TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tayto Archive

View 1 post and 75 comments by tayto 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)
11

tayto/r/MensRights15/06/11 04:55 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Due process while not criticizing the accusers. Voice concern. Take steps to make sure the accused cannot continue what he/she is accused of. Listen to accusers.
/r/MensRights16/08/19 07:33 PM
1

If nothing comes up in an investigation, then he will still be confirmed before the midterms. The only way he isn’t on the SC is if there’s something illicit here. I really don’t get the freakout of a conspiracy theory. This senate is around through December anyway. Plenty of time, and this fear of taking more time sends a message that something is being hidden.
/r/MensRights20/09/18 02:18 PM
0

Basically, they defaulted on a loan. The house was foreclosed on. They asked for an extension to get the money. She denied them. OK, I looked it up myself. I see that she "granted an uncontested motion to have the case dismissed," which was favorable for them. Where are you getting that she denied them? If you think this is exclusively political, then why didn't she come out sooner? Heck, had she done this once Kennedy stepped down, it would have been easier to knock him out - Trump never would …
/r/MensRights19/09/18 09:54 PM
1

But what is the Kananaugh mom story? I saw that some were saying this was her revenge. If that story was false, I think that's a pretty good example of some of the issues she's faced (i.e. people digging up her family's history).
/r/MensRights19/09/18 08:16 PM
3

Her parents lost a lawsuit with Kavanaugh’s mother as the judge. You kinda left that out. Can you explain what exactly happened here? I have seen different reports.
/r/MensRights19/09/18 08:09 PM
5

I disagree with bucknakid14's "accustomed to a certain lifestyle," but I do understand that one spouse staying home may have helped progress the career for the other, or staying at home may have stunted their own career. If the decision for one spouse to stay home was made as a family, then I do think financial support is justified, but not to the level of which one was accustomed.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:50 PM
1

Considering most people are in college four years, and the claim is "by the time they finish college," and there are cases for under-reporting, the probability is pretty damn good. I'm not saying 1 in 4 is correct, but this is not an accurate statistical comparison.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 10:49 PM
1

Personally, I see multiculturalism the same as evolution. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. Languages and customs are lost, and new traditions are formed. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop nature. However, I am fascinated by what will happen in Scandinavia from a social welfare perspective. With low population growth (if any), and booming refugee populations, massive changes to social policy will follow. Scandinavia will be able to learn from what the US, UK, France, and …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:01 PM
2

So more of a question than a claim, but doesn't a good portion of this gap make sense given the logic behind the wage gap? When you consider the relatively high paying professions where a college degree is not required, men dominate those fields. Whereas when you consider the relatively low paying jobs that do require a college degree (e.g. social work, teaching, public health), women often dominate those fields. It would seem to me that the balance of our currently-common gender roles would lea…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:50 PM
4

No, this has to do with it being a housing collapse and the predominantly male construction jobs were the ones let go. Women eventually caught up, as this became a wider economic crisis.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:13 PM
1

I think I can agree with you on nearly everything you said except for this part: I'm sorry to say that this idea about 'having a diverse pool of potential employees' seems silly to me; I don't see any reason why having a wider range of talent in which you can select employees would ever be anything but helpful. Never once in my life have I every wanted fewer options for something. Your proposals for motivation are great, but they cannot work in every case. First off, it depends on who you manage…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:17 PM
1

First of all, the one thing I want to stress here is that when I talk about diversity, I am talking about diversity of logic, approach, communication, and experience. Gender, race, religion, SES, or whatever may play roles into this but you can potentially get this diversity from a group of Hispanic, Mormon, Homosexual, Poor, Females. However, it would only benefit you to push interest of the field to Hispanic, Mormon, Homosexual, Poor, Males as well. Mathematics/logic is my field (statistics by…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 03:33 PM
1

And from a manager's perspective, the more diverse your potential employee pool, the better the team you will have.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:32 PM
1

I completely understand your point that in specific right/wrong scenarios, backgrounds won't matter, but different backgrounds might help the team get to that right scenario more often. In any role, there are the assignment of projects, ways to escalate issues, documentation, dealing with clients or users, and many other issues not immediately related to why you are paid to do what you do. It is these areas where a diverse workforce is most helpful. You need people to think outside the box and c…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:37 AM
1

