TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

matronverde Archive

View 0 posts and 35 comments by matronverde 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

interpretation is a two way street sweetheart. from the outside I see someone condemning action x and another person with obvious beef saying the first is lying because of what the second ascribed intention-wise. why the goddamn hell should I trust the only person here with a very clear ulterior motive?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/14 05:58 PM
3

but why do they put such value on it when many other acts are frequently as intimate and emotional?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/14 01:14 PM
2

the world is hard, and almost everyone has the shit they have to deal with every day. I try to understand why where I can, but I do everything I can when the opportunity arises to show empathy and make people smile. yeah very different than my taloned raptor internet persona I know. besides that, I like honesty and I like sex and the former, I have found, leads to great the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/14 09:14 PM
0

I tend to see sexism as a condition or affliction, while misogyny is deliberate even if poorly understood. a benevolent sexist is in the wrong but they really think they are trying to be right. a misogynist might not understand precisely why calling a woman a c--- is fucked but knows it's probably not acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/14 02:01 PM
2

I have gotten less emotional involvement or stimulation from hookups than I have from certain political discussions I've had with people. yet you would say my SO should be covetous of the former and not the latter. what are they hoarding?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/14 01:59 PM
1

no. right to bodily autonomy is not at the same level as right to finances. a potential child doesn't supercede the former but an actual child supercedes the latter. largely the problems of child support stem from 1. debtors prison (this is flat evil) 2. class issues (lack of welfare cripples a man burdened by child support and CSS in most states is woefully underfunded not to mention pediatric care) and 3. enforcement by greedy States who have already proven their sense of ethics is more guided…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/14 02:10 PM
1

Are you trying to argue that people who make the sacrifices that men typically do should not earn as much more money as they do? i'm saying that "work more hours, get more pay" isn't a sacrifice. it's a choice. when it is economically not a choice (i.e. financial hardships), it makes no sense why women wouldn't be taking the overtime or making the same commitment of time if they had equal opportunity. there is literally no model that explains that. There is a link in the sidebar, under the headi…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 10:05 PM
1

you seem to be just throwing any old argument you can dream up at me in the hopes that something sticks. i hope this is the last example of a meta-argument. they're very tiresome. things that can be shown to not be true. what metric would you like to use to assign value to the opportunity to work more hours for the same pay, if your situation demands it? because situations demand it of women too, just as much as men, where they have the job but not the opportunity. i'm all ears. There are litera…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:24 PM
1

you must also agree that men sacrifice more for the additional money that they earn. it is not commensurate with A. the gain and with B. the presented opportunity. How is the methodology flawed? in the case of the main study (is it CRT, CRT2?) they use a variety of questions that do not distinguish between, say, throwing a pencil at a victim of DV and beating them to within an inch of their life. i.e. they have a binary metric. using one and not the other is exceptionally bigoted. i'm confused a…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:03 AM
0

i'll also note the elephant in the room: men dominate positions of power politically, economically, and socially. why is that?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:35 AM
1

Of course there are expceptions, but on average it is true. yes, for a variety of reasons. not because women are in a better position. We have better evidence we really don't. the available studies have deeply flawed methodology, partially because the data itself is by necessity deeply subjective. We just need to know that feminist generally don't accept any of the huge amounts of survey based research that demonstrates domestic violence parity, but accept plenty of surveys like the ones discuss…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:25 AM
1

Working longer hours, choosing a field based upon pay rather than satisfaction are just a few of the ways that men sacrifice more than women in order to earn more. that's simply not true; lots of women are corralled into a field due to pay and lots of men increasingly pick lower paying jobs that are more satisfying. i'm absolutely willing to agree that men receive performance pressure of a quality that women don't, but the cost is that women never even get offered it if they want it. Sorry if I …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:00 AM
1

