TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

chrisBlo Archive

View 1 post and 28 comments by chrisBlo 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)
473

Edu./Occu.chrisBlo/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:07 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

More in general, if you want to support women sport, do it with your own damn money: pay for streaming events and go the stadium. Don’t do it with the MNT’s money!
/r/MensRights03/02/23 01:33 PM
42

Maybe someone removed the tape from the “genderless” toilet. Or maybe it’s just discriminatory. In either case there are two solutions: 1. Remove the tape from the other one 2. Cover the female picture on the first one Either is fine
/r/MensRights02/02/23 08:28 PM
1

I agree with everything, to the dot, but not the harsh punishment you propose for women sport (de facto extinction). The solution would be to give responsibility to players for the results they get. Much higher bonus and much lower salary. Based on revenues generated. This is a sound and healthy way to promote the sport. As you say, those vocal justice warriors do not want to sustain women sport at all. They want someone else’s money to be given to women to signal their virtue. When it comes to …
/r/MensRights02/02/23 05:16 PM
1

Especially if you consider that the bulked the money comes from broadcasting rights. To the point that the women World Cup had revenues of 130 mln vs the (men) World Cup of 8 bln! Yet both are entitled to the same pay. I didn’t know the US had embraced Marxism.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 03:05 PM
1

Oh I see, we are talking about two events here. The lawsuit had been dismissed few years ago and you are talking about the fanciful appeal that they had tried. Which ended up with a new out of court deal, that infuriates me for its unfairness. But it won’t be undone. Patience: and sponsors and viewership will slowly build the (real) gap again.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:41 AM
1

Yes, they have unfairly gained an advantage that is purely based on sexism. Though the USSF didn’t settle the suit, they made a new deal with the WNT. And you know what is the worst thing? The men actually supported this!
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:22 AM
1

The judge also explained that while both team plays soccer, playing in female tournaments and in male tournaments do not require the same level of skills and efforts. Rather obvious, but they needed to hear it, I guess, otherwise we would see mixed teams all the time, at least outside professional leagues.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:19 AM
1

That is so true elsewhere as well. The largest audience to female sport events is still made by men. Women also watch more male sport than female sport. Ok, you could make the argument that is just a matter of higher product availability…. But in the era of streaming is it still a valid argument?
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:16 AM
1

They actually lost the lawsuit! And therefore turned their (unfounded) claims to the street tribunal, where virtue signaling and misplaced sense of rightness prevent people from using logic.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:13 AM
1

I don’t disagree at all. There is a reason if most female sports are not as popular as me sports. It just so happens that the intensity of men sports is higher (for biological reasons) and to most people that is the most compelling reason to allocate their scarce time to it. Female football is as competitive as early teens male football. High school sophomores. That is a fact proven by results.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:11 AM
1

In soccer the game lasts the same amour of time for both. The number of games played is the culprit… as per the agreement that the WNT had signed the number of games played becomes much less relevant for their total take home pay than it is for the MNT.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:08 AM
1

Funny… but spot on
/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:19 PM
2

After signing the previous deal, realizing that in a specific occasion it wasn’t economical… and then after losing their case against the USSF… and yet, the pretense is still there. This baffles me.
/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:19 PM
4

Yes, that’s all in the background. I find it astounding that the chant still goes on unabated. Like in a parallel universe
/r/MensRights01/02/23 06:57 PM
2

I bet some extremist would even want to see that…But it wouldn’t be fair. The pay wouldn’t be correlated with revenue generation any more
/r/MensRights01/02/23 06:55 PM
3

True
/r/MensRights01/02/23 06:01 PM
18

Also there… men events are still more watched than women one. Yet, they both get the same prize money (not at every tournament though, at least!).
/r/MensRights01/02/23 04:56 PM
23

That would be the end of women sport. I hope extremists realize that if they keep pushing it so hard, they will eventually get what they wish for. And it will be their demise. Sport is healthy and a female successful athlete is a much more relatable reference for a girl than a male athlete. Please, let’s not kill women sport. Please… let’s not incense and overpay it either!
/r/MensRights01/02/23 02:12 PM
2

I think that, if even after reading the numbers, you still think there is room for discussion… you are just deaf to reason. In which world is 12 million smaller or even the same as 3 million? Those are real numbers by the way. The women team can get from sponsors all they want. But from the US soccer federation they should receive only what they earned. Which is not even remotely close to what the men earned. Like it or not. But you won’t listen and still think it’s up for debate. Okay, I got yo…
/r/MensRights01/02/23 01:59 PM
3

At which point have I called you a women, darling? And excuse me if I say it, but how did you infer my gender either? My assumption, which is correct, is that: 1. You know nothing about soccer 2. You know nothing about how soccer revenues are distributed 3. You are here to troll So, you admitted defeat on the first argument and now you try to use a straw man argument just to come out on top? Ok! The point is: we (FIFA) are already unfairly rewarding women teams way above men. Remember? 30/130 vs…
/r/MensRights01/02/23 01:48 PM
4

Which part of the above you didn’t understand, honey? The men take part to the construction of a cathedral worth 400 million. The women, a church worth 130. The men built a two walls, the women the bell tower and the frescos. Still, the budget is 400 for the massive cathedral, and 130 for the church. I will say it differently: the men contributed to the show up to losing to Netherlands. Argentina got 42 million from the World Cup. Because they won it (Italy didn’t even qualify, I will specify th…
/r/MensRights01/02/23 01:30 PM
5

Ok… I see you are really out of your comfort zone. The World Cup final was Argentina vs France (Italy France was in 2006). The name of the player is Cristiano Ronaldo. I see you do not know the field that much, but it’s not like you are here for the debate, are you? You want to make your points. Too bad… knowing facts help a lot in a conversation. I see this lack of orientation got you to the point that you get confused in math. I will put it simple. It’s 400 million the overall prize money for …
/r/MensRights01/02/23 01:16 PM
8

You are indeed trolling me. No my dear. Revenues are global revenues, not US revenues only. It’s a global tournament. It seems you don’t know where the problem lies. World Cup revenues are owned by FIFA, male or female. FIFA will graciously dispense a part of those revenues to participating federations (depending on performance, of course). Those federations will then give a part of those revenues to their players. The (men) World Cup generates billions. The women World Cup... well… ehm… The USS…
/r/MensRights01/02/23 12:59 PM
12

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It’s 1.5 billion people for the World Cup vs 0.2 for the women World Cup. Are you trolling me or are you serious?
/r/MensRights01/02/23 12:13 PM
12

Except they do… because viewership numbers are known. And you get viewership’s numbers from all other source you can think of. Any Google search will reward ample results.
/r/MensRights01/02/23 11:33 AM
19

They don’t. They are taking a very selected piece of evidence and making a general rule. Over a specific period of 3 years, stadium revenues for women games made a negligible percent more revenues than men’s. Except that you are missing out broadcasting rights from the equation. And we all now that the real money is not in tickets sales.
/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:58 AM
6

They already take a much larger share of the revenues. The bonus pot in the women World Cup is about 25% of revenues. For the men it’s in single digit.
/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:56 AM
19

The underlying assumption is that playing football in a tournament is always the same job, regardless of the tournament. Like saying that if put a video on YouTube, I should be entitled to the same payout as the best YouTubers: same thing, no?
/r/MensRights01/02/23 10:30 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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