TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Tall-Needleworker422 Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by Tall-Needleworker422 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The sex strike in the play Lysistrata was a comic invention of its author, not a historical event.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 08:02 PM
1

Illegitimate kids? Nice. /s
/r/MensRights18/11/25 04:24 PM
0

lol. What sons? Illegitimate? Adopted? Born to a surrogate?
/r/MensRights18/11/25 04:22 PM
1

Your plan for a marriage strike strikes me as nutty -- fitting for a modern‑day comedy echoing Lysistrata -- as well as historically unsupported [industrial strikes are not a good analogue] and strategically weak [men have little leverage] compared to proven avenues like legal advocacy, political organizing, or reform campaigns. Go now and learn this for yourself. I’ve said all I care to say on the matter. I’ll read any further post of yours, but don’t expect a reply.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:47 AM
1

Calling every disagreement a strawman doesn’t make it one. Kentucky’s custody tweak is hardly proof that a nationwide marriage strike would succeed -- labor strikes target employers, a very different social institution. And the claim that ‘most marriages turn out badly’ is simply false; tens of millions of married couples live stably and contentedly, producing millions of children each year in the U.S. Blaming those who reject your boycott for a ‘corrupt system’ is projection, not argument.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:30 AM
1

Pointing out the limits of a marriage boycott isn’t a strawman -- it’s a recognition of human nature. Women wanting children hold the whip hand, since one willing man can father thousands but no woman can reproduce alone. Yes, divorce can be costly and reform is worth debating, but to claim the majority of marriages are doomed ignores the millions of stable, contented unions that exist alongside the unhappy ones.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:06 AM
1

That’s not a strawman -- I challenged your boycott strategy by pointing out the likely personal cost of opting out. That’s a direct rebuttal, not a misrepresentation. You’re the best judge of whether marriage suits you, but plenty of people are happily married and many more contentedly so. To say the ‘most likely outcome’ is ruin ignores the millions of stable marriages that exist alongside the unhappy ones.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 02:43 AM
-1

Strikes can win better hours on the factory floor, but they don’t rewrite human nature. Women wanting children hold the whip hand, as one willing man can father tens of thousands of offspring over a lifetime.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 02:21 AM
-9

The most likely outcome is that the holdouts die never having know the love of a woman and childless.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 01:57 AM
-3

I have taken my own counsel and I am married 30+ years with three children. Women have been talking about a sex boycott to get men to do their bidding since at least 400BC (see Aristophanes’ comedy Lysistrata). I give a male boycott of marriage about as much chance of success. As I have discussed above, there are ways of mitigating the risk. There's a cost to excessive risk aversion, too.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 01:34 AM
-4

Cool. You do you.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 01:28 AM
-2

I get the frustration with family court, but plenty of women still want marriage and kids. If men boycott both, the future simply belongs to the children of those who didn’t opt out and you'll subsidize them through your taxes -- at least until you have reached retirement age. To me, boycotting doesn't seem to be the 'check-mate" some guys here make it out be. More like, to mix metaphors, an own goal.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 12:41 AM
-2

So no children/fatherhood or adoption/surrogacy?
/r/MensRights18/11/25 12:36 AM
-7

I'm in favor of marriage and having children, for those the want them.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 11:43 PM
11

Okay, so boycott marriage but still have kids? Or forgo kids altogether? For those still interested in fatherhood but concerned about divorce and child welfare, here’s some practical advice. You can’t prenup custody -- courts decide that by the child’s best interests -- but you can protect yourself and your children with a prenup that locks in fair process (mediation before litigation, clear jurisdiction, financial transparency, fee caps, agreement to pursue DNA testing promptly if parentage is …
/r/MensRights17/11/25 11:40 PM
-5

So don't get married and don't have kids?
/r/MensRights17/11/25 11:23 PM
3

Nah. When properly drafted -- with full financial disclosure, independent legal counsel and reasonably fair terms -- prenups are generally enforceable. It’s the coerced or one‑sided ones that tend to get thrown out.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:34 PM
-7

I would still advise someone get married if they plan to have children -- but get a prenup.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:34 PM
0

It's probably not a deal breaker for most women but wouldn't count in his favor. It would help greatly if the man in question were gainfully employed and had a good reason for living at home (e.g., saving money for something important or looking after a loved one) and was willing and able to move out at any time.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 05:24 PM
1

However, this leaves men in a position where if they want to have any sort of success they are forced to approach in abundance, and with frequency. You can "approach" a lot of women and have a conversation without asking them out. Men shouldn't ask women out (or for their phone number) unless they are receptive to a bit of conversation and give them "buy signals" (e.g., smile, laugh, eye contact, engagement). Read her body language, facial expressions and tone. If she's annoyed or disinterested,…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/24 02:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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