TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

joshuazed Archive

View 0 posts and 41 comments by joshuazed 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

I'm married, and I agree completely; I spent 2 years carefully analysing my future wife, discussing all my values with her, and so forth. She is vehemently anti-feminist, and get furious at stories from r/mensrights. Marrying anyone less than that is a mistake. Edit: And yes, she takes care of the house as best she can. She knows it is her job to take care of the home, since I go to work every day, and she takes care of it even when she doesn't like it, and never really complains (any more than …
/r/MensRights09/02/12 07:17 PM
1

I suspect the good ole boy attitude may have helped in this one instance.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 02:23 PM
2

Actually, it is even stronger than in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law#Common_law
/r/MensRights01/04/11 01:56 PM
1

Sadly, no.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 02:01 PM
8

If a girl rejects him because he has a foreskin, she is a shallow bitch and he is far better off without her.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 01:57 PM
1

There is also some research related to diet; higher calorie diets being more likely to produce boys. Here is a newspaper article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3340540/Diet-before-pregnancy-can-affect-babys-sex-new-research-suggests.html I haven't found the actual research yet though, so I would certainly take everything in that article with a grain of salt.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 05:43 PM
1

And if she had a daughter, I would expect her to grow up with some serious problems.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 05:37 PM
1

Actually, there are cases where courts have, in essence, declared rape to be retroactive. I don't have any good examples right, but if anyone wants to mention them I would appreciate it (or perhaps I will edit later if I have the time).
/r/MensRights14/03/11 05:34 PM
1

That just makes my blood boil.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 01:20 PM
1

I do believe you are correct, but do you happen to have any links to back it up? I haven't found any good ones, and would like to have some available.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:05 PM
1

Poor coon-fox! (note, the coon-fox had it coming for breaking and entering!)
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:02 PM
2

Yay VA! I used to go to work in Maryland every day, but I finally got a job closer to home.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 08:56 PM
1

Well, concerning grabbing two weapons and switching, some people actually load non-lethal rounds into the first 1 or 2 positions in the magazine/tube. That way they can fire off a single non-lethal round even when they aren't sure if they are truly in danger, then fire the lethal one if they need too. There are arguments why this is a bad idea, and I happen to agree, but it is a nice option for some people who would otherwise be squeamish about using lethal force first.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 08:51 PM
1

"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good, is a hideous vice. Too often, humor is used as the camouflage of moral cowardice."
/r/MensRights24/01/11 08:34 PM
1

I have to read this...
/r/MensRights23/12/10 09:11 PM
2

Oh, quite sorry! I did not catch the meaning of the quotes, I feel quite sheepish now. I think the reasoning in some cases is to try to show the absurdity of not allowing single sex events, in almost a bit of satire. True, not all of them are like this, but I sort of like the idea.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 06:13 PM
1

But I wholeheartedly disagree. The idea of forcing someone to accept someone they do not want makes me feel sick.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 09:10 PM
3

I would wholeheartedly agree, but, and this is a big but, the same people who claim they have a right to exclude men usually say that it is wrong, and in fact illegal, for men to exclude women.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 06:46 PM
6

That argument would work if businesses did not have to pay considerable taxes themselves, an especially high percentage for some small businesses.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 06:44 PM
1

Oh, nothing to be sorry for, I was pretty amused too. Just because something has a deeper meaning, it does not have to be devoid of comedy!
/r/MensRights01/11/10 04:26 PM
0

My bet is the judge would.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 06:18 PM
1

That is sad. I have a nice multimeter, and I have an computer science degree, I never use one in my job.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 02:04 PM
2

I believe that was "Little Lupe".
/r/MensRights26/10/10 03:28 PM
12

I had to do basically the same thing a few days ago, except I saw the mother shew the boys in the bathroom and did not even bother. She was sending her 6 boys in groups of 2, took them utterly forever, and I really had to get back on the road.
/r/MensRights21/10/10 07:46 PM
2

I'd probably go live in the woods and eat squirrels. EDIT: Quite serious, though I probably would eat things other than squirrels! Basically, I would be so hurt and miserable that I would pack up my field gear and head off into the biggest piece of wilderness I could find.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 03:20 PM
3

An excellent attitude, indeed; very people understand that is the best way to be. I wouldn't really consider it a sacrifice, getting to retire and do hobbies I wanted after a year or two, but to each his own!
/r/MensRights01/10/10 09:25 PM
3

