TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

myusernameranoutofsp Archive

View 5 posts and 68 comments by myusernameranoutofsp on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

In most examples the follow-up of "is prejudice still bad" is met with deflection or denial. "Not against [cis/white/het/male] it's not." I imagine it's just a different discussion. In that case sexism is one problem and people being prejudiced is another. One argument might be that prejudice is a problem that everyone suffers from while sexism is a problem that hurts minorities more than men. I can't really speak for them though, I'm not well-read on feminist theory.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 08:11 AM
2

People acknowledge that prejudice is bad, they're saying that sexism is prejudice + power, and that prejudice without power is therefore not sexism. If you ask them if prejudice is still bad then they should agree with you, what does this have to do with empathy?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:51 AM
0

When were Jews the dominant group in society? If Nazis said that, they'd be wrong or lying for propaganda. If people said that about White people (or if history changed and some other group was the dominant social group and someone said that about them), they'd maybe sort of be right.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:33 AM
-1

I'm not familiar with those, I meant Femen specifically
/r/MensRights16/11/14 03:02 AM
-9

I promise to present one feminist advocating male genocide to match. Is that supposed to counter something I said? In my comment I suggested that there are going to be feminists who have unreasonable claims, MRAs that do unreasonable things, and people who agree that killing is bad that are also backwards in some other way. If you agree with the first and the third then I'm not sure what's special about the second. Edit: I think you edited your post at some point (<3 minutes so that the asterisk…
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:31 AM
-10

You don't think that there's anyone out there who has committed or advocated rape/spousal abuse/etc who also identifies with the mensrights movement? I mean, the guy who committed the École Polytechnique Massacre said he was fighting feminism, but I guess that happened before this specific men's rights movement was popular. There's this guy who's apparently a popular 'pickup artist' type dude. A lot of 'pua'/'red pill' type folk often identify as part of mens-rights as well, but I haven't dug to…
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:17 AM
-6

I didn't say you were claiming all self-described feminists act a certain way. I also didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted you. If you meant something else then great. You brought up some unrelated, hypothetical ... I was purposely taking an example where you can say "that person identifies with the movement, but their actions don't represent the movement". I guess I could have used some tamer example and tried to word it in a way where it wouldn't cause any confusion, but I didn't. If your …
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:51 PM
-3

I've been banned from a feminist subreddit too, for a very mild comment, then I read their faq and realized why I was banned. I can't speak for all subreddits though. Anyway, to be specific about our comments and why I commented in the first place, you originally said this: I think the gate suffix is amusing. We had donglegate, elevatorgate, other examples of feminists flipping out over trivial issues. and then this: I don't paint feminists with a broad brush, since there are dozens of different…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:30 PM
-6

SRS is a place for people to vent, it's more analogous to /r/rage than to /r/feminism in that sense. They are explicitly a circlejerk and they will ban you for breaking the circlejerk. If someone wants to ask about feminism they I'm guessing they can go to /r/askfeminism, if they want to debate feminism then I'm guessing they can go to /r/debatefeminism (among other places on the Internet and in real life), SRS just isn't the place for that and they're pretty clear about it.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:16 PM
-4

Good point, when people make fun of tumblr posts and treat it as representing feminists, maybe those people aren't representing a wider men's rights movement, it seems that way sometimes though. But I started disagreeing when you said: "..." I should have said "certain MRAs" instead of just "MRAs", I meant to address DancesWithPugs specifically talking about people flipping out over trivial issues.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:03 PM
-11

the first thing you do is essentially accuse everyone on this sub of being rape apologists. I didn't, I said that there are likely a minority out there that are, and I was also saying that that minority doesn't define the whole group. I can't speak for any other group than this subreddit, but when we do see a moron or troll say "hurt durr, women are lying bitches" they get downvoted to oblivion. Good, I don't see that much I do not see a corollary on feminism, their tactic is to ban any voice of…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:44 PM
-10

If you actually wanted to do that, then present the question to knowledgeable feminists and do it in an honest way. What you're doing now is circlejerking, you're posting in an MRA forum. Of course they won't answer that. What a smug comment. Really? You're in an MRA forum. You can imagine a lot of things as being discrete, binary decisions, or you can imagine them as continuous, as being decimal places and affected by a lot of factors. When you say that something increases the risk of cancer, y…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:32 PM
-1

