TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

theguesser10 Archive

View 0 posts and 48 comments by theguesser10 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)
0

Dominates girls older than him. Girls that are bigger and stronger than him. His advantage came from having played a lot more before moving to the US, not from being a boy.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:02 AM
1

This is ridiculous. If the statistics say that women tent to choose less stressful careers, then that means they choose less stressful careers. Yes, it's completely possible that a big part of this is gender roles and is all taught and in our heads. If stressful careers tend to come with more money and power, then yes that's saying that women choose less money and power. But that is not saying they are second class citizens. By that logic, anyone not in a position of great money and power at the…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:24 PM
1

There is almost definitely still the result of sexism at these levels. These positions are still mostly held by older workers; workers from a time when women were still severely disadvantaged. We cannot retroactively affect these statistics though.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:12 PM
1

Pointing out all the flaws and telling you how they're wrong is exactly the wasted time I'm trying to save. Reassess your position and answer my second to last post.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 02:01 PM
1

Those who subscribe to ridiculous rad feminists theories are called out as not being feminists. And the best argument you can make against them is that they are not feminists but sexists.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:08 AM
2

Well that's a fair point, as long as we're talking about actual feminists. Simply put, if you believe in equal rights regardless of gender then you fit the definition of a feminist. Not to believe so would make you a bigot by most peoples' definition.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 03:48 AM
0

That would be radical feminism. Which is regarded as ridiculously by feminists as it is by others.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 02:40 AM
0

Well if it's trying to instate feminine privilege then it's not feminism, it's sexism.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:50 AM
0

The No Scotsman Fallacy states that you cannot apply an exception to the rule just because it suits your needs. I never applied an exception, I showed how your examples of "feminism" did not fit in the rule to begin with. This is the equivalent not of saying that's "no true Scotsman", but "that's no Englishman". "My" dictionary feminists are not practically non-existent, in fact they are by far the majority and if you are truly for womens' rights and equality then you are too, like it or not, a …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:40 AM
0

I can't believe I'm answering you again. fem·i·nism /ˈfeməˌnizəm/ Noun: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. No True Scotsman only applies in our case if the person in question advocates for equality to men. If they advocate for what you're claiming they do, then that is in no way anywhere close to equality.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:22 AM
-1

I'm done with this conversation. I'm just letting you know that I'm using your posts here as examples in another subreddit.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:10 AM
-1

You have not answered or responded to any one of my points. Nor do you seem to understand No True Scotsman. You can't say someone isn't a real Scotsman even though they're from Scotland because of some other factor. But you can say that someone isn't a feminist if they don't meet or agree with feminist ideals. What is so hard to understand about this for you? Are you a mens' rights advocate? Are you? Because either you are no true mens' rights advocate or the mens' rights movements are a joke. I…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:42 AM
2

Same here. Have notice how all these comments criticizing /r/mensrights are getting downvoted away?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:35 PM
4

I've spent the last two days non-stop trying to convince people here about this. I'm actually currently trying to gain control of the old empty subreddit r/genderissues, hopefully more level-headed people like you end up there.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:24 PM
0

No, I've been going by the dictionary definition this whole time. Calling oneself does not simply make oneself a feminist, what part of this don't you understand? You sit here saying that feminism is a brain washing man hating cult without so much as even bothering to look up what feminism actually means. What you are doing is stereotyping. Let's take a look at some of the comments in this post that are direct responses to someone who identifies as a feminist. That's where I stopped believing yo…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:11 PM
2

Even the definition that you provided says that feminism is no the be-all end-all equality movement. He never said it was, nor did he say it needed to be, nor does it need to be. It is simply an equality movement.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 10:59 PM
-1

And people like you who are defining them as feminists disagree with the dictionaries' definition? You don't think it's more likely that they aren't in fact feminists?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 10:06 PM
-1

According to whom exactly? You?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:54 PM
1

