TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

reese_ridley Archive

View 0 posts and 60 comments by reese_ridley 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)
5

So brave.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:44 AM
1

there isn't a bias against minorities or women anywhere in academia Holy shit, you actually believe this. You need to get off the internet and go talk to someone, because you're so far detached from reality it's scary. Why do you think the Review has always been 90% male, then? Are men just naturally better candidates?
/r/MensRights25/02/13 03:40 PM
0

People with ginger hair haven't consistently been graded down by the highly secretive Review application process. I don't know how I can be more clear about this; literally anyone associated with Harvard law will tell you how biased the system is.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:51 PM
1

"Applicants with white names need to send out an average of ten resumes to get a response, applicants with black names need to send an average of fifteen" "A white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience." http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf?new_window=1
/r/MensRights24/02/13 05:47 PM
0

historically biased for women I'm talking about the Review here. Quit mindlessly disagreeing with me and actually read what I'm saying.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 02:34 PM
-2

perceived sexism Right, so the reason that the review was has been 80% male for the past 20 years is just because men are better?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 02:28 PM
0

men are the have-nots. At Harvard law. Right. Ok, now you just have no idea what you're talking about. Don't try and make this into a larger issue than it is. Literally EVERYONE at Harvard will tell you that the system is heavily stacked, but you're trying to rationalize the situation in simplistic black-and-white terms that really don't apply here. Finally, you should use this as a learning opportunity. Real mature.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 01:50 PM
-1

People thought this beforehand and will continue to think it in the future. There's an urban legend that the reason Hillary Clinton chose Yale over Harvard was because a Harvard professor approached her at a recruitment event and said "you should be ashamed of yourself, you're taking the spot of a man who deserves it more." Hillary fucking Clinton!
/r/MensRights23/02/13 10:10 PM
0

The problem is that the selection bias has been historically biased against women, any way you swing it. It's great to talk about a perfectly objective system judging solely on merit, but the reality is that Harvard is kind of an old boys' club and that women have been consistently graded down in the application process. AA isn't always a perfect solution- sometimes it's even a downright terrible solution- but it's absolutely necessary in this context, and I feel like /r/mensrights is kind of op…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 09:50 PM
1

Jesus christ. I'm not even a feminist, I'm an MRA who thinks it's embarrassing that most of you are assuming that any woman who makes it to the review on this system is an inferior choice. I'm also a Harvard student who's astounded at how densely some of you are approaching this issue.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 09:29 PM
1

Ok, I couldn't find a source that explicitly says "the process is not anonymous." It's kind of tough to search for. Look, I've seen the application format, but I don't know how I can convince you here.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:48 PM
1

That's for submitting a piece, not applying to be an editor. Nice try though.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:46 PM
1

Source? Um, I go to Harvard. Would you like me to link a source?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:22 PM
2

Nope, first name and gender are right at the top. That's just plain wrong.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:14 PM
-1

It's not about poverty or education or anything like that. It's because women are less likely to be selected for the Review because of the fact that they're female. That's all.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:03 PM
0

Then why is affirmative action necessary if these black candidates can truly compete with everyone else? Because the process isn't perfectly objective, and minority candidates are often discriminated against.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:00 PM
-1

But the process itself isn't perfectly objective, and the best candidates aren't always chosen 100% on merit. The truth is that an application with John S. at the top is more likely to be chosen than one with Lashanda P, and AA attempts to correct that.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:58 PM
0

Not taking the most highly qualified people will lower the review quality. Again, you're assuming that the best minority candidates are less qualified. This just isn't true. The application process isn't perfectly objective, and the aim of affirmative action is to make sure that equally qualified women aren't passed over just because they're women.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:56 PM
-4

That's a false equivalency. The top 1% of the top 1% of high schoolers who apply to Harvard are all equally qualified, affirmative action just makes sure that minorities within this elite group are fairly considered. There are black guys at Harvard who had worse grades than me and there are black guys who had better grades than me. Like I said, everyone who's here absolutely deserves it.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:51 PM
5

Dude, look. I think the 'patriarchy' is bullshit, I generally disagree with affirmative action, I tend to laugh at people who are overly PC, but even I'll admit that there's a bias against minorities at the very top of academia.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:45 PM
1

Selected by an anonymous group, not selected anonymously.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:34 PM
-8

Should be. The problem is that white men already have an advantage. An application with Lashanda P. at the top simply won't be as well received as one with John S. at the top, and there are tons of studies that confirm this.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:30 PM
0

You don't get accepted by simply 'being black.' Not a single person at Harvard doesn't deserve to be there.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:28 PM
2

The tests are submitted with a first name and last initial, like John S. or Sarah J.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:26 PM
-8

Affirmative action doesn't actually address the real problem - poverty. I completely agree with you, but I think you're confusing two issues. When it comes to money then yeah, race should not be considered. But when it comes to applying for a very, very exclusive position (like editing the Review) then it does make sense to "even the playing field" to make sure that equally qualified women aren't discriminated against.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:21 PM
0

Why would it be watered down? You're assuming that the Harvard Law Review will run out of equally qualified minority candidates and will have to start lowering its standards. Now, this might happen on a much broader scale, but the Review is opening up twelve spots. You don't think there are even twelve minority candidates available that won't lower the Review's quality? Shame on you.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:15 PM
2

In some contexts I might agree with you. But for the Harvard Fucking Law Review, you don't think there will be an equally qualified minority candidate? These people are the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. You're assuming a situation where they run out of qualified minorities. I'm not saying this doesn't happen ever, but there's what, twelve spots allocated?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:10 PM
-1

Harvard accepts 7% of its applicants. Do you really think that the top black candidates for acceptance are any less qualified than the top white candidates?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:07 PM
1