Any company that expects me to do that had better be paying me enough to retire after a year or two.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 08:08 PM
2

Well, I don't really expect someone to be obsessed anyway; I'm not. I am also married, also have 2 cats (as well as 14 Chinchillas and 2 rats), am very serious about wood working (I have a 200 sq ft workshop and many expensive power tools), I write science fiction, watch good movies, read good books, weight train, and go camping fairly often with my wife. Just because I do other things doesn't mean I don't love programming or am not passionate about it. I actually believe well balanced is extrem…
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:03 PM
3

Well sure; not everyone who becomes a programmer has be obsessed with it from childhood. But for any technical career at all, it is a horrible idea to go into just because the salary looks good, or you think more of your kind of person should be in it, but you don't actually like doing or have any real skill in (at least after taking a couple classes). You have to enjoy it, and preferably have at least some passion for it, or you'll not achieve the kind of skill programmers need to have. I for o…
/r/MensRights01/10/10 06:21 PM
21

Oh, this kind of thing just makes me want to scream. Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, the ENIAC women (Kay Mauchley Antonelli, Jean Jennings Bartik, Frances E. Snyder Holberton, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Frances Bilas Spence, and Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum), Frances E. Allen (won the turing award for her work in performance computing just a few years ago), and many, many more. The wikipedia article has a nice list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing Additionally, women who get into program…
/r/MensRights01/10/10 01:08 PM
1

The truth is that prenups are often simply thrown out by the judge in court if they are not "fair" to the wife (fro however the judge defines fairness). In addition, they are not allowed to cover child custody or child care payments at all. If the prenup was signed too close to the wedding day, it can be thrown out. If the woman claims she not understand the prenup, it can be thrown out. If the woman claims she was "bullied" into signing the prenup, it can be thrown out. If she claims that the m…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 08:20 PM
5

I don't hate women at all, not one bit. As a matter of fact, I am extremely happily married, and very much in love with, the most beautiful woman in the world. First, what I think about women in general: very little. I am a staunch individualist. A woman has to prove herself to me as a human being just as much as a man. I can use a bit of statistical inference to do a quick sizing up of someone, but this is practically useless with gender alone, and half the time is wrong even with more reliable…
/r/MensRights24/09/10 04:41 PM
1

Oh, of course; that's why I said "in that way"; I should have said that explicitly!
/r/MensRights24/09/10 12:55 PM
2

I quite agree (not speaking of the topless dancers, but sure!), women SHOULD be allowed to have exclusively women things; but men should be allowed to have exclusively male things. If people are going to not allow us to have male only things, then we need to show them that they don't get to have female only things either.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 02:49 PM
2

You don't hit people by mistake. If you hit something in that way there is something seriously wrong with your subconscious integration (the things your subconscious mind "believes", for lack of a more extensive explanation).
/r/MensRights23/09/10 02:45 PM
2

Actually the thing that has given those things to your son is a free society based on equal rights under the law. Feminism is not about that, and the dictionary's claim to the contrary is useless. If the powerful people who call themselves feminists act a certain way, and the feminist organizations do certain things, then that is what feminism is. Language changes, dictionaries have trouble keeping up.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 02:29 PM
2

Attempting to fuzz terms until someone can say anything they want and claim it true is a usual tactic of liars and cheats (I'm not saying you are, you did not come up with the "definition"). Insisting that a movement has no definition, no values, no driving force, is to try to excuse evil actions. Feminism holds women as better than men, more important than men, and allowed to get away with pretty much anything. This is shown by the actions of the group's foremost members and leaders. To say tha…
/r/MensRights23/09/10 02:25 PM
2

I sure would have.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 02:22 PM
6

This will actually make him look guilty in front of a judge, they will pay attention to assets that disappear shortly before a divorce/annulment.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 02:20 PM
18

Very very bad wording probably. They most likely mean taking advantage of someone who is asleep, drunk, perhaps under drugs. I think what they mean is perhaps non-violent rape.
/r/MensRights17/09/10 07:49 PM
2

I am so sorry that this has happened to you; it simply breaks my heart to hear it. I am married, but I was sure I never would, and it took some pretty major stuff to make it worthwhile. My father actually advised me for many years to never get married. Basically, it is conscious philosophy. My wife is incredibly rational, and has shown every sign of being as much for her whole life. In addition, she is not simply not a feminist, but is extraordinarily opposed to the idea of feminism; she finds i…
/r/MensRights17/09/10 02:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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