TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kaolbrec Archive

View 0 posts and 73 comments by kaolbrec 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

There's a pretty good chance she's been abducted by aliens, that's where my money is.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:31 PM
2

On the very page.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 04:10 PM
6

It's Prussian, attributed to Carl von Clausewitz. "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase "with the addition of other means" because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which the…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 05:47 PM
3

He's just hedging his bets.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 05:55 PM
5

That'll end in tears - just ask Oscar Pistorius.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 07:26 PM
17

But there is a comparison to draw between "female nudity is empowering" and " female nudity is misogynist".
/r/MensRights20/11/14 04:15 PM
27

“If you see any man, any man, friend or foe – if they are against any women who are trying to speak about their experience - you know nothing about it." What does this even mean? That male feminists are not allowed to talk to other men about women's issues? Or is she just stumbling from one thought to another, basically throwing out a quick "mansplaining" bit as she goes? Edit: watched the video, she was definitely going for the "mansplaining" thing, and the whole "lived experience" stuff.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 08:48 PM
11

Alain Soral on Feminism, subtitled.: http://youtu.be/Do5zrdTb-yI This?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:29 PM
5

You may enjoy this.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:09 PM
1

See you next Tuesday!
/r/MensRights18/08/13 01:54 AM
1

don't be a guy Unintentionally amusing.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:53 PM
16

I had written a huge post with lots of numbers (world records and such), then I realised this might be a more interesting idea. Here are some times, with 1st place in the women's event, and the last place in the male event which is faster than it. 2011 World Athletic Championship, 5000m: Men, 15th Place: 14:03:09 Women, 1st Place: 14:55:36 2011 World Athletic Championship, 10,000m: Men, 16th Place: 29:38:38 Women, 1st Place: 30:48:98 2011 World Athletic Championship, Marathon: Men, 44th Place: 2…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:54 PM
5

I thought it was well known that women generally make better long distance runners. I've heard this before as well, and every time that I do, I end up on wikipedia, looking at records in long distance running. Pretty sure that men have the faster times in almost all long distance events.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:29 PM
9

I find it sad the last words said was "world star". Absolutely. Why the hell isn't there someone breaking up this fight? The posturing that is going on, emulating the only role-models available - rappers and "ganstas" is sad too. "I'll go get my mom" I guess usage of the phrase "my dad'll beat you up" died out when the father was removed from the family unit.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:36 PM
8

So you see nothing wrong with genital mutilation?
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:22 PM
6

You're high as a fucking kite if you think removing the clitoral hood of a child disqualifies you from parenthood. Do you also hold this position?
/r/MensRights29/06/13 03:44 PM
6

The face is fair game then!
/r/MensRights12/06/13 09:47 AM
3

I think that they are (deliberately or not) ignoring the power that a typical, attractive damsel has over others, and instead (somewhat strangely) holding up masculine power as the only true form of power. Typhonblue did a video or two on expressions of power, if I remember correctly.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:35 AM
6

Good article but I fear it will be sadly lost on those who will continue to insist that women have always been oppressed and repressed for the benefit of the evil patriarchy.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:31 AM
4

Actually he entered a "No Contest" plea each time, and was therefore convicted. It's not the same as a "Guilty" plea, but has the same immediate effect. I really wasn't trying to argue that men are always screwed by the courts, that would be ridiculous. I was merely trying to point out that we have one article discussing how the public views black men negatively, alongside an article doing exactly that. I was struggling to see the relevancy of this article, except as some kind of jab at the guy …
/r/MensRights09/05/13 01:26 AM
0

So even with articles like this one currently circulating, someone is still willing to publish an article like this, without even considering the possibility that those domestic violence claims may have been filed maliciously and may be entirely false. No time at all to stop and think that in the ghetto culture of baby-daddies and single mothers, a domestic violence suit and restraining order is par for the course when you want to split, and very easy to obtain against a big scary black man.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:20 PM
2

high rising terminal Lemongrab Style?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:47 AM
2

Isn't this already referred to as defamation of character?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 03:57 PM
5

I did think that was what it might be. There were at least a few reasoned objections in the comments, and there is in fact a thread about it still running even now. As I'm sure you've noticed, along with the up-front attitude in this subreddit, there is a certain lack of pulled punches. While this doesn't excuse out-and-out trolling and hurling of insults, people are going to tell you what they think of your ideas. Taking into account the amount of "concern-trolling" and tone arguments this subr…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:17 PM
17

On the contrary, it absolutely does matter what you posted and I am extremely wary of this kind of "tone" argument.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 01:47 PM
8

In my opinion this is much too far. You seem to be going from one extreme to another. I don't believe that women did nothing at all. I believe that men and women divided labour so that each shouldered what they were best suited for. As hunter-gatherers, men brought in big game and fought other groups of men. The women prepared the game brought in, gathered plants and cared for children. As agrarians, men worked the land - plowing, reaping and sowing, while women looked after the home, perhaps ma…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:16 PM
4

Alternatively, pretty women know how to twist people, especially men, around their fingers. Swings and roundabouts.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 12:42 PM
2