If you are an ex-feminist, did you think that Femen was empowering? The feminists I know don't think that. If you didn't see it as empowering, then isn't supporting this post misrepresenting feminism?
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:06 PM
-26

I have a question for you, I got here because this post is on is on /r/all. When self-identified feminist overreacts to something, you people tend to make it represent feminist theory as a whole, but when a self-identified MRA does something serious like rape someone or encourage rape, they're dismissed as a crazy person. Why do you do that? Any correct idea, when it gets popular enough, is going to end up with people who don't do their research. If you take everyone in the world who agrees that…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 09:51 PM
-16

Same here, but if a woman did it she'd have to deal with the stuff we have to deal with plus catcalling plus physical concerns like rape. In the same way that harassment from beggars and 'thugs' is emblematic of an economic system that disadvantages certain people, people consider the catcalls to be emblematic of a deeper societal problem that they've termed patriarchy. In that system, men aren't blamed for being evil, it's that they're considered the dominant group and therefore maybe have a ce…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 12:24 PM
1

I don't know, I feel like they are covered pretty equally, maybe we follow different news sources. Feminism went through it's first and second waves, so now the demands are less clear because they are more nuanced. Similarly, slavery and segregation are gone (in North America), but there is still institutional racism. A lot of people say that the days of racism are over, and that pro-minority policies (e.g. more scholarships available to minorities) are seen as going too far. I disagree with tho…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 03:51 AM
1

Feminism doesn't mainly deal with white females. Some groups do but those groups don't realize their mistakes, more advanced feminists call them out on it. One example is all of the criticism that FEMEN gets. That group has a lot of issues, including funding and leadership from questionable sources, but it supposedly promotes racism and imperialism under the guise of feminism. As I understand it isn't uncommon in history of one oppressed group to get their freedom and then sell out at the expens…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 10:29 PM
1

I'm not sure what you're saying, I've found it easier to communicate points by replacing sexism with racism and noticing similar trends. I think that especially in this subreddit people know first hand about how feminists react to some issues such as wage gaps, patriarchy, objectification, etc. But why haven't people of other races complained about this stuff? They have, segregation was intense enough to be written into law. Actions as extensive as Affirmative Action were put in place in an atte…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 10:16 PM
1

Maybe we're working with different ideas of what we consider protests. I consider these to fall under the category of protests. Edit: also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute
/r/MensRights21/04/14 04:05 AM
-4

Before that it was mainly just disruption though. The comic says "If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, ..., your free speech rights aren't being violated." That seems comparable to the type of disruption that was taking place. Munroe suggests that that's not a violation of free speech, and if it is, then the speech being blocked maybe wasn't worthy of the airtime. I'm not sure I completely agree with it.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:44 PM
0

I'm trying to get perspectives from both sides of the issue and reconcile them against each other. If that involves trying to be critical of certain stances and defending the other side then so be it I guess.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:37 PM
-1

Sometimes they probably are, I'm not disagreeing with that. A lot of the time when people protest, it's illegal.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:10 PM
-3

I'm not sure that's the case. As far as I know a lot of protests are done to actually stop whatever is happening, it's just that there are police and private security forces that limit it to 'just' a protest. Protesting isn't just to get the word out and let people know that someone disagrees with something.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 08:58 PM
0

A White supremacist could say the same thing though, they could (and some do) argue that since Affirmative Action, certain ethnic minorities have an unfair social advantage and that things are unfair for Whites. If I say "What about everywhere else where Whites are clearly in a socially dominant position, or 30 years ago?", they could say "I live here and now, go to another country if you want", so what you're saying isn't a good response to what I said. I'm asking how it's different. Sorry if I…
/r/MensRights25/02/14 02:13 AM
-4

What if there was a Men's rights movement 30 years go, or if there is a Men's rights movement in another country where it's otherwise very clear that men 'have it better' than women. Then is it analogous to a White rights movement? A lot of the analogy is also based on the historical circumstances. Even if you think that women 'have it better' than men, I image we'd agree that historically, for hundreds of years up until a few decades (or a few years) ago, they had it worse. As their rights and …
/r/MensRights24/02/14 10:06 AM
1

