TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheDuke91 Archive

View 0 posts and 33 comments by TheDuke91 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)
2

Well that sucks. Thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 06:42 PM
1

Does anyone know what the law is like in Canada in relation to this?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 09:07 PM
2

Zero in Canada. National post article. Really sad. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide For comparison, as of 2010, there were 593 women's shelters in Canada. From Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11495-eng.htm
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:13 AM
4

But she qualifies that by saying the likelihood for a woman being raped is, "like", 1000 times greater. Which is not true. Source: Center for Disease Control National Intimate Partner Violence Survey http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Table on page 18-19 Of course, as is customary, you have to look at the "made to penetrate" category and add that onto their rape statistic because they don't consider it rape...
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:57 AM
2

Is this a live recording that someone reposted?? I can't believe they would actually post this embarrassment themselves. She says, unapologetically and completely seriously: "The idea of a woman raping a man is funny to me." And does not amend this statement whatsoever even when given several opportunities to clarify it or take it back. Good for Ray for calling her out on it.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:48 AM
11

Agreed. Had to read the article again.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 07:26 AM
3

Yeah, I saw this in the paper and thought it was completely outrageous. Especially the part where violence against men is said to be their own fault. Indefensibly hypocritical.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:38 AM
1

I was not tone policing, I disagreed with a blatantly sexist empirical statement. This is a sub against sexism, so why would you stand behind this person? All the issues you talk about are red herrings that you got baited into talking about. I never made any claims about those things, that's why I didn't answer them. The commenter I replied to brought those up and completely side-stepped my claim that he was being blatantly sexist and irrational. "it's pointless to be angry at 'all women' becaus…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:43 PM
1

I agree. There's some whacky hypocritical shit going on in this comment section.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 09:35 AM
2

Wow. Yeah. Thank you. People are somehow criticizing me for not being baited by all the red herrings this person is bringing up... I addressed one part of their comment that has nothing to do with all those things after first saying that I was not defending her actions. Plus, I specifically said that those issues the person brought up are different problems for a different conversation. I didn't deny them at all, or assent to them. They are just irrelevant to my criticism of this person's method…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 09:33 AM
0

Okay... Despite those points, articulately conveyed though they were, I stand by what I said. All of the issues you brought up in that rant are different problems for a different conversation but to generalize and say that "only a woman would be stupid enough to X" just isn't a useful or rational way to conduct a discussion. It's things like what you're saying right now that people cherrypick to show how dumb Men's Rights is. I hope your comment gets downvoted to oblivion, even though I agree wi…
/r/MensRights05/03/15 05:10 PM
-1

I'm not defending her actions, but I disagree with the part where you generalize... "Only a woman would be fucking stupid enough to..." That's just anger without rationality.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 04:53 PM
2

Do you have any problem with female genital mutilation? Why? Now apply those reasons to male genital mutilation and you should completely understand why it's wrong. Or just take your statements in that comment and replace the word "circumcision" with "female genital mutilation" and see how it sounds. "I have a beautiful dick" - that's great for you haha! But this isn't about you personally. What about all the guys who have deformed dicks due to being cut too short? What about infections of a chi…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 10:15 PM
1

Okay, I'm willing to consider that and hear you out, but you'd need to explain to me how it is not racist. Is perpetuating false/discriminatory/unfair stereotypes of a race not racist? Is it in bad taste? Do you think perpetuating stereotypes is in any way bad? Who might it harm? Who might object? Or do you disagree that my examples perpetuate stereotypes at all? What if all pamphlets did the same thing? What if textbooks did it and people said it without correction? What if our public conscious…
/r/MensRights22/05/14 02:59 AM
1

Right, okay. I think we're getting somewhere. I think we agree that if a subgroup that has the power to influence political change does something bad under the name of a group, the group can fairly be criticized for the action of the subgroup so long as it hasn't somehow disowned or disassociated from the subgroup. If they did disassociate themselves, we would have two different groups and would now need a term to differentiate them so as not to confuse them. So if feminist subgroups say false t…
/r/MensRights22/05/14 02:00 AM
1

I'm not just trying to be contrary, I swear haha. But again, I disagree with that. If the picture on a Safe Driving pamphlet (or something) was a stereotypically Asian woman we might say that it is racist, wouldn't we? If a pamphlet about car thefts in your area pictured a gangsta black dude, we'd also call that racist, right? Typically, (where I live) if there is going to be just one picture on a pamphlet or something like this, it's generally thought to be in good taste not to use the stereoty…
/r/MensRights22/05/14 01:40 AM
1

Fair enough! Thanks for the measured response. Edit: However, my response is more to the statement that "the cover isn't sexist at all". I still think it is. But I do understand and can get on board with your reasoning for why this might not be the first thing one should get hysterical about, if that's what OP was planning.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:38 AM
1

