TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

super_common_name Archive

View 2 posts and 48 comments by super_common_name 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)
12

Activism/Supportsuper_common_name/r/MensRights19/06/20 01:08 AM
11

Progresssuper_common_name/r/MensRights01/07/20 04:41 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

That's fucked up but dude, how many children do you have? My niece makes a bit less than you and is in a different state but she only pays $250 per month for 2 kids. You're paying $1151.32 per month? That would be 4 or 5 kids in my state.
/r/MensRights05/07/20 05:20 AM
1

How old were you? What's wrong with wanting a relationship with a woman? Did you end up having a relationship?
/r/MensRights21/06/20 06:09 PM
1

I think feminists are working toward 30% representation, not 50%. And I know feminists worked to to get dirty/dangerous/physically demanding work. That used to be more reported on in the 1970s when women were first entering those fields. As I've said, feminists think the draft should apply to women as well as men. And feminists worked to be allowed into the military. I don't think they're silent about nursing and teaching, either. One of my male family members is a nurse and he's shared his expe…
/r/MensRights21/06/20 05:43 PM
1

The hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights20/06/20 09:00 PM
1

I know you think we just irrationally hate feminism around here. It's hard to describe what I think. I see that the pain is real, but I can't see what sparked it. ​ Feminism's long term agenda is to empower %1'er men (and the female worker-harems that work in their companies) above %99'er men. I have not heard of this feminist agenda. I wonder what the strategy is, or why they don't just all become 1%ers on their own so they can choose any man they want. ​ It's not an ideology by women for women…
/r/MensRights20/06/20 05:59 AM
0

I don't know of those studies but that doesn't have much to do with the Duluth model.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 02:27 AM
1

No, you're right, you didn't. I guess I just wanted to make it clear that the rider wasn't a feminist initiative. I agree that if something like that were added, the ERA would lose my support.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 01:46 AM
1

Okay, then.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 01:45 AM
0

I mean, should they be exempt from work that's difficult, draining, and dangerous? I don't think so. I think anyone who is/was in the military is a "real" soldier, but of course I understand that those who took on those duties had much harder jobs.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 01:41 AM
1

I didn't mean to lecture you. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Feminists wrote the ERA and have worked incredibly hard to get it passed and propogated the Duluth model, a set of standards that make it dangerous for men to call the police to this very day. I don't know why you crossed out the part about the ERA. It's true. The Duluth model is 40 years old, created when not much was known about interpersonal violence. Since then, the woman who created it has denounced it. The ide…
/r/MensRights20/06/20 01:37 AM
0

But women aren't barred from those jobs. They're barred from combat duty. Also, I don't see how being subject to the draft confers any more honor than just enlisting. Women can already enlist.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 12:19 AM
0

I'm curious why you think it's in name only. Feminists wrote the ERA and have worked incredibly hard to get it passed. Do you really think they don't know what its implications are? Also, anti-feminists have worked very hard to kill the amendment. Do you think they are so short-sighted that they don't realize what it will achieve?
/r/MensRights19/06/20 08:21 PM
-1

Idk. Feminists are the ones who keep pushing the US military for more opportunities, including combat duty.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 08:08 PM
-1

No, they've never passed an ERA. VAWA is completely different and narrowly defined. I'm not even sure VAWA is still in effect. I think the point of the ERA is that we can stop passing nickel-and-dime laws about equality. Just add an amendment that makes it clear once and for all. The ERA benefits men as well as women. It supports a lot of the things that MRAs believe in, like an equal draft. Most of the responses here have been pro-ERA because it really is pro-men's rights.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 08:05 PM
0

The Hayden rider was completely ridiculous and not at all supported by feminists. It was dropped about 50 years ago with language that makes it virtually impossible to add anything like it back.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:59 PM
-4

At least you're acknowledging that feminists do support equality. I think they're pretty clear on the responsibilities that go along with that.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 06:32 AM
-2

I don't why you're saying that the feminist definition of equality is whatever women want. Feminists effectively opposed the Hayden rider, which completely contradicted the text of the amendment and has since been dropped. The ERA's definition of equality is pretty simple, and doesn't mention "women" at all. It applies to both men and women, so (for example) it would either end the draft for men or start the draft for women. (See below.) Congress can make laws to enforce that equality, but that …
/r/MensRights19/06/20 06:31 AM
1

The Hayden rider wasn't added by feminists. In fact, it was opposed by feminists. And my understanding is that it hasn't been part of the ERA since at least 1972. I'm not talking about 1958, I'm talking about 2020.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 06:16 AM
2

