TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

redit4speechfreedom Archive

View 7 posts and 65 comments by redit4speechfreedom 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

I donot have an issue with red pill telling men to be strong. But i have a problem with red pill telling men that women are all bad/weak/stupid and treating the subservience of women as an achievement. (How is that strength?) I had your exact same experience with mens rights activists. I sympathized with them but later realized that they are the same as toxic feminists they hate, the same poison in a different bottle.
/r/ExRedPill19/03/21 04:33 PM
3

Ha ha yes. It is a different form of 'I am not like other girls, I am a cool girl' phenomena.
/r/ExRedPill19/03/21 04:59 AM
2

So very true. Why would a 'strong' person want a 'weak' partner? A person who is really strong and virtuous inside out admires female strength and judgement and would want a strong, admirable partner.
/r/ExRedPill19/03/21 04:57 AM
3

Sorry you had to go through that horror. The way you picked yourself up after having gone through all that abuse and degradation to build yourself up and live your own fulfilling life is an inspiration to me.
/r/ExRedPill19/03/21 04:43 AM
1

Fair point. I think a certain minimal alimony is justified if the lesser paid category is continuing to compromise on career to raise children. However, all these forms of calculation should be rational. I donot think people deserve a share in assets they did not help in building.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 03:01 PM
1

You mean, r/mensrights isn't capable of answering my questions logically? And must resort to ad hominems?
/r/MensRights17/03/21 02:56 PM
1

This point still argues for other forms of financial compensation in the event of a divorce, like asset sharing. Now you could argue that if assets are shared, monthly alimony should be reduced/eliminated.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 02:34 PM
1

This entire down voted chain shouldn't have been down voted lol. For raising valid points.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 01:44 PM
1

I am also arguing that the wife in this case, deserves a share in the combined income by right. As the wife's effort in child rearing and cutting down on work hours helped the husband focus on his career despite being a father (wife performed indirect financial contribution). So akin to how investors collect profit, a certain share in husbands money belongs to the wife.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 01:32 PM
1

Lot to unpack here. Fathers are legally obligated to take care of their wives and children too. I never said women shouldn't perform house work. If a husband already gave a huge amount of money to wife before divorce it can be deducted from alimony You are context dropping while using the difficulties of poor lower caste women as an argument. You quoting poor lower caste women is like feminists saying LOOK LOOK AT THE WOMAN WHOSE RECTUM WAS PIERCED OUT DURING RAPE AND THEIR FACES GET ACID ATTACK…
/r/MensRights17/03/21 01:17 PM
1

I agree fully. Alimony should be decided on a rational basis and it must be ensured that it isn't exploited.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 01:01 PM
1

I am a bit traditional in this regard. I believe that modern work life doesn't do justice to children. Then again, I can understand parents wanting to work for financial reasons. I think parents who can afford to, must spend time with their multiple children, from childhood to when they are teenagers. And not merely compromise during 'infant' years of a child's life But yes, alimony should be based on number of working hours spent/compromised.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 12:59 PM
1

I am fine with calculating for room rent and other benefits offered by husband and deducting money for it. Edit: but then again it can be argued that room rent is compensated when wife shoulders majority of the house work.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 12:58 PM
2

Child support is for the kids. What about the financial loss incurred by wife by compromising on work hours to raise kids?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:32 PM
2

After the divorce, what if the wife continues to focus on raising kids and is the primary custodian through mutual agreement? Isn't the wife still cutting hours for kids instead of working and building a career?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:05 PM
2

Also want to add this. If some kind of a millionaire genius investor was married to a woman who focussed on raising kids, I donot think that she deserves 25% stocks in his company. (Since money was earned through intelligence and risk taking than hours spent). The idea is to compensate for the hours spent. Since the hours invested by both result in overall profit for both.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:00 PM
2

Thanks for the nuanced reply and understanding where I am coming from. I do agree that raising kids is beautiful, probably more so than slogging at office. And i have immense respect for fathers/primary bread winners for their hard work and sacrifices as well. I donot see alimony as compensation but as a...rightful share of sorts. If 2 ppl were investing money in a startup, both parties share profits. So I see a partnership with kids like this. One party does one half of the work. The second par…
/r/MensRights16/03/21 04:47 PM
2

If both parents pursue a high paying, demanding career, exactly how will they manage to take care of kids? One cannot simply throw money at the faces of kids. Kids need availability, attention and love.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 03:20 PM
2

How is taking care of your children a bad thing? So you mean both parents should slog at office to build shiny portfolios while the emotional health of children is neglected?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 03:10 PM
2

