TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

theferrit32 Archive

View 0 posts and 37 comments by theferrit32 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)
2

It's illegal for an educational institution that receives any federal funding to deny benefits, ability to participate, or otherwise discriminate against people on the basis of sex. This explicitly grants an exemption to private schools which do not receive any federal funding. However, there are only a handful of these in the US, because the vast majority of schools receive federal funding, even private schools. So like 99.99% of schools in the US are required to comply with Title IX.
/r/MensRights05/10/19 05:29 AM
-4

It's not a "little" ridiculous, it is totally ridiculous and should really takeaway any credibility from that commenter. Your comparison to the caste system is also hyperbolic.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 01:33 PM
0

I don't see the logic in that argument. There's nothing wrong with multiple civil rights legal defense nonprofits existing. It doesn't at all imply that some of them have failed just because there's more than one. Also the ADF seems to be explicitly religious affiliated focused specifically on providing legal defense for Christians and Christian practices, so you must see how that is not the same as the ACLU at all, which seeks to not take openly biased stances like that.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 01:32 PM
10

They're not implying this is rare. They're implying this sort of quality, actually relevant post makes up a relatively small percentage of the posts on the subreddit.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 12:35 AM
-7

I mean I definitely disagree with this assessment. You might disagree with their stance one some issues but I wouldn't call that corruption. Definitely not more corrupt than police departments, many of which are among the most corrupt institutions in the US.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 12:34 AM
30

It ain't easy being ṿ̡͔̖͕̳̹̙̻̩͑́̀̂̍̉͆̚ǫ̶͈̬̼ͨ̔̑̽́̈̉͘iͩ͗d̠̘̪͒́̋, might as well let ṿ̡͔̖͕̳̹̙̻̩͑́̀̂̍̉͆̚ǫ̶͈̬̼ͨ̔̑̽́̈̉͘iͩ͗d̠̘̪͒́̋ sit in preferred seating
/r/MensRights20/08/19 03:29 PM
1

Being let off easy by the justice system doesn't mean she didn't commit rape.
/r/MensRights16/07/19 03:49 AM
-5

The US men's national soccer team does not bring in that revenue, yet they are paid as if they do. The US men's national team is paid far above their share of the revenue, since they generate less revenue than the women's team.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 02:41 AM
-4

It matters what "field" you're talking about. Among soccer teams, the US women's soccer teams brings in more revenue to the US soccer federation than the US men's soccer team. So why does the US soccer federation pay the men substantially more? I don't know why you think they need to be compared to other countries' teams incomes. It's not relevant to the US soccer federation and their revenue at all.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 12:19 AM
-12

The US men's soccer team doesn't win world cup games though, so your point about game bonuses is totally irrelevant. If they're truly paid based on revenue earned, the US men's team should be paid much less than other men's teams in other countries, but they aren't, they're mooching off the other countries' teams. The US women's team actually has a good case here.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 12:13 AM
-8

What? It already pays men more. Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit it would likely need to increase the women's pay. Whether or not that entails reducing men's pay depends on the finances of the organization.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 11:59 PM
-21

Yes, the overall market is important. So why are the players paid differently based on gender if they aren't paid differently based on what team they're on or how good their team is? What is the layer at which they're considered separate in terms of pay determinations? The US women's team brings in more revenue than the US men's team.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 11:45 PM
-6

I don't understand your point really. Obviously they agreed to the contract. Some contracts are illegal and therefore subject to lawsuits and being voided and possibly resulting in pay-outs to the employee. That's what this is about. Whether the US Soccer Federation can discriminate between its male and female players. There's a strong case to be made that it cannot.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 11:41 PM
6

In a lot of places, yes the age of consent is 16 or 17. Though it is always illegal for teachers to have relations with students, that is an abuse of a "position of authority" which is always an exception to the consent laws, making it statutory rape.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 07:03 PM
1

Yeah I agree. I understand his revulsion to to the idea but this is a more healthy option that attempting to be overly restrictive of a perfectly natural development process. I think he overreacted and should have been more graceful. For example asking her what she was doing and asking the mother if she was aware of this. However on the other hand, the mother should obviously have discussed this with the father. They are both the parents and should have discussed this sort of thing beforehand, w…
/r/MensRights02/05/19 05:20 AM
112

Seems like a possible scenario for a Title IX lawsuit or fines. Unless the student population at the school is 1:3 boys to girls, which I'm guessing is not the case.
/r/MensRights27/04/19 01:28 AM
50

A bulletin board with lots of javascript, cross-site tracking cookies, corporate and political shills, rampant bot abuse, and bad moderation practices.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 06:39 PM
21

There are definitely deaths from male circumcision, even when done cleanly in a hospital. When performing surgery there is always a nonzero chance of infection or complications. In the US alone there are between 200-300 infant deaths every year from complications from circumcision. I think the number of people dying from lack of circumcision is around 0, so that few hundred deaths a year seems like a big downside. It's pretty easy to find news articles on babies who died from circumcision just b…
/r/MensRights20/03/19 11:05 PM
15