Earning less by sacrificing less does not hurt people. earnings are not about sacrifice typically? i mean not even in the military, you don't get paid more for being a badass, you are compensated for your injuries. women don't get a direct subsidy which equals always their deferred loss in income. With rape, feminist choose to believe that surveys asking people about their experiences and not using the word rape are the most effective way to measure a crime well all surveys illuminate something.…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:37 AM
1

You don't have a variety of experimental setups or data analysis methods and choose the one that gives you the answer you want. oh no, but that's not what a lot of feminist researchers do, they pick the method most likely to provide them with an accurate data source. they don't reject methods that don't model. Mainstream feminist beliefs (that the wage gap is harmful to women, that there is an epidemic of unreported rape, that women are the vast majority of the victims of domestic violence, and …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:06 AM
1

I have been linked to evidence of some of the things feminists link, but that evidence does appear to be picking it's assumptions based upon trying to prove that women are oppressed. what you are trying to say is that the data validates a hypothesis that guided the selection of the data set. the problem is, this is how scientific investigation functions. all of the other things you mention are both problematic and not exemplary of all feminists, or even most. feminism is way too big for me to pr…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:13 AM
1

I take it that you are agreeing that nothing feminist research says is true; it is all only true if women are oppressed. well no, again to clarify, the article OP is citing is very poorly named (feminists have a bad habit of this). Feminist Theory is the theory of all feminism like Philosophy of Science is all scientific theories; i.e. it's not actually all of the research feminism does, just a specific field that handles philosophic consequences of those assumptions. that's all in the first par…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:31 PM
1

Evolutionary biology does not assume that evolution is true. It studies the way in which life arose, and there are no competing theories that are even plausible. evolutionary biology takes as its basic assumption that evolution as true, as it is a field of research dealing with the consequences of evolution. the research into the viability of evolution itself is left to larger fields. sort of like how cognitive neuroscience takes as its basis "the mind is what the brain does" even though that's …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:20 PM
1

Do you not see a difference between assuming basic laws of logic and assuming that women are oppressed? no, not at all. evolutionary biology assumes that evolution is true, even though it has not been "proven". a lot of mathematics assumes a few basic axioms are true, which also cannot be proven. i take it mathematics and evobio are bunk by the same standards?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:02 PM
1

The CDC says made to penetrate was done 80% by women against men. that says that "of the men victimized in this way,m 80% were by women" which is not an answer to the question "of men, how many were victimized in this way". http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf i was not aware that CDC handled law enforcement or the judiciary; in that link it lists "rape" as a kind of sexual violence, so just saying that made to penetrate is included in that list doesn't mean it's cons…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 09:44 PM
1

This excludes the vast majority of men. how do you know it's the vast majority of men if you know the studies on the matter are flawed? They tend classified the real rape of men with "other sexual violence" as "made to penetrate", along with groping, indecent exposure and other more minor sexual violence. i object to this on a lack of evidence; show me where "made to penetrate" is considered criminally on the scale of sexual harassment? This is then use to say that men are the majority of rapist…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 08:52 PM
1

So in your opinion it's right to exclude male victims of rape? no, and that is not a reasonable conclusion to draw from what i said. your thought process appears to be "you don't agree with this person on a thing, therefore all your opinions must be photo negatives". It didn't. You think it covers people in prison. The FBI UCR doesn't cover that sort of thing. then what does it cover? is the set of men it benefits a null set? You people are dismissing male victims of rape. You're pretending to c…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 12:28 PM
2

He pointed out that you were lying literally nothing i said was false there have been campaigns by feminists to get prison/male-victim rape recognized under the FBI definition. is completely true. it just didn't, in his opinion, do enough. it universally helped men in prison, and it didn't make matters worse for men not in prison so why is that an attack on men by feminists? the overall situation for men is literally better than it was before a feminist organization campaigned.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 03:33 AM
0

irrelevant; poster was claiming that feminism does no good for men (even more strictly, only harm). pointing out that they could do more good than that which they have done doesn't make prior claim true.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 02:55 AM
0

