating. I face palmed so many times reading that article.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 12:13 AM
3

Saw that atheists oppress Christians. Couldn't continue anymore. I sincerely hope the bulk of atheism+ isn't like this. It's making atheists look bad. Atheism ONLY MEANS lack of belief in a deity or deities. Adding more onto it doesn't work.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 08:34 PM
-1

Thank you! I've kept trying to search for it but I could only ever find the acronym. I guess I haven't be around long enough and have seen what has happened, but by a quick look-through I already can't take it seriously. It's just a down vote brigade. Doesn't seem constructive subreddit at all.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:28 AM
2

I've been browsing this subreddit for awhile but I still don't know what SRS is. Care to explain or link me?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:06 AM
3

Sadly, I feel like their response would be "internalized misogyny and racism".
/r/MensRights12/09/12 12:19 AM
1

Not a problem! Thank you for the response. I updated the gallery with a formula view so people can get a better idea of what's going on.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:23 PM
1

You're welcome!
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:15 PM
1

No problem! Thank you!
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:09 PM
3

I completely agree! I do find it fine in this case though. It would have been a hasty generalization if the post had implied that since one woman he knew made more money with doing less work, then all women make more money doing less work than men. I just don't see a problem unless he was trying to argue that point.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 05:49 AM
3

Generally this is true for all attractive people.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 05:07 AM
2

Good suggestion. I did try that before, but I decided on this because it was much easier, looked cleaner, and made it so one could compare the data on a graph to visually inspect the trends. Anyway, here you go. I wasn't quite sure how else to do it. This was the only way to fit both tables onto the screen at once. It's impossible to with the queries on the same page.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 04:58 AM
3

First thing that made me laugh in this discussion.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 04:26 AM
4

I think they were just providing an anecdote, no harm in that.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 03:35 AM
9

I thought the title of the post was clear enough but I may be wrong. Maybe people didn't read the last sentence. There is a lot of sarcasm here though.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 02:33 AM
3

It's fine! It was clear that you didn't see the post.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 02:20 AM
14

It's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 01:41 AM
8

⇪
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:31 AM
12

Thank you.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:29 AM
23

The point of this post was opposite of assuming discrimination. It was to show that raw wage gaps aren't to be taken seriously because there's numerous variables to account for.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:25 AM
10

Oh, sorry! I didn't realize. Thank you for the correction. For you.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 11:53 PM
63

I got this data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If anyone doubts me, you can check for yourself. In (1) Earnings, select ‘Workers paid hourly rates’ In (4) Sex, select ‘Male’ In (10) Labor Force Status, select ‘Employed part-time’ Repeat with the Female choice Compare ⇨NOTE⇦ When entering multiple queries at once, once you select one query with the above criteria, then the '(10) Labor Force Status' will revert back to 'Employed' rather than 'Employed part time'. This has gotten my numbers m…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 09:32 PM
3

Thank you for this!
/r/MensRights07/09/12 08:04 PM
1

Oh. I wasn't trying to argue or anything. I was just sharing some data. Feminists are telling a half truth. I agree that it's completely skewed. 77 cents to a dollar is entirely misleading. Much of the gap is explained, but there's a smaller percentage that isn't. This is the only section that discrimination would fit in, and to assume that all of unexplained gap is created from sexism, is foolish. Here's a paragraph from the .pdf I linked. This article revisits the work of Johnson and Solon and…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:55 PM
8

You used the word 'crazy'. You albeist!1!!11 Check you're privilege!
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:49 PM
3

I lol'd.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:50 PM
3

Well, there definitely is a disparity between salaries, but not by workers paid hourly rates. In fact, in numerous years, women out earned men in the latter category. You can check yourself with the BLS's website. Part of the gap is explained by person characteristics and other factors. There's an unexplained percent of the gap though, and that's what may be based on discrimination. BLS also has a good .pdf that's pretty comprehensive. I'd recommend it.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:43 PM
1

An interesting thought: many Indian tribes treated their women with equality. They recognized that men were generally better at hunting, and that women were generally between at teaching and taking care of the children. As the women got older, many of them were seen as sources of wisdom, and the tribesmen would actually go ask the women if they should/could go to war. Women have held 'power' in other cultures. Your friend acts like American culture is the only one that has ever existed.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:26 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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