You're being very clever. Either the existing system is a conspiracy, or they accept new knowledge and adapt when it's reasonable. Try to come up with some medical innovation, it basically isn't considered medical knowledge until it's in a peer-reviewed journal. That goes for any organization, math, physics, whatever. If somebody says "No one was around then to see it or run experiments, what creative untestable conclusions you scientists draw!", then we have a handy reference to explain to them…
/r/RedPillWomen11/10/13 09:42 PM
1

I think it would be easier if we talk about a specific point. Sometimes on MRA forums you get things like "women are better at raising children and being caring and therefore they should be stay-at-home mothers and secretaries", or "according to these tests, women like men who are very confident and narcissistic, so therefore we as men should try to be like that". I'm sort of picking absurd examples, but when we look at social dynamics like that, or if we're trying to explain some sociological p…
/r/RedPillWomen11/10/13 08:47 PM
1

It is only up to opinion whether something is testable or not. Not really, you have academic consensus. When people decide not to agree after being shown reasonable evidence, they're opinions stop being taken seriously. That might open the door to some academic bias, but it works pretty well. , but it's better than any other possible explanation. That's the thing though, it's really not the best explanation. There are other explanations that are much more rigorous, basically those found in the s…
/r/RedPillWomen11/10/13 08:24 PM
1

lol Science doesn't claim to be able to "prove" anything. I didn't claim it did, people still come to conclusions. People generally accept pretty complex economic and social theories even though they're 'unprovable'. It is an opinion whether or not a particular experiment "counts" or not. ... whether one considers them legitimate or not is a matter of opinion. Some opinions are better than others. Creative untestable explanations about things made after those things have been observed have repea…
/r/RedPillWomen11/10/13 06:32 AM
-14

Because men have a history of having extremely sexist opinions (and were in a position of privilege during that time), including the one in OP's picture.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:41 PM
14

That's already happening, it was happening before "false rape charges" and MRAs were a thing. Rape victims have been taking the blame for a long time now.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:25 PM
0

It's really hard to make a case with evolutionary psychology. It's a very unreliable thing to use to describe social situations, and it pretty much depends on how creative you are in your application. 1) Could you more directly link your evo psych argument to why society says women should try to be attractive while men should try to be pretty much anything positive? 2) Are you saying that because of your evo psych argument, that society should function that way?
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:48 AM
1

Whose argument are you supporting with that statement? Are you saying that women should value attractiveness because correlation implies causation, or are you saying that attractive women might get promoted more, or that they might get more attention for being attractive rather than for working hard? Either way, I'm not sure there's enough evidence for it.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:29 AM
-2

The problem is that it's male-centred, that's societal. It's not that women who have admirable qualities have more power in society (which is the case with guys), what Circ-Le-Jerk described is that the so-called 'power fantasy' for women is based on traditional male-serving gender roles.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 12:52 AM
0

Are you saying that women who are attractive to men have more power in our society than women who aren't as attractive to men? Because in that case I think we both recognize a problem. Otherwise we'd say that beautiful/sexy/muscular/fragile/strong are for the most part equally applicable to men and women as measures of attractiveness.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 09:18 PM
-11

People don't care what you think, you aren't the one who is negatively affected by these issues.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 08:25 PM
-3

How is it a female power fantasy? Other than by traditional gender roles, which are widely rejected.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:08 PM
-13

without even trying to have a discussion about their issues with us. That's because most of the discussion has already been had. Most claims by MRAs were addressed before the men's rights movement became popular. see what posts we make, and join in the discussions? They do that, I do that. It gets downvoted so not everyone sees it. There is discussion, but that discussion is limited, the movement still exists. If you went into another subreddit and showed members holes in their ideology, the mov…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 11:47 PM
3

Ah, so it's hard to conclude attraction, so therefore it must be prejudice. I was saying that attraction is a weak explanation. If a server was flirting with me then maybe, but that's not what I was talking about. I was saying that servers in general (male and female) tend to treat me as the authority figure. We shouldn't really be arguing over this since it's a really minor point. You brought up that it might be because of attraction, but I think the great majority of the times it isn't. Out of…
/r/RedPillWomen27/06/13 01:01 AM
1

I was just saying that you can have a biased hypothesis and get a response out of it (e.g. If you tested school performance if Blacks in the 60s compared to Whites, then Blacks would perform worse and you'd get racist explanations about why that is.). If you're hypothesis passes, there would be further studies done to control for different explanations, and at that point I think that the evolutionary psychology explanation would be ruled out (as long as the study isn't unethical and is affordabl…
/r/RedPillWomen27/06/13 12:52 AM
3

