TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

benevolentwalrus Archive

View 2 posts and 47 comments by benevolentwalrus 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)
-8

This only works if women have unrestricted access to abortions (which they should)
/r/MensRights16/03/26 12:36 PM
2

Social media is not the real world. Give people a chance.
/r/MensRights26/01/26 02:20 PM
1

Mens rea means criminal intent, not motive. Everyone has a selfish motive almost all the time, that's not at all criminal. And I've never met a woman who thinks any of this is misogynistic, very much the opposite. That's gotta count for something.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 11:58 PM
1

Why does it have to be anybody's? Someone who commits a murder is dangerous, the same is not true of a woman who's had an abortion. Punishing her does nothing positive, corrects nothing, prempts no harm. In other words it's not a good use of criminal law. There's a reason murder requires mens rea. Glad we agree on improving lives, it's the most important part.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 08:35 PM
1

There are legal rights and natural rights but that's not the point. These are just words anyway, morality is about what works. I care if a born human is murdered because it destabilizes society, I don't care if a woman gets an abortion because it does not. Murder and abortion are not equivalent actions just because life is involved. It isn't my place or yours to "hold women accountable." We simply have no standing, it's up to God. Besides, the only proven ways to reduce abortions are education, …
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:47 PM
1

Nobody grants rights, you possess them inherently or you don't. It ends up being a question of whether you think reproductive rights even exist, and if your answer is no then necessarily you have to oppress women to enforce it, it's just a practical consequence of extending the state's reach all the way up into women's bodies. I don't want to live in that world, it just feels wrong to me. The abstract rights of a fetus, often barely more than a few cells, don't justify it to me.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 05:56 PM
1

So does that mean a man is also responsible for supporting any child of his regardless of circumstances?
/r/MensRights23/01/26 04:47 PM
-7

That's a weird hypothetical to turn to and I'm not sure what a doctor would do in that case, but if she's alive and of sound mind a woman can absolutely turn down medical care for her fetus. That just demonstrates how seriously we take autonomy except when it comes to abortion.
/r/MensRights22/01/26 07:54 PM
6

I don't follow, what does that imply? We're talking about the right of the state to impose its will on one person's body for the sake of another's, not the right of the individual to sacrifice themselves.
/r/MensRights22/01/26 02:52 PM
12

If I don't want to donate my organs they stay in my body when I die. I have the right to deny access to my body even if doing so would save lives and even if I'm a corpse. So yes, a woman's autonomy extends to another life for as long as that life is dependent on her body.
/r/MensRights22/01/26 01:32 PM
4

So no matter who they kill in Gaza it's just fine, that's what you mean right?
/r/MensRights06/10/24 04:11 AM
67

A lot of things in war can be excused, but not this. It's not only plainly evil but also completely counterproductive. It does not matter if the victims committed a crime; good guys don't do this, ever, under any circumstances. You have to be seriously messed up to even think of it.
/r/MensRights26/08/24 05:39 PM
5

They're complementary, not comparable. Also worth noting that at least in theory the draft is used to defend from immediate threats. Forcing a woman to give birth today to a baby who can't fight for 18 years doesn't help defend against immediate threats. Extending the time horizon of threats that far off would imply a Sparten-like warrior culture far beyond that which is implied by the draft. At that point everyone is basically a meat bag for the state, to be used in whatever way suits the power…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 03:41 PM
20

Conscripts aren't usually great soldiers to begin with
/r/MensRights31/05/24 04:27 AM
13

I guess they are similar in that they violate personal integrity in some of the same ways
/r/MensRights31/05/24 01:09 AM
217

Nothing. War and childbirth are both incomparable to anything else. The only fair solution would be to extend the draft to women or else eliminate it.
/r/MensRights30/05/24 11:20 PM
6

Thank you for saying this! I'm so sick of reading about how anti-genocide protests are aCtuALly about the something else. Or that being anti-genocide means being pro-Hamas. They're desperate to make it about the messengers and not the message.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 01:27 PM
5

