TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WhyYouAreDisparaged Archive

View 0 posts and 57 comments by WhyYouAreDisparaged 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)
6

That isn't what it says. It says because he was not married he was not presumed to be the father at all. Which is good. It would be ridiculous for the court to automatically assign paternity to the most recent ex-boyfriend just because he says so. If the woman did not assent to his paternity, he should have been given some avenue of proving it. Exactly what he was supposed to do to establish paternity is not in this article. And it is unclear whether he did it. It also isn't clear what if anythi…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 05:28 AM
1

The host was charged with several crimes. Including providing alcohol to a minor(She was herself a minor). It is very unusual to charge minors for giving other minors alcohol. The police are throwing the book at people.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:39 AM
5

The entire point of the story is that he was not the legally presumed father. He wants the court to consider him the father.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:26 AM
0

Of course she could have, and should have. She is dead after all... I don't think anyone thinks this was a good idea. But currently half this thread is terrified about being charged for passively witnessing a drunk driver, or asking what the boys could possibly have done to stop her. Only 2 of the boys who were actually in the car are charged with anything. The two other boys were charged with nothing. Clearly being a passive inactive viewer of the situation is not the charge.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 06:02 PM
3

It wasn't her car. The car belonged to the girl hosting the party's parents. The four boys wanted to go home. They convinced the host to give them the car and one boy drove the first guy home. Then he drove himself home. Then one of the remaining boys drove himself home and the last boy got out with him. Then they gave her the keys to take the car back to the party. No one needed to detain her to prevent this tragedy.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 06:22 AM
4

In a question like this it Can Be assumed. But not will be assumed. Q:Should women be drafted? A: No, no one should be drafted. Is a common feminist exchange. You can find it as the consensus view on just about any feminist platform or forum. There aren't a lot of liberal feminists who are pro draft. In an anonymous poll it makes no difference whether anyone should think such a thing. It is beyond obvious that many people do.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 08:01 AM
0

What do you expect the age breakdown on a free iPhone polling app to be? I think suspect the majority of people who are filling out iPhone surveys are under 30 at least.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:36 AM
3

So the court gave custody to the father because he was the more responsible parent?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:26 PM
14

My family has negligible assets. I think we are in debt, but probably less debt than home equity. We have 7 kids who all went to private school since age 4 and all will probably all go to college. My parents will have spent over a million dollars on our education by the time everything is said and done. They both love all of us. Both of my parents wake up before the sun and go to bed exhausted. I couldn't have wished for a better life growing up. There is no possible way either of them could man…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:06 PM
3

Are German court proceedings public? The article doesn't say the man has no rights. The court didn't rule that the man was liable for fraudulent access to his sperm bank. They ruled that the access to his sperm bank was not fraudulent. They are calling him a liar, and suggesting that he did sign the forms to impregnate this woman and is now trying to change his mind. Does anyone know how to get a copy of the ruling?
/r/MensRights05/02/13 01:24 AM
4

Come up with a better reason for why you crawled into bed with a belligerently drunk girl you were sexually interested in? "I didn't want something bad happening to her" isn't going to get you very far. And after it doesn't you're going to lose credibility. Which is what a case with a dearth of physical evidence usually hinges on.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 01:14 AM
9

they believe that men have more rights than women here is a case where a woman clearly has more rights than a man I do not think either of those scenarios would be described as "equality."
/r/MensRights02/12/12 09:49 PM
10

No? Who said it was?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:09 PM
-2

There are also black people who won't be offended. I never said or implied that there wouldn't be?
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:37 PM
-6

Also, nothing in that article could be construed as insulting to black people. This is not some issue I made up today. Black people have been writing about their distaste of the exploitation of the civil rights movement for decades. Hera are some random articles of no particular quality that I managed to quickly pull up on google. http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/10/nom-exploited-civil-rights-movement-in.html http://books.google.com/books?id=xxvgysxRh48C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&d…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:28 PM
-11

Talking about the differences between attitudes about race and gender is often a productive thing to do. But this title is using black people, and your guttural responses to their discrimination as a cheap trick to attract attention. The author admits that this is his purpose in the article. It is not the comparison that is problematic, it is the rhetorical technique . People being mad about racism is not a "tool" that you use to get attention for unrelated issues. It is a crass and tasteless th…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:00 PM
5

""Utah Woman on trial for driving through building to hit husband."" There is nothing wrong with that title. He is playing semantic games. Literally no one would ever read that sentence and think that it would be legal if only she hadn't drove through a building. But driving through a building adds to the "holy shit!" factor which makes it exciting news. Here is the account of the attack from that story: "She looked at me with very cold, vicious eyes," he said. He ran between two parked cars, th…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:35 PM
-22