Eh, I think the idea that Harvard's undergrad program is "too politically correct" tends to be overstated.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:01 PM
-5

Harvard accepts 7% of its applicants. Do you really think that the top black candidates for acceptance are any less qualified than the top white candidates?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:56 PM
-7

It's not explicitly equal, though. Even if gender isn't supposed to be a criteria people still unconsciously base their decisions on it.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:55 PM
2

If it were entirely merit-based, then I'd agree with you. But the reality is that an application with Lashanda P. at the top is not going to be as well received as a more generic white name.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:51 PM
4

Alright guys, I'm going to weigh in here because this is actually a personal issue for me- my girlfriend and I are both Harvard undergrad, and she's hoping to be on the Review one day, so let me tell you why this is a good idea. I see a lot of posts on here complaining that affirmative action is unfair to white males. In the context of money, I tend to agree. There's no reason that a poor black person should be given more scholarship money than a poor white person. BUT, in the context of applica…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:49 PM
-4

Absolutely untrue. Not a single person at Harvard doesn't deserve to be there, whether they're a minority, a woman, a legacy, or whatever.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:24 PM
24

Whoops. How do you decide which subs to consider, then?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:57 AM
73

I'm pretty sure that the application process for SotD involves writing at least a coherent paragraph, so that seems unlikely.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:44 AM
4

It's funny you should say that, because I just got home (literally, like 5 minutes ago) from Harvard's annual masquerade ball- over 500 students and alumni went to this huge party, and the head of the student association which organized and sponsored the whole event was a girl named La'Keesha. Don't be so judgmental.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:35 AM
3

I'm the same age as your son, (well, 19) and my parents also divorced when I was younger. The thing I'm more grateful for than anything in the world is that my Dad did his utmost to maintain a civil relationship through the worst of their divorce so that us kids could grow up in a stable home; he kept their fights secret from us, settled everything out of court, and tried to make sure that our happiness was the top priority at all times. My Dad is an incredible person and you strike me in the sa…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:40 AM
2

Yup. Triple the suicide rate in almost any demographic. :(
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:23 AM
14

Pragmatically, you're absolutely correct. Morally, that's fucked up nine ways to Wednesday.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 06:20 AM
8

zealot zealot zealot
/r/MensRights20/11/12 02:26 PM
1

wow, you got told hard my friend
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:20 PM
9

I missed the comment, what's manhood 101?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:24 PM
7

It looks the AskMen OP was legit and somebody else might have made a test thread out of it, although I can't tell since it's been deleted
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:17 AM
87

The article kind of mashes two points together; one, that modern prison systems are ineffective in rehabilitating prisoners to adapt to society (which I agree with, btw) and two, that women somehow deserve special treatment because boo hoo hoo they're all victims of circumstance. For the fairer sex, prison isn't fair I'm sure Lizzie Borden would be delighted to hear that. Christ, what an idiotic stance to take.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:30 PM
6

not sure I get this reference, context?
/r/MensRights21/10/12 10:17 PM
-2

turrets syndrome
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:00 PM
0

OK, I'll admit I kind of made that one up. But I think we can assume that if it WAS a word, it would describe people who go around the internet telling strangers to check their privilege.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 04:21 AM
7

Atheism Plus: it's atheism plus anti-egalitarianism Atheism Plus: it's atheism plus misandry Atheism Plus: it's atheism plus gender and race apologists Atheism Plus: it's atheism plus die cis scum
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:22 PM
2

Yeah, your post makes it sound like you're quoting VA himself
/r/MensRights11/10/12 11:13 PM
2

wait, then where did you get that quote from VA? I'm confused now.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:34 PM
13

/r/subredditdrama has blacklisted Gawker, and I'm currently trying to get /r/justiceporn on board as well.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 06:50 PM
1

I know- I wasn't calling for moderator action with my original post, just for caution from everyone involved in this treacherous and very real situation. On a somewhat unrelated note, I think you guys are doing a fantastic job of handling this situation. It's always a bit crazy when internet drama spills over into real life and it's reassuring to see that there are people (everyone here on MR, SRD, Politics, etc) who'll stand up for reddit rules and common decency. Much respect.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:59 PM
1

oh no, I'm not trying to say that the whole thing is a hoax- I'm well aware that twenty-odd people were doxxed over this, and that's horrible. But the pm about why /u/CreeperComforts gave up the subreddit, the claims that SRS was involved, and the information on the assaulted redditor all came from one person, PIMA, who's a pretty well-known shit stirrer. It strikes me as suspicious, and I'd hate to see MensRights get distracted from the real issue at hand, the Gawker doxxing.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:22 PM
8

Guys, it's important to remember that the violentacrez and creepshots doxxings are two (as far as we can tell) separate instances, and while the VA drama is legitimately worrying, the stuff about creepshots is highly suspicious in that all of the information involved-every single update- has been provided by /u/POTATO_IN_MY_ANUS without once providing some sort of verification. Obviously, if a doxxed redditor was actually beaten up for posting on creepshots that would be a huge injustice but unt…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:07 PM
40

we thank you for your understanding. No, mods, we thank you for your understanding. You guys kick ass. Respect, y'all.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 03:05 AM
0

The second half of that is obviously true, YT's just fucking around like he did when he modded SRS into /r/circlejerk. But that definitely doesn't mean that SRS didn't have something to do with Gawker and VA getting doxxed.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:41 PM
8

It seems almost ridiculous that we should have to do that. The admins need to step in and put a lid on this, or some serious shit's going to go down.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:36 PM
17

because you're relatively new here, you might not know that /u/RobotAnna is widely considered to be one of the most horrible people ever to post on reddit. just a heads-up.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:24 PM
2

Interesting that in an article that seems to think men deserve to pay higher insurance premiums, not one statistic was quoted to support the claim that young men crash more than young women.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:55 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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