I mean that's like $9k for every person watching, gotta be some kind of record
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:42 PM
1

This is a really vague rant. Some examples would help.
/r/MensRights21/02/24 01:54 AM
0

I never said otherwise; he absolutely has that right. I'm saying that his X bans, especially those done for trivial or petty reasons, are directly at odds with his supposedly strongly-held beliefs. By pretending to be the guardian of free speech he's establishing an expectation about X's moderation that he has no actual intention of keeping. It's dishonest and terrible for fostering an open society, but you're correct that it's his right to do so.
/r/MensRights13/02/24 07:32 PM
9

Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" yet routinely bans people for mildly criticizing him. None of his "principles" will last a single moment past the point where they benefit him. Believe that.
/r/MensRights13/02/24 05:51 PM
16

They're being demonized because they call him a role model and talk about how he was anti-drug, which is pretty tone deaf in the context of what he was just convicted of. I don't think most people are confused as to the legal intent of the letters.
/r/MensRights11/09/23 02:23 PM
-2

Almost all animals are ultimately eaten. That doesn't mean I can define an animal as "a thing which is eaten." I'm not pretending anything, I'm simply pointing out that these are some very poor definitions to start an argument with.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 08:04 PM
4

P.9 "A woman, as we have already said, is, in contrast to a man, a human being who does not work." That doesn't do it for me. I've known many women who work very hard and I think they deserve credit for it. You could say that men do more work, but there's no reason to make this part of your definition of men and women. It's absurdly reductionist and not at all useful for analysis.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 05:04 PM
-4

Most of the statements you make are technically correct but they don't add up to anything. They are trivial truths. You said "incels are objectively correct" - but what is the thing that are they objectively correct about that other people refuse to accept? Nobody denies that sexual selection is a thing and nobody denies that attractive people on average have an easier time getting sexual attention. But it's dishonest to suggest that the incel mindset is a natural, or even logical consequence of…
/r/MensRights30/09/22 04:23 PM
15

If you're going to use a phrase like "objectively right" then you should be clear about what exactly you're claiming. Is it this? "...up to those who oppose them to prove that for whatever reason the human female does not act like every other female in every other sexually dimorphic species on earth." Referring to women as "female" and adding meaningless descriptors like "sexual dimorphic" are part of the reason people don't take incels seriously. That sentence translates to gibberish when you t…
/r/MensRights30/09/22 02:54 PM
208

I don't know the consensus but personally I think it's good only if abortion is also freely accessible. The logic breaks down if you provide one but not the other.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 04:48 PM
0

Let's assume your numbers are correct, so "only" a few thousand women will die every year because they legally can't have an entopic pregnancy aborted. "Only" a few thousand will be forced to deliver rape babies, or babies with severe disabilities. I still consider that "all the time." And we're not even talking about the number of children forced to be born into abject poverty and other horrible conditions. The rate doesn't matter though, this is just to illustrate a point. Pregnancy itself car…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:33 AM
1

Women are expressing a very justified anger and flipping it around like you do completely misses the point. Imagine how you'd feel if you had a piece of your bodily autonomy revoked. Birth control fails all the time. Rape pregnancies happen all the time. Entopic pregnancies happen all the time. Sex is objectively more dangerous for women now. Really imagine how that must feel.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:41 PM
-1

I've never heard of any evidence that her testimony was politically motivated. Maybe it was but I don't think it was just because you say "many people" say so. It's a mighty big bone for Ford to pick as someone who previously was not involved in politics and has not been since, especially since anybody paying any attention to recent nominations could have told her in advance it had almost no chance of stopping his appointment. If he was falsely accused you can justify that anger in principle, ye…
/r/MensRights05/04/22 05:49 PM
-4

It's prima facie credible and therefore worth listening to because other women made similar claims, because she stood to gain nothing from coming forward, and because she can corroborate parts of it with witness testimony. In the absence of conclusive evidence you look at the testimony, and it's simply my impression having watched both of them that she is more likely to be telling the truth. She sounded like someone recalling a traumatic experience and he sounded like someone who's enraged becau…
/r/MensRights05/04/22 02:51 PM
-6