Having different points of view (perhaps due to gender or ethnicity) are a positive for any organization or profession. This is why male or female dominated fields should seek the other gender. What cannot happen is that they hire people on gender over quality. I fully support seeking out a diverse workforce, but not sacrificing quality.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 07:44 AM
2

If the individual cops involved don't want to press charges, then there is no story here. If they want to press charges are scared of the humiliation or they are being pressured by the department to stay quiet, then there is a major issue. Personally, I find it horribly distasteful what these women did, and if I were the victim I might want to press charges, but if the cops do not consider themselves victimized, then these women are just fortunate they assaulted the right guys. I think the bigge…
/r/MensRights06/07/12 06:48 PM
1

It depends what you mean by profiling. If you are referring to the Driving-While-Black version of profiling, then I would agree whole-heartedly that this is racist. However, if you are talking about a case where shots are fired and ten people are running from the same location, a cop must make a decision based on the little information he or she knows - this would not at all be racist in my mind. There is also the difference of labeling street crime as racist and labeling the institutional actio…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 05:05 PM
1

I think I agree with most of what you said, but I did want to point out the area I called out in my previous post that links to your post: tayto: Where this would become even more difficult is if a gypsy would not target their own race out of decreased odds of success, should this be considered racist? ArchangelleVader: Criminal black Americans who disproportionally target Whites are racist too. Your point is that grey area where I feel intent should be the judge as opposed to the simple fact of…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 04:19 PM
1

While it was philosophical to begin with, we are getting much more into that territory now. If you replace gypsy with any race, I would be inclined to say that yes, this is racist. Gypsies are a bit difficult, though, because there are non-gypsies who are of the same race as gypsies. The question you are asking in this instance is more cultural than racial, so if a gypsy is willing to target someone of the same race who is not a gypsy, then I would not consider it racist. Where this would become…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 03:36 PM
1

If the gypsy is attacking the white person because he or she is white, then yes.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 03:23 PM
1

Yes, as I said, "This a joke taking it to the extreme that a father would not know how to put a onesie on." The joke intended is not to call the dad stupid, but to say that he has no idea how to be a father. This does not make the situation any better, but it is not a blanket "men (or dads) are stupid joke.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 09:49 PM
1

No, they are two entirely different notions/myths. One is that all men are like Peter Griffin, and the other is that all men are like Don Draper (regarding fathering). One is stupid, and the other is not involved.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 09:30 PM
0

it perpetuates the notion that men are too stupid to perform basic tasks in rearing a child, and that it's acceptable to assume so. I don't think that is the notion perpetuated here. It's more the notion that men are (read: were) so rarely involved in the rearing of the child that they didn't know what was typically done. This a joke taking it to the extreme that a father would not know how to put a onesie on.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 08:38 PM
1

As one who has done research, nothing bugs me more than either the belittling of a study or the refusal to accept the validity of the study based on the slant or bias of the research. Of course scientists out to prove climate change have the best studies out there proving that climate change exists. You need to take each study as it's own individual effort, and make your determination. This seems like a pretty good study and it may have applications to the real business world. I welcome this stu…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 07:11 AM
1

Then aren't you derailing the discussion for your own purpose? That is the whole point of these research studies - to find out how you can apply it to your situation. Are you so naive to think the point of the study was how to run math competitions? Do you also think that years of studies have been focused on how to make a mouse run a maze quickly? For business I don't care how one chooses their employees as long as they do not violate the laws to do so. And this study gives me an idea of how to…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 06:17 AM
1

And I am telling you that my point all evening has been that this needs to be studied further in how it applies to hiring. The hatred for this study has been extremely foolish.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 06:10 AM
1

My whole point in this thread has been wanting this study to go further into hiring practices. In hiring, I want to boost competition, as I want more qualified candidates to apply. This study offers some great ideas as to how to do that, yet we have some ignorant people writing it off.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 05:54 AM
1

No, you are misunderstanding. The study is about a math competition. It's not talking about jobs at all. It just lends credence to more studies in the field of hiring. And that's all I have been saying all along. Let's take this study from some bullshit math competition to the real world. Again, my bottom line is the issue, and whatever it takes to get the best employee, I am going to try to do it.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 05:50 AM
1

