TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gavwando Archive

View 0 posts and 44 comments by gavwando 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)
1

male handbags seem to be popular there?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/08/21 08:16 PM
1

Pretend S1 ends with them flying away, no need to watch 2 onwards (although 2 was actually pretty damn good still! 3,4,5 all... meh... watchable meh, but still meh.)
/r/PussyPassDenied15/08/21 09:00 PM
15

everyone hath a plan until they get punthed in the mouth
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/20 12:46 PM
22

We'll be there on the double! No job too big, no thot too small, Thot Patrol, we're on a roll!!
/r/PussyPassDenied24/11/18 09:23 AM
78

"She's a fucking girl!" no, she's a drunken(?) cunt...
/r/PussyPassDenied04/11/18 12:39 PM
5

-shitty ad playing- [Please wait 5 seconds before you can read this comment]
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 10:26 AM
5

https://store.explosm.net/collections/games and a few little addons :)
/r/PussyPassDenied11/06/17 01:39 PM
8

Right all night!!!! (But I'm actually a leftie)
/r/MensRights18/07/16 07:34 PM
6

It's a shame that Humberside Police were rated "inadequate". It's actually pretty true from my experiences, including reporting death threats made at my family (which the person in question has mental health issues and probably would follow through) were brushed aside and we were told "just ignore them". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-34573513
/r/MensRights26/04/16 06:22 PM
1

discrimination against coloured people was much more prevalent 30-50 years ago, more recently a lot has changed, so to compare to historical data is loading the question to favour one answer. The third explanation is that equal opportunities laws have made it possible for discriminated people to get these jobs, and the proportions now merely show the best people getting the best jobs, not in all cases, but much more than it was 50 years ago.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 09:25 AM
1

Those are your words not mine. I was suggesting reasons for why it could be the case, I did not imply that it is the case. I'm sure there's discrimination at a fair amount of companies, however it doesn't imply there is discrimination. Correlation does not imply causation.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:58 AM
1

Not at all. Different people have different ambitions. Not everyone wants to be a manager. I don't see it as discrimination if they were the best for the job. Edit: Indicates there could be discrimination, yes. implies discrimination, no.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:41 AM
1

It's likely you will, but it doesn't mean it's discriminating in any way if you do see it. So in essence, yes. :)
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:34 AM
1

Not at all. It could just be down to the fact that when they originally hired them, they weren't hiring managers, it just happened to be that when the company expanded they needed to promote staff and they discovered it then. Purely hypothetical. It's just an example to support what I mean.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:27 AM
1

Exactly that. However, I'd like to add that just because there's a majority of one group it doesn't mean they'll be the best for the job, there could be 100 males and 10 females, but the females they hired could be much better managers than the 100 males, therefore would be the best candidates, so it wouldn't be an equal representation. (Switch males and females with any minority/majority)
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:18 AM
1

It's just an example the gaming thing. I don't see the need for representation, however, if the person hired to do the job represents the workforce fairly. This is like saying there should be a percentage of certain races etc in each board room, when that would be discriminating against the majority just as much as refusing to promote the minority due to that reason. Quotas for boardrooms just make for inequality.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:08 AM
1

Ah, see I've been going by the ideal situation. Of course in the real world there's biggotry and discrimination. Ideally directors are appointed for this reason, and the majority of the time I'd like to think (and I hope) this is true. Discrimination is not always intentional as another poster in this thread mentioned and made a good point of. But it's not always the reason for more of a specific race/gender/etc in a role. For instance, there's (I believe) a higher population of male gamers than…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:53 AM
2

I fail to see the point you're trying to make/prove. I didn't say there's an over-representation. Equality is that you're not over-representing a specific social/racial/gender, rather you're representing the employees you're the head figure for.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:28 AM
2

I agree that there's more men than women in boardrooms. I don't agree that this means there's any discrimination. Having 10 male board members and only 1 female just means there's 11 people in the room that have (hopefully) excelled enough in their jobs to be the go-to person for their own department. It can sometimes not be the case, most likely the majority of the time, but by Board level at a large company, you'd hope they've weeded out all of the favouritism. Otherwise the company will only …
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:15 AM
0

I have to agree. Let's face it, if you really wanted a certain job and it went to someone else you'd feel bitter about it. One time I applied for a job that I was the best candidate for (not just me saying that, colleagues from multiple depts did) but the guy doing the hiring hired his friend to work with him, even though in the 6 months since the dept has come under scrutiny for lack of work and, unsurprisingly, deadlines being missed, some by years. Yes, years. (by the guy doing the hiring) If…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:02 AM
1

I wrote what I was thinking, but the words didn't come out right. But you're right, that's what I meant. Thanks :)
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:58 AM
2

Correct. If they're the best for the job, equality means they shouldn't be accused of discrimination if all candidates were offered an equal opportunity.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:56 AM
23

Nah, we lost him in 2013. :(
/r/MensRights06/04/15 10:01 PM
1

More qualified doesn't just mean experience and degrees etc. Like you said it also means having the same style of working as their colegues, making sure they mold well together. If you hire someone that's perfect in just qualifications and experience you may have hired someone not as good as someone who's a better fit for the team. If they want to prosecute/sue for sex/age/race/etc discrimination I think it should be proven outright that they intentionally did it.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 09:58 PM
2