The original post has 1.3k comments. Your post has 17. Only 5 of those are NTA. Many of the comments on the original post are NTA or ESH. Even the YTA comments make it clear that the woman employee is guilty of sexual harassment. One point that was repeatedly made was that the company owner was an asshole for subjecting all his employees to her unsolicited nude photos simply because he wanted to "see how far it would go." If he hadn't said that, people would've overwhelmingly voted NTA. In other…
/r/MensRights10/07/19 08:36 AM
10

> In the UK sub the exact laws defining sexual assault was posted as a "refutation" What are the exact laws?
/r/MensRights12/12/18 11:12 AM
1

It wasn't banned. One radio station stopped playing it because listeners complained that it could be interpreted as anti-consent. Not because it's a man pressuring a woman — the song was always sung both ways — but because one person is pressuring another. An alternate interpretation is that consenting to sex is seen as shameful, so people pretend to not consent. Promoting the idea of saying no when you mean yes is considered just as harmful as promoting the idea of ignoring a no.
/r/MensRights12/12/18 10:16 AM
1

You asked if men have ever united against the other gender and promoted only paying their gender for services. I replied yes. That's the answer. All this other stuff you're dragging into the discussion now has nothing to do with the historical reality that the answer is indisputably yes. >and before that time most women were happy with having kids, staying at home and being "the caretaker." I'm not sure what you're basing that on. How do you know most women were happy being denied job opportunit…
/r/MensRights11/12/18 07:07 PM
0

I'm curious if ever in history men have ever united against the other gender and promoted only paying their gender for services. Well... yeah. Most jobs weren't open to women until the 1960s. The work that existed for women was usually low-pay. Realistic career choices for women were nursing, teaching, bookkeeping, or secretarial work. It was almost impossible to become a doctor, accountant, or executive. And teaching positions for women were almost always grade school, high school, or women's c…
/r/MensRights11/12/18 10:09 AM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights14/10/18 04:29 AM
-2

Fox news readers do.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 08:13 PM
1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/07/female-coach-boys-team-faces-felony-sex-charges-report-says.html
/r/MensRights28/04/18 07:40 PM
2

I commented on this post to support the people here, particularly any male survivors of sexual abuse who might be reading this sub. That shouldn't inspire insults. There's a narrative that feminist=bad and it seems that some people will cling to that narrative despite any evidence to the contrary. I fail to see how that's constructive. Especially when there's real work to do, like preventing people from sexually abusing boys and letting survivors know that it's okay to come forward.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 09:47 PM
1

I still have no idea what you're talking about. There isn't even enough info in your comment for me to create a Google search for what you're talking about. I'm not being hypocritical or dishonest. I am an ally for male victims. And I'm a feminist. You can choose to believe that feminism is what your narrative claims it is, but that doesn't change the fact that all the feminists I know are allies for male abuse survivors.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 07:55 AM
1

There's a body of feminist thought that is fairly well-defined, established, and visible. Then there are the fringes: a tiny subset of people, or a body of thought that exists for a brief period, or people whose feminism is not the force behind whatever action is being criticized. I'm telling you what MY experiences are.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 07:51 AM
1

First, he said blood was on their hands. How can it be on their hands if nobody else created shelters for men? Nobody else even created shelters at all. The whole idea of shelters is a feminist idea. If there's blood on anyone's hands it's on the people who did nothing while feminists at least got started doing something concrete. Second, you can be disingenuous all you want but there are real-world logistics to overcome in order to have both men and women in the same shelter. And shelters alrea…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 07:47 AM
1

See, this kind of partial story without any sources or details... I hate this stuff. If you want to explain what you're talking about, explain it. Otherwise why bring it up?
/r/MensRights07/04/18 07:41 AM
1

I know of a lot of people who would name call, but I don't associate with them. I don't know any feminists who would and I haven't read any feminist writing that would support that. Again, there may be fringes. There may be mentally ill people who call themselves feminists and have a whole host of other problems going on that cause them to lash out. But saying that feminists would do that is like saying that Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarians commit genocide. Genocide is not part of vegetari…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 01:43 AM
1

I have had to deal with feminism for over 30 years. It's extremely hateful. There is no misconception there. Feminists blame men for everything and take no responsibility for their actions or the actions of their feminist "sisters". I've been an active member of feminist communities for over 50 years. You can find fringes or short-lived movements that deserve criticism, but the commonly-accepted tenets of feminism are not hateful. First problem is that it is used as a catch-all term with a defin…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 01:40 AM
1