You seem to be the one missing the point here. Let's say we have five men rating (on paper) 96, 93, 92, 90, 89 and four women rating 98, 91, 89, 85. If I say that my last few interviews will be 50/50 male/female, then what this means is that I have a final six rated 98(F), 96(M), 93(M), 92(M), 91(F), and 89(F) to interview. If I had not made this guarantee, according to the study, the 98(F) or 89(F) may never have applied. I now have very qualified candidates to interview. If one of the males wi…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 05:42 AM
1

So this is all I have been saying all along. If promising X of the last Y candidates will be women, hispanic, American, men, etc, gets me more applicants, that's all I want. This specific study gives every reason to think that this is possible and would still leave you with at least the same quality employee. It only took about a dozen posts, but we came to the same conclusion that the study itself is not sexist, and can lead to real progress in quality of employee.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 05:27 AM
0

If the authors and researchers stated what you are claiming, I would be with you, but this article was pretty damn unbiased. I'm not sure what so many people are finding offensive. So now it's a question of how to use this information in a good, fair way.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 12:59 AM
0

OK, I am confused that you are not OK with 50/50 when you said "Having a gender equal amount of judges is completely acceptable." Perhaps I am misreading your statement, but I am not seeing how the two are compatible. As for "the best should win," that's exactly what I am saying here. I am going to hire the best person for the job, and if agreeing to have phone interviews with as many women as men helps increase the quality of female candidates, I am definitely up for that. Similarly, if I would…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 12:45 AM
0

You are confusing applicants with hires. I probably end up hiring roughly the same proportion of Asians/Indians as I interview. I just want to increase the number of non-Asian/Indian applicants. The best person is going to be hired for the job, so any effort to increase the number of applicants from an area of need should not be an issue.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 12:45 AM
0

First things first, the study never said what this quota was. If this quota was 50%, are you saying that you would be okay with that?
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:37 PM
1

One of the cases used in the study was that there would be a quota system so "that a certain proportion of the winners be female." I think this is the exact same case. The ultimate champion is yet to be determined, but there is a quota system to get into the next round.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:22 PM
1

What do you mean it's not a similar case? What cases are you comparing?
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:06 PM
1

Do you consider it preferential treatment to say that in a role where you have one person to hire, you will have a phone interview with five Asian applicants and five non-Asian applicants? If this were to significantly increase the number of non-Asian applicants I receive, I would want to do that in a heartbeat. If I had a specific position where a woman, a Mexican, or an economics major would be preferential to their male, Brazilian, or stats major counterpart, then I would love to do whatever …
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:43 PM
-2

It's perfectly fine to have an ideological bias as long as it doesn't impact the study. As I stated elsewhere, it was basically environmentalists who discovered fracking (in theory). Their ideological bias did not impact their research. Again, I don't see what your problem is with the article. The study has some potentially awful applications, but it also has some great ones. Why can't you take it at that as opposed to inferring something that's not there.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:28 PM
-1

And I just wish the conversations on this particular post were more along those lines as opposed to some people who didn't even seem to read the article. There are women under-represented in some fields, as there are men under-represented in others. I see no issue in trying to do a better job of advertising to one gender as long as the end product does not sacrifice quality. For example, I think there needs to be a major increase in the number of men driven to teach primary education, and if the…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:26 PM
-5

OK, so you want to change your argument from this "should" concept that you invented to now claim that there is bias in the study? That is certainly possible, and a completely different conversation, but unfortunately from the small blurb linked, we have no reason to claim or deny such bias.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:19 PM
-1

So, yes, you are inferring the should. The reasons behind the study don't matter at all as long as the bias did not impact the results. Links to an early environmentalists' studies can be made to the invention of fracking. Opinions on fracking aside, had the oil industry just ignored the study, they would be much worse off. My whole point is that there is nothing linked in this study that should be hated on this site. It is only the potential application that would change things. I would love to…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:16 PM
0

Indians and other Asians are exactly what I was thinking about when reading this study. I work in statistics, so my applicants are overwhelmingly male, Indian, and Asian. It's market research, so while diversity does help, being familiar with American culture might outweigh statistical/programming capability. This is true not only in the work itself, but also in working with clients. Thus, I would love to see my applicant pool increase to more American-raised men and women. If I need to guarante…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:11 PM
-3

You are completely inferring the "should." I don't doubt that some people will take this study and claim what you are stating, but nothing linked states that.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:06 PM
-5