I prefer the phrase "un/intentional discrimination". There was recently a case which really irked me regarding Virgin Atlantic's call centre in Swansea. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309359/Graduate-Max-Kpakio-rejected-Virgin-Atlantic-offered-interview-used-British-seeks-damages.html He said they discriminated against him because of the name on the application, yet he applied differently for each time. Also, ironically, he has a degree in International Relations... (not -that- ironic,…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 09:15 PM
1

The relaying messages would work possibly. Especially if it's read at the same tone and pace. Otherwise you wouldn't get the same feel from the answer as you'd need.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 07:13 PM
50

The best practise would be to not show names on application forms for HR staff and have no race etc information at all. That way there's very few ways remaining to discriminate. Unfortunately, if you put your degree on a low-end job, you're always going to get rejected. Edit: Obviously interviews wouldn't be possible to remove that problem
/r/MensRights06/04/15 05:24 PM
394

Equality doesn't mean hiring a multi-racial, equally balanced team. Equality means you can hire the best for the job without prejudice. Hiring based on gender (say too many male staff so need to balance it out) is just as sexist. It also defies logic to hire someone because, for example, there's no coloured staff, so we must hire the best coloured candidate. No, you want to hire the best candidate altogether.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 04:01 PM
1

I know first-hand that the difference does still exist with older workers. It's just not as weighted in premium calculation. As for mobile care assistants using their own vehicles, that is the most common practise. They would require business use (Business Class 1 cover) on their policy, as would a builder/construction worker that will travel to more than one place of work.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 09:17 PM
0

Because a job is more of a risk insurers shouldn't increase their premiums for that? It's a persons choice what job they do. It's not important that more men do these jobs, it's coincidental. Let's flip the genders: Young woman gets first job, she starts being a mobile care assistant for the elderly. That would increase her premiums drastically (around the same as construction). Not many men do this job, so we shouldn't increase the premiums or tell them to move to a male-dominated occupations. …
/r/MensRights03/04/15 07:25 AM
1

That was not my reasoning.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 07:20 AM
2

I don't get what you mean? This isn't discriminating against men. It's discriminating against occupations with bad drivers. It's a little medieval saying that a man can't be a dental nurse and a woman can't be a construction worker.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:26 PM
-1

If you're still living back in the 50s when your gender decides what job you can do then sure, you have a valid argument. I don't care what degree you have when you're acting like a condescending twat. I have a degree too, yet I don't need to bring that up to try and garner strength behind my posts. You're talking Health Insurance, I would assume you're based in the US. This case is relevant to UK law where the law doesn't state that you have to subsidise (your use of "z" in subsidize also makes…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:23 PM
1

I believe from where I worked's statistics men had fewer claims, but large in price. Whereas women had more claims but the value was lower. This is partly down to compulsory excess. Say you have a small scuff, if you claimed through insurance you would have to pay the first £150 (for example). This would mean the insurer would not likely have to pay out because the value of the claim was so low that the insured driver paid it themselves. Whereas a male driver still pays the £150, but the claim t…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 02:13 PM
-1

I'm sure I can read too. All insurance premiums are decided by rating factors. These have varying amounts of influence on the final premium generated. A young driver will always have a higher premium due to their age. Male or Female. Most insurers, when the law changed in 2011 (I believe December that year, it was known as the "Gender Directive"), most insurers, the one I worked for included, increased premiums for females and reducing the price a small amount for male drivers. All in all, ratin…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 02:04 PM
19

I'd like to just point out that this isn't exactly true, as females with the same job would suffer the same price hike. The problem is that for example bricklayers and plasterers take their car to areas where the accident rate is higher, i.e. leave car at building site much higher risk than leaving car in an office car park. I see also in the comments about how unemployed people pay more, this is down to that point exactly, unfortunately unemployed people are more likely to miss payments (most w…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 09:23 AM
6

I actually don't know. I'm going to go with "it's a cunt" for now, that's gender neutral :)
/r/PussyPassDenied11/02/15 07:07 PM
26

If she spent more time learning to code better, or making mistakes and learning from them at least, she would probably be half-decent, currently she's half-arsed.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/02/15 02:10 PM
51

And yet somehow it got Greenlit... pussy pass not denied.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/02/15 06:38 PM
9

from what I can get from Google and not paying 100% attention (hey, it's early ok? lol) it's very similar to the Sex Discrimination Act in the UK. Not that anyone seems to think it applies to discriminating against men, we're tough and heartless and macho, we don't care do we? -crowd makes generic caveman grunts-
/r/MensRights10/02/15 08:06 AM
14

You can see the moment it clicks in her head that she can't respond to it with anything other than loud words. Being louder than someone only works if what you're saying proves your point. But that never happens. Equality? Hell yeah. Acting like you're oppressed when you're a quite well off white woman? Nah.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/14 07:59 AM
1

You made me open up the Daily Mail website. I feel dirty now :( /r/Eyebleach time!
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/14 08:27 AM
1

thank you, person that is better at maths than I, or used google/source material!
/r/MensRights25/11/13 08:08 PM
1

so 1/4 (ish, closer to 1/5 I think, too tired for maths) of people killed by their partners were male?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 07:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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