TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mozite Archive

View 0 posts and 29 comments by mozite 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 know you said you weren't specifically looking for advice or comfort or anything, but figured it was worthwhile to make a post. Hopefully your friends and family have the capacity to realise that someone not immediately turning around to someone they've broken up with who has gotten pregnant and working out the finances isn't not "owning up to [one's] responsibilities", but being a normal human being confronted with potentially life-changing information. If they don't, especially after she's a…
/r/MensRights12/05/16 02:36 AM
3

I would argue not. Given that the justification for financial abortion hinges on actual abortion, the same consequences should be applied. The child is not a part of the fathers family (interesting discussion to be had on inheritance; is the child able to still argue for a share in the event they find out who the father is?), so the father's family has no right of access to it. That said, it should be mentioned that neither the father's or mother's extended family ever had the "right" to see the…
/r/MensRights12/03/16 07:41 AM
3

That's interesting. I read something a while ago that in like the 1800's and earlier, about 20% of women were childless (in the context that there were roughly 5 children per woman, but because of that 20% it was effectively 6 children per child-bearing woman). Interesting that we're back to that same number.
/r/MensRights15/11/15 10:24 PM
5

A friend of a prior roommate had the same issue, and what he did was put time into house improvement tasks that they normally didn't have time for. Obviously the main focus should be on finding some form of work, but if you guys are in a position where its not a "must apply for everything" situation, there will be more free time. If there are any things that were on the 'maybe someday' pile that you might be able to afford, now is a good time. Another options is volunteer work. There are often o…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 01:25 AM
5

Well, my personal solution would be to provide men with the information so they can make an informed choice about the responsible use of contraception, until they are ready to be a father. I want to ask you a question; what would you think of someone who, in a feminism or women's rights associated sub or forum, went to a topic addressing the impact of something on women, and tried to imply that the impact it has on men is more important and mocked them for discussing it at all? The article is ne…
/r/MensRights04/08/15 03:59 AM
5

It may be worth checking ... well, asking a male friend to check the male toilets and see if it's there is one, and if so, if it is the same (in which case there is a problem), or if it may be gender specific, such that the men's room has different information. I'm not exactly holding my breath, but more information is always better. It's always possible that they may not think it is appropriate to advertise help lines or groups for male victims in the female toilets.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 02:20 AM
3

How are two people, unless they are both at the exact same business (and even then, that's not really the only necessary condition) meant to ensure that throughout both of their entire careers, they will both earn the same amount of money? If you both want to do equal business work and equal house work, then set up a family business where you can actually control those things, which isn't exactly some fandangled new idea. But I guess it's easier to complain about the evil business not contorting…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:59 PM
1

The only bit of your original comment, relevant to my reply, that had any content other than insulting someone (see: the entire first sentence, and the entire last sentence, of your original comment), is that: "you are willing to coerce her into murdering for you". The only way to argue that his comment is coercing her is that his comment will cause her to have an abortion. If he had said this after she was pregnant, you would have an argument. However, he did not. How, pray tell, does one infor…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 07:34 AM
4

I'm halfway to thinking this wasn't a serious response, but upon the assumption it is, I find it odd that informing his partner of his position on a topic makes him a "piece of shit". Should he have waited until she was pregnant, and then had the conversation then, when it could actually lead to an abortion? Or should he have just left? Or I guess he should just suck it up, and if his partner decides that she's ready to be a parent, then that should be enough to make him one, right? By covering …
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:31 AM
3

That certainly doesn't sound like something they can order you to do. However, from a practical perspective, essentially this amounts to her indicating she will oppose any application you make, so it may be worth considering engaging the services of a lawyer if you want to move ahead with this, who should be able to provide an answer. Better to get the advice earlier rather than later.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:52 AM
3

Seeing as White Knights are generally accused of doing it for the pussy, why would a faggot be a White Knight? But I digress. If you are under the impression that I am suggesting that he is the wrongdoer in the situation, then I would ask you to reread the statute, and my question underneath it. Specifically: "defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force". Raising her fist in such a situation is a threat of unlawful force, and it is a reasonable belief …
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:39 AM
3

I don't know of statistics, but it does happen. Here in Australia we recently had the case of Josephine Greensill, though that was for claims of sexual abuse while they were children.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:27 AM
2