I see at least six major logical flaws in your post. I don't want to waste my time, so I'm going to give you this chance to reread mine, reread yours, and edit or repost. Keeping in mind, of course, that by this last post of yours you have agreed with me on what we were originally arguing about.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:44 PM
-1

This is not a No True Scotsman argument in any way, shape, or form. Feminism is clearly defined as: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Anything that does not adhere to this is not feminism. End of story. The "feminists" you're talking about don't appear to adhere to this definition, therefore they are not feminists.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 07:22 PM
-5

Honestly, I don't think that's true. Most of the people I've had run-ins with in this subreddit are just as far gone as rad feminists. And any time I've argued the point of reason with one of them my comments have been downvoted into oblivion. Then again it is Reddit, guess that's what you should expect eh? Definitely looking forward to a new subreddit for gender issues. Of course there are still some good links that come through but it's still unbelievable aggravating.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:36 PM
-1

You're supposed to believe rational, reasonable people who call themselves feminists. Academics, people who have studied history, sociology, psychology, or gender not people who shout loudly that all sex with men is a hate crime. It's easy to tell a true feminist because their beliefs and what they stand for are the same as what any rational person would stand for, including you. Real feminists would call you a feminist. And the true feminists are evidently not the ones online with which you've …
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:21 PM
1

I didn't say anything of the sort. Seriously, what's wrong with you?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:59 PM
-5

You're not going to find a much better community here.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:30 PM
-9

"I'm a feminist, but I hate feminists who degrade men" Then you're not a feminist, you're an egalitarian. This subreddit needs to get one thing straight. Feminists do not hate men. Radical feminists are the ones you are thinking of. True feminists hate them just as much as you do. I am fed up with this subreddit for perpetuating this childish lie. Feminists do not degrade men, and hating them does not make you feminist. Nor does it make you egalitarian. Real feminists are egalitarian, and you ca…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:40 PM
0

Nope, you never said anything regarding geographical location, and nope it doesn't make any difference to our conversation. Now I want to be very, very clear here. I am not responding to this for you, I am not answering you, I am not telling you anything for your benefit. I am writing this in hopes that others will see it and understand what I'm talking about, because you are already truly lost as I elaborate below. You want quotes from yourself? Well here they are: "A very small minority of fem…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:26 PM
0

In that way, they are not feminists. Figure of speech. As such, they are not feminists. There, happy? Wanting equality is not a radical notion in this day and age. Wanting all men who have sex to be declared as rapists is. Aaaand there it is - the classic bait and switch. We started off discussing discrimination against men in the US and ended up talking about discrimination against women in developing countries. This is not a bait and switch. Nowhere did either of us say anything regarding geog…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:12 AM
0

Anyone can call themselves a feminist. But to want equality for women means not bringing women above men, which is exactly what all these "feminists" you talk about are doing. In that way, they are not feminists, these are the radical feminists I'm talking about. You have to keep in mind that we're in the first world. All our problems and issues which we've dealt with haven't necessarily been dealt with in other parts of the world. Specifically what issues do your "actual" feminists concern them…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:45 PM
1

I spent half an hour gathering and formatting links arguing against IncorrectUser and reiterating my points, some of which I left in there as I felt they were the more important message I wanted to get across. Only if all or the vast majority of males were in that rich ruling elite. Since that was never the case, this claim is simply false. This is idiotic, truly idiotic. The ruling elite dictates the laws the rest must follow. If the ruling elite are all male then they may well make these laws …
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:37 PM
-6

He's stalking her and he already has a restraining order against him from her sister. Did YOU read the article? It's completely reasonable to suspect he could be dangerous. While it is easy to argue that none of this case should be made public until it's over, it's hardly an attempt at ruining his reputation.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:11 PM
2

That was a direct quote. You literally said than men have never been any more privileged than women. If that was misspoken then fine, though you might want to edit that.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:00 PM
-6