Please provide a quote from the article that equates to "This is awesome, fuck yeah helping women, fighting discrimination and misogyny!" The closest I found was the last line, which is nowhere near close: "Balfoutas and Sutter have effectively provided a better understanding of gender-based affirmative action, opening up the possibility of broader experiments. " Personally, I like to attack sexism when it exists, but that's not here. This was simply a summary of a study, and if it can be repeat…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:03 PM
-6

Where are you seeing "should" in any of this? The study is simply saying, if A then B. If there were an opinion added about how this knowledge should be applied, I could understand criticism if someone disagreed with the opinion, but this is simply stating the results of the study. Get it?
/r/MensRights03/02/12 09:54 PM
-5

Why are people jumping at the conclusion of a study? I think the study has a lot of merit, and just because the research was done based on gender, the application of the lesson has many possibilities. As someone who has done a lot of hiring in the past, I want more applicants for every opening. My final decision will always be based on the best applicant, but if another dozen people apply because I promised econ majors an automatic phone interview, then maybe that's worth the sacrifice of my tim…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:25 PM
-5

Its the math that suffers. Not according to the study. The point of the study was that the increase in participants led to more qualified participants and that the results were not sacrificed. It's not a terrible idea for all under-represented groups in different fields, but of course this is a band-aid solution for a bigger problem.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:21 PM
3

The funny part is that if a parent accepts a sleepover without knowing anything about who will be there or the situation of the evening, we have enough information on the parent right there. What kind of parent would do that?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 10:32 PM
2

In NY, $1200 could easily be four dinners at places not even close to the top tier.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 07:12 AM
1

That said, when I visit the bathrooms of a male-only household versus female-only household, with rare exception, the female-only household has a cleaner bathroom.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 02:10 PM
1

But in the case that they aren't, it's simply an unreliable. Potentially unreliable, sure. The female rates are backed up by many studies available online, and the male rates are higher than typically reported, but I would not consider these numbers gospel. I would however, believe that they are much closer to the truth than the OP's misleading comparison. Even then it doesn't even take into account that a person in prison is likely to be raped multiple times so we're not speaking about the numb…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:08 AM
1

I was not involved in those studies, so I cannot say the exact source. A quick look around the web seems to have 2%-3% for men and 15%-25% for women. My assumption on the stats stated in the SANE course would be that the numbers are based on medical examinations, police investigations, psychological evaluations, and research studies. Given that the majority of rapes never even get reported, I would not worry about testimony having a significant impact on the overall estimates.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 04:45 AM
1

I'm not sure I follow your point here. Your reports are going after male/female aggressors. The post is about victims regardless of aggressor.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 04:37 AM
2

rapes of women reported to police You are taking estimates of men raped and putting them up against police reports of women raped. The latest numbers presented in my wife's Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner course was that 5% of American men over 18 and 20% of women over 18 have been raped. The under-reporting of rape is a massive problem for both men and women. Men need to be less embarrassed by the crime, and women need to be more willing to come forward when it is a known acquaintance that raped …
/r/MensRights02/06/11 03:54 AM
3

Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42 percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men. If you look to the data, this only true of one age group: 20-29 years old. Otherwise, men are the majority of perpetrators. In reality, the numbers are pretty meaningless, as: You would need to know the population of each segment with children in their lives. Your interpretation of the data would lead one to believe that it is much more dangerous to leave your child with a man under 20 th…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:08 PM
7

God Dammit! This is a perfect opportunity to bring attention and the current illogic to a serious situation. Unfortunately, the author makes several poor decisions which will likely annoy the average reader, and the female reader in particular. The use of "tag-teamed" and "dipped into" were pretty poor, as was blaming gossip tabloids for the situation. I hope a better writer gets going on this story asap.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 01:57 PM
1

Gotcha - so you are in the wrong subreddit. This is for men's rights - not men's revenge. All we want here is for the law to apply properly to men and to women.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 12:53 AM
1

How many articles beyond thetodayshow.com have you read on this matter? You cannot make assumptions based on what an article does not say. Equality is not about revenge or making two wrongs. All appears to be going well in this case.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 12:35 AM
0

So it is routinely requested, but not always. Was it requested in this case?
/r/MensRights20/11/10 12:24 AM
1

Can you find a link stating that the restraining order is mandatory for DV in Indiana? If so, then one likely exists in this case.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 12:05 AM
1