I mean there were no shelters or services at all before feminists created them. If they hadn't created them, you still wouldn't have any shelters or services. They are always strapped for resources, and I'm not sure how much (if any) government funding they receive in the US. It has taken thousands of women decades to build the domestic violence resources they have now and it still isn't enough. You're in Canada, right? I'm in the US so I don't know anything about how funding works there, but I …
/r/MensRights07/04/18 12:59 AM
0

Why aren't you? Why isn't everyone? I believe in equal rights and equal opportunities. I don't think gender determines people's interests or skills. Look, feminists support almost everything you support. Circumcision. The draft. Abuse against men. Workplace safety. Birth control. I just don't get the hate.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:21 PM
1

Well, you have a primary source here. You can ignore it to fit a narrative if you want. And I' sure you can find fringe elements to support that narrative. But no feminist would call a male sexual abuse survivor names for coming forward.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:12 PM
2

I'm sorry, I got that wrong. She is legally required to tell the truth if asked, but as another commenter pointed out, she has about a billion options to avoid letting the father know about the pregnancy.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:09 PM
1

In the 1950s, iirc, abortion was illegal in all 50 states. But a lot of factors contributed to the low out of wedlock birthrate. Because of religious beliefs and social sanctions, more people either practiced abstinence or married young. Often, couples got married when they discovered a pregnancy so the child would be born in wedlock. Illegal abortions were available. Private adoptions were available, and those were shrouded in secrecy. Some births might not be recorded as out of wedlock -- wome…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:07 PM
3

Feminism isn't hateful, as my comment demonstrates. We just agreed on the topic of abused men. There's nothing hateful about that. I think you have a misconception of feminism -- I'm an ordinary mainstream feminist, as are almost all of my friends. This is what we believe: the same thing you believe. As I used the term "patriarchy" it means that men who come forward about sexual abuse are made fun of, insulted, or disbelieved. All because the sexual abuse of men doesn't fit the stereotype that a…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 10:10 PM
1

I'm a feminist. I'm also a normal person. I think the patriarchy is what has prevented men from coming forward about abuse. Some men have lived with the painful effects of abuse their entire lives without being able to tell anyone and without being able to heal. That's horrible and I'm glad that's changing. Nothing about this threatens women's privilege. It threatens abusers with exposure and consequences, and hopefully it prevents more abuse. Men who come forward are very brave. They're changin…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:38 PM
2

That's not a feminist reaction. That's an anti-feminist reaction. Every feminist I know (including myself) would tell him that he's brave for coming forward.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:33 PM
2

I'm a feminist. On the one hand, I think it's a little weird that he's filed 27 unrelated lawsuits in 8 years and that he's suing for so much money (more, I think, than is usual in cases like these). On the other hand, his story sounds extremely plausible and two other men (presumably men who don't know him) have come forward with similar accusations. I think it's very difficult for men to come forward about abuse, especially sexual abuse. I'm glad that more men are starting to be open about wha…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:32 PM
2

You're calling my source bullshit or what? Other sources on the internet say the same thing. I'm not sure why you're calling it bullshit.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:22 PM
1

I want to make sure I understand your proposed solution. Are you saying that the government should stop paying child support? And that non-custodial parents should only pay child support voluntarily? And the idea is that will result in fewer pregnancies, more abortions, and more adoptions? For the children who still need support, charities, families, and friends can help? That would definitely solve the problem of men having to pay child support when they never wanted to become fathers. I see a …
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:14 PM
2

Laura Loomis is an alt-right anti-feminist. She posts anti-feminist statements on Twitter. The people questioning the shooter's gender are alt-right, TERFs, and right-wingers all on the fringes of society. They're also posting other false narratives, like that Nasim was Muslim, etc. No reliable media outlet is taking them seriously. This is an example of feminism like a catfish is an example of a cat.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 06:44 AM
5

If a woman wants to place her child for adoption, the father does have the right to sole custody of the child. In that case, she might be required to pay child support. Women who want to place a child for adoption must make every effort to inform the father of his paternity and her plans (unless doing so will endanger her). It's also illegal to lie if the father asks directly if you're pregnant and if he is the father. http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/parental-rights-unmarried-fathers-and-ado…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 05:50 AM
6

Forcing a man to be a parent is crazy. Which is why we should all work to preserve abortion rights (which are dwindling in many states). We should also fight to make sure that birth control is covered by insurance, including employer-provided insurance plans (like Hobby Lobby). We should advocate for adequate sex education in high schools. We should make birth control available and accessible. We should support the development of chemical birth control for men (like the pill or the patch). Men w…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 05:47 AM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights09/03/18 06:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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