TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

racas Archive

View 1 post and 42 comments by racas 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)
8

racas/r/MensRights03/07/14 03:33 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Because of history, I get where documents like this are coming from, but these things really should start like this: Section 1. (The purpose of the Act) This Act shall promote gender equality by identifying the areas where positions need to be defended or improved for women and the areas where the same must be done for men, and outline provisions for making these improvements possible. Women and men shall be given equal opportunities in all aspects of daily life including, but not limit to, educ…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 08:35 PM
6

Ah, well that's a legitimate complaint. I'm not sure condoms should be covered (since you can get them for free at most health departments already), but cancer screenings, and prostate tests should be covered for all men (not just those over 40). The vasectomy thing is a bit tricky since that's pure birth control. The pill for women is covered under the premise that many women need it for health reasons other than birth control, and that simply doesn't apply to men. It's a tricky thing, really, …
/r/MensRights29/06/12 04:00 AM
3

I fail to see the logic of, "Obamacare is sexist because it also covers female-specific health concerns." This argument is as flawed as the conservative argument, and my response is the same: I'm not paying for other people's healthcare, I'm paying for my own. Under Obamacare, my monthly payment will likely go down, and the number of procedures that are covered will likely go up. This is a win for me. I'm paying less money for more coverage. If someone else also benefits from this, I really don'…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 08:44 PM
2

Yea, that was a pretty bad choice of words. Personally, I took it to mean that the writer believes that in the U.S. it's socially difficult to end a relationship that's gone on longer than a few weeks. Overseas, that may not be the case for foreigners (though it is the case for the locals, believe me). Again, that is what I think the writer's viewpoint is. Though he may be right to some extent, reality is likely much different. I do agree with the majority of the rest of the article, though.
/r/MensRights05/02/12 10:06 PM
0

First, thanks for the civil response, and I will say that, in the office scenario that you're presenting, I agree with you. The scenario that's been discussed here, though, is a woman walking down the street or in some other part of the public sphere. If a man were dressed as you describe and walked down the street, women (especially soccer moms) would be hugely offended, and they'd be as wrong as the OP. Some cities have realized this (I mentioned San Fransisco at one point, but there are more …
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:44 PM
4

I don't deny that at all. Nevertheless, that's all internal, in-our-minds kinda stuff; there's no need to act on it unless it can be done tactfully. I also don't mean that there should be laws in place restraining men or protecting women from unwanted advances. That's also bullshit. I'm more about the unwritten rules of courtship in civil society. Women's psyche towards the opposite sex changes when they're ovulating, and I'm sure the effects are similar or stronger than what the article describ…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:36 PM
2

Ha! Thanks for that link, bro!
/r/MensRights01/11/11 11:43 PM
1

That was beautifully said, my friend.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 11:43 PM
2

It depends on how she does it. Same as a man.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:53 PM
1

I refer you to my posts at r/daddit, once again. It would be an incredibly long troll & a waste of time and energy for me to make posts there, and make posts here for over a year just to come out on the other side in this particular post. Society can not possibly be destroyed by sexuality; I present Sweden as proof. Society can be destroyed by bigots, however, and these exists in both genders.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:50 PM
2

It is what I've been arguing all along. There's a difference between feeling threatened for no reason and feeling threatened for a good reason. I thought that was apparent, but I guess not. I realized that at some point and that's why I've made multiple posts explaining what that difference is. If you're done with me, please stay done. Thanks!
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:46 PM
2

It's not different. It's the same. I've said that already. I've already said that not all cat calls, such as whistles, are harassment. I've already said that this isn't what I'm talking about. I've explained in detail what it is I'm talking about elsewhere.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:12 PM
1

The racism argument is valid in certain situations. The reason it's valid in this situation is because the OP is accusing me of misandry simply because I don't agree with him on this issue just like racists accuse those of their race for not agreeing with hate towards a different race. He believes that I think men are always wrong even though I've never said that. He believes that I hold women up on a pedestal even though I've repeatedly said that I see the two genders as equals in ALL non-biolo…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:09 PM
2