Well, technically it is. However, the idea that simply because something is assault it is therefore automatically either wrong or illegal is erronous. Actions in self defence (such as his grabbing of her wrist when she made a fist at him) are assaults, they're just not illegal assaults. One always has the right to use force to defend oneself from either attack or imminent attack. A point which is being conceded by people who say that she was justified in punching him after he grabbed her wrist. …
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:09 AM
2

woops sorry - I meant a comment I'd made on TMZ. edit: clarity
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:03 AM
4

Well that was interesting. Had made a comment on TMZ in response to someone suggesting his grabbing of her wrist was the initiating assault, and so posted the following, gotten from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html: "Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against anothe…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 10:31 PM
0

There are some strange bedfellows opposed to people liking men who don't conform to conventional beauty standards.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 02:05 AM
1

Have to agree. If he had been rendered impotent, and these embryos were the only remaining ones with his dna, then maybe it would be an interesting question, but otherwise, this is wrong (in my opinion).
/r/MensRights08/05/15 12:52 AM
3

Seeing as the APA report doesn't have any references, I can't check that one. Not saying that makes them wrong, but I wouldn't really know how to go about finding everything they're collating. Main issue is that it's from what, 1998? So the research it is summarising is from then or before then. The "Divorce Peers" seems to have not been used since 2009. All of it's information comes apparently from those 2 sources, one of which essentially comes from a 1992 study, the Author of which said "that…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 01:01 AM
19

To me, it depends on the content. When someone says "I was raped", they aren't accusing anyone. They are only talking about a personal experience. As such, believing them doesn't involve changing one's opinion of someone else. Unless the person has a history of lying, there is no real reason not to believe them. When the claim is "I was raped by x", the claim is now different - to believe that claim involves believing something in particular about x as well as the person saying it. At that point…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 10:44 AM
2

What I find most interesting is how they think this is unique to women. In terms of recidivism, going to prison is pretty much one of the best risk factors, if memory serves (oh why look, no one is employing me, and the only people I've formed any kind of contacts with that may involve money are criminals). It's part of why Judges have tried to do whatever they can to avoid sending someone to prison. That and the cost. I'd respect the argument a lot more if it didn't amount to "women (may) have …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 06:21 AM
1

The murderer charge is to me probably best understood as an emotional reaction. Abortion, regardless of what side a person stands on, is always an emotional topic. But to read someone deciding to abort a child not because they don't feel ready to be a parent or for medical reasons, but because the gender isn't what they'd prefer, begins to move us down a very questionable path of humanity. Before abortion, everything was random, so the parents control was limited to some extent. Whilst they cont…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:34 PM
2

Which is fairly consistent with men being more likely to be the victims of violent crime. I'm not saying that there aren't issues around homosexuality, but whether it should in and of itself be a major focus, and not simply a part of the general topic is, to me, the key question. For example, as part of the topic of male victims of crime being considered business as usual, that study is important. Heck, you could take it further and ask why it is that it took until 2012, if the study is to be be…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:57 PM
15

Speaking as a gay person, that isn't really a men's rights issue. Its nexus is not to them as men, but rather to their sexual identity. I'd imagine many here support it, and likewise, many probably don't, as the stance taken on gay marriage is not indicative of a persons position on men's rights issues, but seeing as there is already a rather vocal movement for it, and that it isn't particularly related to this movement, there is insufficient reason for it to be a focus.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 02:46 PM
0

But at least she has the grace to not require him to make it so she doesn't have to look at a toilet before using it. Such a fair trade.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 10:10 AM
113

I'm trying to work out why being questioned in a classroom setting at a university is a bad thing. Should the discussions all just be people agreeing with eachother? The worst times in my uni classes was when no one disagreed. God those classes were boring.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:14 PM
7

essentially they point out that there is already a law requiring equal pay (the subtly titled "equal pay act") so why is another law being made, and that the new bill will make it harder to have incentive based payments as that may make paychecks "unfair" when considered along gendered lines.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 02:50 PM
1

what you mean we actually have to talk to people rather than simply having our potential comforts automatically met by others? Check your extrovert privilege. /s
/r/MensRights12/01/15 11:30 AM
3

That is probably the crux of the issue. There is a world of difference between "the child has a right to be financially covered" and "the child has a right to be financially covered by this particular person". Allowing the biological father to abdicate his financial liability, along with his rights, does not violate the child's right to financial cover as the state can and does step in to fill that role.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 07:01 AM
1

I'm not particularly certain how the American system works, but would it be worthwhile to contact either the democrat senate leadership or the democratic party? I have no idea of their track record on issues like this, but it seems to me that it's an image issue - refusing to answer the question of a constituent rather goes against representing that constituent.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 11:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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