TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

enveloops Archive

View 1 post and 50 comments by enveloops 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)
11

enveloops/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:48 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

If he can't afford to pay this woman $400 he owes, he can't afford an attorney for private litigation.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 11:53 AM
1

You said it yourself, divorce was rare. If in the handful of times there actually were divorces, men got the children, you can't really make some broad conclusion based on that.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 01:58 PM
2

Interesting - thank you!
/r/MensRights19/06/13 01:55 PM
2

When did men really get custody of children?
/r/MensRights19/06/13 12:06 AM
2

This is unintelligible. What?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:09 PM
-2

No. Mine is based on logic and yours is based on wanting to come to a conclusion that benefits your talking points.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:00 PM
1

I just don't understand how that idea has become like this huge assumption that that's how it's always going to be, and all these women cheat on their husbands, and these poor victim men. Only 17% of divorces involve infidelity, I'll be charitable and assume it's a 50/50 split among men and women being the cheater. I just don't understand how what is, at most, 9% of divorces has become spun as an inevitable outcome of marrying a woman.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:44 PM
1

What? No. I didn't say all guys are assholes/players, but guys are exposed to more media that glorifies assholes/players. What you're describing is romantic comedies are related bullshit, which are not marketed towards men. But look at movies, TV and music marketed towards men, that's where you'll see a lot more glorification of "assholes," etc.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:39 PM
1

That makes no sense. There's absolutely no support for that kind of a claim.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:22 PM
1

I think there are a lot more social messages telling men to be "players" and try to play the field and their social status is tied up in how many women they sleep with. So I really disagree that you really have all these nice men running around figuring out that the only way they can get a woman is by being an asshole.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:22 PM
2

It's a two way street. You can't command power without someone willing to give it to you.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:12 PM
2

As a woman who makes more than my partner, I think there's some adjustment to do - but it's on both people in the relationship, and I think it's harder on the guy. I don't think there are all that many women who honestly think they would prefer not to have their education/work opportunities/financial independence, given the choice. Women don't want it the way it was, they really don't. I don't know exactly what you're pointing to, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove that there's any large-scale m…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:11 PM
-2

Is all this coming from that Mystery guy with the hats? I'm not trying to belittle your commentary, but I think it may have answered my question of how this has all crystallized into such a common talking point: MYSTERY
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:44 PM
0

Oh, come on, you really think all women sit around saying "Oh, wow, I'm so lucky I got this asshole to date, he makes me laugh all the time!" Give me a break.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:42 PM
1

Absolutely, it could be as arbitrary as "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" - - - any evidence we see of girls "naturally" being drawn to pink things is entirely because society has ingrained that relationship into everyone's head. Similarly, you could make the argument that "brown eyed people are aggressive, blue eyed people are not" and then point to how many brown eyed people are in jail and think you're proving your point. It's honestly so impossible to separate it all out.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:39 PM
0

Oh, without a doubt, women want a confident guy. But that doesn't jive with the idea that some people are saying "Oh, stupid women just want assholes, they don't want nice guys." No, they want confident guys, usually nice ones.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:33 PM
0

I just want to know where you get this idea about the "majority" of women wanting to marry up - if it's just from personal experience, it's just as invalid as you claim my personal experience to be. I think you can be ambitious and altruistic at the same time, I don't really agree with your comments on how wanting someone who is motivated, etc., is fundamentally at odds with wanting someone nice.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:21 PM
1

I think the problem is that a lot of people are arguing about two different things, which can make both sides think the other side is being incoherent or illogical. But I think a lot of it comes up in your post, near the end, where you discuss this concept of "Patriarchy" = rule of men/fathers and, what's so bad about fathers being the rulers. It's likely a semantics thing, but that's not the right question (at least the way I see it). Instead of talking about what I think all feminists believe,…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:18 PM
1

Oh, yeah, I definitely didn't mean to attack you, I just thought that it was difficult to really get into a conversation with someone who qualified the position with "I don't actually believe this." It just seemed like there wasn't a point to it, that's all.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:02 PM
1

Where does that power come from?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:59 PM
1

Oh, I have another username, I just don't want to use it because it has enough personally identifying information on it that I wouldn't want people who irrationally hate me for not always agreeing with them to know. And, no, I don't know all the lingo, as I said in my original post, I have kept away from mensrights for a couple of years because last time I ventured over here it just made my blood boil. :)
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:59 PM
5

I know it won't solve the problem, but I really think we, as a society, need to stop reacting to some scumbag being sent to prison with "Oh, he'll get his real punishment in jail!" Prison rape shouldn't be a punchline and perpetuates all sorts of societal issues in and out of prison.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:46 PM
3

I think it's true that anyone who is capable of being abusive or supporting someone who is abusive is likely also someone who doesn't respect the severity of violent actions. Much like Saatchi saying it was "just a little tiff!" when the pictures of him choking his wife popped up.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:36 PM
0

And you attack me for expressing an idea that I do not believe in... Where the heck did I attack you????
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:30 PM
-1

Was poking fun at the so called wage gap talking point. Yup - none of us has kids. The data pretty clearly show that women make more than men before they have kids, especially educated women.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:16 PM
4

That's fair.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:03 PM
1

I have no idea what those acronyms mean
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:58 PM
0

My point, though, is through personal experience, that women who make a lot of money no longer want that traditional "man who makes more than me" type of guy. Precisely because there are fewer to choose from and that women are more self-sufficient. So that no longer can be a baseline, or else you're just stuck with a smaller selection of guys. How dare you say such a thing. Huh?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:52 PM
3

I think that's fair.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:45 PM
-3