Exploiting the progress of the African American civil rights movement "as a joke to get your attention" is not a rhetorical technique to aspire to. You can talk about this issue without being insulting to black people.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:16 PM
1

I would guess that there are two major reasons. The first is that whatever disagreements married couples might have about how to raise their children they almost always agree that they don't want the state involved in settling the argument. This is obviously untrue of a great many people who are divorced. The state is involved because at least one parent usually DOES want the state involved. The second is that one parent deciding to force the rest of the family to live at a greatly reduced stand…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:30 AM
3

Call me crazy...but I read the article? "Crooks' Attorney, Elliott Kay admitted that the alleged victim and his client were more than just fronds[sic], "It was definitely a consensual relationship amongst the parties when she was of age, there was nothing criminal." The defendants did not deny having a sexual relationship.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:31 AM
45

Presumably because Faryshta obviously knows that the child clearly belongs with the father. Even though we know nothing about the father.(presumably, the police do). I think it is worth waiting for the police to say why they left the kid with the grandmother instead of the father before we assume they just hate men. It is possible that the police are being unfair in keeping the kid from this guy. It is also possible he is just as crazy/a drug addict/doesn't want the kid(that is what the girl was…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:14 PM
1

But notice that none of the previous items on the list addressed what he might be interested in when it comes to sex? I don't think that is true. 1)Prior to this point, it suggests that you go in for group counseling. Which is a very holistic solution which would surely look at what both sides want. 2)It also suggests reading "language of love" to figure out "your partner's love language" and then advises you to try sexually engaging them they way they would enjoy it. While I've never read this …
/r/MensRights15/06/12 02:58 PM
1

Way to miss the point. The point I was responding to did not even mention the gender inequality. It was upset that masturbation and porn usage was even being considered problematic. I agree that the chart is not balanced by gender(obviously...since one of the decision points is "whats your gender"). I was merely saying that if you are actually in the position in the flowchart where that question comes up(Your spouse is will not sleep with you, despite clearly expressing your desire, seeking prof…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 02:54 PM
5

I don't think it is suggesting that porn is, itself, unhealthy. The issue is that regularly masturbating to porn is a pretty strong indication that you have an active sex drive. And if your spouse has an active sex drive, but will not have sex with you despite the fact that you have had serious discussions about your desire for sex, been through counseling, and have made multiple efforts to communicate your sexuality in a way your spouse would understand. Then you have a pretty big problem.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:43 PM
17

I think the DA is dropping the ball here. That cat is already out of the bag. The guy is already kicked off the team and out of his school. He is already a national news story. This isn't going away quietly. It will come up in every interview he ever has for the rest of his life. He will be explaining this case to the manager of McDonalds if that is where his life takes him. No one is ever going to hire him until they, personally, are convinced he is innocent. You can't just quietly drop the cha…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 06:09 PM
4

The charity isn't a breast cancer charity. It is just a cancer charity. They have funded research on dozens of types of cancer. Bowel, prostate, lung, skin. Etc.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:48 AM
19

Except that the men in the right panel of the picture are largely treated like crap by the majority of the dominant cultures? And people who act "manly" like the men in the left panel continue to earn the respect of society. Which is exactly what this post is about: society respects men who act "manly." If the men on the right thought acting like women would earn them respect... they were clearly wrong...
/r/MensRights31/05/12 11:57 AM
-2

Right, because it's unimaginable that a law firm's actual practice might differ from how they present themselves. Their actual practices are completely irrelevant. The OP's image didn't suggest they were pretending to be nice, but were secretly awful. It suggested that they were openly advertising services for women dealing with drugs and violence. Their lawfirm doesn't even handle cases like that. The idea that a world class lawfirm targeting extremely rich people with a carefully crafted image…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:11 PM
-8

The whole point is that I'm not being a genius. This image is obviously fake. It isn't targeting some abstract concept of a family court lawyer, it is specifically attacking a real lawfirm. A lawfirm that is nothing like the image, and in fact seems to be one of the best family law firms in the country. A lawfirm with a real concern, not just for getting money, but from getting through a divorce with as little emotional catastrophe as possible. They look very much like the kind of lawfirm I migh…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:06 PM
-7

And yet somehow the nature of divorce and family court proved itself to be virtual no obstacle at all for me in determining if this was real. I guess I must be super special or something. I took on the arduous task of googling the name of the law firm, and clicking on the first result to find that the lawfirm in question is basically the exact opposite of how it is presented. They are being presented as a trashy vindictive lawfirm targeting money grubbing women with backgrounds in drug abuse and…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 03:56 PM
-10