I'm surprised to hear that he took her back.. I don't think I'd be inclined to. Then again he started this project out of the desire to help her.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 09:09 PM
4

Interesting. It's not the same "no babies for you" thing as for women though, it would appear?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:00 PM
8

Because even though men and women pursue relationships for a host of reasons, one huge one is having children. It is difficult to have a career, and raise 2 or 3 children at the same time. This would be true regardless of which partner did the raising. It is also difficult to have children once you are no longer fertile, something which is not a problem for men.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 04:19 PM
20

"I don't mind going out with younger guys, but they want children, so that market is out, and a lot of guys over 40 are going for girls under-30, because they don't think they're 40," she said. It just seems to be the price women must pay (and howl about) for having a career, instead of marrying someone in their 20s. While I'm sure there are some women who can and have balanced the two, the dream sold to most is unattainable, and they waste their most valuable (biologically speaking) years chasi…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 03:20 PM
60

I think they're girls who don't get any attention in real life I'm not sure we can use this kind of stuff on them, considering it's a pretty classic shaming tactic thrown at us. Rise above, and all that.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:55 PM
43

Maybe it was just me, but it felt like the end of the video was a hairs breadth away from the "violence in video games makes people violent" argument, but with sexism instead. I wonder what her opinion on that would be. Also, we appear to have a downvote brigade at work.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 11:00 PM
6

Is this the wordy version of the "be attractive, don't be unattractive" rule?
/r/MensRights02/03/13 12:59 PM
1

Man, that article was a frustrating read. The constant jumping around on dates made following the series of events extremely irritating.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 08:58 AM
2

That's actually a complete 180 from how it is presented. I can see after your response to me why the poster was written as it is though. It's just not a view that had ever occurred to me.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:54 PM
7

I believe girlwriteswhat made a point about this in one of her videos (if I remember I'll edit this post in the morning with a link to the right one). Something about Men who do not bring value to the group being looked upon poorly, because they have no intrinsic value. An effeminate Man then becomes a Woman without a Vagina - without value. (Ok, I'll do it now). It comes from the "Men not Marrying" video - about 12:20 onward. http://youtu.be/rlvMAS_20K4
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:42 PM
3

As usual, 4chan managed to reach the same point in a more offensive way. http://i.imgur.com/9AC6E.png
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:31 PM
5

I don't know the exact wording, but I believe he's trying to say that women playing "hard to get" - acting coyly, never explicity confirming with words but implicitly confirming with body-language, used to be "exciting". Now it is called date-rape. Can't quite get a handle on the date fraud bit, maybe someone else can answer that. EDIT: Found it for you: http://i.imgur.com/cwSoc.png
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:53 PM
1

I'm sorry, I probably should have used bold text or something. I'm arguing a technicality here, I know, but what the hell, this is the internet. As you quoted from the OP: Universal male suffrage came only shortly before women (in the UK at least). (emphasis mine) The right to vote (for men) before 1918 came with a property restriction. Universal Suffrage is then granted to men in 1918, and in 1928 women are granted the same. In the article for Universal Suffrage on wikipedia, it is openly state…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 01:27 PM
1

I think your fingers (or maybe autocorrect) hate typing dates in the 1800's :D If I may, I also disagree. The 1867 and 1884 certainly enfranchised a great many men, but a key point to note is that they were still a limited form of suffrage, with a householder qualification. In 1918 the property qualification was lifted for men, thus giving truly universal suffrage, and in 1928 the same was done for women. A difference of only 10 years. Not to say that women had not still been denied the vote for…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:03 AM
4

EDIT: This is for the UK only! There seems to be a very good summary of this on Wikipedia. I'll try and list the key points (and add some notes): 1432: King Henry VI of England establishes that only males owning property worth at least 40 shillings have the right to vote. Reform Act 1832: Extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights. Representation of the People Act 1884: Amended the Reform Act of 1867 so th…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 12:23 AM
28

Own-group-preference. Much stronger in females than males (there was a post a while back discussing it). In the absence of obvious, significant differences, a woman will side with another woman automatically.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:52 PM
2

You bump into me and I then stab you That's not what he said and is certainly not "1-up". I highly doubt anyone would be trained to escalate force in such a strawman-like manner.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:36 AM
2

Ah, yes, that is the more logical assumption. My mind immediately jumped to all the "hypergamy" stuff that you see discussed occasionally, and the statistics on men raising children not their own.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:48 PM
2

Misogynist might be a little far. It's definitely very pessimistic and seems to echo some of the worst nightmares of the MRA movement, which makes it initially seem like a little bit of spin to make the article even more viral.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:38 PM
13

Much better than part I's rambling flashback-style introduction. “If she really wants another baby, she’ll have one. The only question is will she have it with you or with somebody else.” ~Doctor Surely he didn't really say this? If he did, then wow.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 04:30 PM
2

Desperate measures.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 04:27 PM
3

It's the tides lad, the tides!
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:53 PM
1

Pretty sure it only applies if you get the summons in the first place. Edit: Just re-read parent... Yeah, wtf is going on there?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:55 AM
3

If you use the same password on other accounts, change them immediately.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 10:40 PM
-1

Is it concern-troll season again?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 01:41 AM
3