You are confusing 2 things. 1.a woman who stops working to mooch off resources. I am not advocating alimony in this case A woman who has to cut down on working hours to be available for children. The second choice can set someone back in career by years. So very long term compensation, financially, is justified after a divorce.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 03:07 PM
2

So atleast one parent does not compromise on working hours and career growth after having kids?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 03:00 PM
3

If your father compromised on his career, he deserves alimony too in the event of a divorce, except unless maybe he out earns your mother by a large margin. I am advocating gender neutral alimony.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 01:37 PM
3

No. They shouldn't get alimony. Alimony is justified only for those women who made career compromises for the family and kids.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 01:33 PM
2

Alimony for the hours wife put in, in this case.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 01:10 PM
2

This is all fine, if neither party cuts down on working hours to focus on kids. My definition of equality is that both men and women deserve alimony if they cut down on working hours for kids.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 12:47 PM
-1

Usually in most families, one partner compromises on career so kids donot feel neglected while growing up. Thus deserves a share in the combined income, as this compromise helps the second partner spend more hours in office and build a better career Using your terminology the husband is 'responsible' to a certain extent, for the wife as well. Assuming wife was the compromiser
/r/MensRights16/03/21 12:45 PM
2

Even if you donot believe that raising kids can be hard, there is still a second question. The parent who chooses to compromise on a corporate career so that kids donot feel ignored and the second parent can focus on making money, still deserves a share in the money earned. Because if the first parent did not do a career and financial compromise, the second parent would not be able to work and still have the pleasure of fatherhood. It is a team effort where every party deserves fair share.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:41 AM
1

Ask most mothers who live in cities in India whether attending to kids, holding down a job and maintaining a house with modern technology is easy. News: it isn't. Mothers are doing unpaid labour for the family. Fathers engage in paid labour for the family. So fathers are supposed to extend financial support for their wives. If both parents focus solely on career, the emotional needs of kids will become neglected. So a certain compromise happens where one parent says, I will make my career second…
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:38 AM
2

2 such kids. So that makes it around 4 years. Even after that, someone should be more available for kids. Someone should cut down hours so that kids are able to say hi to a family member after returning from school. And be able to share about their day. Inorder to be an emotional caregiver, compromises are meant to be made on career and working hours Which is why 2 parent households are believed to be optimal. So that atleast one parent can spend time with kids while the other slogs at office.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:30 AM
3

Did you ever spend time with someone younger than 4 years? They are extremely demanding. Balancing 2 such kids alongside household chores and a job is no mean feat. Please donot under estimate the importance of the primary child care giver in a relationship If you want a better perspective please feel free to visit r/breakingmoms And please donot put down the contribution of primary child care giver in partnerships. Ask most mothers, they will tell you how much work is involved in child care and…
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:27 AM
4

First of all it need not always be the woman. Also, most women do raise kids and balance a job However, atleast one parent has to do a career compromise to be able to spend time with kids. Which is why 2 parent households are important. Most marriages involve one primary bread winner and one primary child care giver
/r/MensRights16/03/21 11:23 AM
1

It is important to spend time with kids. If both parents choose high paying, hence demanding careers, then kids will not be parented well. One parent or both have to often cut down office hours to take care of kids This is the very reason why women donot become ceos as often as men. This is the reason why gender pay gap exists in the same field per this very subreddit. If both parents have the exact same work life balance with no significant compromise and are both in a similar position, then th…
/r/MensRights16/03/21 08:05 AM
1

Interesting...India has the exact same laws and amendments that you have mentioned.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 06:35 AM
2

Fully agree👍🏼 Are you from India?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 06:28 AM
-1

My argument isn't about lifestyle. My argument is that one party should not profit off second party's hardwork and free labour and hours spent in child care to move up corporate ladders.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 06:06 AM
2

The scenario i spoke about doesn't involve marriage. It involves raising kids together.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 06:01 AM
3

So cooking, vaccuming, cleaning, taking care of kids who are very demanding and tend to keep you up at night, while balancing a somewhat lesser paying career does not sound like hardwork?
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:58 AM
3

This is definetely wrong. I strongly believe alimony should be gender neutral.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:56 AM
1

All fair points. I donot know why this subreddit is downvoting you
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:55 AM
3

I am not talking about the application. Of course it must apply to both genders inorder to be fair
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:54 AM
0

In most circumstances, one partner refuses promotions to spend more time at house taking care of kids. So it is actually a lot more hard than simply staying at home since the party compromising on career handles multiple responsibilities without financial compensation.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:53 AM
2

Only difference. Partner 1 compromised in career FOR partner 2 and children. So partner 2 holds responsibility for the decision.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:51 AM
1

It isn't work free life. Have you ever hung out around kids below the age 4? Well consider raising two of them. People lose sleep over raising kids, managing household work and holding a side job. All of this is HARD ASS work.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:50 AM
-5