I'm with the author until this All of this came to a head with the Supreme Court hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. I think that those of us who watched those hearings in real time are still traumatized by what was done to that man. The fact that he was ultimately confirmed doesn't change the fact that a man was set up for destruction, based entirely on fabrications. He was attacked, vilified, defamed and abused in a way that no nominee before, or since, has experienced. His reputation was drawn-and-q…
/r/MensRights05/04/22 11:31 AM
0

I feel like it's easier to whip men into a killing mindset but I have no real evidence this is true.
/r/MensRights27/02/22 10:28 PM
4

Much of what you write rings true but when you talk about lesbianism, short hair and tattoos as bad because you think they're expressions of something bad in society you mask prejudice as social critique. Look back on the posts on this sub, they're about issues like bias in the court system, infant circumcision, social distrust of men, false rape accusations - not aesthetics, but real issues that effect men. The bottom line is that people should be able to make personal choices about how they ex…
/r/MensRights05/02/22 02:43 PM
31

The only word I understand here is "lose"
/r/seduction24/01/22 05:30 AM
3

Isn't if pretty normal to plead out to 2nd degree murder in a case like this? There are lots of reasons they wouldn't wanna risk taking her to trial on 1st degree murder.
/r/MensRights08/08/21 09:32 PM
2

The Captains were important role models to me for very much the same reason. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the show (and god help you...).
/r/MensRights29/07/21 02:08 PM
2

This happened to me, too. I emailed the mods, very reasoned and calm why having bots autoban people for wrongthink is a horrible policy with devastating implications. I'm sure they'll get back to me soon...
/r/MensRights08/07/21 11:10 PM
2

Come on, you're implying hypocrisy but it's absurd to talk about hypocrisy in a context as broad as just "women." I'm not saying you have no point but this meme is not well-formed argument, it's just for people who already agree with you.
/r/MensRights15/06/21 07:26 PM
3

I have never heard a less logical person than Trump in my life. In his prime his only skill was sophistry, but now he can't even string a coherent sentence together. His brain is mashed potatoes. I can't begin to fathom how you see logical thought going on there.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 07:25 PM
1

It's pretty obviously meant as irony. I never said it was upsetting.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 05:57 PM
1

Because it's about how men are coerced into acting a certain way
/r/MensRights10/01/14 05:53 PM
1

Haha! Okay, granted, the old "appeal to individual experience" argument isn't iron-clad. I was just trying to get at the fact that if the actual number were anywhere near 1-in-1877 then accounts of rape and sexual assault would be exceedingly rare, whereas my experience is that they are fairly common - far too common to be a statistical outlier. I'm glad it's not normal to you, but where I've been it very much is.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:54 PM
2

Good point
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:42 PM
5

The graphic says "Feminists claim that 1-in-4 of female students will be the victim of sexual assault or rape during their time at college." You're right on the second point and I'm not suggesting that asking directly would settle the issue of people lying about rape. I'm saying that 1-in-1877 is patently absurd. Does that honestly seem reasonable to you, based on your experience with women in the world? I mean, I doubt many people reading this don't know at least one or two girls who were sexua…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:06 PM
8

If you have a more methodologically sound study I'd cite that instead. This is kind of a pet peeve: combining studies without defining your inclusion criteria is meaningless. You can't generalize a bunch of studies of various quality and call it a solid conclusion (like that old story about how nobody knows how long the nose of the emperor is, so they average the guesses). "Researchers" also find [lower]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney) rates. Of course, this is a qui…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 04:10 PM
100

1-in-1877, really? I really don't think you'd have to talk to 1877 campus women to find one who's been raped or sexually assaulted (or even 188 for that matter). Also, the citation for that point is a joke. Edit: After looking at it, the Kanin study is also a bad joke. His sample size is 109 (laughably small if you're trying to generalize nationally) and his methodology is to just trust the police department of a small Midwestern town to accurately record when rape allegations are false. Not to …
/r/MensRights08/01/13 03:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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