Ah yes, you may be right about that. People here do say "feminists/feminism". But is that really so incorrect when - like I said - it's feminist organizations/prominent feminists/feminist politicians (i.e. people or groups who have the clout to influence policy) who are doing/saying these things? Doesn't that make it fair to say feminism/feminists are doing those things? In my mind it's the groups/individuals who have the clout to influence policy who represent the whole of a group and are respo…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:35 AM
4

Simply thinking "there might be something wrong with this" is overreacting? If OP had had a tantrum, then yeah... but I don't think asking the question is such a bad thing.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:24 AM
1

I disagree. I get what you're saying but here's my reasoning on why this cover is still bad. When the prevailing opinion about something is false, you have a duty in and informational pamphlet to shake up the false paradigm and convey what is true. If what's required to do that is picturing a transvestite being victimized by a lesbian woman, then that would be much more beneficial in conveying information to correct people's thinking than picturing the stereotype. See my other comment for longer…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:20 AM
0

I think it's bad. The fact that they are showing what people generally think to be the only type of domestic or intimate partner violence that matters, means that they have no interest in showing what's true. If there was a driving manual that had a picture of a driver doing something wrong on the front and they were a stereotypical looking asian woman, we would take issue with this. It's the fact that the general thought is that this situation is always the case that makes this a bad choice for…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:16 AM
1

Funny calling the guy a "fat slob" and that that constitutes another reason to fire him. You'd never get away with saying that about a woman. "She was a fat slob anyway, good thing she's gone". Can you imagine? However, I tend to take the position that banter is fine in a casual situation and that's where you get your colourful conversations with friends which is fine to a certain extent, but on TV it's bad. It actually sounded like this was not an intentionally broadcasted thing - he wasn't on …
/r/MensRights18/05/14 07:58 PM
10

I've been on this sub for less than a year but for what it's worth, I've never seen "all feminists are misandrists" here. I have seen it phrased, " X feminist organization(s) is/are misandrist". Here's why that's different: The violent protesting of Farrell's talk or Fiamengo's, for two examples shows it isn't just a select few, it is feminist organizations at universities displaying these misandrist actions. So at that point, it seems quite fair to ascribe those traits to feminist organizations…
/r/MensRights18/05/14 06:40 PM
13

Thanks for sharing. That's good that they didn't double down like many people do.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 03:07 AM
2

They... Held the "experiment" in a male washroom so that only men could be seen either helping or not helping -- giving the illusion (and perpetuating the myth) that it is up to only men to stop rape, and that only men are cowards when they don't. Gave the message to those who were willing to selflessly put themselves in harm's way to help a person that they could be rapists. This really makes no sense whatsoever... why lay a guilt trip on someone who has just proved that they are willing to con…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 12:06 AM
3

That makes it even worse... the original message would have been half reasonable, but they consciously chose not to use that one and replaced it with the other message for the actual experiment.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 11:29 PM
1

It's also weird that "violence against women" is such a commonly used phrase. People refer to it as a political act with the implication that it is men who perpetrate all violence and that women are only victims. Considering the research that shows equivalent rates of intimate partner violence between genders, you would think they would talk about "intimate partner violence" but no... men are vilified because people will intuitively get behind that and that gives the movement political power and…
/r/MensRights19/04/14 03:51 AM
8

You may be getting downvoted because you didn't say why his comparison is grossly inaccurate. Could you expand on that?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 07:06 PM
3

Same here, exactly.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:49 PM
7

We don't have a norm against IPV, we have a norm in favour of "chivalry" ("it's not okay to hit a woman") (Simon et al., 2001) Straus (1980) found equal rates of abuse by gender or find that women have higher perpetration rates (self defence did not appear to be a primary motive) Past-year victimization rates in US - 13% women, 18% males (Desmarais et al., 2012) Past year perpetration rates - 23% women, 18% male Laroche (2005) - On intimate terrorism - equivalent rates of abuse were found (8% of…
/r/MensRights28/02/14 07:53 PM
4

Seems like those boys were very young - not even out of high school. Your bro shouldn't be too quick to generalize to the mindset of a population when basing his opinion on a few high schoolers. They're allowed to be immature until they've... well, matured. Everybody has silly beliefs when they're that young. Allow them to grow up before criticizing their beliefs to an adult standard. Of course it's not a woman's fault if she is raped. The perpetrator should be brought to justice. But all this "…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:41 PM
2

I thought she did a fantastic job. Especially given that she didn't have any preparation for the questions at all, she was just put on the spot with her general knowledge. Perhaps someone else would have given answers that some would think are better, but she was there, without prep and gave her answers. And that's what she was there to do. Personally I think she displayed a great deal of knowledge on the subject, and gave pretty darn eloquent answers even in the face of that super disgruntled f…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 02:50 AM
5

From "V for Vendetta": "Is everything a joke to you?!" "Only the things that matter." Personally, I think that's beautiful. Not to trivialize or mock a person or their experiences, but for everyone to collectively cease to frown in morbid solemnity for a moment.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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