It does matter if the behaviours are caused by social inequality. Women performed objectively worse back when people thought they were inferior, so they didn't let them go as far in school or get positions of authority or vote etc, and they treated them as if they were inferior in day-to-day life. Did you think that Black people were objectively the same when slavery was legal? Or during segregation? They weren't, but we realized that the differences were caused by social factors, and now things…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 11:08 PM
1

I was saying that sometimes you can't do what would be the most direct test of a theory because it'd be unethical or physically impossible, so you have to develop more indirect methods. That's true, I just don't know of any big tests off the top of my head that people want to do but aren't allowed to. Yeah though, progress is slower because of ethical standards. Why would you change a stronger hypothesis to a weaker one? Because I think the stronger one is wrong and/or maybe misguided. But yeah,…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 11:00 PM
2

It's usually because a lot of the attributes that TRP attributes to biological determinism, the mainstream academic community attributes to the society that we're brought up in. When we do psych studies like this one that control for the societal explanations, the important differences go away, hinting that it's just a social/cultural thing.
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 10:43 PM
4

The Wikipedia article gives a nice general explanation for why evolutionary psychology isn't very applicable in situations like these. That isn't something that we have academic studies for. Wikipedia's good for general explanations. If we're arguing specific claims, I could list a bunch of studies on stereotype threat or whatever and talk about those to help demonstrate that women might act a certain way because of the culture we were brought up in.
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 10:32 PM
3

If the tests are too unethical then the theories aren't really accepted. I don't know of any psychology theory that is pending an unethical test. Usually they just find tests that abide by the ethical standards and then do those. It makes things go slower, but they don't usually just go with big theories that require unethical tests to confirm. "In less wealthy societies, income will be a greater determinant of attraction of women toward men, and physical attractiveness will be more important as…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 10:11 PM
6

I think you're misinterpreting the criticisms. I don't think the humourous assumptions about my intentions are helping. I don't care that it has critics, the main issues are that Evo Psych is pretty useless in trying to explain specific social dynamics. Oh a girl is looking at me in a certain way, does this mean that she's ovulating and trying to find a good mate? No, there's a ton of stuff going on and it doesn't make sense to try to pick out certain actions or tendencies and attribute them to …
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:30 PM
1

I've been recommended that a few times on here, I haven't watched it yet. If it's just criticizing the system though, we should be careful not to disregard all of social science's findings just because of one flaw in the system. We know it's not perfect.
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:25 PM
2

the reason why evolutionary psychology is unpopular is because what we learn from it is uncomfortable. Except for that the theories are usually untestable/unfalsifiable, and have no predictive value. people dont want to believe that they are animals and controled by their instincts and emotions for the most part. that they are irrational and that they do what they are programmed to do by their genes. We already believe that we can observe all kinds of animals and study their behavior and describ…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:22 PM
4

That's a big part of the criticism though. The explanations that are used to explain our observations are usually creative ways to combine our pre-existing biases with what we see. Since the explanations are usually untestable, they are just used to justify whatever bias the observer has. You're right that biologists accept that evolution effects us psychologically, but using it to explain certain social situations (especially the differences between men and women might tend to act in certain si…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:19 PM
3

I like assuming what people did/didn't read too. If you're trying to explain social dynamics, evolutionary psychology falls apart. People just try to come up with creative arguments to explain what they see, and when they find new evidence, those get thrown out and new creative explanations replace them. The explanations are usually unfalsifiable and don't have predictive value. Also, I agree that I didn't use the best wording, hopefully that's okay.
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:09 PM
12

, people would make fun of you behind your back for being an idiot. Pretty much the same reaction women would get. You're missing the point, people wouldn't do that. There is a clear difference in how people would react to a guy walking around in his underwear and how they would react to a girl walking around in her underwear. There would be different reactions by different people, but for the most part people would be dismissive of the guy (it's funny, he can do what he wants, ...) and critical…
/r/RedPillWomen25/06/13 09:03 PM
9