Yeah, and I'm not even assuming that every guy around here who complains is an unbathed slob - I just don't think that most people who are rejected romantically, especially if it's repeated, find it much easier to get angry at the people who rejected them than really think about what they can do to help themselves along. Women do it too.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:44 PM
0

I guess it was more notable to me because I really hadn't heard it at all a couple of years ago around these parts and now it seems like it comes up in a lot of threads, even when I don't think it necessarily makes sense contextually.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:34 PM
-1

No, not at all, but if the person doesn't hold the beliefs they are stating, it seems like a waste of my time to have a conversation with them to change their mind/inform them of another viewpoint/etc. But if you don't actually agree with what your comment says, and you make it clear that you don't agree with it, don't really know what I'm supposed to with that.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:29 PM
-1

Interesting - I hadn't knownm about the redpill subreddit. Not sure how to respond to a hypothetical argument from a perspective you don't have, so I'll just leave my reaction to your last paragraphs on the cutting room floor.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:22 PM
1

Honest question: do you want me to link specific comments? It may be that you don't read the same threads I do.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:17 PM
2

It really doesn't point to a growing disparity. This growth in disparity is half an hour a week - well within the margin of error. You simply can't make such a broad conclusion based on that. Your comment about single mothers is actually really interesting and made me go back to the study. So they compared men and women in an "intact and stable household" as you put it. Let's compare those numbers, since we're lucky enough to have that data: The following is the number of housework + childcare +…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:14 PM
1

How do you know that the reason why they were staying home to raise children was a result of the obstacles?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:39 PM
1

They aren't there. That means you have to use the best data available to you and not just cherry pick what makes a the best fake argument for you among the available data.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:06 PM
1

No it's not, not when you're summing totals and making an argument based on that sum. If you were making an argument based on comparing certain subsets, sure, you can bring up the fact that more men are unemployed now. But you're adding things together, choosing the biggest number for men without adjusting the other two numbers for men (in other words, if you're going to use the numbers of hours at work for men with jobs, you have to use the number of hours spent on childcare/household for men w…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:00 PM
2

I totally disagree with your logic. You're using the number of hours men work for those who are employed. You're using the number of hours men do housework and raise children for those who are employed and unemployed. Those latter two numbers must certainly be higher for those who are unemployed, so you're double counting. Come on. This is basics. You need to change your numbers to make a logical analysis. You're cherry picking numbers to fit your conclusion, it's painfully obvious and it does n…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:31 PM
0

No, not at all, I just worked as a nanny during law school and now, as a lawyer who works 80+ hours a week (in other words, I know what hard work is), I still don't think I would characterize the time spent with those kids as "playing." I think it's a way to use word choice to purposefully demean the work parents do when they raise their children in order to prove your point.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:16 PM
4

Your math is misleading - the hours worked for men should be 37.1. You're using the number for employed dads. The number for women is for both employed and unemployed women, so you should use the same number for comparison and analysis. That makes the division of labor 52.5 vs 54.2, which is certainly within the margin of error and really doesn't lend itself to a lot of the conclusions you reached.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:03 PM
0

And if you really think that parenting is just a matter of "playing" with your children, I feel really bad for your daughter. There's a lot more that goes into it, and maybe it's because you don't do it every day and you only think of it as "playing" and it's during the summer, but I'm sure you're underestimating the work that goes into it.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 02:51 PM
-2

Yes, women are JUST waking up to the fact that their choices have consequences. Women have NEVER suffered ANY consequences for the fact that they were forced to make choices. No one's saying they expect time off or a leg up. But we live in a society, we're human beings, most of whom procreate and we should put the entire burden of procreation on women just because you want to continue to enjoy the privileges and benefits of having another generation of children who were raised in supportive, dev…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 01:13 AM
1

Maybe I just work in a weird bizarro manhattan law firm and my clients are all weird bizarro investment banks, but I assure you I've heard it more times than I can count.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 01:10 AM
-3

I had moved off a bit on the topic, so I wasn't just talking about what the article said. I work with a lot of men who take time off to spend with their families, and I'm sure you know some too, so it's certainly not true that men "DON'T" do it. That being said, I have a lot of issues with your last paragraphs, the implication that it's all a woman's CHOICE and this is just CHOOSY MOMS CHOOSING TO MOM. As if men CHOOSING to parent full time is a considered an equally valid choice. As if society …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 11:00 PM
1

I'll freely admit that the last part ("she should just quit") is usually silent. But there are absolutely a lot less respect for women's family/work conflicts than men's. Even if it's the exact same conflict. I've had people say "Oh, I don't care, the client needs this" to someone saying they have to go to a recital and, within the same week, being 100% supportive of another co-worker with a similar conflict. I'm telling you, this is how it works in corporate america.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:31 PM
3

No, but women who take off maternity leave and stay home with a sick kid every now and then should be treated the same as men who take off the same amount of paternity leave and stay home with a sick kid every now and then. The difference is, when a man does it, they are given a pat on the back and people are congratulating them on being dedicated fathers and trying to balance the demands of the office. When women do it, they are essentially just confirming everyone's assumption that they don't …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:22 PM
-4

But the point is that men who say "I have to go to my kid's soccer game" are literally treated like God among men. "Oh, wow! You're such a great father." If a woman says that, they are treated like "Oh, obviously, she doesn't put her career first, she should just quit." I see it ALL the time, it's absolutely insane and mind-boggling.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:20 PM
5

No, not the same paycheck for "doing less work." But the same opportunity to earn the same paycheck for the same amount of work? The same opportunity to advance to a position that is more work and more money? Sure. That'd be great. But women aren't afforded that opportunity, especially after they have children.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 09:32 PM
2

You don't have children, do you?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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