The only way I see a return to anything resembling Iran is if women don't control their sexuality themselves. The Muslims may step into a weakened society and do it for them. This is a question women should think about. Wow. Do you realize that you just argued that women should dress more moderately than they currently are or they might face the burqa in the future? Thanks for proving my point. EDIT - I had to correct your grammar. Sorry.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:57 PM
1

Hey, I never said it should be restricted, I just said that it's a legit case for indecency if flaunting a penis is also considered indecent. Again, equality. I saw a program the other day where a woman who owned a Christian bookstore was suing the woman who owned and operated the business next to her bookstore because the other woman was using scantily clad men and women to promote her restaurant. One of the men was only wearing a loincloth, and if he raised his leg a certain way there was a go…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:54 PM
3

Men actually do wear provocative clothing, but most of us straight males don't see it that way. A lot of men, gay and straight, wear tight pants that show off our butts, our thighs, and the size of our genitals. A lot of men, gay and straight, wear tight shirts that show off our chests and arms; some even leave a few of the top and bottom buttons unbuttoned, especially when going out to a club. Gay men do this more than straight men, and, hence, the reference to SF, but the point is that your re…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:47 PM
2

Sigh... No, dude, not at all. I've said time and time again that there's a difference between bullshit, amorphous "feelings" and warranted feelings caused by objective observation. Let me break it down for you: A man whistles at a woman from across the street, and the woman calls the cops because she feels threatened = BULLSHIT FEELINGS ON BEHALF OF THE WOMAN A man feels threatened by a woman wearing skimpy clothes (which is what your article proposes) = BULLSHIT FEELINGS ON BEHALF OF THE MAN A …
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:41 PM
1

I'm fairly certain that women wouldn't go about trying to pounce upon the men who did so. They'd probably bitch a fit about indecency, though, and if a woman walked down the street literally flaunting their naked vagina, we men would also have a case for indecency, but we still wouldn't have an excuse to pounce on her.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:28 PM
1

Lmao! Enjoy your bunk, just don't go pouncing on the poor guys on the streets of San Francisco.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:25 PM
2

These are not my points. These are: Men and Women are equally accountable for their actions. As far as actions go, dressing a certain way is not equal to harassment. Unlike you, I don't believe that in order to protect my fellow men, I have to put women down. That was the mistake the feminists made: they put men down in order to raise women up. I don't agree with either sentiment. One gender does not have to be above the other. We are equal.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:24 PM
3

You're right, you're right. It's just that I'm a huge supporter of the Men's Right Movement, and I hate to see it go the way of the Feminist Movement. EDIT - I also wanted to say that I've argued and "converted" a few feminists, but posts like this one is why I never send them to r/MensRights. It's a real shame, you know?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:14 PM
0

No, it isn't right. When a woman's feelings are amorphous non-things, then they're about as silly as the OP, but when the woman has valid reasons to feel threatened (such as a man leering, yelling out obscenities, and following her, or doing so in a group, or trying to touch her) then it's a different thing altogether. In one of the posts I linked for you, I used the example of construction workers. These guys are infamous for their cat calls, and woman are infamous for being flattered by their …
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:13 PM
6

Where do I present a double standard? Please read this and this before answering as you'll get a better idea of what I'm trying to say and some of the definitions I'm using.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:00 PM
2

I completely agree with you, and my definition of cat calling is very specific here. I explain it better in this post.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:59 PM
4

Buddy, how is it that you consider your arguments rational? I'm saying that men and women are equal. No one is calling for men to dress a certain way and so no one should call for women to dress a certain way. I'm also calling for both genders to treat each other with respect. This is not feminist, it's egalitarian. Your posts, however, are not arguments, they're ad hominem attacks without basis (as pretty much all ad hominem attach are). At this point, you're like a white supremacist calling me…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:48 PM
4

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It really is your own damn problem if you can't see a woman and not get a boner. I dance salsa, merengue, reggaeton, and hip hop in such a way as to grind on a barely dressed woman, and now that I'm older than 16 I've gotten pretty good at not getting a boner.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:41 PM
1