...It says a lot about your ability to detect obvious satire/hyperbole/straw men/etc? Here's a direct quote from their actual promotional material. In addition to being successful and experienced litigators, each attorney is trained and actively participates in collaborative law, a resolution method designed to find a mutually acceptable settlement for all parties without going to court. Through this process, disputes are solved respectfully under the advice of a team of collaborative profession…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 03:00 PM
10

I'm not saying that there is no other explanation for it. But it is still relevant evidence. The fact that they conducted the medical exam at all shows that they didn't merely take her word for it.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 03:59 PM
36

Who said he was? The article mentions that a medical report found she had trauma to her groin. The abuse was detailed in what sounds like a legitimate diary of an 11 year old. If the abuse never occurred, then she didn't merely lie about it. She actively fabricated evidence. I haven't seen the court records, but it doesn't sound like her testimony was the only evidence. Only that it was important evidence and her recanting would have a major impact on the case. His daughter is also currently a h…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 03:03 PM
6

Maybe it is unreasonable to assume these women did not want men they had never interacted with in any way to see their current location and real life personal information displayed on a map by by a picture of a naked dancing woman. But it is at least as unreasonable to assume that they did want people using a completely different application with a completely different set of features and a completely different purpose to have real time access to their real life personal information and current …
/r/MensRights03/04/12 06:05 AM
0

My personal stance has always been: If I say: " Would you like/want to ___ " No one should assume I am paying. If I say: "I would like to take you to ____ " it is reasonable to assume I intend to cover the cost. I think an offer to pay is always a polite and friendly gesture regardless of whether the person was invited or did the inviting(and obviously regardless of gender). I think a request to split the bill is almost always reasonable, even if one party has already politely offered to pay for…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 02:56 AM
9

How old were you experienced women dropping out? What you are talking about sounds like college. The article isn't about college level, or even upper high school level computer science. The women runs a program for children, and her oldest child is in gradeschool. She is talking about how it is uncool for people going through puberty to be involved in science based extra-curicular activities(Compsci in particular). I was never in a CompSci based extra curricular group. But I did math league, sci…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:42 PM
0

All I'm saying is that just because Calgary probably needs a Men's DV shelter... doesn't mean this guy should be in charge of it. (It also doesn't mean he shouldn't. But I'd like to see some evidence that he is actually good at something. It isn't enough to have your heart in the right place.) We aren't talking about letting him sit in the circle in a public support group meeting. He is going to be personally spearheading the mental health development of victims of abuse with the sanction and fu…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 05:41 AM
-1

I'd like to see more information about this shelter. It claims to have helped over 30 people in two years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, lets say 39 people. And it only says he helped them, does that include anyone who he counseled for a few hours? People who just wanted a recommendation for a decent lawyer? Or only people who stayed the night? How long did the average person stay? How many beds does he have? What kind of services does he provide? Is he qualified to provide them? I don't …
/r/MensRights01/04/12 06:18 PM
1

That way, women will come to believe the sentences are outrageous What makes you think that they would? I don't think feelings of gender solidarity run that deep. When I see a man getting an harsh sentencing for having sex with a 13 year old I don't think "That could be me." Because it couldn't have. Because I don't have sexual feelings for 13 year olds. I'm not worried about what would happen to me if I plead guilty to drugging a 13 year old and had sex with them 300 times. I have more abstract…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:49 AM
0

As a lawful resident of the house I would presume the guy's wife consented to let them in. I don't know Canadian law, but this would certainly be legal in the US. Basically the only time you can't give the police consent to enter a house that you live in is if the purpose of the search is to find evidence against another person living in the house and that person is currently present and telling police they can't come in(They are under no obligation to ask, and they can enter despite an objectio…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 03:11 AM
9

http://jezebel.com/5870196/the-story-of-my-man+boobs http://jezebel.com/5889669/only-assholes-say-you-wont-sleep-with-them-unless-theyre-assholes http://jezebel.com/people/slut%20machine/posts There are 3. I've never even heard of Jezebel before you mentioned it, I have no desire to spend any time there. These people don't write like women, they write like feminists. Or like gossip columnists.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 09:43 PM
0

ಠ_ಠ The person who wrote this article is a man.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 08:34 PM
7