The victim has not filed for a restraining order (to my knowledge), so why would there be one? She has been charged with the crime. This is exactly how the law she go forth, and exactly what should happen if the aggressor were male and victim female.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 11:49 PM
1

Moral duty? Yes. Legal duty? Not to my knowledge.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 10:34 PM
0

Isn't the Sheen case an issue of his wife pressing charges initially? I think Warren Moon had the same issue. In this specific case, the cops were not called by anyone present, so why would she be charged until the tape aired? Once it aired, the local police learned of the incident and went forward. There is no excuse here - the law is working as it should.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 10:34 PM
-4

Is that not the responsibility of the victim? I am honestly asking here - I would have thought her husband/boyfriend would have to press charges. If he tried all he could, then I am with you. If he didn't do anything, then I don't think anything could have been done. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 08:41 PM
11

then air it on MTV (with no one objecting) I didn't watch the show, but recall people on here stating that there was a warning at the beginning of the program to say it included domestic violence. Also, I don't understand why this subreddit was so against it being shown. If anything, this was a victory to publicize that domestic abuse goes both ways.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 08:07 PM
52

This is complete bullshit that MTV will show this. Can't disagree more. It is great that MTV shows this. The stigma of the emasculation of female spousal abuse needs to stop, and putting this blatantly in people's faces will help. Girls all over the country are watching this show, and they are seeing the side of abuse that many may not have previously considered. I believe the only difference between this and MTV airing the reverse is that there would have been a warning at the beginning of the …
/r/MensRights30/09/10 09:06 PM
7

“Well you are going to grow up to be a man, so you need to start acting like one.” What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I question the post entirely if this guy thinks that there is a specific way a man is supposed to act.
/r/MensRights30/08/10 04:48 AM
5

I've read several stories of kids sending photos of themselves to a girlfriend or boyfriend over a phone and being convicted of sending child pornography I think you mean "charged." After a recent WSJ article, I looked this up and was unable to find any cases of a minor sending their own photo and being convicted of a child pornography crime. If it was sent to someone over 18 and they sent it on to someone else, that has resulted in convictions. The article is from Thursday's WSJ I believe. The …
/r/MensRights28/08/10 03:48 PM
12

My wife is heavily involved in the fight for reproductive rights. This is primarily (though not exclusively) a female issue, and hence it is branded with the feminist label (justifiably so). Now, when you say that men are not the oppressors, in regards to female reproductive rights, that is historically false. The overwhelmingly male doctors, religious leaders, and politicians have shaped the policies and opinion in place today. So perhaps you want to re-brand what defines someone as a feminist,…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 02:53 PM
6

A friend's dad left her mom the same week my friend went to college. They had simply fallen out of love and were not even friends anymore. I don't think he saw her as a wallet or a babysitter - he just wanted to fulfill the family unit until his youngest child went to college. As long as the parents' relationship issues don't impact the children, I don't see what's wrong with staying in such a marriage.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 11:56 PM
3

What stance did the authoress take? Her only opinion in the article is "There may be a reason chivalry is dead." The headline would have been written by someone else.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 05:31 PM
11

I had to buy her 3 rings in total You lost me with "had to." This sounds as though there was a formal contract in place where she would not agree to marriage without these three rings...thus a partnership, as opposed to a marriage.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 03:05 PM
1

Agreed. This would just seem to be a waste of taxpayer's money. I do support the publicity, as this woman's name and picture should be shared (at least in the Metro-Phoenix area). I just don't understand how this has anything to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 02:57 PM
7

I understand the self-preservation logic. I employ it when I see a car broken down on the open highway in Mexico. I'd love to help, but the risk is too high. In this case, with it happening right at the front door of Trader Joe's with cameras likely on the door, I have no fear. Sure, there is an element of risk, but it would take the worst combination of luck on the face of the earth for me to get in trouble. Now, if the kid were standing outside my front door and I had him wait inside, that's i…
/r/MensRights01/03/10 06:22 PM
13

I can appreciate your logic for doing this, but I do the exact opposite. I have found that women are also looking to avoid getting involved in this situation, so I keep an eye on the kid. This has happened maybe 10 times in the past three years or so. In all but two cases, an adult or older sibling has come around a corner within a minute to say, "there you are" or something of the sort. In one case, I alerted the old guy at the information desk of the mall, as the kid was sitting alone by a fou…
/r/MensRights01/03/10 05:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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