TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

carasci Archive

View 3 posts and 18 comments by carasci 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)
6

Sure, yet "Radio Detection and Ranging" became "RADAR", while "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome" became "AIDS". I don't blame you for liking that as a convention, but the rest of the world clearly doesn't follow it.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:24 PM
14

So basically, the issue is that the government is unlikely to go out on a limb for it because it is something new, but a solid proof-of-concept may give it the push it needs to step up and contribute?
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:18 PM
1

It is, so you get the usual tax benefits for charitable donations.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 05:26 PM
5

Got this today - as many are probably aware, the Ryerson Student Union has been doing its level best to shoot down a new student group. Though the internal process there is still ongoing, it looks like CAFE is winding up for a full discrimination case if (or more likely "when") they finally make it official. CAFE's been very effective thus far both at generating publicity and concrete initiatives like their Centre for Men and Families, so if you can afford to throw a few dollars their way I'd en…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 04:05 PM
1

Except the case was reviewed in the Ontario court of appeal, which is in Canada.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 04:10 PM
2

Precisely.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:55 PM
7

Well, it does really make sense here. Why is the court chasing after the sperm donor who's had effectively no contact with the child, rather than the woman's partner who actually took on a parental role? Had they been a heterosexual couple and the pregnancy the result of cheating, odds are this would simply have become another of the thousands of "presumptive father" cases. The only difference here is the gender of the other parent, and the fact that nobody could argue she wasn't aware and accep…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:49 PM
1

I wouldn't say it really bit feminists in the ass so much as it bit the LGBT community, but the key is that it didn't in any way whatsoever do what it was intended to. The short of it is that we had an obscenity law passed mostly because of feminist agitating and it ended up mostly targeting GLBT (and in many cases by extension feminist) material. I would say it was much more a matter of bullshit homophobia than poetic justice, but it certainly demonstrates how censorship laws can get turned aro…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 05:28 PM
3

You have to remember the context this is working in. When feminists are arguing that catcalls or polite sexual advances constitute "oppression", the bar has been set extremely low. I highly doubt any of the PoN admins would compare the situation of men today to the historical situation of blacks in apartheid, Jews, or other similar groups. Feminists, of course, will quite happily argue such things regarding women, which forces those dealing with them to work within their reference frame.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 05:35 PM
24

And, of course, the very first comment: SHE PROBABLY SNAPPED. ADVICE TO ANY ABUSE VICTIM – JUST LEAVE. Remember, even when women kill it's always the man's fault.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 03:54 AM
3

Top of the head references: Genderratic: Manufacturing Female Victimhood and Marginalizing Vulnerable Men is your key point, it breaks down the CDC NIPSVS and demonstrates that when a gender-symmetric definition of rape is used things come out pretty much equal. Straight Statistics: How the panic over rape was orchestrated demonstrates how in the UK (and elsewhere) the rate at which rapists are convicted is artificially shrunk to make it seem like rapists are rarely brought to justice. Permutati…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 09:13 PM
-1

I think Mech means feminists versus straight-up bigots. Someone can be bigoted against men (or just completely nuts as the case may be) without actually holding to feminist ideology or calling/considering themselves a feminist. It's important not to conflate the two. For example, this person could equally well have had an abusive experience as a child that influenced their views. As a result, they automatically believe the alleged victim and react extremely violently towards anyone who suggests …
/r/MensRights30/05/13 10:38 AM
2

I'd have to look for it a specific source, but it's a common criticism of the original CTS which was addressed in its later revisions. The rule can be shown by looking at studies where both partners were asked similar questions about perpetration and victimization, especially when they were asked both objective questions ("has your partner ever thrown an object at or near you?") and subjective questions ("on a scale of one to ten, how violent is your partner?"). From that, it becomes easy to sho…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:49 AM
1

You have to be somewhat careful with this because there's a notable confounding factor: men as a rule minimize when talking about their victimization, women as a rule exaggerate. This has the potential to seriously skew the statistics on gay and lesbian relationships. Basically, the gays underreport and the lesbians overreport, leading to the appearance of a difference where there isn't any. I haven't had the chance to look through all of the studies, but it's still something to keep in mind.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:49 AM
49

Interestingly, her first "example" is also totally wrong. The trend of disproportionate custody given to women began with the "Tender Years Doctrine", which was passed during the nineteenth century as a result of feminist activism. Before that point, custody was almost universally given to men after divorce, as men were responsible for the financial support of the child and that was felt to be connected to physical custody. She's not just wrong, she's utterly backwards.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:21 PM
1

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. The thing is that the female option to choose military coexists with the male option to choose military service. In any time where the draft is not being used they both have the option, and when the draft is being used any men who have not/yet been drafted likewise have the option to sign up the same as women do. In addition, there's also the male obligation to military service (the draft). I agree that the experiences are different, but the point was …
/r/MensRights01/12/12 02:35 AM
1

But that's the thing. HMcH is basically saying that women being excluded from the draft is misogyny. On the other hand, if we rephrase it to "women being exempt from the draft" it becomes a lot more obvious that women not being drafted is a privilege rather than some kind of twisted oppression. It's totally reasonable to use the fact that both sexes can enlist in military service to establish whether women being excluded/exempt constitutes a privilege or not. The key is that they're not being de…
/r/MensRights01/12/12 12:10 AM
3

I think the point they're making is that there is a difference between "exclusion" and "exemption". All the draft is is forcible military service, which makes it the real topic of discussion, especially because the question was whether or not inclusion in the draft is a "privilege". Which is more privileging, having the option to do something or having the obligation to? You don't "exclude" people from obligations, you "exempt" them from them. It's a fine point but a really important one because…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:30 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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