By this logic, one can accuse men of marriage trapping women into free labour.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:47 AM
-5

It isn't leeching off as one party compromised on his career to raise their kids. So this partner wasn't sitting on his/her ass but was doing hard ass labour for the family.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 05:22 PM
-1

Yes. This seems fair.👍🏼 The idea is that the income is meant to be shared between partners who have raised kids together. I wouldn't say just millions. But any substantial income difference justifies alimony
/r/MensRights15/03/21 05:16 PM
3

Nothing justifies cheating, under any circumstance. If you are dissatisfied by your partner, break up/divorce FIRST. I can support someone's right to end marriage if it is sexless, but i would never support someone's right to cheat.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 02:42 PM
4

Nothing justifies cheating, under any circumstance. If you are dissatisfied by your partner, break up/divorce FIRST. I can support someone's right to end marriage if it is sexless, but i would never support someone's right to cheat.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 02:41 PM
0

You would not have responded with hostility if i did not reveal that i am a woman. You are making it men vs women. Fighting for mens rights does not mean hatred and prejudice against women, or women on mens rights subreddits. Or shutting down pertinent questions. You cannot fight prejudice and discrimination by engaging in it and silencing debates. And if you intend to remain hostile to women trying to listen to and support mens issues, what is the difference b/w you and the feminists you hate? …
/r/MensRights15/10/20 04:08 PM
3

Thank you for the response and caring to explain. It is sad that we live in a world where women and people have to be thanked for recognizing male oppression. I agree with all of the comments here and everything that you have said. But i have to add something. It is true that a lot of women donot respect vulnerability in men despite using terms like this. However, men shouldn't give a flying f*ck to what these women want while fighting for their mental health. Remember early feminists? They cut …
/r/MensRights15/10/20 03:04 PM
4

Oh god yes! It should be called internalized misandry instead of toxic masculinity, as if men are the problem and not the victims!
/r/MensRights15/10/20 02:49 PM
3

Even without all of the negative health effects, they are just denying the autonomy that men have over their body and their private parts. Which is also very horrible.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 12:26 PM
1

Thanks for posting the question, i was also dealing with the same doubt. I am a supporter of mens and womens rights. I was hoping this sub would accept the participation of people who are both mens and womens rights activists, wanting to speak up in support of mens rights.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 12:20 PM
1

It is still much better to remain single than marry the wrong person anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/20 12:09 PM
3

Women actually do care about physical attractiveness as well. It is not their only criteria but it is still something women care about
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/20 06:08 AM
8

This sub doesn't put down women but still manages to call out hypocrisy. This sub isn't toxic and doesn't pit men against women but fights for genuine equality. This sub is what a lot of feminists claim to be but are not.
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:45 PM
2

Relationships tale work. Love is a choice Both are dangerous statements in the wrong context. They keep people in actual bad relationships
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy30/09/20 02:38 PM
11

I hate the song hotline bling. I think of that song when people mention drake. Some of the lyrics are wierd, like he is jelous of the fact that she is having fun with her friends and wears shorter clothes!?
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy30/09/20 02:25 PM
2

This. Choose someone who is a worthy person. Else stay single. I agree with you 👍
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 04:06 PM
2

Thanks :))
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/20 11:58 AM
2

Why is there no mds to select good women or high value women? Why is it about banging woman x by using statergies to impress her but not about screening and selecting her based on standards like fds? There is no equivalent of high value men like high value women in redpill either. It is so wierd. Don't men have standards at all? Other than hot? Not insulting anyone..just genuinely puzzled and curious?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:48 PM
8

Reading about you has inspired me to turn my life around as well❤️
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy26/09/20 04:09 PM
1

Nope. I appreciate redpill for encouraging independence and standards but...redpill tells men to never ever ever trust or be emotionally vulnerable or attach or let go even after they find a partner who proves herself worthy. And that's a problem to forget the woman, but the man himself. Men are encouraged to believe that their SO will leave them for someone better if given a chance. And to always be on edge. If your SO cannot be atleast your best friend and you cannot trust your SO, just...what…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 03:10 PM
2

50 shades of grey. Just. Dont. Want. To. Explain. Why. Cringe
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy26/09/20 03:00 PM
5

Arranged marriages are awesome women have the awesome oppurtunity to marry strangers that their parents and aunt's brother's father's sons and daughters approve. ya! we allowed you to talk to the guy for 2 months before getting engaged and married! We do take the woman's taste into account while we hurriedly start buying gifts for the groom's family! Because they should not have agency of their own and a woman with significant male exposure/experience, that will give her power to judge men is a …
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy24/09/20 01:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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