They value objectivity and falsifiability. most people value objectivity and falsifiability, but they are not literally the only values. in politics, for example, ethics is also valued frequently, as well as consistency. in a lot of (highly productive) social sciences, effectiveness and solvency tends to be valued where objectivity and falsifiability are currently impossible. The sidebar, and/or the articles for the terms. once again, you are conflating "feminism" with "feminist theory". i thoug…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:04 PM
1

It's upvoted because what feminists are doing is crystal-clear and outrageous. a statement without even a supporting argument. no, "i don't have to explain it, it's obvious" doesn't cut it. it doesn't cut it when feminists do it, nor when you do it. If you weren't so corrupt another unsubstantiated claim, at the very least a gross overgeneralization. i'm not even sure what corrupt means in this instance, no definition or standard has been put forth. what do "non-corrupt" feminists do? Accrding t…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:38 PM
0

It's probably more to do with the fact that if we're to use facts/arguments presented here, elsewhere, we need to back them up. i'm not sure this is the case. look at this reply to my comment. upvoted, yet contains a multitude of claims that are completely unsubstantiated. here, in r/mr, one can just say that feminism advocates generally speaking for circumcision, or at least ignoring it; one can just say that feminists want to diminish the quality of life for men despite commonly cited evidence…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:26 PM
-5

assumptions are different from observations, and observations are what the vast majority of science, history, psychology, and other fields of study, are based on a bit of sleight of hand here; science is composed of observations, but it is based on such unproveable assumptions like induction, constancy of laws, etc. Maybe you could direct me to some early solid research in this area? i apparently don't need to. you go through the next three sections pointing out said research. you're not making …
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:58 PM
-6

he's simply astounded that feminist theory would actually have such flawed basic assumptions at its core. but its no more a flawed assumption than how philosophy of science assumes, say, induction in order to discuss more interesting things. What we are debating here is not feminist theory. We are debating on critique of feminist (the one I quoted earlier) that claims feminism has some root tenets, or assumptions. I don't know any serious field of study that doesn't have root unjustified assumpt…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 01:46 PM
-1

the mods encouraged you to make a more visible post so everyone could discuss it. your refusal to do so is why you haven't done it. how is that censorship?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:27 PM
-12

its literally a reference to a book on the subject. do scholarly books not count as academic research now? the poster asked for research that condemned any women, you have shifted the requirement to dismissing a concept of gender inequality. your objection is misplaced.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:25 PM
-16

i read a sentence with zero context on wikipedia.... le checkmate, fenenists
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:19 PM
-4

If I had posted your comment, you'd have accused me of brigading. maybe but reasserting your original quote as if you've not read a single thing I've written is a bit too close to "i didn't like your answer, so let me let repetition be my 'reasoning'" our conversation was censored by mods, as anyone can see for themselves. yeah they can see that you picked the latest available visible post on my profile and simply decided to reply with his concerns in a discussion forum completely off topic. if …
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:17 PM
-16

http://feminismsaywhat.blogspot.com/2012/04/rip-her-to-shreds-women-policing-women.html?m=1#! I'm on my phone or id give it a better go but it is about an entire book on the subject "shit that's women's fault"
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:11 PM
-4

Hang about... he's quoting wikipedia which in turn is quoting other sources - except he is misrepresenting the sources. the Feminist Theory referred to in that article is not literally "any theory espoused by academic feminism", its much closer to say "philosophy of science" which, you'll note, is a very tiny part of science itself, and isn't itself scientific. and the conclusion of feminist theory isn't simply "there's patriarchy", which is why it's not begging the question that women are oppre…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 12:07 PM
-18

rather than handle the rebuttal to your claim or try to understand why people have been telling you you're making some absurd misinterpretations, you simply reassert your claim in a venue that will insulate it from criticism. just so everyone knows, jb has made this claim in two other venues and received a detailed rebuttal. in both cases, he dismissed the rebuttal as "lacking" and provided no further qualificationsfor this dismissal. in this case he is using mens rights as an intellectual hug b…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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