Why not a feminist man of the Jezebel variety? What is the difference? Why can't a man write with snarky pop culture references without being told he writes like a girl?
/r/MensRights27/03/12 06:35 PM
21

he writes like a woman ... All snark, condescension and pop culture stereotypes This is the kind of statement that turns people off. It is currently the top comment discussing the article. It is not at all in line with the egalitarian ideals that this community presents itself as supporting.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 05:51 PM
6

The poster doesn't say that feminists need the right to arm themselves. It says they need to arm themselves. Because gun ownership tends to be low among feminists, or even liberals in general. They aren't calling for a right to bear arms. They are calling for people to actually do it.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 01:37 AM
1

They are both real feminists. That is the point. The basic outcome of the debate was the creation of 3rd wave feminism. Which usually suggests that there may not be a "right answer." That porn is made with a wide variety of intentions, and consumed in a wide variety of ways. And that these things often need to be looked at in a more specific personal way. (Or something like that, I'm no feminist expert. I can just read Wikipedia) The OPs post not only suggests feminists are the on the wrong side…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 10:43 PM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#Sex-positive_and_anti-censorship_feminist_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution#Pro-sex_worker_perspectives Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of feminist who view liberalized sexuality as an important goal and there have been for decades.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:18 PM
23

This article is ridiculous. Social engineering? New World Order gender roles? Who does he think is writing sitcoms? TBS is not a brainwashing company. They don't care about changing gender roles. They don't want to make the world a better place or a worse place. They care about making money. Not everything is a conspiracy.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:09 PM
9

Except he wouldn't. Because he doesn't live in South Carolina. He lives in Washington. And Washington already provided a right to civil counsel in any matter concerning a dependent child (including the right to have counsel appointed if you cannot afford it). According to Washington code 13.34.090 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=13.34.090 In case anyone doubts that this law predates Turner v Rogers , here is an article from 6 years ago that mentions the law. So it is at least that o…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 07:53 PM
1

The point is that he is lying to the police about why he tried to pick up 13 year old strangers. Lying makes it worse.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 02:50 PM
0

Have you considered that the court order had served the purpose, making further legal action purely punitive? And that maybe the judge never intended to be punitive? Regardless of his intent or the legality of his statements Byron's facebook comments caused his wife to suffer harassment from co-acquaintances who mistakenly believed that she had actively made efforts to keep him from seeing his children. I think it is safe to assume that most people(including the judge) would consider that situat…
/r/MensRights20/03/12 05:33 AM
42

They are selling razor blades that you put in your vagina so that when a penis goes in it gets sliced up. The product is completely useless if you don't have a vagina, or if your attacker does not have a penis. Why would they care about people who have no use for their product? What would a man do with a condom filled with razor blades? It isn't designed to be worn anally, and I doubt many men have an interest in testing whether a razor blade filled condom is safe to store in your anus. They are…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:47 AM
7

That isn't a definition of abuse. It is a description of verbal tactics that the author believes are commonly used by people who she considers abusive. It doesn't say: "People who minimize deny and blame are abusive" It says: "People who are abusive often minimize deny and blame" Suggesting that both abusers and feminists minimize deny and blame does not make feminists abusers anymore than suggesting that roses and firetrucks are both red proves that firetrucks are roses. The fact that this is o…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 07:23 AM
12

Not to dismiss what I assume is genuine concern from the guy who posted the comment you linked to, but you don't think this is ridiculously narcissistic? The original article linked to was from "The Australian." That is the biggest national newspaper in Australia. It isn't the biggest paper, but it certainly has mainstream viewership. It averages 150,000 readers per day. That is 5 times the subscriber count for this entire subreddit. The comment you linked to is a 7 month old comment with one up…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 04:57 AM
3

If you believe that China does not allow women to take their spouses previously owned home in a divorce... Why would you propose that the reason Chinese women wants men who own a home is so that they can take it in a divorce?
/r/MensRights11/03/12 11:14 PM
0

That isn't the point. Nothing you said has anything to do with her spending a few months as a cheerleader while she was a law student. And her being a cheerleader has nothing to do with how credible her opinions are on appropriate alimony payments. Snidely dismissing a Harvard law professor as "a former NFL cheerleader" is gross. I never said she was right, or even that attacking her character or credibility should be off the table. Only that trying to dismiss her opinions because she was once a…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 06:19 PM
9

Written by a women who has a law degree from a top 50 law school? A woman who has taught classes at Harvard Law and MIT? Maybe that Wendy Murphy? The implication that an MIT, New England law, and Harvard law professor's opinions on the impact of pending legislation are devalued because she was a cheerleader for a single year (while she was a law student) is asinine. If you want to put forth a serious criticism of her work, so be it. There are certainly arguments to be had. But you don't get to w…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 09:34 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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