I'm just stating that her comment shows how she felt. It's actually a pretty good example of how being stalked feels. All it does is show he was stalking her, not that he was "raping her with his eyes". But it's also worth pointing out that "raping her with his eyes" is a colloquial term for him imagining raping her.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:48 PM
2

Men have never been any more privileged than women. This is what we're arguing about. You made this claim. Now you're going to sit her and tell me I'm wrong because I don't agree with a ridiculous absolute? You say I'm the one with the mentality of anything for women is against men. Yet here you are arguing that since I disagree with an absolute that we can see is wrong even in today's societies, I must be against men.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:36 PM
1

I spent about half an hour typing out a response to this, but you know what? No. Rich ruling elite does in every way count as a privileged male history. Those who make the rules can make them as they see fit and throughout history we have seen these rules treat certain groups unfairly time and time again. To think otherwise is idiotic. 2 It's posts like these that make people view /r/MensRights as a radical unfair group of whiners. In reality, true feminists don't wish or fight for the things mo…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:23 PM
-22

As I've said before, what that comment means is that she thinks he wants to rape her. He's also stalking her. Combined, those two constitute a completely sound case. This entire argument is taking her words out of context, adding a few more, rearranging them, and then calling her irrational. This needs to stop now.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:12 PM
-46

This means that she thinks he was eye-fucking her. Which made her uncomfortable given the circumstances of him stalking her. All this is is an elaboration of how he probably was actually stalking her, and not just running into her randomly. All this is is her talking about what she believes his intent was. This is not in any way a woman saying a man should be arrested for checking her out.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:24 PM
-51

She didn't say he raped her with his eyes, she said she FELT LIKE he was. Or in other words, she was creeped out by his stalking.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:14 PM
-1

Men have never been any more privileged than women. Okay, first of all, I think you should pay better attention in your history class. Notice how he has to start with "I'm all for women's rights and that's really important etc" I think this is a great thing to point out. It shows just how people's perceptions of mens' rights have been skewed to the point where people assume standing up for men means hating women.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:03 PM
5

If this same picture showed a bunch of women standing around in the hardware store or the parts store, there would be thousands screaming that this isn’t funny; it’s sexist behavior at its finest.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:48 PM
-75

Read the article. It's about stalking. That quote was never even said.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:37 PM
-5

No I'm not. I haven't said a thing about children's best interests. I've talked about people's perceptions of the children's best interests. And those deciding who gets the kids will very often have the same perceptions as those who are expecting to keep the kids.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:33 AM
-4

My point wasn't that these relationships were most likely abusive. It was that the partner with the children's best interests at heart will be more likely to take them out of a situation that isn't good for them. A home doesn't have to be abusive for it to be bad for children. There's also going to be a lot of added resistance to divorce for the partner who thinks they won't get the kids too.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:51 AM
2

I never understand these articles. Aren't we still being led by a past generation? You can create a totally equal society, but you're not going to see it until that first truly equal generation grows up and takes control.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:10 AM
-10

The partner receiving the children would be the one more likely to file for divorce in an effort to help them, no? I wonder, do you think those who end abusive relationships are more likely to be the abused one? Perhaps those waiting in line at a hotdog stand are also more likely to be hungry than those who aren't. It's pretty logical for the more responsible and caring partner to attempt to help their children.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:04 AM
9

33 deaths? Hardly a number with any statistical significance. How about the people who point out all the flaws in anti-male studies not share studies with even bigger ones?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 02:19 PM
3

You could run a bicycle on sushi!
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:32 PM
1

Most scientists and inventors and physicists are male because most of them are long-dead historical figures from times when a woman's place was in the kitchen. And those still alive today are from a generation when women still didn't get to go to college. As others have said in this thread, boys are expected to rebel and "be cool", which is done by acting the exact opposite of "intellectual". Kind of a factor here.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 02:53 AM
2

neeeerd. but i'm drunk now and not sure what subreddit this is... hey, how many flies does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two!
/r/seduction04/06/11 05:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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