Yeah, it helps some women to have a safe space where they are protected against getting ogled. Men don't seem to get ogled much. Men don't get hit on by strangers when they're trying to mind their own business, especially not in threatening ways. Men don't have to worry about being followed and maybe raped. I don't know, I'm not a woman, but I can see how there are some social dynamics that might lead to safe spaces being a good idea. Do you really buy this line of feminist bullshit? What "freed…
/r/RedPillWomen24/06/13 07:34 PM
4

and the soft disciplines are dominated by the sort of people who want to believe that "everyone is equal" blah blah. This doesn't really mean anything unless you have or are willing to put together evidence that there's some bias in the academic community. you have to accept that genetic heritage, sex and biology are really really important, and that they affect the behaviours of both individuals and groups in fundamental and predictable ways. Not unless there's some evidence that suggests somet…
/r/RedPillWomen24/06/13 08:33 AM
7

It's not that it goes against the paradigm of the blank slate, there are plenty of accepted ideas that have been accepted for a long time that go against the blank slate. Doesn't Universal grammar go against it? (and UG itself I think is a bit dated.) We have plenty of studies of babies reacting better to faces or to certain things that they would not have had time to learn. I don't think that the blank slate is the current paradigm so what you said doesn't really rebut what I said. The differen…
/r/RedPillWomen24/06/13 07:22 AM
3

I don't know, if trans* people wanted to create a space where only trans* people could talk about their issues, issues that regular society seems to ignore or perpetuate, then I think they should be allowed to do that. Women probably aren't as oppressed as trans* folk, but I tend to get a lot of freedom that women don't get, and I can see how that's wrong. If I had a personal/sensitive issue that only other guys would understand, that I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to women about, then I do…
/r/RedPillWomen24/06/13 02:52 AM
1

It's like when skeptics go on naturopath/homeopath/made-up-garbage forums and try to show people why their little movement is not based in reality. In this case they might be just mad and downvoting, but if those downvoters are feminists, then that's probably the sentiment.
/r/RedPillWomen24/06/13 02:44 AM
-5

The logical problem here is that judges aren't acting based on what will bring the government the most money. This post is garbage and it's a shame that it's popular enough to be on /r/all right now.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:21 AM
1

Is the story suggesting that women are dependent on men? Or that the feminist movement tries to move backwards, or something like that? Any discussions on why men are in more positions of power can be explained historically. I guess I wasn't very specific in my first post. If it's some personal story about how someone's wife gets mad at him then whatever, but if it's trying to make a general statement about women and 'their place in society' then I think it's wrong.
/r/TheRedPill08/05/13 06:03 AM
10

i mean i don't think he should be arrested or crucified as a rapist when all she had to do to stop it was say no He raped her though. From his perspective she was asleep and that's what he did. If she was actually asleep then it isn't different from his perspective. If we're punishing people's his actions for rape then we should punish his actions. and especially because she herself let it happen. it's not rape if you let it happen It's still rape though. The first action is sexual assault, if s…
/r/TheRedPill08/05/13 04:48 AM
8

My guess is I don't think making up your own imagined context is more useful than using the context that we were given. Maybe she was wearing a skirt or something, we don't know. Getting a girls pants off who doesn't want them off is not an easy task. She was pretty clear about being in shock about the whole thing. You could probably take someone's pants off while they're asleep, and in this case that's what the guy thought he did. Why are you defending this guy? We can say that maybe the reddit…
/r/TheRedPill08/05/13 04:42 AM
3

Holy crap this subreddit is so weird. Trying to get rid of gender roles solves this problem better than deciding that you should only care about yourself. Are you trying to suggest that women are dependent on men? A small amount of historical context seems to shut that idea down too.
/r/TheRedPill08/05/13 04:36 AM
1

Oh no a mensrights post made it to /r/all
/r/MensRights22/04/13 12:20 AM
1

The feminazis aren't saying that women aren't those things. They are saying that women are currently overwhelmingly oppressed by the patriarchy. That's something we should work on if we want to fully realize our equality.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:44 AM
1

I don't think OP is being discriminated against for being a man. I think they are judging him based on how they get along with him rather than by how good his work is, and I think they're wrong for doing that, but I don't think it has to do with being a man.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:09 PM
-1

What does that have to do with feminism?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:56 AM
1

I guess that makes sense.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:32 AM
0

I think the question comes from how she overpowered him. Men tend to be able to physically overpower women. If she was physically stronger than him, that's the answer. Otherwise she would have had to find a way to tie him up or use a gun or something else. If she pulled a knife, same thing, guys can generally run faster and out-struggle women.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 03:03 AM
4

Post your essay on here if you like, maybe it was actually a bad essay.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:07 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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