TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

freedomgeek Archive

View 0 posts and 38 comments by freedomgeek 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)
3

Devil's advocate: It's actually: Overcome social (and maybe biological) pressures and biases Turn up Receive praise
/r/MensRights30/08/10 05:37 AM
2

I still think this is something we should fight against, we should try to cure aging.
/r/MensRights31/07/10 10:07 AM
1

The top presumes I will have children with my theoretical wife...
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:29 PM
7

I don't really see it as dangerous or bad. Sure, it a strange change but who cares? Hell as a thin (albeit short) man I kind of like it.
/r/MensRights27/06/10 02:10 PM
5

But the gap was closed when couples were matched in social backgrounds, if they had a common religion, if the chores were shared or if the woman was a housewife, a student or retired. So if the woman has to do all the work and this isn't because this is "her job" then if the husband doesn't have some other problem he has to deal with making it reasonable then they split up. Sounds pretty reasonable.
/r/MensRights23/05/10 04:34 AM
4

I support it. People who don't want to have children being forced to have children is a terrible thing. Girls who don't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth is a terrible thing. I do believe that men should have a similar method of avoiding having to care for or pay for children however.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 01:04 AM
2

Feminist as in equality? Definitely, I don't know if I'd want a women who isn't a feminist under that definition. Feminist as in all men are rapists, E=MC2 is a sexed equation, etc? No.
/r/MensRights18/04/10 08:32 AM
1

They should be treated just the same as a normal man (which I believe should be treated the same as a woman for non-sexual purposes). (Unless we're talking about a scientific study or similar which could have the results messed up of course).
/r/MensRights11/04/10 06:34 AM
1

I'd say that taking the condom off without consent is rape (or should carry a similar penalty) if simply due to the disease and pregnancy risks. I would also argue that a women doing off her birth control without telling the man a similar penalty should be levied. Of course the the huge problem is proving any of this.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 05:25 AM
2

While I don't know about this case in particularly the linked site has been a consistant home to some very bad science.
/r/MensRights15/03/10 03:40 PM
–

Can we have this sub-reddit be about rights not complete nonsense like this?
/r/MensRights15/03/10 02:41 PM
–

As a man who does not want children this attitude disgusts and terrifies me.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 04:14 PM
4

He said a woman not all women or even just women.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 03:55 PM
2

I feel as though it's mostly arbitrary gender roles.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 05:07 PM
1

I'm for it.
/r/MensRights14/11/09 11:37 AM
2

I should not comment while tired. I confused you with the OP. Have two upvotes as a apology.
/r/MensRights09/11/09 05:15 AM
2

If it doesn't have anything to do with the rights of men then it shouldn't be in the men's right sub-reddit. Men's rights != anti-feminism. Why do you assume that a higher population is not only desirable but above other things? Speaking as a happily childfree male here.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 04:59 PM
4

This is complete nonsense. Ideas can be spread by memes as well as genes and evolution is not a moral imperative. What the hell does this have to do with the rights of men!?
/r/MensRights08/11/09 03:42 PM
1

If it was in pill form yes. I hate children and do not desire any. Of course for me the only thing really keeping me from getting a vasectomy right now is that I'm fairly young and the procedure (not the results) is undesirable.
/r/MensRights04/11/09 11:15 PM
1

I apologize for given the appearance that I was defending said person, I was defending the concept that agriculture cause evolutionary changes and as I had a headache at the time of writing I did not make that clear. What I meant by forced was that the selective pressures acting upon them changed, not the coercive definition and as it is unclear I apologize. Technology not evolution but in some cases it can cause it to occur a particular way. I agree that you cannot decide to evolve anything and…
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:50 PM
2

Or you know when you wrote 'The Great Leap to agriculture, metal tools and literacy.' as an explanation for how 'evolution has adapted us to modernity.' You are talking to two different people, that was not me. Perhaps I should not have positioned myself as such in this thread as it gives the wrong impression as to what I am defending. The person asking for an explanation above him would have probably been a better position as I am not defending said person and if I have given said impression th…
/r/MensRights15/10/09 10:45 PM
2

Please tell me how I have ever suggested that generally evolution works in any way other than natural selection causing a selective pressure which favors a particular trait which in turn causes individuals without said trait to be less likely of reproducing and as such the prevalence of said trait increases within the population for I never intended to write it as such.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 10:20 PM
1

Really, well then the sources I read might have been incorrect. That does not change the fact that my description of the fashion in which evolution works, the original issue, was not incorrect.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 09:55 AM
1

I never said they decided to do anything, I said that the ability to drink milk came with agriculture I never said how it came with it, with people who could drink milk (due to them never losing the ability during childhood) having an extra source of sustenance which would lead to a survival advantage in famine as the agriculture made said milk available due to milk producing animals being domesticated first for meat. Would it be more accurate to say came after of occurred due to than came with?…
/r/MensRights15/10/09 07:28 AM
2

I am quite aware of how evolution works. You are entering into the semantics of language.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 06:56 AM
4

There were evolutionary changes that came with agriculture such as the ability to drink milk. Some scientists believe that Europeans evolved white skin after an agricultural diet short in vitamin D forced them to get more from the sun.
/r/MensRights14/10/09 11:19 PM
1

Not really. They aren't saying that they don't fit under some definition of feminist and they themselves may be proof that there are better definitions.
/r/MensRights11/10/09 06:36 AM
–

People like this don't need to be rational. The fact that they feel a certain way is proof to them. Let's not stoop to their level.
/r/MensRights11/10/09 06:30 AM
–

Firstly you assume they never do. Secondly time is an incredibly limited resource, I don't have time to fight for all the moral issues I find important.
/r/MensRights09/10/09 04:26 PM
–

Some feminist are about equality but these batshit insane extremists certainly aren't.
/r/MensRights09/10/09 12:39 PM
1

Obviously that was just a name for it though indicating it is artificial not that it was literally made of iron. I borrowed the name off battletech, bring it up with them.
/r/MensRights03/10/09 05:56 AM
4

On the medical information issue the sperm banks tend not to allow people with such issues to donate and it is often just an attempt to try to work out who the donor was. While limited information should be provided in case anything came up after the screening or what have you it should be carefully limited in scope.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 04:11 PM
3

It would have only affected males in the short term. Imagine it is the year 2025 and iron wombs have been invented. These iron wombs allow males without a fertile, female partner who is willing to go through the ordeal of pregnancy to have children if they wish to do so. Women can become egg donors for said iron wombs. They shouldn't want this sort of president hanging over it. Also of course sperm donors would become much more rare.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 04:07 PM
6

A victory for human freedom and sperm banks.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 04:00 PM
1

Nonsense. The claim that women need to have children to be happy is absurd. There is a negative correlation between happiness and the number of children. Weak but negative. I don't see how this relates to men having rights.
/r/MensRights28/09/09 01:30 PM
1

It isn't just about the genetic material its about the right to choose to have children. Imagine this; you don't want children but one gets conceived anyway so you assume you have done something wrong but later this comes to light.
/r/MensRights26/09/09 02:53 PM
0

Nonsense. I've seen women that get angry and men that get sad.
/r/MensRights13/09/09 01:43 PM
4

Wow. I mean I hate football but wow.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 11:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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