The cultural norms which people now rationalize with the reasons you stated were religiously rooted for thousands of years. The reason it is still common in some areas is religious, primarily as a way to decrease sexual pleasure and sensation from masturbation, in order to discourage those. Even if some people come up with other post-rationalizations to explain why it is common in the US still, the reason it became common and entrenched as a tradition and norm in the US is fundamentally religiou…
/r/MensRights20/03/19 10:47 PM
30

whew that post did not age well
/r/MensRights13/03/19 06:46 PM
8

You know what else helps fight urinary tract infections? Take a couple antibiotic pills for 2-3 days and it goes away. Women get UTIs too and we don't advocate removing parts of their body to reduce the exposure surface area. There's no need to genital mutilation to fight UTIs, we have medicine for that and it is very effective and non intrusive.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 04:27 AM
5

Thousands of years of pro-circumcision proponents said it was done explicitly to discourage masturbation and sexual pleasure. It wasn't until the mid 1900s when the narrative shifted because it was around that time that people started to realize masturbation and sexual pleasure weren't things we need to enact social campaigns and policies to fight against.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 04:24 AM
9

Let's be honest here. No mentally sane 16 year old is going to get their penis sliced apart and have pieces removed voluntarily unless there's a serious medical condition that warrants that type of procedure. Which is the only sort of scenario it should be done in.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 04:21 AM
11

They should have been more clear with what they were saying. That the law in some places does not allow these to be classified as rape, but the in other places it does, and that the law in the places where it isn't classifiable as rape should be changed.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 03:52 PM
2

I'm watching this right now and am almost done. Really good documentary. During parts of it I became physically enraged though, my blood pressure shot up my face started twitching I was so sad and angry. These people just coming out and supporting genital mutilation. It's unbelievable. This needs to be legally banned. Education is necessary but legal ban is necessary as some apparently are just really into slicing up children's genitals and will keep doing it even after people try to educate the…
/r/MensRights18/02/19 04:24 AM
2

https://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/apo679/this_is_adorable/egaqsaw/?context=8&depth=9
/r/MensRights12/02/19 03:52 PM
14

We should rip their toenails out and seal the wounds so they don't grow back too then, those things are such a hassle. /s
/r/MensRights06/02/19 02:33 AM
18

"the black guys" were a fringe religious cult called the Black Hebrew Israelites which is classified as a hate group by the SPLC for its extreme forms of racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and religious bigotry. The kids were not the ones doing the taunting.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 07:07 PM
5

I think it depends massively on what the field of study is. I got a degree in computer science and it was hugely helpful after graduation. I forgot entirely about the general education courses I took though.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 10:23 PM
22

Thing is a lot of women do watch Youtube, like 45-50% of youtube viewers are women. So again it comes down the videos the viewers are choosing to view, unless the claim is that Youtube's "recommended" algorithm is overtly favoring content from male creators on the basis that they are male, which I think is unlikely, since Youtube is purely trying to increase advertiser slots by increasing views. There is zero incentive for them to ignore content that would increase advertiser slots. Given that v…
/r/MensRights11/12/18 06:13 PM
1

There is an explicit exception to the 16-17 range in the sexual consent law in the UK and the US (and other places) that applies to teachers and other caretakers or supervisors of minors. "It is an offence for a person aged 18 or over to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 if the older person holds a position of trust (for example a teacher or social worker) as such sexual activity is an abuse of the position of trust." https://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#age-cons…
/r/MensRights16/11/18 02:02 AM
5

I think this is not true. Teachers and others in a "position of trust" are not subject to the same age of consent laws, and can be charged with rape even if the other party is above the age of consent in normal circumstances.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 01:58 AM
12

Yes I think. In this context that is relevant. In theory, laws like those determining how alimony is applied and the values are set are created based on what society thinks is fair. It's a subjective issue. There isn't some universal truth to the dollar amount someone gets when they divorce a wealthy spouse.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 08:17 PM
24

I think 700k a month in alimony is outrageous, regardless of any possible context you could give. The rest of your post sounds a bit like victim blaming. It's great that you think you'd never fall into a situation like this, but arguing against protecting other people is a little silly.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 06:17 PM
16

She sent the pictures in texts... so add in a lawsuit, with possible criminal charges and civil monetary damages.
/r/PussyPass29/03/16 02:23 AM
2

I and my 3 male apartment mates have a couch in our living room. Sofas are for women, and I don't even know what the hell a chesterfield is.
/r/PussyPass27/03/15 09:46 PM
6

Central East Coast of the US here, never heard that term either, always called a weedwhacker. I say this as I drink a soda.
/r/PussyPass27/03/15 07:11 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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