I've replied to this bullshit claim elsewhere on this thread. Read it.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:36 PM
0

And women who dress provocatively are cunts. You can think that, but then you'd just be immature. I haven't felt the need to holler out at some random chick passing me by since I was 16, and I can look back at those times and realize that I was wrong in doing so. I feel threatened when women dress provocatively. Therefore, women are not free to dress provocatively. Bullshit. Threatened how? I'm not talking about some ephemeral feeling, I'm talking about concrete actions that lead to other action…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:35 PM
1

Yes, I admit that, but it's still a douche bag thing to do in my opinion. Also, some cat calls do cross the line insofar as they make women feel uncomfortable and unsafe. People (men and women) have the right to feel safe.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:30 PM
8

The actions being discussed are not equal. A woman wearing skimpy clothes does not infringe on anyone else's freedom. A man harassing a woman does infringe on her freedom to move about the public sphere freely and with a sense of security.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:25 PM
3

Look at my posting history genius. Specially those I posted on r/daddit.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:23 PM
1

Yes, you're free to publicly shame a woman so long as she doesn't feel threatened. However, you're a douchebag if you do it.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:21 PM
2

Freedom = doing whatever you like while being limited only by the freedom of others. In this case, women are free to dress how they like because they're not infringing on anyone else's freedom by doing so. This article is arguing that they are, and I'm calling bullshit. Men are free to have whatever thoughts they like without limitation, but they're free to say and do whatever they like up to the point where they start infringing on a woman's freedom to move about safely in the public sphere.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:20 PM
0

I agree, and I think that we live in the reasonable middle right now. Some people dress too skimpy and some too moderately, but most dress somewhere in the middle. When that's the norm but people are still calling for EVERYONE too dress more moderately and are saying that skimpy dress by one gender is an attack on the other, then you're moving away from the reasonable middle an towards extremism.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:06 PM
0

So? How far is the UK from Germany? If something happens in one place it can happen in another, and the fact that you are thinking this way shows that the first seeds are already planted in at least a few people.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:59 PM
2

No dude, it really isn't. Taking anyone's freedom away never ends well.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:54 PM
16

Yea, dude, it really is. If I see a hot girl dressed provocatively, my mind is going to go places, and that's ok; those thoughts are the only things her clothing "provokes". Anything I do, however, isn't provoked, it's a conscious choice made by me. Cat calls aren't provoked or even requested by skimpy clothing. They're all our doing.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:52 PM
1

The example that most quickly comes to mind is Iran, but I'm sure there are others. Popular extremism doesn't happen overnight. It starts with sentiments (such as this one) that can too easily get out of hand. The Nazis rose to power the same way (sigh... Godwin's Law); most people didn't actively support their more extreme ideas, but they passively supported them by dismissing the logical extremes as "scare mongering" by the enemy.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:41 PM
6

The problem with this line of thinking is its logical endgame: the burqa. Most societies who institute such restrictive clothing don't start with the full getup right away. They first make a call for conservative dress, and then they move the line defining conservatism until all a woman is allowed to show are the shadows of her eyes. Women ogle men as much as we ogle women, but for the most part, men don't notice or don't mind. Women, however, don't often catcall or make overt advances, which is…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:07 PM
24

While I understand this guy's argument, there's literally no way I can support it. Following his logic, all women should dress conservatively, but the problem with making that a written or unwritten rule is that the line that defines conservative dress will continue to move until the women who aren't wearing burqas are getting stoned in the streets. The fact of the matter is that both men and women should be able to walk down the street wearing whatever they like (yes, I mean exactly that). The …
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:01 PM
3

Can not unsee... <<shudders>>
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:38 PM
10

Fuck everything about that, dude. That was bad enough to complete cancel out any and all of the supposed benefits of infant circumcision. This entire process should be treated as all invasive surgeries are treated. You don't get them unless the only other option is death or a significantly reduced lifestyle.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 09:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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