Isn't Julian Assange currently under fire for something similar to this? I guess you'll find out, whenever he finally gets extradited.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 03:34 AM
6

While I appreciate that you agree, to a certain extent, that hiring only women isn't such a good thing, I don't agree with how you arrive at that conclusion. men, like himself, feel entitled to have women around themselves that they think are attractive You what? I don't feel entitled to have attractive women around me, and I don't think many other men would say that either. I can see that men would go to a restaurant because there are attractive women there, but it's not because they feel they'…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 06:48 PM
1

We have our own spaces because women don’t take our book and sports fandoms seriously on the heavily trafficked sites like DW and LJ. If I write about “Who Wants to be an NHL Goalie?,” “America’s Next Star Linebacker,” or Cory Doctorow on Live Journal, women just dismiss it as silly Larry-stu fantasies, and ask why aren’t I doing something serious and important like writing about “Heroes” or “Stargate: Cleveland.” My girlfriend is still giving me grief because she found out the pseudonym I hocke…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:51 PM
18

The entire site feels like a satire, if I'm honest. For instance this comment on another article: Part of it is that evolutionarily, men were hunters, so they’re not used to paying attention to their environment in the way people are. I try to keep an open mind, though. From reading a few masculist bloggers I’ve found that something called the “second shift” means that guys at home have to bear the burden of doing extra home maintenance work, chef-ing, and just plain being daddies. So most guys …
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:59 AM
3

By this logic, Great Britain did, since we declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. But I think most people would say that Germany started the war by invading them (since we warned them of the consequences).
/r/MensRights04/10/11 04:33 PM
3

We still don't "protect women to the nth degree". Women can still die in childbirth you know. Everytime someone tries to refute the "men are hardwired to protect women" argument with "but but childbirth!" I facepalm a little. You're grasping at straws. It is a fundamental drive for all living things to procreate. "Roads, food, medicine, care" doesn't come into it. It's not a particularly rational thing.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 11:25 AM
0

What I meant was that you listed two sets of requirements; one for the Army as a whole, where the female requirements were lower, and one for SFDRS, which had no female requirements yet. As I said (and seem to have been downvoted for), the Army is a large organisation, and as evidenced by the article, the roles women are currently allowed to fill are not front-line roles. Therefore the lower requirements are regrettable, but not a real problem. Since there is not yet a requirement listed for fem…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:24 AM
-1

Entry to "the Army" does not imply a combat role, so while this is slightly upsetting, it's not that bad. The Army has a lot of people doing lots of things. It would be nicer if it was the same though. I notice there is no Female requirement for SFDRS. As long as whatever ones they put in place for Front-Line roles are equal to the male requirements, I won't have a problem.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:31 PM
11

Given that the article states that there will be no quotas, and no lowering of standards, I am fully in support of this. Equality of opportunity.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:04 PM
6

We in the scholarly realm scholarly scholar . I just learned you guys in America have something called Selective Service I don't really know what point I'm trying to make here. Something just seems off.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:36 PM
7

That's because they are.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 08:27 PM
0

If a woman feels she can discriminate over cutting off part of his penis, then at least he's justified to ask her to shave. One way to look at it.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:34 PM
6

If a woman feels she can discriminate over cutting off part of his penis, then at least he's justified to ask her to shave. One way to look at it.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:31 PM
4

All through that talk I felt as though he was describing normal boys/men. He even made the statement: And then we drug them with Ritalin Which made me think he was perhaps aware of the feminisation of the education system. Then at the end he totally lost it: Boys brains are being digitally rewired, in a totally new way, for change, novelty, excitement and constant arousal In what way is this state of affairs (sans "digital rewiring") new? This is how men are. What is the problem with this? Oh, t…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:57 PM
1

SPLITTERS
/r/MensRights21/06/11 10:06 AM
2

Need more background. What was the conversation before? He smirked pretty damn good (not that that's an excuse really) XD
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:02 PM
2

So now the question would be, "if they showed her face, would it be 'wrong', like the picture using the man?".
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:15 PM
7

The lack of a face strikes me as significant. Can't articulate why though.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:32 PM
0

It's certainly very interesting, insofar as it shows that abuse rates are equal or very close. I imagine that's very helpful for men fighting for the custody of their children. But it's not a "magic-bullet" to be used against women, it seems.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:25 PM
0

That states that the rates are equal.. where are we getting "women are responsible for the majority of child abuse" from? Substantiation rates do not, in general, vary by gender of perpetrator and run from 52 to 58%. Biological mothers (as compared to biological fathers) are the more likely substantiated perpetrator of physical abuse (47 vs 42%), neglect (86% vs 33%), emotional maltreatment (61% vs 55%) and multiple categories (66% vs 36%). The biological father is the most likely perpetrator of…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 11:47 PM
2

The "threat and harassment" she felt was from his sexual advances (both to her and other women). Read the whole post (I concede it could have been edited). Sure, his "too much to drink" explanation helps, but she's not at fault for warning other people about his behaviour. The "obviously aspergers" comment is a bit presumptuous, and I'm sure we'll have someone post "not attractive = creep", but that's by-the-by.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 08:57 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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