TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

heather-in-ca Archive

View 0 posts and 15 comments by heather-in-ca 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)
5

Poor kids :(
/r/MensRights30/01/11 06:32 AM
2

Oh, okay. No, she's just a bit clumsy, but we all are in this house. She's not so good at cleanliness, either, but that might be normal for her age.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 12:06 AM
1

Do you mean not being aware of her body functions? Can you give me some examples? I am sure that it's linked to her ADD because she didn't have problems when she was on the medicine that worked. We switched to try a generic and that sucked and she went right back to accidents. :/
/r/MensRights24/10/10 11:47 PM
2

LOL okay, I get it.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 11:00 PM
2

It's not the same for everyone. You may love it and are able to find a way to make it an advantage, but not everyone can do that. I have an almost 8 year old who has it and on the days she doesn't have her medicine, she's much more likely to pee her pants, which leads to urinary tract infections, which leads to antibiotics, etc. She just can't seem to unfocus on something she enjoys long enough to realize she has to go to the bathroom. And she's not aware enough that she's even had an accident t…
/r/MensRights24/10/10 10:55 PM
2

They're actually not amazing for people who have ADHD. It doesn't get them high.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 10:46 PM
1

Mental illness when untreated causes significant issues over ones lifetime and the problems worsen without intervention. In the case of ADD/ADHD these patients are far more likely to suffer from substance abuse problems during adolescence or later in life (just one example.) Taken out of context, your point would make sense. But, the part you missed is the untreated ADHD people are more likely to have substance abuse problems later in life. I've seen this first hand. You could learn a lot by rea…
/r/MensRights24/10/10 10:44 PM
2

I just go back to his insistence that the only real definition of rape has to be a violent stranger holding a knife to the person's throat. When he's talking about the 15 year old, it's either she was consenting (seduced was the word he used) or she was beat and/or threatened. Seriously, that's a very simplistic view of things. Again, I understand the point of the article, but the slant of it really put me off from taking his points seriously.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 04:56 AM
1

Right, but going to the other side of things and just assuming it wasn't rape when they said rape isn't right either. I hear all the time 'sexual assault' or 'molestation' and I assume that there was no rape involved, why can't we assume when rape is said to have happened, that it did? This is all taking out the statutory rape example, since that is a totally different thing.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 04:47 AM
2

I agree that it's different, but the author doesn't know that it didn't happen. And I realize that's the point of the article, but to assume it didn't is just as bad as assuming it did. At the other end of the argument is that they often say a child was molested by an adult, leaving it completely unclear if anything more than fondling happened. I agree that specificity is due, but it's not always overstated, sometimes it's understated. These are all my opinions based on things I've observed. And…
/r/MensRights02/08/10 04:39 AM
1

Ridiculous article, making assumptions where they don't have all the facts. You lose your credibility when you assume a 4 year old wasn't raped because they didn't charge the man with bodily injury. Why are they nitpicking whether there was actual penetration before calling that man a rapist? I think people should choose who they want to defend more wisely. I came away from that article thinking the writer has some personal issues with being accused of rape and wants to argue semantics.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 01:28 AM
5

A woman should not be able to give a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father. If he wants to raise the child, he should be able to do that.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 05:25 AM
1

That's where we'll have to continue to disagree. I don't think anyone should have a full-time job and go to school and raise a family. You can do it all, sure, but you can't give your best to all three, and one or more of those three will suffer. To me, that's one of the problems with our society today - kids aren't made the priority in a lot of families. I know that is an unpopular opinion to have because it puts people on the defensive. How many people complain that they don't have time to coo…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:46 PM
1

She does sound like she just wants to be lazy, but I take exception to you saying women who don't work are lazy. It's important for someone to be there for the children and not ship them off to daycare or nannies. It's not about not getting a 9 to 5, it's about being the best parent you can be and that usually entails being there for them when they're home instead of hiring someone to do it.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 10:59 PM
0

Yeah, since you conveniently left out her assertion that all men are wussies now who no longer know how to support a woman financially or emotionally. You can't agree wholeheartedly with her point without eating some of your own crow. BTW, I do not agree with her description of men.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 06:26 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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